DNC, MSM Smear Mitt with Deceptive Edit

DNC, MSM Smear Mitt with Deceptive Edit

The Democratic National Committee has released a web ad purporting to show Gov. Mitt Romney in 2008 advocating for an individual mandate at the federal level. This would, of course, be a devastating "smoking gun" proving that Romney had explicitly endorsed and even campaigned on "ObamaCare" before it was an unconstitutional glimmer in Barack Obama's eye.

The problem with the video the DNC has released (and which has been picked up by their reliable minions including Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and Talking Points Memo) is that the excerpt from a Jan 5, 2008 New Hampshire debate is selectively edited and does not include an exculpatory moment one minute later where Gov. Romney clearly and unequivocally states he would NOT be in favor of an individual mandate at the federal level.

The DNC's video is misleading and dishonest since it does not include Gov. Romney's clear refusal to call for a national mandate, and the CNN/Acosta video is vague and can be interpreted in various ways.

Is the selectively edited DNC video the blockbuster tape that Begala promised CNN's audience? Or does he have something else hidden away? And, since he is a paid analyst for CNN, shouldn't the network press him on this issue, as it is their public responsibility to seek the truth rather than enable their employees to use their airwaves for political brinkmanship?

Its a Dessert Topping, Its a Floor Wax, Its A Fine, Its NOT a Tax

"Legal arguments for Obamacare's individual mandate fail the 'Alice in Wonderland' test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration's legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat.

'The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,' Judge Steeh ruled.

This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday's preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress' power is far less extensive.

Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a 'penalty,' explicitly changing its description from a 'tax' that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice's admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can't 'mean so many different things' as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, 'Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing ... [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.'

Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it's not a tax.

His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -- and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it's the Obama administration's fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce."

--The Washington Times

Words - Just Words

Defensive much? Obama gives rambling, incoherrent 17 minute response to concern about being ‘overtaxed’
By: Mark Hemingway

We constantly hear about the President’s supposedly cool demeanor and unflappability, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Keep that in mind as you read this Washington Post account:

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care” package.

“We are over-taxed as it is,” Doris said bluntly.

Obama started out feisty. “Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,” the president said.

He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

But wait, there’s more!

Lets Give the IRS More Authority, Shall We?

I wonder if they've taken delivery of their new toys yet?

Income
Rendition
Services

IRS to Enforce Health Reform

(CNSNews.com) – The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform, should President Obama sign the bill into law as expected, monitoring both businesses and individuals to certify whether they have the insurance coverage the government requires.

The tax collection agency will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the individual and employer insurance mandates which form the backbone of the Democrats’ hard-won reforms. The bill states that the purpose of the mandates is to regulate “economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.”
/snip
The IRS would monitor individuals and businesses’ health insurance statuses through the mandatory reporting the bill requires. Under the law, every individual and most businesses are required to report to the IRS, on their tax returns, whether they have purchased or provided the required level of coverage and disclose to the IRS which months, if any, in which they failed to do so.
Using this information, the IRS would then determine whether an employer or individual falls under the mandate, which contains exceptions for religious conscience, hardship, incarcerated persons, and members of Indian tribes.

Yeah baby..Lets give the IRS more authority and better shotguns.

What If I Can’t Afford Insurance?

Is there a provision for those who cannot reasonably acquire the mandatory health insurance?

As noted previously , the health care overhaul will require most individuals to buy health insurance beginning in 2014. The reconciliation bill in the Senate also includes help for those who may have trouble affording insurance. The bill creates a system of tax credits available to households that are between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. (Currently, that’s between $22,050 and $88,200 for a family of four.)
The credits are based on a sliding scale based on income. For example, households with incomes between 133 and 150 percent of the federal poverty level (or between $29,326 and $33,075) would pay between 3 and 4 percent of their income for health insurance premiums (or between $879 and $1,323) each year.

– Ryan Teague Beckwith, Congress.org

Keep Them Reeling!!!

H/T Family Foundation

SB 417, the Senate version of the Health Care Freedom Act, passed the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. This is a BIG WIN! This bill was passed along with two other identical bills, SB 311 and SB 283. The bills should go to the Senate floor and could be voted on as early as Thursday. You should have seen the look on Senator Saslaw’s face when he realized two Democrats on the committee (Senators Colgan and Puckett) voted YES and the bill would pass the committee. Priceless.

Contact Senators Puckett and Colgan today and THANK them for voting YES on SB 417. Without these two Senators crossing the aisle and voting for the bill, it would have died a grisly death in the committee.
Senator Charles J. Colgan (D) (804) 698-7529 district29@senate.virginia.gov
Senator Phillip P. Puckett (D) (804) 698-7538 district38@senate.virginia.gov

States Rights Legislation-Federal Healthcare Mandates

H/T Family Foundation

Lets keep them in shock. Thank you for standing up for the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Three Senate bills on a topic that has galvanized the Commonwealth and nation – a state’s sovereignty over federal intrusion into individuals’ health care – passed the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee today by the barest 8-7 votes. Democrat Senators Charles Colgan (D-29, Manassas) and Phillip Puckett (D-38, Tazewell) voted with a united Republican committee membership to shock committee liberals, including Majority Leader and committee chairman Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield).

These bills now go to the Senate floor and will be voted on in the next two days! Please contact your senator immediately and ask him or her to vote for SB 311, SB 417 and SB 283. If Senators Colgan or Puckett represent you, or if your senator voted for the bills in committee, please thank them. The bills are patroned by Senators Steve Martin (R-11, Chesterfield), Jill Vogel (R-27, Winchester) and Fred Quayle (R-13, Suffolk), respectively.

What Else WIll They Force Us To Buy?

Buy a Car or Go To Jail; Buy This Washer or Go To Jail; Buy a Refrigerator or Go To Jail

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D.-Ore.) says that Congress derived the constitutional authority to make Americans purchase health insurance as part of its very first enumerated power. He was referring to the language at the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

CNSNews.com asked Merkley: "Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health care?"

Merkley said: "The very first enumerated power gives the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So it's right on, right on the front end." Before CNSNews.com could ask a follow-up question, Merkley's press secretary pulled him away, apparently to attend an event.

Both House and Senate versions of the health care reform legislation mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, an unprecedented form of federal regulation.

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 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."

In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states raises a "novel issue."

"Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service," said the CBO.

In a recent interview with CNSNews.com, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that it was "not constitutionally sound" for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance.

"But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want," said Hatch.

And, you know, if that's the case, then we didn't need a 'Cash for Clunkers,' all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn't America. That's not freedom. That's not constitutionally sound."

Hatch said that if we let the federal government begin forcing us to buy things we may not want to buy without having a clear constitutional justification for doing so "we've lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us."

Buy Healthcare or Go To Jail?..I Don't Think So

As a friend of mine told his EllTee when he arrived downrange in Iraq in 2004, "You may as well start the paperwork now, cause I'm not going to recognize those rules."

The dhimmicrat Congress is now officially off the reservation. They have gone rogue, or rouge, both apply equally. They have over-stepped their Constitutional limitations by a factor of 100 to the nth power.

Committee On Ways & Means Republicans Ranking Member, Dave Camp http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1] - - - - - - - - - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2] - - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

Government Enforced Compliance

Obamacare is government-by-coercion, not consent.
Examiner Editorial
"Welcome to America, land of the formerly free, and home of citizens covered by a nationalized health care system crafted by the same government that can't care for American Indians on their reservations or deliver swine flu shots on time."

That American citizens should be fined or even put in federal prison for refusing to purchase government-approved health insurance is as un-American as any idea we can imagine. But such a mandate is the very heart of the bill written behind closed doors by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her privileged pals. If their bill is approved by the House tomorrow, we will be a big step closer to the day when everybody gets their health care insurance through the government or from an approved insurer offering policies that meet meticulously detailed specifications contained in thousands of pages of federal regulations.

2200 Pages and Counting

That 1,990-page Democratic health care bill?
It's longer now; includes new government controls
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
11/05/09 9:17 AM EST

It's become common practice to refer to the House Democrats' national health care bill as being 1,990 pages long. That's true of the bill introduced last week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But now Democrats have added a 42-page "manager's amendment" to the bill. Some of the new language in the amendment replaces material already in the bill, but there are enough new provisions to ensure that the bill is now more than 2,000 pages long. And there will likely be even more additions to the bill before the final debate.

What's more important is what is in the new amendment. Much of it reflects Democrats' concerns that their bill would cause an increase in health insurance premiums. Remember when the House leadership, the White House, and sympathetic media commentators everywhere attacked the insurance industry for predicting that the Democratic bill would cause premiums to go up? The manager's amendment is, in effect, the House Democrats' admission that it would do just that. Their answer: more government control. The new language sets up a process for the government to monitor "unjustified premium increases" and threaten insurance companies with exclusion from the government-run Health Insurance Exchange if they exhibit a "pattern of excessive or unjustified premium increases." The government, of course, will determine what is "excessive" or "unjustified."

Patriot Post

In every successive Congress since 1995, conservative Arizona Republican Rep. John Shadegg has sponsored the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359), which requires that "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act."

The measure continues to fail, however, because of a dirty little secret: There is no legitimate constitutional authority for almost 70 percent of current federal government programs, and, thus, no authority for the collection of taxes to fund such activities.

Though Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and every member of Congress has pledged "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," Democrats, and too many Republicans, have forsaken their sacred oaths. In doing so, they have inflicted grievous injury upon our Constitution, thereby placing our Essential Liberty in eminent peril.

In May 1775, at the onset of the hostilities that gave rise to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution calling on the states to prepare for rebellion. In its preamble, John Adams advised his countrymen to sever all oaths of allegiance to the Crown.

Since that time, generations of American Patriots have honored their oaths, shed their blood, given their lives -- but not to the crown of any man or a partisan sect. Instead, these sacrifices have been made to support and defend our Constitution and the Rule of Law it established.

Put simply, there is no authority for a "constitutional rewrite" by Barack Hussein Obama, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor Steny Hoyer, nor any like-minded revisionists. Such contempt for our Constitution, such willful violation of their sacred oaths is a disgrace to the selfless dignity of generations of Patriots before them.

At present, we have a gang of outlaws at the helms of the executive and legislative branches. Under such despots, we are being unlawfully taxed without lawful representation. Sound familiar?

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander

Daily Grind From The Hammer

The Daily Grind

A president who's more sports-obsessed, a bigger work-out fanatic, and more addicted to golf than Bush. But the media's not complaining. Odd.

Ouch: "Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to the citizens of the state of Rhode Island."

Samuelson: "In reality, the public plan, also known as the public option, is mostly an exercise in political avoidance: It pretends to control costs and improve access to quality care when it doesn't."

On mandates: "The paradox is this: Reform advocates start with anecdotes about the underprivileged who are uninsured, then turn around and propose something that would hurt at least some members of that group."

Dems look to move up health-care reform benefits to 2010 to grab some votes.

Lou Holtz coming to Virginia for McDonnell today. Holtz, despite being a former Notre Dame and South Carolina coach, stole this SEC gal's heart on Saturday with a rant about how Congress should read bills and stop worrying about the BCS, all while waving a copy of the Constitution. Sigh.

New Jersey is such an electoral tease.

Throughout the era of Republican rule in Washington, we scored GOP lawmakers for their overspending and earmarks—and so did Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats. So how do their records compare? From 2001-2008 the average annual increase in appropriations bills came in at 6.4%—or about double the rate of inflation. In this Congress spending is now growing six times faster than inflation."

Unhinged Tea Partier asks Newt about his support for Scozzafava. It's almost as if she's a reasonable human being with rational thoughts, but do not be fooled by this clever lunatic masquerading as a normal, concerned citizen with manners.

She is dangerous!

Richmond Tea Party Press Release

It is beyond time for elected officials to make a decision regarding their loyalties. They took an oath to obey the Constitution. They swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America.
Republican or Democrat, from this moment on, need to decide if they are politicians or Americans serving the will of the people. From my position, all I see is politicians, and I've had quite enough of the Bravo Sierra from Congress. I will make it my life's mission to replace every single politician with someone who truly understands the Founding Principles.

Richmond Tea Party News Release!
October 13, 2009
They Should Be Ashamed of Themselves
“Senators Warner, Webb, and Congressman Cantor Reject 6,000 Petition Signatures”

Richmond, VA – Six thousand Richmond area residents have signed a petition protesting nationalized health care, but Warner, Webb and Cantor refuse to personally meet to acknowledge the petition despite multiple requests.

“The petition signatures represent genuine concern of taxpayers about government take-over of our health care system. The signatures were gathered through face-to-face meet-ups at festivals, neighborhood walks and in our workplaces. We expect our elected representatives to at least feign interest in the will of the people, but when we requested meetings to personally deliver the petitions, we were rebuffed at every turn,” said Sara James of Midlothian.

“These politicians have repeatedly demonstrated no interest in the opinions of thousands of voters in their districts. Warner, Webb and Cantor should be ashamed of themselves.”

Corky Mann of Henrico, a relative newcomer to the political process, expressed dismay about the lack of response by his representatives. “These politicians seem to forget that we hired them, and we expect them to be responsive and considerate of our opinions, not to mention the fact we expect, at a minimum, a reverence for the Constitution, which these health care bills clearly ignore.”

Mechanicsville resident Kevin Dumville agreed. “The absurdity of their refusal to receive 6,000 petition signatures can be easily demonstrated by the fact that when these petitions are laid down end-to-end, they stretch longer than a football field. How does an elected representative ignore that level of opposition?”

The petition states: “We the People of Virginia demand that the Federal Government remain within its Constitutional boundaries on health care. We reject any of the following: Government-run health insurance; One-size government-dictated package of health benefits; New job-killing mandates on employers; Federal medical mandates that violate State Sovereignty; Requirement on individuals to buy medical insurance coverage; Federal institution that controls private health insurance; Government intrusion into our medical privacy; Taxpayer dollars for euthanasia, or life ending services; Medical coverage for illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense.”

The Richmond Tea Party is a grassroots organization giving voice to the Silent Majority. Its mission is to work to reign in a Government that Has Grown Too Big, Spends Too Much and No Longer Listens to the Will of the People.

A Tax By Any Other Name

A tax is a tax is a tax is tax. No matter how its spun, its still a freaking tax.

Tax: A Required Contribution or Fee Levied by a Government
George Stephanopoulos, former senior advisor to Bill Clinton, on ABC's "This Week" grilled the President on how his health care overhaul would raise taxes on the middle class. The President tried to dance around the issue-- just as he has done on numerous occasions regarding abortion funding in the health care bill.

However, he can't dance away from this fact, either. Politico reports today that page 29 of the bill introduced Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont), says: "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax." President Obama has developed a serious credibility problem as Factcheck.org, Politifact.com, and now Politico have reported on the President's misleading statements on his health care bill.

However, the American people can't be misled so easily. They instinctively know that imposing new taxes or involuntary payments (mandates) combined with massive
spending will only further burden families and the next generation of Americans.

I've said this before, and I will keep on saying it until someone shoots me:

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO FORCE YOU TO BUY ANYTHING UNLESS YOU GIVE IT TO THEM!!!!!!!

Automobile Insurance Is Not Health Insurance

Revised and extended:

Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax.
Obama insisted on national television during the weekend that requiring people to carry health insurance and fining them if they don't isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's healthcare system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.
"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS."

Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the healthcare debate during the 1990s, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it's becoming clear that such a requirement will be part of any legislation Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn't raise taxes, and it cost him the next election," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Obama is doing the same thing, but he's insulting people by telling them that if you don't call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn't be a tax."

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they contend that most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

"I think it's a metaphysical question as to whether it's a tax or not," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable."

During an interview that aired on ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is . . . that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.
"Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," Obama said. "Nobody considers that a tax increase.

"You just can't make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," he said. But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don't get coverage.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable healthcare coverage."

Did you get that? You're going to be fined if you don't have acceptable healthcare. Thats a federal mandate. Thats a tax. You MUST purchase coverage or you will be fined. Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to do that? and don't give me the "promote the general welfare" BS. Thats in the Preamble.

I know all you obamabots just hate it when conservatives have a reasoned arguement against government healthcare/insurance reform/whatever the hell ya'll are calling it today, so when I found this little tidbit, I couldn't wait to post it.

Its the best response to the "the government requires you to have to have automobile insurance, whats the difference?" argument the obamabots are so fond of using. I can expand on this simply by explaining that liability insurance is not for your direct protection, it protects against potential property damage and personal injury that you MIGHT cause, if you have an accident. You are required to have it, but if you don't, you must pay an uninsured motorist fee to the DMV, and you will still be liable for any damages and medical expenses you cause.

Collision and comprehensive are not required unless you finance your vehicle. The bank requires you to have it to protect THEIR interests. Once the vehicle is paid for, you can discontinue coverage with no penalties.

From an article in the American Spectator, via my heart-throb, Michelle Malkin:

Obama argues at another part of the interview that, "right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." But there are many reasons why this is a flawed analogy. Most importantly, car insurance mandates, which apply at the state level, only apply to people who drive a car on public roads. If I don't drive, I don't have to purchase car insurance. By contrast, the health insurance mandate would apply, with few exceptions, to everybody in the United States. Also, people aren't forced to report car insurance in their federal tax returns, and fines are not assessed through the federal tax code. And if car insurance mandates are the model, then they certainly aren't effective, with an estimated 13.8 percent of drivers going without coverage in 2007, according to the Insurance Research Council.

Congress Lacks the Constitutional Authority

to force free Americans to purchase anything they don't want, and the Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from puntitive retribution on those who choose not to.

The Constitution does not give Congress the auhority to impose healthcare mandates on free citizens or the power to punish those who do not comply by imposing fees or fines.

But since they've never a let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of their marxist engineering or socialist agenda, and its never stopped them before, it's time to let them know we're not going to stand for an imperialist regime imposing their mandates and ignoring the Supreme Law of the Land.

If The Chosen One, may peace be upon him, and his band of useful idiots in Congress wants to force me to buy coverage I don't want, or penalizes me for not buying it, or taxes my current benefits and does not allow for a full deduction of the associated costs, I will cancel my current healthcare policy and stand in my front yard and wait for the brownshirts from ACORN or the Civilian Defense Force to come get me.

Thats when maximum fun begins.