NANCY PELOSI ON HEALTH CARE: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Fox News reporter gets into trouble for referring to Chuckles Rangel as a Harlem Democrat – claiming racism. Duuude – it's his district!

Then there's this: “Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it.”

Or how about: Pelosi Proclaims Maddow 'Nonpartisan,'

Over at Big Government Ron Futrell has a nice piece up: Constitution? The MSM Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution!

My takeway is his dissection of what the "general welfare" clause of the Preamble to the Constitution does and doesn't mean. To wit:

Some have used the “general welfare” clause in the Preamble to the Constitution to make the case for healthcare. It goes something like this; “since it says in the Constitution that the government should promote the general welfare, then that clearly means the government should do what it’s supposed to do to help us citizens.”

First, it’s in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble was never meant by the Founders to be legally binding and never has been. It was used once in an insignificant case, but precedence has never been established. Second, what does “promote the general welfare” mean? Does it mean healthcare? What about food for everybody? How about housing? Wouldn’t it promote the general welfare if we all had transportation? How about free Ferris wheel rides?

Promoting the general welfare, as written in the Preamble to the Constitution was so vague as to be meaningless to anything specific. Here’s James Madison on that. It’s a long quote, but always relevant.

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

Thank you President Madison. You were soft-spoken and regarded by some as “no bigger than a piece of soap,” but your words pack a punch—especially today. People just need to read them.

Occasionally you will hear Republicans say this healthcare bill is unconstitutional, but they do not say it nearly enough. Democrats never say it. In fact, I don’t recall hearing Democrats say much about the Constitution lately. It’s packed away in that glass case in the National Archives.

Healthcare is unconstitutional for at least two reasons. 1) You can’t tell Americans they have to buy something. This bill does that. You go to jail and/or pay fines if you do not.  2) The Tenth Amendment. That says if it ain’t written specially in this document, then you leave it to the states to do it. Read Madison’s quote again if this is confusing to you. Or, better yet, read the tenth amendment and tell me that it doesn’t say what I just paraphrased for you.

If Democrats want healthcare, they should amend the Constitution. FDR tried a similar plan in 1944 with his “Second Bill of Rights”, although he didn’t want to go the Constitutional route; he wanted to go the legislative route. He knew it wouldn’t survive the rigorous amendment process. Democrats know that today, that’s why they will never discuss making healthcare part of the Constitution. They will try to ram it down our throats and use their Leftist Activist Media Boobs (LAMBS) to do it. Republicans should suggest the Democrats try the Constitutional route on healthcare.

Now that would be some real entertainment for the cable shows. Certainly it would fill that 24 hour cycle.

Alice in Wonderland:

Saw it in 3-d with D yesterday. Good movie. GREAT costumes. GREAT makeup. Admirably performed. Depp was a bit of a disappointment but it wasn't his fault. A very good “look and feel” with a lot of touches harkening back to the original illustrations from Mssr. C himself. Biggest complaint: it was a 2d movie made with a 3d camera.

everything will go FINE here ...

Neglected by ‘lazy’ nurses, man, 22, dying of thirst rang the police to beg for water. “A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital. Kane Gorny was so desperate for a drink that he rang police to beg for their help. They arrived on the ward only to be told by doctors that everything was under control. The next day his mother Rita Cronin found him delirious and he died within hours.”

Health care is a right? Not really and here's why ….

A “right,” in the traditional American lexicon laid out by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, is something that exists by virtue of our humanity. It is “inalienable” and we are endowed with these rights by our creator. No government or institution has the power to take away these rights. You exist, therefore these rights exist.

Remember, the Soviet Union declared that its citizens had the right to everything from a home to a job. How’d that work out for them?

“B-b-b-b-b-but!,” scream the leftists. “Insurance companies can already deny you health care.”

No, they can’t. Insurance companies are certainly part of the problem. We’ve grown to depend on them too much and on ourselves too little. The system does need to be fixed. But insurance companies cannot deny you the inalienable ”right” to health care. They do not have that power. They can only choose not to pay for certain procedures. You can still find another insurance company, seek help in a different state, find a charitable doctor to pay for it, benefit from a fundraiser or, worst-case scenario, benefit from the generosity of a well-funded, for-profit private health care institution. After all, you still have the “right” to find that care. Even in a worst-case scenario in the current system, you only need the means.

But when government monopolizes the system, when government first decides what kind of care you’ll get, and when government next decides if they’ll even pay for it, your right to health care no longer exists.

At best, your rights will be forced underground into a health care black market: doctors illegally providing care in a cash-only medical economy – but probably one better than the legit “health care” system where patients have no rights but those regally gifted to them by the lords of big government (who, themselves, will never be denied care).

excerpted from Health Care and the Left’s Perverted Definition of ‘Rights’

Had a POTUS who had this big an ego? Who put himself THIS far ahead of he good of he country? I suppose it could be argued that perhaps Nixon did but is that really who the Donks want their guy modeled after?

President Obama's message to progressives who are dissatisfied with the Senate health care bill is two fold: First: Don't forget about the uninsured. Second: Don't forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency.

Throwing shoes at GWB showed how much the world hated us?

Remember when electing Obama was going to change all that?

Remember when “the world loves us now”?

Me neither!

They are. Of course it's the bigotry, ignorance and racism exhibited/practiced by the Donk's that's motivating it, but that's obviously beside the (missed) point.

but nobody wants to play.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ON CALIFORNIA’S DRONISM: “The well-off like nice cars, tasteful homes, good food, and appropriate vacations — but not the oil, gas, coal, nuclear energy, transmission lines, timber, cement, farmland, water pumps, etc., that bring that to them. . . . The less well-off want their versions of the same things — cool clothes, good music players, neat cell phones, the best plasma TVs, blue-ray players, video games — but are not interested in the hard study and discipline necessary for a society to create the sort of educated work force that makes and deserves such appurtenances.”