Video Flashback: Kamala Threatens To “Snatch” Patents From Companies: “I have the will to do it”
Threatened patents of pharmaceutical companies who didn’t obey pricing mandates. Will she also “snatch” the grocery stores who do not obey her food price controls because they can’t stay in business? Wait, don’t answer that.
I’m so old I remember when clips of demented Joe Biden were dismissed by the media as “cheap fakes” – meaning clips so tightly framed as to present the video out of context. Of course, the Biden “cheap fakes” were not fakes at all, they were accurate, as was revealed at the Biden-Trump debate, leading to Democrat party leaders forcing Joe out of the race.
Now we have Kamala, who is running away from her past campaign promises so fast she may be charged with speeding. But she has an extensive video history, and here is another example.
In 2019, when running for president in the primaries, Kamala said at a campaign event:
“I will snatch their patent, so that we [the American government] will take over.
Yes we can do that!
The question is: ‘Do you have the will to do it’!?
I have the will to do it.”
Dictator Kamala Harris discussing government takeover of companies' patents:
"I will snatch their patent, so that we [the American government] will take over.
Yes we can do that!
The question is: 'Do you have the will to do it'!?
I have the will to do it."The party… pic.twitter.com/fLTZE1pagq
— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) August 17, 2024
Is it a “cheap fake”? Nope, it’s real and the context is clear – she was threatening that pharmeceutical companies who received federal funding but do not follow federal pricing guidelines will have their patents taken by the government.
Bob Hoge at RedState provides the context:
During her ill-fated run for president, the now vice president said she could lower prices on drugs simply by having the government seize patents from pharmaceutical companies and “take over.” That’s not how a free-market economy is supposed to work, but the giddy Harris didn’t care:
“My plan, as a candidate for president, on these drug prices is as follows: We are going to set drug prices based on fair market,” Harris said during a campaign stop in Iowa on Friday. “So, essentially what we’re going to do – and you can visit the website if you will, and if not, get you some documents – but essentially what we’re going to do is set drug prices so that American consumers are charged a price for drugs that’s the average price that’s being charged around the globe.”
But she didn’t think she needed Congress or legislation to tackle the problem, she’d just march in herself and use the enormous power of the federal government (emphasis mine).
“And there’s a huge difference, insulin being an example,” Harris continued. “The other thing is this, if people don’t want to cooperate with that, I’m also going to do the next thing, which is this: A lot of drugs, prescription medication, was born out of the federal funding for the research and development of that drug. Your taxpayer dollars.”
“So, for any drug where they fail to play by our rules, and if that drug came about from federal funding for what’s called ‘R&D,’ research and development, I will snatch their patent so that we will take over,” Harris continued.
This 2019 tweet provided further context:
Nope.
Patents are unequivocally protected in the US Constitution.
Even if they weren’t, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that stealing people’s property after they make it means THEY WON’T MAKE IT ANYMORE. Fewer drugs, fewer cures. Bad policy. https://t.co/tCWbd3b5iI
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) November 23, 2019
The Daily Wire had additional reactions in 2019 to her power grab promise:
Trump Campaign Rapid Response Director Andrew Clark wrote: “A) No, actually, you cannot do that. B) Also, the government does not (and should not!) manufacture drugs. C) This is terrifying.”
Washington Examiner editor Jay Caruso wrote: “It’s funny how candidates complaining the need to stop Trump and his authoritarianism are promising to behave like authoritarians.”
Lawyer and National Review contributor Dan McLaughlin wrote: “Democrats think the President heads the legislative branch.”
Psychology professor Geoffrey Miller wrote: “TFW you realize a presidential candidate doesn’t understand anything about intellectual property, research funding, incentives, unintended consequences, game theory, or killing gooses that lay golden eggs.”
This all takes on more importance in light of Kamala’s plan to impose price controls on food.
We have seen this movie before what the result will be.
When I studied in Moscow, USSR (1980), groceries were really cheap in the stores, but the shelves were almost empty so you couldn't buy the non-existent cheap groceries. Instead, the 'black market' flourished at high prices despite being illegal. Same will happen here.
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) August 15, 2024
Inevitably more power is needed to enforce compliance with government price mandates, including in many socialist/communist nations nationalization of industry and confiscation of property.
Will she also “snatch” the grocery stores who do not obey her food price controls because they can’t stay in business?
Wait, don’t answer that.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Michele Boldrin makes the case that copyright and patents are counterproductive, elaborating against Russ Roberts who believes what you probably do and sort of pulls him around. Not what idiot Harris is thinking of course but it might point at something more interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtzqTTWDFWQ
Copywrite is one thing, but copywrite ad infinitum (a la Disney) is quite ridiculous.
Copywrite that extends for years and years after the death of the creator is patently unfair.
“Kamala threatens to snatch patents”
I think somebody snatched her brain. If they did, they didn’t get much.
“I will snatch their patent, so that we [the American government] will take over.”
The Constitution was written because of people just like her. It only has one design flaw: those in government must be willing, in the heart, to obey the principles of LIMITATION. They all take the Article VI oath, and mean not a word of it.
“There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.”
Federalist 51.
If the Constitution were followed to the letter, fedgov would be 5% of its present size and we would be freer.
Our problem is the problem that has plagued life for 000s of years: Too Much Government.
https://jbs.org/video/featured/overview-of-america/?mc_cid=aab99f82ce
Thanks for posting that. There’s a lot of good info in that which people need to read.
If Kamala really wanted to profit from her incumbency, she would patent snatches instead.
Any previously undecided Dems will enthusiastically support this kind of government intervention. It would be a huge step towards their socialist Utopia.
Did the government snatch the vaccine patents? Real question. I don’t know.
Nope. Fauxchi got rich off of his connections to the “vaccine.”
He gets as much as $150,000 a year from patents.
This woman is a clown, an economic illiterate and a cultural Marxist.
If she is of the opinion that the cost of medical care in the United States is too high then a highly probable cause for that is the direct meddling in what should be a free market.
We were told by that other scumbag president we were forced to endure that once his Obamacare legislation was passed that we would all be in medical nirvana where everyone would have unlimited healthcare and it would all be free.
If Harris is sincerely interested in lowering the cost of healthcare (she must assuredly is not) then she would remove government from the equation and allow the free market to reign.
If this woman is elected we are all in big trouble (not that we’re not already).
I go further than “cultural Marxist” — crone-harlot, Harris, is a full-blown neo-communist. There are no restraints on her statist/totalitarian ethos and agenda. The only Dhimmi-crat of prominence who comes close to her ideological fanaticism and zealotry is narcissist-incompetent-dunce, Obama, who certainly concealed/cloaked his views better, in the veneer of alleged moderacy/pragmatism/centrism.
It’s no coincidence that Obama and his acolytes/courtiers are basically running Harris’s campaign, for he would be the shadow puppetmaster, in a Harris Administration.
As a co-holder of several patents, Kamala’s communist instincts are alarming to me. It is an echo of “you did not built that” by BHO. But it is not surprising, given other similar reporting.
My only issue is that this tremendous research and reporting will not be seen by the hordes of Kamala voters. I am already voting for Trump.
We need to find a way to get this type of information on mass media where MSNBC viewers are likely to see.
I have something like a half dozen patents and I don’t understand any of them.
This brings to mind the quip from one of Ronald Reagan’s speeches in 1964: “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so!”
Having spent 30 years on Pharma Research and havimg my name on a number of patents, this STUPID idea infuriates me.
Also, this great quote, from Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” (10-27-64):
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down – [up to] man’s old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
Her statement shows she has no comprehension of our Constitution, and in uttering it she blatantly violated her oath of office, Calling her a Bolshevik is an understatement.
Constitution? What’s that?
Many of her statements show that, but this specific one doesn’t. Patents are a creation of Congress, and the same Congress that grants them can also take them away, without compensation. It can’t do that to actual property.
The more she reveals her ‘plan’ for the economy, the more that I want to laugh out loud. Yes! Reveal your raging stupidity for all to see!
But sometimes I feel this nagging doubt in my gut… are enough voters also raging morons that she just might get elected with this Marxist shit? Please tell me the answer is no.
She has the will…..what’s next, Divine Right?
Droit du seigneur?
Nothing Triumphs like The Will.
I was curious as to how long it would take for someone to make this or a similar reference.
Sure could march. And snappy uniforms too.
Komrade Kamala, her father was marxist economist.
She belongs in prison.
In gen-pop.
She said snatch, heh, heh.
Apologies: channeling Beavis & Butthead. With Kamala, that’s pretty much where we’re at.
Crone-harlot, Harris, is utterly vile — an aspiring little Stalin or Mao.
“…received federal funding but do not follow federal ….. guidelines will have their … taken by the government.”
Fill in the blanks, is the same tactic that would have compelled compliance with the Obama-Biden era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation: Take federal money, including for road repair, lose local zoning and home rule- say goodbye icky olde single family housing, peaceful suburbs and quaint villages.
VP Harris is light on the details of how her Hochul style Housing Compact pledge would build 3 million housing units. Maybe the idea is, if anyone uses money, the government can just “snatch it.”
Luckily, we were reassured that the 2012 DNC slogan “We all belong to the government” absolutely, in no way, means we are all property of the government.
I just can’t figure who would dream of voting for this lady.
Slavers.
Those who wish to live life supported by the efforts of others instead of their own.
Ironically, many of them themselves the descendants of slaves.
Approximately half of the country seriously plans to vote for her.
More than half the country voted for the Light Bringer in 2008, and again in 2012 when they already knew him.
she did make ONE GOOD POINT
she said if the company takes fed money ( taxpayers money of course)
Congress should mandate that the government doesnt FUND ANY COMPANIES
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/08/17/brooks-harris-illiteracy-on-prices-surprising-in-a-responsible-candidate-whose-administration-helped-cause-inflation/
Those who are incapable of understanding a problem are the people least able to rectify it. She’s not malicious, she’s ignorant (and doesn’t know it). She’s literally too stupid to be evil. She probably actually believes price controls are the best reply to inflation. That’s master-grade stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence
“The four stages suggest that individuals are initially unaware of how little they know, or unconscious of their incompetence.”
Her position as VP has led her to the mistaken conclusion that she must be competent and intelligent. She doesn’t consider alternative explanations for her “success.”
Can’t wait for the federal government to start manufacturing pharmaceuticals. They will quickly realize that they need to outsource it to someone who knows what they are doing–obviously, the drug cartels. And tough shit to all of those who will die from diseases for which a cure will no longer be researched.
Well, they failed to outsource building of EV charging stations, so I guess our pharma industry will be just as bad.
Insulin won’t be cheaper. It will be nonexistent.
Except perhaps, from Chi-Na.
I keep waking up and finding my self in Atlas Shrugged. It is especial annoying when you consider that the few of the people on that side who have actually read that book complain about how it is not realistic and the bad guys are all straw men.
Rand was no great fiction writer, but she deserves credit for knowing the enemy. It’s terrifying how accurate her portrayal of these hollow people was, and the current generation of looters has abandoned almost every pretense of believing in the free market or individual choice.
She’s like a gawddamned Atlas Shrugged villain. A perfect storm of maliciousness and stupidity.
Not quite. Rand imagined villains who were too self-absorbed to see how their actions would affect the world, and villains who didn’t think through to how their villainy would rebound upon them. She never imagined the other villains giving great power to a villain who was so just plain stupid.
The new Democrat mottoes:
–Math is racist.
–Competence is racist – or ageist if you’re talking about an old white man other than Trump.
–Never giving the people a chance to vote against you is Democracy.
Dan Crenshaw tweeted: “Patents are unequivocally protected in the constitution”.
No, they’re not. Congress is authorized to grant patents; it’s not required to do so, and it’s free to cancel them at will, or to seize them without compensation and either keep them for the USA or grant them to someone else. In general that is a terrible idea, but it’s not unconstitutional. And there can even be occasional cases where it’s justified.
” …
The Biden administration proposed a rule Thursday that could let the government seize patents for medicines developed with taxpayer money that are not affordable to the public, then license them to another party—the latest in a years-long campaign to stem high prescription drug prices.
‘
I really hate how this page loads comments. Keeps jumping around. Anyway – wasn’t quite done.
Based on this?:
The administration cited the government’s “march-in” authority under the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows the government to license an invention made using federal funds to another party if the patent holder doesn’t make the invention accessible to the public.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/britneynguyen/2023/12/07/biden-administration-could-seize-patents-for-high-priced-drugs/
If the patent holder is selling the product at cost plus reasonable profit (the devil in the detail) then surely they are not making the invention inaccessible. But we’ve seen how pols play with words.
And the other detail is “government funded development.” Presumably the drugs they note were produced with government funding. Shrug. When you deal with the Devil ….
Yes, in this case that’s true. But even if you never take government funding, your patents are still subject to Congress’s good will. Congress can always legislate to cancel your patents, seize them, or give them to someone else, and there’s no constitutional challenge available.
“Intellectual property” is to actual property as “statutory rape” is to actual rape. It isn’t what Whoopie Goldberg might call “property property”, or what Todd Akin might call “legitimate property”. It’s something that the law treats as if it were something else, which doesn’t change the reality that it isn’t that other thing.
It doesn’t matter under which statute it is proposed to do this. The point is that Congress has the authority to make such statutes, because the constitution does not protect patents. On the contrary, it grants Congress plenary power over them; Congress can grant them, and Congress can cancel them, seize them for the USA, or transfer them to someone else.
Can a Vice-President be impeached? Sounds like she is trying to incite a riot by the people that make this country what it is. Because these are fighting words.
Yes, a VP can be impeached. No, this statement is not even close to legitimate grounds for impeachment, and in any event there is no way the senate would convict her on anything, even if there were legitimate and obvious grounds.
There’s Insulin and there’s Insulin – not all one product with wide cost differences.
https://www.goodrx.com/healthcare-access/research/how-much-does-insulin-cost-compare-brands
If they really wanted to improve things, they’d constrain re-issuing expired patents and copyrights and curtail the copyright duration to what was originally envisioned..