ObamaCare: Congress’s Phony Arguments Produce Real Misery

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “…when Obamacare came up.  ‘The American people are not getting all the medical care that’s available to them.’  There were people that argued against this using logic, minor logic.  How do we know who all are?  You don’t know that.  You can’t prove that.  It didn’t matter.  The debate was then conducted based on a false premise.  If you deduct debates to try to get to a conclusion based on a false premise, your conclusion is false.  These are rules.  These are not debatable.  I’m repeating to you Aristotelian rules of logic.  This is where the error in our thinking comes from today.”  Check Out Today’s Transcript and Clip of The day For The Rest

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW!

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

[/private]

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  “When politicians prattle on about [mocking] “These people are suffering” – let me give you an idea, a representation of an argument that is not thought out and we’re living with the error of it today.  Old people are not getting all the medical services available to them.  Now, right there we’ve made a false universal.  What’s the false universal?  “Old people are not.”  I didn’t say some old people, I said old people.  The proper way to say this is that some old people.  You would not be able to prove that all old people are not getting all the medical services available to them.  That is an unknowable.  You might even argue: What’s available to them?  It would depend on where they live.  It would depend on what state they’re in, what country they’re in, what hospital they live near.  In other words, you cannot base an argument on that, that old people are not getting all the services available to them.”  Same thing when Obamacare came up.

LEARN MORE: You’re going to find Franklin Pierce’s veto message on an Obamacare bill in the year 1847, I believe it was.  It was the Indigent Medical Care Act.  Pierce used brilliant, pure, logical reasoning.  Pierce said: If Congress says that some of these people are lacking this medical service, and therefore they’ve discovered some clause in the Constitution that gives them authority to authorize care and financial support for some of these people, since I’m not aware this clause exists and must be inferred from something else, that means that all medical services now can be covered by Congress.  And since I know that that’s not in there, I’m going to veto this. 

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

“The American people are not getting all the medical care that’s available to them.”  There were people that argued against this using logic, minor logic.  How do we know who all are?  You don’t know that.  You can’t prove that.  It didn’t matter.  The debate was then conducted based on a false premise.  If you deduct debates to try to get to a conclusion based on a false premise, your conclusion is false.  These are rules.  These are not debatable.  I’m repeating to you Aristotelian rules of logic.  This is where the error in our thinking comes from today.

If you could go and say some children are not able to use all medical services available to them, okay.  It’s a weak argument because it’s some; it’s particular in other words.  It’s a weak argument but you could make a conclusion out of it.  It would apply to the sum.  In an argument, universality can’t go backwards.  If you make a partial argument in the premise, then the conclusion can only be partial.  This stuff is easy to understand.  If we make a “some people” argument in the premise, then you can’t make a conclusion that includes all people.  So what did Obamacare do?  It made a “some people” argument in the premise, “some people don’t have access to medical insurance,” and it made a conclusion that “all people must have medical insurance.”  Do you see the fallacy?  This is what I’m talking about here.

In a different age, this would never have flown.  I’ll give you a great example.  Go to my website at MikeChurch.com.  In the top right-hand corner of the page in the search box, I dare you to do it – those of you that are going, [mocking] “That’s just stupid.  I don’t have time for this.  Get back to bashing Obama.  Come on, we got elections to win, you idiot.  You’re on the Patriot Channel.  Act like Mark Levin for a change.”  I challenge you, go type in – I could have used Levin, Hannity, etc., etc.  And no, that’s not a knock on them either.  Please, don’t take it that way.  I don’t listen so I wouldn’t know how they act, so I wouldn’t be able to tell you.  Type in “Franklin Pierce.”  I triple dude dare you.

You’re going to find Franklin Pierce’s veto message on an Obamacare bill in the year 1847, I believe it was.  It was the Indigent Medical Care Act.  Pierce used brilliant, pure, logical reasoning.  Pierce said: If Congress says that some of these people are lacking this medical service, and therefore they’ve discovered some clause in the Constitution that gives them authority to authorize care and financial support for some of these people, since I’m not aware this clause exists and must be inferred from something else, that means that all medical services now can be covered by Congress.  And since I know that that’s not in there, I’m going to veto this.  In other words, he took the partial argument and said: No, either you make it universal or I won’t sign it.  And because he couldn’t find the universal in there, he vetoed it.  He actually says this in the veto message.  I’m not making this up.  Pierce employed good, sound reasoning and he vetoed it.[/private]

Grover Cleveland did the same thing in 1896 when he vetoed 434 acts of Congress, appropriation acts that made it so that seeds could be bought for the first version of the dust bowl, and farmers that were struggling during the drought, etc., etc.  Grover Cleveland used Aristotelian or Thomistic thought, used the minor premise or partial premise argument and said: I can’t find the major premise in the Constitution.  You have a weak argument.  I’m going to err on the side of you haven’t established anything is true and I’m going to veto it.  He actually wrote this in his veto message when such things were important to people.  We weren’t yet totally divorced from scholastic thinking, I guess the point is, at the time of Cleveland and Pierce.  Madison did the same thing in vetoing the Bonus Bill.

End Mike Church Show Transcript