I'm not this way because I listen to Rush, I listen to Rush because I am this way.
Made In America
From Scottish Parts
Life Isn’t Fair
4:29 pm, 11/13/09
Via reader Dairenn, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, pressed on the alarming jail sentences that the House version of ObamaCare imposes, chooses not to bother denying it, and, when pressed by KOMO 4 News' Shomari Stone, declares it "very fair". Confronted by CNSNews, she also mocks people who ask her to explain where the Constitution grants the federal government this kind of power, her office dismissing it as "not a serious question".
Asked the same question, Hawaii's Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka admits that he doesn't know if the Constitution provides for it (perhaps a rather more significant admission than declaring that you didn't bother to read the employee handbook at your new job), but it's OK, because they're "helping" people.
Hilariously, Pelosi's blog, The Gavel, has posted a "mythbuster" on the topic which does no such thing. Instead, it defends the notion and euphemistically rebrands it "the shared responsibility provision". That's ironic, since we already share responsibility: the issue they claim they're trying to address, of free riders abusing public programs that absorb the cost of treating those who can't pay, was created by other government programs which Pelosi also champions.
How is this not just another round of squeezing American taxpayers, this time under the threat of imprisonment, to reward lobbyists? After all, as The Huffington Post found, the Obama White House itself is apparently more than willing to hand billions of American taxpayer dollars over to the pharmaceutical industry (and further wreck Medicare) in order to get this so-called "reform" passed.
Besides, remember during the Bush administration, when Democrats feigned outrage at violations of our civil liberties and declared themselves champions of the Constitution in the hopes of finally reconnecting with American voters? Reason Magazine:
Asked the same question, Hawaii's Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka admits that he doesn't know if the Constitution provides for it (perhaps a rather more significant admission than declaring that you didn't bother to read the employee handbook at your new job), but it's OK, because they're "helping" people.
"But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we're trying to do, and in this case, we're trying to help them with their health....It's an idea of making it possible for people and this is what it's all about," he said. "I don't look upon that as a penalty but as a way of getting help with health insurance."This isn't car insurance, where the states own the roads and can define criteria you must meet to drive on them, leaving you the option of not driving. The 2.5% fee you must pay to avoid jail is a fine for choosing, as an American citizen, not to buy insurance from a private insurer. It's essentially a transfer of wealth to the health insurance companies Democrats have been demonizing all along. (The affordable public option, after all, turns out to be more expensive than private coverage.)
In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.
"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," said the CBO. "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
Hilariously, Pelosi's blog, The Gavel, has posted a "mythbuster" on the topic which does no such thing. Instead, it defends the notion and euphemistically rebrands it "the shared responsibility provision". That's ironic, since we already share responsibility: the issue they claim they're trying to address, of free riders abusing public programs that absorb the cost of treating those who can't pay, was created by other government programs which Pelosi also champions.
How is this not just another round of squeezing American taxpayers, this time under the threat of imprisonment, to reward lobbyists? After all, as The Huffington Post found, the Obama White House itself is apparently more than willing to hand billions of American taxpayer dollars over to the pharmaceutical industry (and further wreck Medicare) in order to get this so-called "reform" passed.
Besides, remember during the Bush administration, when Democrats feigned outrage at violations of our civil liberties and declared themselves champions of the Constitution in the hopes of finally reconnecting with American voters? Reason Magazine:
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do," [third ranking House Democrat James] Clyburn [(D)] replied. "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"Even the Commerce Clause, one of the most basic cornerstones of federalism, is "not a serious question" for these people.
It was a rare flash of honesty from an elected official, revealing not only Clyburn's ignorance of the Constitution but his overt hostility to the document’s system of checks and balances.
Dairenn Lombard at 11:50 AM, 11/14/09
Your post is very similar to a LiveJournal post (albeit with much greater and incredible detail) that pointed out the same dichotomy. Civil liberties only seem to matter to a Liberal when it's a Republican that is trying to do something; someone on my Facebook tried to say that unlike spending billions on wars, spending billions on health care is socially responsible. Too bad the US Constitution says that it works the other way around, and, it happens to be right, because the other way is not only mathematically impractical, it is morally reprehensible.
Your post is very similar to a LiveJournal post (albeit with much greater and incredible detail) that pointed out the same dichotomy. Civil liberties only seem to matter to a Liberal when it's a Republican that is trying to do something; someone on my Facebook tried to say that unlike spending billions on wars, spending billions on health care is socially responsible. Too bad the US Constitution says that it works the other way around, and, it happens to be right, because the other way is not only mathematically impractical, it is morally reprehensible.
at 05:23 PM, 11/14/09
Both Aaron and Dairenn expose the fundamental hypocrisy of leftists. OK, so I am a rich, selfish, conservative who "steals from the poor" (Yeah, right!). But as a reader and criminal justice worker, I know well that leftists cannot stand police, prisons, lengthy sentences, the military, etc., etc., (except when they really NEED the police). But when they gain control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, you can't swing a dead tree branch without hitting a law, usually directed at conservatives, which is enforced with stiff fines and lengthy prison sentences.
Both Aaron and Dairenn expose the fundamental hypocrisy of leftists. OK, so I am a rich, selfish, conservative who "steals from the poor" (Yeah, right!). But as a reader and criminal justice worker, I know well that leftists cannot stand police, prisons, lengthy sentences, the military, etc., etc., (except when they really NEED the police). But when they gain control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, you can't swing a dead tree branch without hitting a law, usually directed at conservatives, which is enforced with stiff fines and lengthy prison sentences.
Comment Policy: Irrelevant or obscene posts, including ad hominem attacks, SPAM, crazed ranting, and threats of violence may be removed at the owner of this site's discretion.
