>The Democrats Privatize Wealth Redistribution

>George W. Bush redistributed more wealth during his presidency than any president had since Lyndon Johnson. Republicans really have never had any problem with redistributing wealth as long as the proceeds go to the right people. Since Medicare benefits senior citizens, a constituency that no election can be won without in the baby boomer retirement era, Republicans had no problem using the force of government to take money from one individual and use it to buy “healthcare” for another – as they did with their Medicare prescription drug benefit. Neither do they hesitate to redistribute to bankers, under the cover of “saving the financial system.” God help us if there is ever a constituency of senior citizen bankers.

In fact, if one looks at the federal budget as it existed before the massive bailouts started – pre-TARP – at least 80% of the almost $3 trillion budget amounted to wealth redistribution. Always there was some rationalization for why this or that group must receive federal funds “for the good of all.” The farmers must be subsidized because there is absolutely no way to sustain farming in a market economy. If large farming corporations weren’t subsidized, we would all starve. Medical research must be subsidized because we will eventually all die of cancer, AIDS, and other horrific diseases if the government doesn’t subsidize medical research. Corporations in general must be subsidized because if one were to go out of business, everyone would be unemployed.

The Democrats typically attempt to characterize the Republicans as racist or elitist because the Republicans have traditionally resisted wealth redistribution for the poor or minorities. However, the reality is that Republicans do this for the same reasons that Democrats resist redistribution to bankers and corporations (or at least they used to). The poor and minorities don’t vote Republican. That is the only reason that Republicans attempt to leave them out.

No one in America seems to know any American history. Following the American Civil War, when black voters universally supported the Republicans due to their perception that the “party of Lincoln” had set them free, it was the Republicans who promised “40 acres and a mule” to blacks and the Democrats who proclaimed themselves “the party of white men.” Enslaved by their former ruling class and now used as pawns in a political power game by the new one, the freed black voters of post-Civil War America serve as a perfect metaphor for the supposed “beneficiaries” of all government redistribution schemes. Whether it is elderly people trying to scrape by on a Social Security Check, poor people trying not to starve on public welfare, or Iraqi citizens enjoying their newly provided “freedom,” the so-called beneficiaries of government wealth redistribution are never the winners. It takes an alarming lack of skepticism not to ask who the real winners are.

As this new century has “progressed” (pun intended), even the blurry lines separating the two parties have begun to melt away. Remember that George Bush’s redistribution schemes also included stimulus “tax refunds” to everyone, whether they actually paid taxes in the first place or not. “Compassionate conservatism” was nothing more than a euphemism for attempting to blend traditional Republican rhetoric about “free markets” and “limited government” with thinly-veiled redistribution schemes. By doing so, Bush’s Republicans hoped to hold onto their own base while chipping away at the Democratic voting blocks by promising them other people’s money, just as the Democrats do.

Throughout the 20th century, the two parties employed this strategy of “borrowing a page from the other’s playbook” over and over, always hoping to win voters away from the opposition while retaining the loyalty of their own traditional supporters. It was this that caused many liberals to criticize Bill Clinton for being “too much like a Republican.” Why George Bush has managed to hold on to his image as an “extreme conservative” defies explanation.

Until now, there has always been at least one thing to say in favor of the Democrats. They have been honest about their intentions. They have come right out and said that their intention was to redistribute wealth in order to achieve “equality” or “social justice” or some other utopian goal. Certainly, no lucid American can deny that the Democratic platform has been a socialist one for at least the last century. It has been the Republicans who have deceived their followers to a much greater extent by promising them liberty and property rights and then redistributing almost as egregiously as the Democrats.

One hallmark redistribution strategy used by the Republicans was “privatization.” Somehow, they managed to successfully characterize forcibly extracting money in taxes from their citizens and redistributing it to private corporations as “free enterprise,” as if “private” and “free” were synonymous. Alexander Hamilton must have smiled in his grave.

However, the Democrats have truly broken new ground during this presidential administration. Not only have they managed to outspend the voracious Bush administration in just ten short months, but they have taken a page from the Republican playbook and actually privatized wealth redistribution. Formerly, however transparent the scheme, the money at least made it into the federal treasury for a moment before being paid out to the special interest that had bought it with votes. However, H.R. 3962, the so-called “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” dispenses with this formality. Now, using the coercive power of government, private citizens will be forced to pay their money directly to government supported health insurers whether they wish to or not. The veneer that this is “public money” being spent for the “public good” has been completely stripped away. There is now simply a government pointing a gun at its citizens and forcing them to pay directly to the special interest that has successfully lobbied for their money. Even King John of the Robin Hood tales did not extort for his friends this overtly.

A more perverse merger of left and right political corruption is unimaginable. Using the government’s numbers, this will provided coverage for 36 million uninsured Americans at a minimum of $15,000 per covered life. Assuming these numbers to be at least “in the ball park,” President Obama and his so-called liberals have just handed over a half a trillion dollars a year to corporate America (the health insurance companies). What true progressive could possibly support this?

The price of this corporate welfare, of course, is that any remaining vestiges of voluntary contracts between insurer and insured that health insurance still retained has been eliminated. Insurers are no longer allowed to determine rates demographically and based upon a real risk model. They are no longer allowed to offer diverse coverage packages to compete with one another for different customer groups. They now must offer low rates and uniform benefits to everyone as entitlements. Like individual welfare recipients, they have surrendered all of their liberty and property rights in return for other people’s money. They are now just one more arm of the state bureaucracy.

The worst aspect of this great fraud is the implications it has for the liberty of every American. The closest parallel to this heretofore has been automobile insurance. Americans have been forced to buy auto insurance directly from an auto insurer in order to exercise the “privilege” of driving on the government’s roads. This was of course enacted for the public good, to ensure that poor drivers could not bankrupt the innocent by demolishing their cars or saddling them with exorbitant hospital bills. However, as hostile to liberty as these laws are, they still leave the driver a choice. He can choose not to drive, however impractical or unrealistic that choice might be.

However, with this new bill, even that smattering of liberty is ripped away. Americans are now forced to purchase insurance from a government-protected and subsidized health insurance company merely because they are alive. Worse yet, they are not merely forced to make a single payment of tribute to satisfy their “individual responsibility.” They must go on paying, year in and year out, for as long as they live. They cannot decline. They cannot conscientiously object. There is no escape from this tyranny save one: death. For those individuals that can demonstrate that they are completely incapable of paying, someone else will be forced to pay for them. No matter what, the government’s corporation will be paid. Even life is no longer a right, but a privilege that the government extends to its subjects for a fee.

From 2001-2006, the Republicans controlled all branches of government. It was an horrific period of utter destruction of American liberty. The Democrats have now been given their chance and in ten short months they have far outdone the Bush Republicans for this dubious distinction. Make no mistake. If the Republicans regain power, they will be worse still. Americans should understand that they will affect no “change” in their government by electing either of these two parties. The federal government is a monster that has taken on a life of its own. Both parties are now its minions and are indistinguishable from one another.

Our Declaration of Independence says that “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Are we there yet?

Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!


© Thomas Mullen 2009

8 thoughts on “>The Democrats Privatize Wealth Redistribution

  1. Mirand Sharma MD FACEP

    >Tom, an impeccably written article as usual.
    I have one question and one comment:

    What about Americans living abroad? They may be forced to pay for the government mandated insurance, but at least they can get some medical privacy, right?

    Also, perhaps the saving grace for all of this tyranny is the destruction of the dollar. With all of the dollar printing that is going on as well as the additional printing needed for Obamacare, it will inevitably lead to the dollar collapse. Although there will be much suffering in the nation, perhaps this "hard reset" is needed for the start of the Republic 2.0

  2. Claire M

    >Great points, Tom. I think there is still hope for the Republican party though. I can see a new batch of Republicans cleaning things up from the inside, if the American people insist on it.

    I am quite depressed about the health bill vote. I had written my representative, "blue dog" Democrat Adam Schiff, and phoned his office to tell him to vote against the bill, and I had urged several of my friends to do the same. Unfortunately he voted in favor of it. I mention this because there are apparently 51 of these "blue dogs", 24 of whom voted against the bill. Had the one Republican who voted yes plus just two of the remaining blue dogs voted no, then the vote would have gone the other way. I wonder if I could have done more to persuade Adam Schiff (no relation to Peter, I'm sure) to vote no… I wonder if all of us could have done just that little bit more to turn things around. I will focus a lot more on the senators in the coming weeks. I think we can prevent this particular bill from being signed by the president. Unfortunately Pelosi's victory in congress means that even if the bill is rejected in the Senate, it will be back again, and that this will be a long protracted battle. We can win it though, if we can tough it out until these jokers are voted out in 2010 an 2012.

    Here's another thing that gets my goat, and that you allude to in your article: In a private meeting prior to yesterday's health care bill vote, Obama referenced the Fort Hood shooting, saying that true bravery is being willing to die for your country like the men and women in our military– and that given the sacrifices American soldiers make every day, Democrat congressmen should at the very least be willing to vote for the bill AGAINST THE WISHES OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS and risk losing their jobs in the next congressional election.

    Isn't this a new low for Democrats? I know they want an autocratic and dictatorial state in charge of every aspect of every American's life, and are willing to break the law of our constitution to obtain this… but I thought that at the very least they were committed to getting there by democratic means– that is by first building up an underclass of people who feel completely dependent on the state, and then using mob rule to win support for their statist agenda. Well, shrinking support for Obama's health care bill clearly demonstrated that many Democrat representatives are NOT backed by their constituents on the issue of health care, so to heck with the wishes of their constituents, to heck with democracy, right?

    I guess it makes sense in a way. All the Democrats care about is getting the power to force people to do what they don't want to do. Why should any means to this end be less valid than any other?

  3. Anonymous

    >I was totally devastated. I could not believe that our representatives could be so sinister. That look on Pelosi's face of victory made me sick.
    I feel as if the last shred of liberty has finally been taken away from us. I feel trapped with no where to go… I once had the choice to not buy health insurance through my employment; (which I haven't for two years now)I used the extra income to pay for the higher price for eating healthier and creating my own health fund…now if the senate passes this bill…I won't have that choice…And, what I hear listening to the news is that the senate will pass this bill.


  4. Jedipauly

    >Dear Tom


    Part 1

    Thank you again for another great article. However, I believe you are missing something critical, that, as an advocate for Natural Law, I am surprised that you and everyone seems to have missed. Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" as such terms are defined by Natural Law not "positive law", and therefore he is ineligible to hold office and he can't lawfully sign anything into law, and Congress cannot legitimately make any laws, so the health care bill, and hate crimes bill, etc., are all invalid law, and they are null and void, dead on arrival, and legally unenforceable.

    Examine Article II, sec 1, clause 5. Take the phrase "natural born Citizen", and examine it. The phrase "natural born" is meant to indicate a citizen that is created via NATURAL LAW by way of INHERITANCE as a Natural Right and not via its "opposite" which is "positive law" or man-made law, which is a STATUTORY PRIVILEGE OF SOIL, OR ANY OTHER STATUTE.

    Now examine "Citizen". Notice that it is capitalized making it a PROPER NOUN. That means they are not talking about just any "natural born citizen", or citizen in general, they are talking about a particular "type" or instance of a citizen. What "type" or instance of citizen are they referring to? In the context of the Declaration of Independence and the war of 1776, it can only mean one thing. A FREE SOVEREIGN AMERICAN citizen! Sovereignty, Freedom, and Liberty are all subjects of Natural Law because they are Natural Rights. Since they are Natural Rights they must be INHERITED via Natural Law from parents, and do not come from government via a statute or POSITIVE LAW. You cannot create a Sovereign citizen with a statutory privilege construct of soil from positive law! Any person can go to any modern law dictionary and look up the term "positive law" and you will find it defined as man-made statutory law and that it is "opposite" to Natural Law!

    Now put the two back together and we clearly have the original meaning and intent of Article II. That is, that only Sovereign American citizens, who are born that way via Natural Law ("natural born"), free from "positive law" statutory constructs, can qualify for President. This means that Congress has no power at all to define "natural born Citizen" in Article II and neither do the courts! The courts only deal with "positive law" statutory constructs & "privileges" derived from statutes. All of the case law under title 8 and the 14th Amendment, that uses the term "natural born citizen" are using the English Common Law term that refers to the "positive law" application of said term, to grant a "privilege". It is 180 degrees opposite in meaning to "natural born Citizen" in Article II which is DEFINED SOLELY UNDER NATURAL LAW and is NOT A PRIVILEGE from government or a STATUTE. We retained the common law privilege of the king to grant citizenship to anyone born on our soil regardless of parents' citizenship. That is the part that is implemented in U.S. statutory law and citizenship codes under title 8 and the 14th Amendment. This is the positive law privilege of a king or government. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with Natural Law or "natural born Citizen" in the Article II qualifications for President!

  5. Jedipauly

    >Dear Tom


    Part 2

    This means that "where" Obama was born is totally IRRELEVANT! Hawaii birth is totally INSUFFICIENT to qualify him for president. In fact, in general, just being born on U.S. soil is insufficient to qualify one for the office of President. You must be born according to the Laws of Nature, to be a Sovereign American Citizen, at birth, via INHERITANCE, not one created by a statutory privilege. It is a PUBLIC FACT, STATED BY OBAMA HIMSELF, that Obama was born a BRITISH SUBJECT due to his DAD, even if he was born in Hawaii. That means that Obama is a "natural born citizen" of England and Kenya via the English Common Law, positive law application of the "privilege" called "natural born citizen" or the positive law privileged right of the king to grant citizenship to Kenyan offspring no matter where they are born. You cannot claim to be a natural born soveriegn citizen of America ("Citizen" in Article II) and at the same time, be born a natural born BRITISH SUBJECT. Which master do you serve? Natural born Sovereign Americans are not born to be BRITISH SUBJECTS! That ended in 1776! Clearly Obama is not qualified because he can't possibly claim to be a natural born Citizen of America as via Article II, and its natural law meaning, if he was born a British subject, even if he was born in Hawaii.

    We can easily debunk Obama's claims to be legitimate with this simple example of common sense. If "natural born Citizen" in Article II means what Obama advocates, the government, and news media claim, then we are to believe that "nbC" in Article II means anyone born on U.S. soil qualifies for citizenship and therefore meets Article II qualifications to be President. However this is blatantly wrong! Take Obama as an example of a natural born British subject who is born in Hawaii (assuming he actually was) claiming U.S. citizenship and that he is qualified to be President. Now apply this standard to George Washington. I can see it now, George Washington telling the colonial troops, come on lads, we must fight England so that one day, British born "subjects" anywhere in the world, can become President of America, as long as they are born on American soil. BUWAHAHAH! I bet that really motivated the colonial soldiers! I wonder if they would have bothered to fight for their sovereign independence if they knew they were actually fighting to secure rights for BRITISH SUBJECTS! But it gets even worse! Let's imagine the war is over. What is to stop King George from coming to America after the war and having a son born on U.S. soil that could then become President? Who would he be loyal to, England or America since that son would be the Prince of England? As you can see, this is ABSURD! Obviously we are being lied to by the government and news media– and a major fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud and treason, is taking place. This is so simple to understand that it is beyond any credibility that the news and lawyers do not know he is not qualified. We should sue them all for FRAUD.

  6. Jedipauly

    >Dear Tom



    Obama's illegitimate presidency redefines our form of government back to that of a monarchy where the government is king and the soil jurisdiction of the king overrides the natural rights or sovereignty of the people. Obama represents a return to English Common Law rule of kings, even worse. He undoes the Revolution of 1776 and reinstitutes the rule of positive law statutes/decrees, and kings, and soil, over the inherited natural Liberties and Freedoms and Sovereignty of the People, that comes as an endowment from nature. If Obama is seen as legit, then Obama and the Congress etc., has robbed every American of their NATURAL INHERITED political right to live in a Sovereign Republic, to say nothing of their natural right to Justice since truth ignored is injustice, and on such a massive scale it is massive injustice and just plain TYRANNY. Obama has robbed all Americans of their natural endowment and legal rights to live in a FREE SOVEREIGN REPUBLIC by eliminating what it means to be a sovereign of America by redefining it to mean any foreign sovereign entity born on the soil. We are all enslaved now.

    The right to be sovereign was declared in the Declaration of Independence, and that right was secured on the battlefield with the war of 1776. The Republic was codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by Congress. Therefore, everything was handed down from generation to generation via INHERITANCE, by way of Natural Law. Therefore, it is a natural inherited political right in America, inherited from our parents, to live as a free sovereign citizen who has a natural right to be a natural born, (inherited) citizen of a sovereign republic. That is the "Citizen" that they are talking about in Article II. It has nothing to do with citizen "subjects" of soil statutory authority like one who is claiming citizenship solely based on Hawaiian birth, like Obama, since his mom was to young to transfer citizenship and his dad was a foreigner. His only claim to citizenship is soil statutory privilege, assuming he was actually born in Hawaii. That is not the standard set by Article II qualifications for President. Clearly we are dealing with a criminal government across the board.

  7. Crusty

    >Tom, Trying to fix this thing is futile. It needs to be torn down.

    If the dollar is destroyed, they will create a new, more oppressive version of the dollar.

    The Republican Party can not be rehabilitated…rehabbed back to what? At what point was the Republican Party not a force for tyranny and the annihilation of liberties? During the Lincoln age? Lincoln was the possibly the worst thing that has ever happened to states' rights and individual liberties. He created the mold for future annihilation of liberty.

    We need to tear it down, geographical divide ourselves by political views, and go from there.

  8. Anonymous

    >Buy powder, take your gun, knife and axe and head for the frontier. Oops, no frontier left. I think I will go crazy instead.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *