Posts Tagged ‘limit’

Key SCOTUS Vote Kennedy: ObamaCare ‘Changes The Relationship Of The Federal Government To The Individual In A Very Fundamental Way’

March 28, 2012

“And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.” — Justice Kennedy

Justice Kennedy also pointed out that there’s a “heavy burden” on Congress to show that it is authorized to do so under the Constitution, inquiring whether there are “any limits under the Commerce Clause” if the mandate is allowed to stand.

And Justice Kennedy asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”

Which are all things that conservatives have recognized all along.

Mark Levin pointed out in his great book Ameritopia:

I also endeavor to show how insidiously contemporary utopians or statists have poisoned modern society by changing the paradigms under which governmental action is both contemplated and executed” (p. xii)

It’s like he knew exactly what Justice Kennedy was going to say about the “change” in the relationship of the federal government to the individual inherent in ObamaCare.

Levin wrote:

“Utopianism substitutes glorious predictions and unachievable promises for knowledge, science and reason, while laying claim to them all” (p. 5).

And ObamaCare was all of that – glorious predictions, unachievable promises, based on pseudo-knowledge, psuedo-science and psuedo-reason, all carefully packaged into one candy-coated load of bovine feces.

ObamaCare is literally to the point – only two years after its passage – that it is going to cost twice as much as Obama promised while delivering only half the benefit that Obama promised.  And the true horrors of ObamaCare haven’t even begun to be seen or felt yet.

Levin cited Eric Hoffer, who said:

For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power.  They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future….  [T]hey must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking.  Experience is a handicap.”

I think again of Nancy Pelosi telling the American people: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”  The incredible, willful, self-righteous IGNORANCE inherent in that laughable statement is beyond astounding.

And, the “new technique” of the left in ramming ObamaCare down the national throat is the technique of having a “tax” that is a “penalty” when it is convenient to the left’s argument but a “penalty” that is a “tax” when it is convenient to the left’s argument.  These power-grabbing statists are deceitful to the very cores of their shriveled little souls.

Abraham Lincoln described the danger to our Republic in 1838:

“At what point … is the approach of danger to be expected.  I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad.  If destruction be our lot we ust ourselves be its author and finisher.  As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Ronald Reagan said:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Of course, with the clear and present danger to the elderly inherent to ObamaCare, we won’t have to worry about explaining why things went so profoundly wrong.  ObamaCare will kill us off before we have to face our grandchildren.

But let’s dispense with the great thinkers and think of the tiny little dictator statist thug thinkers of the Democrat Party:

There’s Rep. Stark, saying:

Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.  The basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”

[…]

“The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”

There is Rep. John Dingell:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

There’s Rep. Jan Schakowsky mocking her opponents who value freedom and liberty:

“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.”

Here are some of the things that the left can use to “control the people” if ObamaCare becomes valid legal principle:

Food
Clothing
Household furnishings
Housing
Transportation
Communications
Education
Media
Public safety

The Obama administration asserts that health care is unique because there are “free riders” who do not purchase healthcare and therefore when they get sick or injured they pass the costs of treatment on to the rest of society.  Therefore, it is irrelevant that there is no limiting principle because health care by its very nature is unique and therefore the underlying principles of statist government control are irrelevant.

Let’s just take the first item on the list – food – to demonstrate how the liberal rationale is wrong.  Millions of Americans do not eat healthy diets, either because they like junk food, do not like healthy food, or even simply cannot afford to pay the higher financial cost of a healthy diet.  So they are eating in an unhealthy way, eating unhealthy food instead of healthy food.  And because they are eating unhealthy food rather than healthy food they develop all sorts of costly health ailments and diseases, such as obesity and diabetes and heart disease and cancer.  And the costs of their treatment then become passed on to the rest of us even though we are eating healthy diets and are not having these food-abuse-related diseases.  And so therefore it is the duty of the government to begin mandating that the American people must begin purchasing certain foods that are deemed to be healthy and forbidden from purchasing certain other foods that are deemed to be unhealthy.  Furthermore, since overeating is a health crisis in and of itself that cost the American economy billions, the government will commence mandating a caloric restriction requirement, such that a household only be allowed to purchase so many calories’ of food per week.

We can go down the list and do the same thing and “mandate” government control citing the commerce clause.  And the government can literally take over our lives by assuming the “duty” of making all of the decisions that affect “commerce.”

Conservatives could use this “mandate” to force every American to purchase guns, because crime is clearly a detrimental part of society, and crime is increasing at a dramatic pace in America while at the same time the cost of law enforcement and prisons is spiralling out of control beyond society’s ability to fund.  And so therefore in order to reduce the impact of crime and the burden on and the cost of the justice system, government can mandate that every American purchase the means of self-protection.  The result would be – according to the conservative defenders of the mandate – less crime, the need for fewer police officers and judges and prison guards, etc.  So you must buy a Smith & Wesson firearm for protection or pay a penalty.  You must also pay for training, for licensing and for all required background checks or pay a penalty.

Scratch that, because just like what happened with ObamaCare, it turns out that Colt gave the Republican president a large campaign donation.  So you must now buy a Colt firearm.

Here’s one that liberals will love that isn’t even on my list: religious faith.  It turns out that numerous studies have documented (at LEAST as well as ObamaCare was ever “documented”) that there are numerous health benefits related to being religious and praying.  And since liberals say that health care is an economic activity that can be regulated due to rising costs, it should be pointed out that we have numerous “free riders” who do not adequately partake in religious devotion which studies document would make them healthier and therefore reduce their cost burden to society.  Ergo sum we will be mandating that all liberals henceforth go to church every Sunday and pray to Jesus.  Or of course pay a penalty.  And please do make your checks payable to Pat Robertson.  That whole 1st Amendment thing used to get in the way, but ObamaCare wiped that “limit” out, didn’t it?

Just what services or devices can either ideological side impose on their enemies and force them to purchase whether they like it or not?

Or, to quote Klingon General Chang from Star Trek’s The Undiscovered Country: “You do prefer it this way, don’t you? As it was meant to be. … No peace in our time. ‘Once more unto the breach, dear friends.'”  Let’s just have it out forever – well, until we completely collapse only a few years from now – until which time both sides seek to stab the heart of the other.  It’ll be fun.

ObamaCare is the most dangerous takeover of not only our health care system, but of our very democracy and American way of life, that this nation has ever been confronted with.

U.S. To Raise Debt Ceiling So It Can Continue Insane Spending Spree

August 11, 2009

“It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations,” Geithner said.

Oh, thank God!  Our leaders have finally – FINALLY! – recognized the critical need to bring in some semblance of fiscal sanity to our federal government.  Treasury Secretary Geithner is at last demanding that Congress put its clown-shoe-clad foot down and insist that we finally begin coming to grips with our $11.6 trillion debt.

I take it all back.  Everything I said about these Democrats.  They’re not really stupid.  They’re not really insane.  They’re not spending us into bankruptcy.

What’s that?  What’s that, you say? Turbo Tax Tim is actually asking Congress to RAISE our debt ceiling just so we can keep up the reckless borrowing without hitting any common-sense roadblocks? You mean he’s saying that we should raise our current limit (well, it’s really more of a guide than a limit) of $12.1 trillion because we’re spending so damn fast we’re going to hit our fragile little skulls on the ceiling?

Why would he do something like that?  I mean, doesn’t he know that Barack Obama repeatedly promised a net spending cut if elected? Doesn’t he know that Obama said, “Well, we are out of money now” when he was asked, “At what point are we going to run out of money?”  We don’t need to increase our debt ceiling; Obama assured us we’d be able to lower it.

What’s your reasoning for raising the debt ceiling, Mr. Treasury Secretary?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner formally requested that Congress raise the $12.1 trillion statutory debt limit on Friday, saying that it could be breached as early as mid-October.

“It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations,” Geithner said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that was obtained by Reuters.

A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment on the letter.

Whoa, WHOA, WHOA!!!???  What are you SAYING, Turbo Tax Tim?  Are you actually suggesting that if we increase our debt ceiling so we can keep spending and spending and spending more hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars that you think our “partners” here and abroad will “remain confident”?  Are you serious?

What on earth is wrong with your brain?

That reminds me of the Vice President’s lunacy when he said – and I quote – “we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”

You’re not exactly understanding our “partners” right, Turbo Tax Tim.  I guess someone is going to have to translate for you.  As the Associated Press reported, “China’s premier didn’t say it in so many words, but the implied warning to Washington was blunt: Don’t devalue the dollar through reckless spending.” And the Chinese have repeatedly warned us not to start “printing money.”  So when you say something truly stupid like, “Increasing our debt ceiling will give our partners confidence that we will be able to meet our obligations,” what you are REALLY saying is, “Lord help me, I’m just not that bright.”

The budget deficit is right on tract to exceed $1.8 trillion – four times 2008’s record $455 deficit (you know, when the Democrats had the whale-sized balls to complain over Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility).

Okay.  So what’s the Democrat plan?  You’re going to WHAT???  You mean to tell me that after spending like drunken sailors on speed that you’re going to buy EIGHT FANCY PRIVATE JETS AT  A COST OF MORE THAN HALF A BILLION DOLLARS??? After you just got through demonizing and demagoguing the bejeezus out of auto company CEOs for daring to fly private jets?

We don’t have any more money.  But if shame, demogoguery, and stupidity were currency, we would be rich beyond our wildest dreams under Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrat Party.