The Constitutionality of Obamacare: ‘Who Cares?’ Part III

First, Rep. Nancy “are you serious?” Pelosi and Sen. Pat “of course we have the authority!” Leahy were asked the question, and they didn’t care if aspects of Obamacare were constitutional or not, and obviously the White House doesn’t care either:

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said today that he does not know if White House lawyers have reviewed whether it is constitutional for the federal government to order individuals to buy health insurance and said that the White House is not seriously considering the concerns of people such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) who believe the mandate is not constitutionally justified.

Questioning Congressional liberals or anybody in the Obama administration about the constitutionality of their proposals is like asking great white sharks if they’re violating the rights of seals by devouring them — they don’t care and they don’t think there’s anything you can do about it anyway.

Slightly off topic: On Halloween, Robert Gibbs made a terrific “don’t ask, don’t tell” Darth Vader.

Obamacare: The More You’re Fined, the Cheaper It’ll Be

Obamacare: The more you’re fined and taxed, the lower the cost:

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a U.S. House health-care system re-write would extend health insurance to 96% of the nonelderly U.S. population by 2019, and spend $1.055 trillion to do so.

Penalties imposed on individuals who did not purchase insurance, and employers who did not offer coverage to their workers, would raise $161 billion over that time-frame. That brings the net cost of the bill to $894 billion through 2019, CBO said.

House Democrats have seized on that net cost figure to claim that their bill is below President Barack Obama’s upper limit which he set for health-care legislation of $900 billion.

Stripping people of their freedoms is part of the legitimate budget process in Washington. What can possibly go wrong?

Welcome to Obamerica, where exercising your freedoms is a finable — and, as the inevitable follow-up, a jailable — offense. What does the Constitution say about this? Who gives a damn!

Prison conversations in the future will be interesting:

“What are you in for?”

“No health insurance.”

It would be nice if private industry could budget the way the government is doing with the Obamacare scam. “I’m opening a grocery store. It’s going to cost $10 million to construct and initially stock. Penalties imposed on all people in the city who don’t shop there will raise $3.5 million, bringing the cost of my project down to $6.5 million, which will be paid for by tripling the price of the food we sell to the next generation of shoppers.”

Passing thought: Why don’t they just find a way to fine people enough to cover the entire $1.055 trillion? That way the net cost of Obamacare would be $0! That’ll be covered in the next bill.

Fittingly enough, I ran across this Ayn Rand quote last week that addresses people like Obama who speak of service and sacrifice:

It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

Update: Here’s a good column by Svetlana Kunin entitled and its Soviet Similarities.

This falls in nicely with the above Rand quote:

As a former citizen of the USSR, I heard and experienced all of this before. I listen to the speeches by the president asking people to sacrifice and serve. So what are we to sacrifice? For what? And to whom? I think I get it now.

Fortunately I believe more and more Americans are starting to get it. The future of America as we know… er, knew it… will depend on whether or not there are enough people catching on fast enough.

Can We Make a Marx-O-Lantern? Yes We Carve!

In a few hours I’ll be taking the kids out trick or treating, and I’ll make sure the kids demand not only candy from anybody who has a pro-Obama pumkin on their porch, but also a lot of the money that they’re having stolen from them as we speak.

Peruse the Obama pumpkin selection at Carving and putting a pro-Obama pumpkin on your porch is supposed to be sending the message that you support Obamacare — and with what will clock in at trillions of dollars, Halloween is the perfect day for it, because the latest health care bill is the scariest thing this country has seen in quite a while.

Here are a few pictures from YesWeCarve:

It’s never too early to convince your kids that stealing from their future is for their own good:



Obama might repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” — but until then… don’t ask, don’t tell:


Get ready to Mao on some candy at this place:


But out of all the selections, nobody created what would be the most appropriate Hope & Change pumpkin of all:


I carved that teleprompter pumpkin — the best tribute to this president I could think of — here. Carve your own, print it out, and put it on your front door as your own way of letting your neighbors know that you also support the true leader of this country. And if you really want to tick off an Obamaniac, carve a pumpkin with the Fox News logo in it.

All these Obama pumpkins properly represent the rhetoric from this administration: Empty and with a flicker of light that gets dimmer by the day.

Update: Hey kids, be on the lookout tonight when you’re trick-or-treating. Instead of getting candy at some houses, you might end up being handed Obamacare propaganda.

Frosting on a Turd: Pelosi Renaming ‘Public Option’ to Make it More Palatable

nullThe term “public option” has obviously been run into the ground and is becoming more unpopular by the day.

Democrats must have data that shows public reaction to “public option” has put it just below “genital herpes” on the popularity chart.

So, instead of scrapping the idea altogether as something Americans don’t want, Pelosi & Company have decided to simply put lipstick, glasses and cheap costume jewelry on the same pig. The brilliant scheme is not to restructure a “plan” that is frought with madness and start over, but rather to refer to the “public option” under a different name:

A government-sponsored “public option” for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”

How about “government-run health care”? That would be fairly accurate, which is why it’ll never be used. If Democrats think “public option” has a low Q-rating, then “government-run health care” would get a worse reception than Bob Griese in East LA.

More Pelosi:

“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,'” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”

Yeah, I hear people say there’s got to be a better name for it all the time, Nanc, but I doubt you’ll want to start calling it “a bunch of bullshit.”

So let’s help Pelosi and Wasserman out. What should the “public option” be referred to as?

“Massive power grab option”?
“The option that gets the deepest into your pocket option”?
“The no-option option”?
“We know what’s good for you and you don’t option”?
“Like Cash for Clunkers except with your life option”?
“Incompetent-run health option”?
“The ‘if it fails it’s Bush’s fault’ option”?
“The option where your tonsils won’t be taken out for no reason because that’ll be the least of your problems option”?

Come on, Nancy… there’s gotta be something here you like.

(h/t Rich Moran)

Update: A friend — a good writer in her own right — just wrote me and said “I don’t recall giving you permission to use my prom picture.” So I must sincerely apologize for that. But the picture stays…