How to respond to treasonous rhetoric challenging the Great Healthcare Bill

Many of us taking part in the glorious revolution for the implementation of a truly fair and equal system of communism have been confronted with facts and logical arguments against healthcare.  They are correct in their theories of massive government debt, massive takeover of private industry and a mandates that are wholly unconstitutional.  Although they are correct, they fail to see that we just don’t care.  This does not matter in a communist form of government.  They will not persuade us.

In order to counteract these arguments, and prevent them from swaying the naïve and the independents in this country, I have compiled a list of Central Party approved comebacks.  These are to be used on forums, comment sections, and in conversations around the soon  to be obsolete water cooler.

“Why don’t you want people to be able to go see a doctor when they are sick?”

“Why do you want people’s health insurance dropped when they get sick?”

“Why should only the rich get to see a doctor?”

“Why do you want the child with cancer to be denied the best healthcare because the insurance companies decided he has a preexisting condition?”

“Why do you hate poor people?”

“Why are you racist?”

“What is wrong with having a black president?”

These comebacks are just a few of what you can use.  Be creative, and feel free to use these whenever a logical argument comes up.

Now, we need to realize that the opponents of healthcare know that the insurance system in this country needs a serious overhaul.  And many of them want everyone to be able to get affordable healthcare.  But we cannot let others know that this is what they think.  We must paint them as uncaring people who hate poor people and minorities, and like the healthcare system the way it is because it makes them rich.  If they counteract your comebacks with more fact-based logical arguments, then it is time to pull out the race card.  Feel free to use the race card liberally. 

Latah!

Unfounded Facist Claims Addressed!

I have heard a number of claims that this new Healthcare Bill is unconstitutional. Really!? Why, it is not unconstitutional, it falls right into the bounds of the Venezuelan Constitution. And really, I think people do not give it enough credit, it is not a nationalization of healthcare. It is more conservative than that. The democrats had to make a lot of concessions to the bigwig fatcat rich republicans and that is why it does not reflect the values of the Cuban constitution. We after all are a melting pot of nationalities each with it's own special values and culture. Why not add a little Cuban here, and a little Venezuelan there. Perhaps if you do not think so, you are racist.
Another issue that concerns me is when the rich fatcat racist that oppose this bill talk of mandates. Of course state governments have forced people to buy car insurance! What is the difference?! And before you say- well, if you don't own a car, or if you do not drive, you are not required to buy car insurance- I say "Don't confuse me with facts!"
Das Vedanya!

Welcome to the new Workers Paradise!

Change has happened! A glorious revolution has taken place! Let us all rejoice and bask in the light of a new workers paradise! Sunday night the people spoke! All 219 of them! We are now fighting back against the facist businesses that oppress the worker! We can now take money from the fatcat rich and give it to the rightful heirs- the 219 people of the United States. From now on the masses of facist drones will no longer be able to tell the 219 citizens of the United States what to do. We have won! Embrace the change!

2 questions for our congresspeople

I just want to ask all of the elected officials in Washington 2 questions-

1.        Is the current Healthcare bill before you an issue of “moral principle”?

2.       If yes, then is the moral aspect of the legislation important enough to bypass democratic principles for the greater good?

The answers to these questions would be very telling.  I have a suspicion that democrats have convinced themselves that this is an issue of morality, and therefore should not be subject to Constitutional guidelines and principles, not to mention basic representation of elected leaders in this Republic of ours.  Which brings up another important point, one that is greater than the healthcare bill, it would confirm at least to me, the disdain liberals have for the Constitution, not to mention fundamental human liberties.

 

I have to admit that I have been fairly optimistic the last few months, that common sense will prevail.  That democrats, especially those in the House, would push back against Pelosi for their own political future.  It is clear that a majority of Americans do not want this bill passed.  It is also extremely clear that less than 1/5 of Americans think what congress is doing is good.  Less than 1 out of every 5 people do not like congress.  That means even that one person still has a right arm that disagrees with congress.  Now I am convinced that the democrats just plain don’t care.  More importantly, Obama and Pelosi DO NOT CARE what we think.  All of you that voted for Obama- do you realize that he has treated you like a cheap prostitute?  You have been used, and promptly tossed aside.  What’s worse is he didn’t even pay.  He has shown that he does not even want to waste his time listening to you.  Now think back to the past year.  Over the summer recess with all the town halls, I was convinced that healthcare was DOA.  Wrong.  Even after getting yelled at, they still passed it.  Scott Brown was elected, and they lost their filibuster proof majority- once again, thought the issue was over.  Obama in his State of the Union told us he was focused too much on healthcare and 2010 would be the year of Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs.  I thought, ok, this is his way of trying to bow out without egg on his face, and perhaps he will wait until after the midterm elections to start it up again.  Wrong.  This whole thing is spiraling out of control, and quickly.  I believe they are prepared to do what is ever necessary to get this bill passed.  Mark my words, and I hope I am wrong, but if this thing does not pass Sunday, it is not the end of it.  This is going to go on and on, until finally I fully believe the Constitution and all legislative precedent will be thrown out the window, and this will become the law of the land.  I don’t know how they could do it, but I have no doubt it will at least be attempted.  And when that happens, I think we are going to see the so called “populist rage” come to a boiling point.  For the first time I am really quite concerned about what the future will be.  I am not scared, just concerned.  Things will get ugly.  Things will get hard.

We read in the Book of Mormon that at one point the people would “contend warmly” with each other, and eventually that turned into blows.  Physical fighting over things.  We are not there yet, but I think we are close.

Now that I have sounded very alarmist- let me tell you that although I am concerned, I really have no fear.  We are prepared, not physically, but spiritually.  We are not perfect, far, far from it.  But we are doing the seminary things, and  I can attest to the comfort that having the gospel be the center focus in your life reaps some amazing benefits.  I hope and pray that some cooler, calmer heads will prevail in all of this.  That those around us, those we elect will recognize what this is doing to this country, and put a stop to this fever pitch.  But, if not, we will make it through.  I have always told Sharel that all we really need in life is to be able to make and keep covenants.  The world can fall apart around us, but as long as we can make and keep our covenants, we will be ok.

 

Anyway- PEACE, I’M OUT!

a confession...

Joe Biden.  I have to admit I like him.  Now, I know he is part of the Obama administration, but I just can’t help but to like him.  I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, but he seems like the kind of guy I could sit down to dinner with and have a good time.  All of these gaffes he makes- they are funny, and mostly harmless.  And he knows what kind of idiotic things he says.  I don’t hold it against him, heaven knows Bush wasn’t the “great communicator” either.

Personally, I don’t think Biden is part of Obama’s inner circle.  He seems to be much more of a Harry Truman to FDR, than a Cheney to Bush.  For those unfamiliar, FDR appointed Truman for pure political points, and the two never spoke much and Truman was largely left out of the loop on matters.  I almost get the feeling that Obama was advised to get Biden, precisely because Biden is such a likeable, friendly guy to counterbalance Obama’s robot heart.  But, it’s all speculation.  If I find out that Biden has the same designs as Obama, I will be terribly upset.

An open letter...

Dear Nancy Pelosi,

I understand where you are coming from.  I understand that you live in and represent the people of the San Francisco area.  I understand that most people living to the east of the great intellectual bastion of San Francisco resemble at best the Beverly Hillbillies, and at worst the deviant mountain folk portrayed in “Deliverance”.  And perhaps, somewhere in the middle, we mostly resemble the people in Patrick Swayze’s epic “Next of Kin”.

I know that we are not as smart as you, that our inferior thinking and logic make it difficult to understand what is best for us.  I know such outdated ideas such as religion, the Constitution and free will really stand in the way of you doing what is best for us.  So I understand why you would want to circumvent voting on something as important as the Healthcare bill.  If I thought the way that you do, I wouldn’t want to let something as insignificant as allowing representatives of the people to vote on this legislation either.  And, I certainly don’t blame you for wanting to remove accountability from the process.  Us dumb rubes out here in flyover country are sure to not re-elect anyone voting for this bill.  So why not try and shield them from it?  It seems perfectly reasonable to me.  After all, we are too dumb to really know  what is good for us.  And to hell with the idea of a representative republic.  As your esteemed colleague Thomas Friedman pointed out- a two party system, and a system of representatives really hampers the government from doing what is important and best for their citizens.  So, I say why stop here.  Who cares about rules, who cares about voting?  Why not just pronounce the legislation passed, even without enacting the ‘deem and pass’ rule.  That way everyone in the House can say with a certain amount of technical honesty that they did not vote for it.  Imagine 435 representatives each announcing that they did not vote for what has become the law of the land.  Wouldn’t that be great?  Talk about change, LOL!  That way us dumb hillbillies would still re-elect them.  Furthermore, I think that whoever is there now, (not republicans of course) should just announce that they have been appointed to represent their district for life by you, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  That way they wouldn’t even have to run for office ever again!  I really think you should get together with Harry Reid and Mr. Obama on this.  Feel free to run with it.  Eventually the dumb-dumb’s  of middle America will forget about it, and think that is the way it has always been.  Perhaps you could get some of your friends in Hollywood, like Matt Damon and Tom Hanks, to do a movie about the constitutional convention of 1787.  In it you can tell the real story of what is in the Constitution.  Why you could do this in one of two ways- first it could be a film about a bunch of angry white men who wanted to preserve their dominance and power of women and other people who “didn’t look like them”.  The second way you could do this would be to tell what “really” happened at the convention (wink wink).  How the founding fathers and the constitution do not talk about a representative republic at all, but a government that had the power and ability to do what is best for people, even if they don’t know themselves, like the government of Cuba!  But, I am sure you already know all this.  I guess I am writing you show my support for a fundamental transformation of our country from a republic to a totalitarian form.  I am with you.  Good luck in you endeavors.

Yours truly,

Danny

P.S.- when you have a movie made about your greatness, might I suggest Cheri Oteri to play you.  She does the wide eyed, creepy hyper thing well.

"One’s life, therefore, cannot be both faith-filled and stress-free. Therefore, how can you and I really expect to glide naively through life, as if to say, “Lord, give me experience, but not grief, not sorrow, not pain, not opposition, not betrayal, and certainly not to be forsaken. Keep from me, Lord, all those experiences which made Thee what Thou art! Then let me come and dwell with Thee and fully share Thy joy!” - Elder Neal A. Maxwell

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp

more gun talk

Spencer- I agree with your assessment.  I was reading the arguments made, and I know, who wants to do that, but I find reading opinions and what not interesting.  Anyway, the arguments being made are not being made under the 14^th amendment- the due process clause.  The argument is about “ordered liberty”, or rather is this a fundamental human right that does not derive it’s authority from the constitution?  Not all amendments in the bill of rights are applicable to the 14^th amendment.  For example, States do not have to adhere to the trial by jury clause.  There are many states that have different standards as far as trials go. Most states do have trial by jury, but they are not required to under the constitution.  Up until the early 1900’s, searches and seizures were only applicable to the Federal Government and Federal law enforcement.  I am a firm believer that the framers of the constitution set it up to limit Federal power, not necessarily state power.

The idea of “ordered liberty” is that there are some rights that are more fundamental than others, and because they are more fundamental than others, they apply to the states without the need for justification under the 14^th amendment.  Reading the arguments, it seems the Court is not too happy with the argument, they would have rather had it argued under due process.

I think they will eventually shoot down the ban, however.  I am looking forward to reading the majority opinion.

 

An interesting observation- each judge seems to be prodding the counsel to argue the way they want it argued.  It’s almost like they are trying to lead the lawyers with stuff lie- “but aren’t you really trying to say…, wouldn’t you agree…”  Just interesting.

 

Some Obamamama news-

I can’t decide whether his administration is suffering from amateur hour at the White House, or rather the arrogance of the Supreme Leader is on display.  My emotional gut feeling is that it is arrogance, but my logical synapses’ are telling me it is Amateur Hour at the White House.

-          The administration telling us not to pay attention to the job numbers coming out, because the snow storm is likely to skew them.

-          State of the Union- “2010 the focus is on jobs!”  January to April 2010- “focus on Health Care!”

-          Robert Gibbs.  Nuff said.

-          Health Care Summit-Obama to Republican congressman who had the 2400 page health care bill “stop with the props.” Yesterday white lab coats behind Obamamama as he discussed healthcare (props, anyone?)

-          Contracts from the “stimulus bill” on green jobs is going to create 3000 new green jobs- in China.

-          2007- reconciliation on major policy allows one party to be totalitarian in nature, it is not what the framers of the constitution had in mind.  2010- use reconciliation to have this large piece of policy legislation passed. (that was Obama, BTW)

You tell me- arrogance that he can say or do anything and no one will either a. notice or b. care? Or is it a complete lack of professionalism and an overwhelming dose of amateur hour- and I mean not only Obama but his staff.

Peace-I’m out

The right to bear arms...

So…the Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in  McDonald v. City of Chicago.  For those of you who haven’t the faintest idea of what I am talking about, this is a very prominent 2^nd amendment case.  The previous famous case of a year or two ago, Heller v. DC was landmark in nature, as the Court found that the 2^nd amendment articulated a fundamental right to self defense.  But, the decision only applied to the Federal gov’t.  This new case asks the Court to apply the Heller ruling to the states, something in legal mumbo jumbo called incorporation.  Chicago has a total ban on all handguns, and Mr. Otis McDonald challenged the ban under the Heller ruling.  So, now you know what I am talking about.

 

Believe it or not, I am not sure how I feel about this case.  I further submit that this case has given all parties involved a severe identity crisis.

Lemme’ ‘splain- fundamental brass tacks- this case has nothing to do with the 2^nd amendment, but rather states rights.  Conservative peoples who favor a fundamental right to have guns and shoot stuff also tend to favor a Federal govmint that stays out of states bizness.  Liberal peoples who quake at the very sight of a firearm tend to favor a large central Federal govmint that has its hands in all sorts of nuances of everyday life.  Here is where the identity crisis is rearing it’s confused head- the liberal I-just-peed-my-pants-I-saw-a-gun are arguing for the Federal gov’t to stay out of state and local gov’t business, while the lets-watch-NASCAR-and-then-shoot-stuff crowd wants Federal intervention into State issues. 

While I completely agree that the right to self defense is a God given right, and so in that light it should be applied to the states just as the Due Process rights are, I do pause however at the notion that a state cannot enact it’s own laws.  I would be a hypocrite if I said it was ok for the Feds to force the states to allow handguns under the 2^nd amendment, but on the other hand say the Feds should stay out of the whole marriage thing and let the states decide for themselves.  If you don’t like California’s restrictions on guns, then don’t live there (and for a myriad of other reasons, you should move out anyway), same thing with Chicago.  Let these liberal bastions of…liberalness, uh…reap what they have sown.  It seems plain to me that these areas are falling apart rapidly- Detroit, Chicago, DC, etc.  These are cities that are run by people just to the right of Karl Marx, and they have extremely high crime, high taxes, and are on the verge of bankruptcy.  Let them fail.  Let their crime rates increase to the point of no return.  Please, please let them fail.  If you value your life, and want to be able to keep a firearm in the home for self defense- don’t live in these cities.  Let them implode like the Soviet Union.

Even with the same sex marriage issue, I don’t like the idea of a constitutional amendment.  I think every state should decide for themselves.  And in almost every state where it has been put to a vote, the voters have rejected the idea of same-sex marriage.  In most of the states that allow it, it was the decision of a handful of people on the courts- which is very wrong for a plethora of reasons.

I too am torn, I suppose after thinking about it, I would rather have the Heller decision incorporated into the states, than allow places like Chicago to be a little authoritarian society.  Especially if I believe the right to bear arms to be a fundamental right.  But I am still very confused…

What do you think?  I am actually curious to hear what the 3 people who read this blog think…