Conffederate
Confederate

April 01, 2010

Blinded by Hate

One thing we have learned in the last few weeks is that hate speech is alive and well... on the editorial page, and directed squarely at people like you.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 1, 2010 01:14 PM
Comments

I wonder what the Nazi's would have said in there editorials in the 30's if the Jews had said they weren't wild about the attitude and policies of Hitler?

Posted by: David at April 1, 2010 01:52 PM

"... another Times columnist took up the gauntlet, smashing fury upon the unassuming mothers..."

What can one possibly say?

Posted by: Durr at April 1, 2010 03:51 PM

What Constitution?

Tuesday afternoon, Neil Cavuto interviewed Judge Andrew Napolitano about the constitutional challenges to the Democratsí health care legislation. Hereís the transcript of that conversation:

CAVUTO: So the Supreme Court might rule in our favor on this?


JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, thereís a couple of areas that are so clearly contrary to the prevailing law and the rights that the Supreme Court has said weíve had that itís hard to believe that the Court wouldnít interfere. For example, the imposition on states to spend more money on Medicare.

I was in Florida over the weekend giving a speech and speaking to some folks and one of them happened to be a Florida legislator who told me that Florida has to come up with one billion dollars more than they have. They canít borrow. They have to raise taxes and then they have to spend the billion the Congress told them. He looks at me and says ďI thought we were a sovereign entity, an independent legislature.Ē I said ďYouíre right and the Supreme Court has ruled that the congress canít take away the discretion from state legislatures, make them raise taxes and spend money theyíve collected how they want.Ē So thatís one serious area, which is one-third of the bill.


Another serious area is the individual mandate. Iím gonna quote Gov. Haley Barbour because he said it in such a pithy way. He said ďThe federal government canít tell us to buy guns. How can they tell us to buy health insurance? They canít make us wear shoes even though everybody wants to wear shoes. How can they make us buy health insurance? There is simply no authority in the Constitution.


CAVUTO: So when the administration leading Democrats say that individual states can make you buy car insurance, you say itís night day?


NAPOLITANO: Itís night & day because you donít have to own a car & youíre on a state-owned highway. This legislation requires you to, just by your very existence, to buy insurance. Suppose youíre in a hospice and about to die and youíre hopeless, do you still have to buy health insurance. Do you still have to buy health insurance? The legislation doesnít say.

The third very offensive area is this one, Neil. The Supreme Court has ruled that our right to privacy when speaking with our physician is the most protected form of conversation we can have, more than to our spouse, more than to our lawyer, more than to a priest in a confessional. When you tell your doctor, now that this bill is passed, what your health problems are, he puts it or she puts it in a computer to which the federal government has access and then the federal bureaucrat tells the doctor which procedures are available for him or her to use on you. This is a violation of the highest-ranking right of privacy.


If you knock out the bureaucratic interference, if you knock out the individual mandate, itís dead. Thereís very little left.

These arenít insignificant issues to be ignored. If the Supreme Court takes these cases and they rule in the federal governmentís favor, theyíll be ruling that states donít have the right to create their own budgets. That type of federal meddling canít be tolerated because it would give the federal government the ability to essentially turn governors and state legislatures into automatons.


The reason why Iím optimistic that the SCOTUS will overturn that offensive provision of the Democratsí health care law is because the Roberts Court understands history. They understand that the various states created the federal government, not vice versa.

Telling people that they must buy something is outlandish. The federal government canít tell us what to buy, whether itís health insurance, cars or guns. A point was made yesterday that SCOTUS ruled that it wasnít commandeering when the federal government ordered the states to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21.


The reason why that wasnít considered commandeering is because states that didnít follow the federal governmentís mandate lost 5 percent of their federal highway funds. Thatís a big difference. States that donít expand Medicaid according to the federal governmentís dictates would lose 100 percent of their Medicaid funding.


Finally, itís ironic that Democrats that howl about a womanís right to privacy in choosing an abortion now tell people that all of their medical records will be available to federal bureaucrats. Itís all the more ironic considering the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that medical privacy is the highest form of privacy recognized by SCOTUS.


The Democrats that voted for this unconstitutional monstrosity will meet with an unpleasant fate this November. This wonít be a pleasant experience for them. Thanks to their unconstitutional overreach and their repeated ignoring the will of We The People, Iím betting that alot of congressional Democrats will experience massive involuntary retirements this November.

Posted by: c wren at April 2, 2010 12:14 AM