THIRTY NINE DEMOCRATS VOTED "NO"
The House of Representatives just passed Pelosi's unconstitutional and tyrannical, 1,990 page health reform legislation by a vote of 220-215. One unprincipled Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), (who will now forever be know as Joseph "Mao") voted for the bill and 39 courageous Democrats voted against the legislation.
Below is Congressman Joseph Cao's contact information:
| Washington Office 2113 Rayburn HOB | . | New Orleans Office 4640 So. Carrollton Ave. Suite 120 |
If you would like to arrange a meeting with Congressman Cao (Mao), contact his scheduler at 202-225-6636.
SEE ALSO:
19 PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS HERE:
Well, we are on the verge of the greatest transfer of individual freedom, from the people to the government, this nation has ever seen.
The one inescapable lesson from the Obama bail outs of AIG, BOA, GM, Chrysler, etc. is:
When you take money from the government, you are inviting it into your life - and it tells you what to do.
Likewise, rest assured once the government gets a vested interest in your health care, it will spread it's tentacles into how you live.
In the name of good government, I expect it to get involved in how you eat and how you live in ways you never imagined.
Cokes and Quarter Pounders are bad for your health, say goodbye to them - for the greater good. Activities that are deemed to be too dangerous will be restricted - or outlawed.
The next phase will come via Global Warming legislation. That's when you'll be required to keep your house at the temperature the government sets, and be required to adhere to other mandates - for the greater good, of course.
This will not happen right away. Gradualism got us to the point of wanting a paternal government, gradualism will be used to condition us to be it's children.
But "Big Brother" is at the door. He's about 25 years past his ETA, but he made it.
-------------------------------------------------
"Under socialism...you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well." - Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
-------------------------------------------------
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?
“If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.” - Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
-------------------------------------------------
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
OK capitalist. When are you telling your mom to stop accepting medicare ans her social security checks.
Because unless and until you do that, you are nothing but a blowhard hypocrite.
Please, Mr. Lawyer sir, (ps I'm a lawyer) explain how this plan is unconstitutional? I would like citations.
I'm pretty sure that the bailouts that you attribute to Obama actually happened under Bush. Also, Medicare drug benefits were born via Delay and Rove, the greatest expansion of welfare in a generation. While it will bankrupt your grandchildren, I don't recall any takeover anything like you are talking about. I think you confuse the words "freedom" and "nationalism".
Question for the baying hounds using words for which they know not the definition, please tell me... were you howling unconstitutiona" when the following goes on:
Mayfield v U.S.
Rank v Jenkins
Branxberg v Hayes
Shafig Rasul et al v Bush
Johnson v Eisentrager
Humanitarian Law Project, et al. v. Ashcroft
Muslim Community Ass'n of Ann Arbor, et al, v. John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller
Awadallah v. U.S.
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
North Jersey Media Group v. Ashcroft
Pray... tell me... were the acts in question unconstitutional?
Just want to point out that the bail outs of AIG, BOA, GM, Chrysler etc. were all done by President Bush. Just saying.
All this nonsense talk about 'freedom' and how the evil government is coming to take your freedoms away, I do have to point out:
Your country has been run by and for the corporations. And they are far more oppressive then our government.
Afterall the corporations demand total surfdom and desire to rape you of your worth.
The government doesn't do that.
show me exactly how the government has taken away your freedoms and liberty? They were the ones who came up with it as our founding fathers were the government.
Anonymous said...
Please, Mr. Lawyer sir, (ps I'm a lawyer) explain how this plan is unconstitutional? I would like citations.
November 8, 2009 2:00 PM
RESPONSE: If you're a lawyer and can't figure that out, Mr. Ambulance Chaser, then you should be disbarred immediately. I'm embarrassed for you that I have to explain the obvious to you.
I'm going to try to educate you very quickly and succinctly.
The Constitution was framed as a document that limits the powers that the federal government can do to us. The powers it allows are "few and enumerated".
The federal government was created to protect individual rights which pre-existed government, as in inalienable, or given by God.
The Founding Fathers could have created a government that was omnipotent (like your Messiah, Obama), but they didn't. They were fleeing "big government," which is why they created the Constitution, to limit it's powers.
Here's the bottom line: The premise of your question is flawed. The Constitution isn't a list of what the government can't do to us, because that list would be infinite. Instead, it specifically lists what the government can do to us.
Therefore, you have the burden of proof in finding where, in the Constitution, the power is granted to do the following to its citizens:
1) Force us to buy a certain product or service, "approved" by politicians and bureaucrats against our will. Show me where that power is granted by the Constitution.
This has NEVER been done before, because they can't. If we allow the government this much power, then they can do ANYTHING. What's next? Forcing you to quit smoking, buying a gym membership and forcing you to exercise 4X per week? Or, maybe making sure you eat your vegetables. There would be NO limits. NONE.
2) If we don't buy the government approved product or service, we go to jail and pay fines. Show me where that power is granted to the government in the Constitution.
The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation recently produced a clear letter that states 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.
Sorry, Mr. "lawyer," the government can't force me to buy "their" product, then throw me in jail if they don't.
What a waste all your fancy schoolin' was.
What part of "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes... to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" don't you understand? I'd say that universal health care is part of the general welfare of the country.
Indeed, "general welfare" is a pretty broad category, and all your wailing about what the Constitution supposedly says is bunk.
If the Constitution were a strictly-limited list of what the government *can* do, then why the need for the Bill of Rights, which DOES, in fact, tell us precisely what the government cannot do?
Face it, nowhere in the Constitution can you find your supposed "originalist" interpretation. Unless you can find a line in there saying that only a limited number of things shall be allowed, then your interpretation is just that --- yet another interpretation. And you're being willfully ignorant if you think that it's just "implied" as being such, because the Supreme Court, over the centuries, has disagreed with you many times!
What a sad, pathetic little site.
Here's a reality check for you.
You lost. Time to enrol in ST. Francis University.
Hahahahahahahahahaha *big breath* hahahahahahah!!
"Mao?" Oh, I get it, because he's Asian. You know who thinks racist tripe like that is funny? Racists.
Conservatism lost, in '06 and '08. The conservative movement needs to suck it up, bring some decent ideas to the table and quit whining like pre-schoolers, and quit with the over-the-top CommuNaziIslamoFascist bullshit. REAL PEOPLE, who were affected by Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc.. look upon the current state of the Conservative, teabagger movement in abject horror.
If only you people could feel shame. That would take a modicum of empathy, though, which ya'll are also against.
The only reason we are in the mess we are in is because the dogs that run the insurance companies couldn't control their greed. They put money above all else and now their day--after decades of disgusting abuse--is finally coming to an end. You dare to defend the insurance companies? The ones who have bled hundreds of thousands of Americans of their life's work and lifeblood. My mother had to choose between cancer surgery and feeding her family because she had lost her job and had no insurance, and no one would taker her with a pre-existing condition. The GOP needs to have their moral values checked.
Calling him Mao is totally uncalled for and suggests you have no idea who Mao actually is or what he did - which has nothing in common with Cao's action. In fact there is no more reason to call him Mao than there is to call him any other name that suggests he has no individual identity outside of his ethnicity.
It's not clever. It just shows you to be a moron.
Does TheCapitalist also object to the requirement that he purchase auto insurance? Does he feel that citizens like me, who despise war, should have the right to reduce our income taxes by the portion allocated to "defense"?
Anonymous said... "REAL PEOPLE, who were affected by Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc.. look upon the current state of the Conservative, teabagger movement in abject horror."
Well said, brotha. As an American expat living in Poland, as someone with numerous friends & colleagues who suffered under the Communist system, as someone who broke bread with grandparents of friends who survived the lethal grip of the Third Reich and who kindly shared with me a slight glimpse into their situation... these tea-bagger FUCKHEADS, who cry foul with bonus comparisons to Communism/Nazism/Fascism/etc, don't have the slightest clue as to what they're talking about. And neither do I. BUT I listened and kept my mouth shut.
I think the Constituion is pretty clear. It was written to enumerate and limit the power of the Federal Government. I also suppose the constituion is alot like the Bible and if you choose you can interpret it to say just about anything.
The truth is With each law, each tax, each regulation your freedom is washed away. If we allow this unabashed usurpation of our freedom called health care reform to happen we will be a free people no more.
America will have become the property of the oligarchy in Washington and our Republic will be lost.
The folks on the left argue sometimes I think because that is thier team and it becomes sport to them. I think the left needs to think long and hard if they wish to be free. In the end a tyrannical goverment will be no respecter of persons and we will all suffer as one.
Wow, as a Canadian reading all this, I find it very jaw-dropping. You don't think access to healthcare is constitutional? You have the right to life and liberty, but not access to the means to stay healthy? Does life and liberty not begin with the opportunity to be healthy? You have the right to property? However, if you get sick and don't have healthcare coverage, you may have to sell all your property to pay for your treatment. Does this make sense? Is property more important than your health?
You don't want to contribute to the health of your fellow citizen, but you don't mind contributing tax dollars or having a military that is sent off to fight for your rights? The US offers free healthcare to prisoners . . . but not a hard-working honest American that can't afford it?
America, free and just? Ask residents in New Orleans that had to wait 3 days for water after Katrina. Ask a parent that has had to sell everything they worked their entire life for to get care for his young child what he thinks of your constitution.
Wake up, your country is not free. As long as the Patriot Act exists, where the government can detain you with no legal recourse because you "might" have ties to terrorism, you can take the Constitution you hold so dear and have your kids use it as a coloring book. Criminals get free healthcare, as do those same detainees on Guantanamo Bay, but a hard-working American can't afford to protect himself and his family?
Sleazy, power-hungry politicians, in their goal of buying votes, in essence bribing us with our own money, distort the original meaning and intention of the "General Welfare" and "Commerce" clauses as meaning the government has the authority to do anything!
James Madison, who is considered the main author of the Constitution, should know what the words meant. He defined the "General Welfare" as:
With respect to the words, “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution…[that] was not contemplated by the creators.”
If that's not clear enough, to anybody but a politician, Thomas Jefferson succinctly and directly said:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
Some even stretch it further, making the case that it's impossible to reach life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without a government provided health insurance policy (writing it is even more absurd than saying it).
However,Benjamin Franklin wisely wrote:
“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
So, you can twist, contort, distort, and misinterpret the "General Welfare" clause until you're blue in the face, but you're doing so gives the government UNLIMITED power to control your life. You are an uninformed, naive idiot if you think that was the intention of the Founding Fathers.
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your input!