DEFENDING THE LANGUAGE: Small Government Is Not Anarchy

Harry Reid Lies To America About TEA Party

This story is another clear example of a politician lying to the American people.  This time, the purpose is to protect a political gain by creating fear and fomenting hatred among those who seek to live at the expense of other people:

Harry Reid Lashes Out at ‘Radical’ Senate Republicans: ‘We’re Not Going to Bow to Tea Party Anarchists’

“We’re not going to bow to tea party anarchists who deny the mere fact that Obamacare is the law,” Reid said. “We will not bow to tea party anarchists who refuse to accept that the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional.”

“The simple fact remains — Obamacare is the law of the land and will remain the law of the land as long as Barack Obama is president of the United States and as long as I’m Senate majority leader,” he added.

Let’s take this one step at a time.  First, the definition of anarchy:

Full Definition of ANARCHY

1a :  absence of government

b :  a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

2a :  absence or denial of any authority or established order

Since the TEA Party has stated – many times – that it is not against all government but supports constitutionally limited government, this means the TEA Party does not advocate for anarchy.  In fact, since the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, and the TEA Party is trying to get the federal government to operate within the proper restraints of the Constitution, the TEA Party must be seen as the side of this dispute supporting law and order.

On the other hand, Reid claims that – because it is law and the Supreme Court has upheld it – Obamacare is lawful.  This shows a gross ignorance of history.  Slavery was once law, and upheld by the Courts.  In fact, slavery in America was created by a court ruling.  Should we assume, if we can ram a law re-instating slavery through Congress by “deeming it passed” and then get the Supreme Court to change a vote at the last minute and rule this new law “Constitutional,” that Harry Reid would then defend it because “Obama is President?”  I highly doubt it, but this is the logical extension of what Reid is arguing.

This brings us to the last point we need to note in this story.  Just because Obama is President does not mean he gets to have his way.  That is called a dictatorship.  Nor does it matter that Obama was re-elected.  There was an election after Obama’s, and the people sent Congressmen and women to Washington with the understanding that they would fight Obamacare.  The polls show this is the will of the people.  Once again, logical extension would mean that – according to Reid’s own reasoning – Obama should be trying to get rid of Obamacare, because it is what the people want.

Make no mistake: Obamacare is not about health care.  It is about control.  But it is being sold as “free” health care so the ignorant masses because they think they will get something at the expense of others.  These are the same masses made ignorant by the same people pushing this controlling law.  They have made the people ignorant and amoral/immoral specifically so they will accept such lies, thereby  giving the people who made them ignorant and amoral their support, which gives them the political power they need to then enslave these ignorant masses.  Now, this does not excuse the ignorant masses.  They are still responsible for accepting these arguments and promises to give to some at the expense of others.  But it does not make the masses evil.  However, the same cannot be said for men like Harry Reid – or John Boehner.  No, those who orchestrate and lead these campaigns to institute control over the people are evil, and we must not ever forget it!