Reid: Opponents of Health Care = Supporters of Slavery

Harry Reid is at it again: this time, he has compared opponents of Obamacare to those who supported slavery, opposed women's sufferage, and opposed the civil rights movement.

Now, besides just being patently absurd on their face, Reid's comments show his utter ignorance of history: it was the Republicans who led opposition to slavery, and a Democrat who tried to filibuster the 1957 Civil Rights Act.  Conservatives and Republicans have historically stood on the side of liberty, and the situation with the health care bill is no different.  Conservatives want to reform the health care system in a way that uses less regulation on the health care system to give the people more freedom and increase competition in the health care market, which will inevitably drive prices down.  Liberals want to take power away from the people, impose higher taxes, and give the government further control over peoples' lives.

It's interesting how liberals try to ascribe a moral imperative to any piece of legislation that grants the government more power, no matter how much damage that legislation will do to the nation.  When Republicans want to outlaw (or even just outlaw taxpayer-funded subsidies of) abortion, or want to outlaw gay marriage, we are routinely told that "you cannot legislate morality."  When Democrats want to take over 1/6 of the nation's economy in a massive power-grab that will require all citizens to purchase health insurance or take a government health plan under penalty of fines and possible jail time, legislating morality is suddenly acceptable.  President Obama has even quoted the Bible to justify the health care takeover, justifying federal wealth redistribution schemes by saying that we should "be our brother's keeper" (taken from Genesis 4:9).  The irony is, Barack Obama's own brother lives in poverty in Africa.

But the moral imperative where health care is concerned is disingenuous on multiple fronts: we already have regulations in place requiring doctors to provide emergency care to patients in need, regardless of whether they can pay.  With that statute in place, there is no reason for the power-grab to extent health insurance to everyone in America (by the way, many liberals are now calling the current bill "health insurance reform," since Americans started catching on to the fact that it does more to change the insurance system than the health care system).  With emergency care required, we are already being "our brother's keeper."

The Progressives are only using the Biblical/moral (and in some cases, the race card) argument in an attempt to get the American people to hand over all of their freedoms to the progressive nanny state.  What is the end game?  That largely depends on which special interest is pushing which power grab at any particular time, but the bottom line is: keep ahold of power, no matter what.

Reids comments show clearly that they will say nearly anything to villianize anyone who opposes them.