Slavery

Sen. Jim Lembke (R-St. Louis County) opined at length today about the evils of the federal government at the "State Sovereignty" rally earlier today, making the rather incredible proclamation that "90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional." He also stated that Democratic health care reform proposals will create a "new kind of slavery."

It could have been anything folks. Look at it -- ninety percent of what the federal government does is unconstitutional! 

Providentially, we have been given at this time and in this place, we have been given an administration that, in the history of our nation, we have never seen a government go so far, so fast...

If we don't stand together, there will be chains of bondage that will lead to a new kind of slavery. It's up to us to stand together and turn it around.  God bless you, and God bless America.

Pure lunacy.

For your Monday morning amusement/confusion, here's one of the least persuasive anti-reform commercials imaginable, starring Rep. Rob Schaaf (R-St. Joseph):

The goal of the ad seems pretty straightforward, though bizarre: to convince opponents of health care reform that they’re somehow oppressed by the 12% of people who told Rasmussen right after the August tea party insanity that some portion of opponents were motivated by racism.  And with the solidarity that comes with such persecution, maybe they can rally together to stop the “total government take-over of the healthcare system” (another ridiculous claim).

Todd and Cynthia share a laugh about the joys of hunger.

I'm still really confused about Todd Akin's speech last Wednesday blasting the idea that everyone should have basic food and shelter as some sort of "commie" pipe dream. 

First, I have no idea why he thinks helping people not starve or freeze to death is some sort of communist folly -- I'm no historian or theologian, but am reasonably confident that the concepts of aiding the hungry and poor predate the USSR by quite a few years. Furthermore, I am completely dumbfounded about why Akin thinks that his argument will persuade the majority of Americans who like a public insurance option to stop supporting this decidedly American idea. 

It's not just Rob Schaaf who's concerned about moves to enslave the American people; it runs out Glenn Beck is also concerned about the tyrannical desires of people of my ilk.

Yesterday, on his show: "We call them progressives now, but back in Samuel Adams’ day, they used to call them tyrants. A little later, I think they were also called slave owners."

After refusing to apologize for weeks and promising to frame any condemnation of his speech equating SCHIP with slavery, Rob Schaaf is sorry.

He's sorry that his "comments were not taken the way he intended them to be taken," and acknowledges he bears "some responsibility for that."  He apparently wasn't talking about the slavery of African Americans when he said Democrats want to reverse the actions of Abraham Lincoln -- he was just talking about a more general kind of "economic slavery" that is unrelated to Abraham Lincoln.

He also defended his long refusal to apologize on the grounds that such an apology might limit his ability to talk about slavery in the future.

Thankfully, Schaaf has also forgiven all the meanies who didn't like his talk of slavery, on the condition that they promise not be offended about future conversations of "economic slavery":

I forgive those who have since made hurtful comments about me. But my apology comes with a request. I am also asking my Democrat friends and my African American friends to please not be offended by nor to try to limit our ability in this chamber to have a discussion about the economic enslavement of the taxpayers by our government. It is a valid topic about which many Americans care and it is worthy of unemotional debate.

Read More »

As the House Ethics Committee prepares to consider a condemnation of Rep. Rob Schaaf's speech equating children's health care with slavery, Schaaf remains defiant and proud of his speech. Amazingly, he denies that he likened SCHIP to slavery and promises that if the Ethics Committee condemns his actions, he will "frame it and put it on the wall."

To refresh your memory, here's the speech in which Schaaf didn't equate SCHIP with slavery, and didn't say that Abraham Lincoln "tried to end [slavery] in this country, and they [supporters of the SCHIP proposal] want to bring it back!" 

What a guy.

Poor Rob Schaaf.

He got all righteous on Wednesday night, and told the world that approving the Democrats' SCHIP proposal would be slavery. He didn't say it was like slavery. Or akin to slavery. He said "that is slavery." In fact, to drive home his point in a big finish, he pointed to the picture of Abraham Lincoln on the wall in front of him, and said:

That man on the wall [Lincoln] tried to end it in this country, and they [supporters of the SCHIP proposal] want to bring it back!

In response -- I'm sure this will surprise you -- people got mad. His equation of support for a children's health care proposal with the desire to re-enslave an entire race of people was not well received.

But Schaaf says he wasn't trying to offend anyone. He was just making a "valid" point."

From the esteemed historian Dr. Rob Schaaf, we bring you the full speech on how providing health care to children is like slavery.

God Bless America.

Hands down, the most repulsive comments of last night's debate on the House floor came from Representative Rob Schaaf (R-St Joseph), who said that providing health care to poor children through SCHIP is just like slavery.

Schaaf:

When government forces a person to work and pay the fruit of their hard earned labor and gives it to the benefit of someone else -- and we have proof people who have SCHIP program can, because they pay the premium now -- that is slavery. That is what it is.

For some context, this is the program that Schaaf says would enslave Missourians:

Nixon and the House Democrats had proposed eliminating premiums for enrollees whose families earned up to 225 percent of the federal poverty level — $3,975 a month for a family of four. For families earning between 225 and 300 percent of the poverty level, premiums would have been limited to $50 a month.

The changes would have provided insurance to about 20,000 more children, according to budget documents and the state Department of Social Services.

Currently, families earning more than 150 percent of the poverty level pay premiums ranging from $12 to $334 or more a month, depending on income and family size.