Yes, we ARE serious.


As I write this post, we are probably no more than 24 hours away from the government taking yet another move to further control its citizens and deny individuals the freedom to do as they wish. By all reports, what little resistance the Republicans could muster in the Senate has largely melted away, and for Christmas, the United States of America will take a large step towards government control over its health care system. For Progressives and other Leftists, despite their public protestations, this is as close to their dream as they have been able to come in the one hundred plus years of the Progressive/Socialist/Communist movement.

In the laundry list of repugnant items that are in the health care bills is the individual mandate. Out of all of the items within these bills, this is the one item that does the most damage to individual liberty. For those of you living under a rock, the individual mandate portion of these bills will make it illegal to NOT have health insurance that meets the criteria that will be determined by the Federal government.  That means that the government will now make the service of a private company mandatory to own/purchase in order to be a citizen in good standing of the United States of America. This, to put it mildly, is unprecedented (and no, Liberals, car insurance is NOT the same).

To any serious student of the Constitution, and of our country’s history, there is little evidence upon which one could argue that Progressivism is aligned with the Constitution. In fact, it is hostile to any instrument which places restrictions on the state (read that the government). As our current President has lamented, the Constitution is a list of “negative rights”. It defines what the Federal government cannot do, not what it should do. As such, the Constitution is despised by collectivists of all stripes, since it shackles the very thing they rely on to force others to bend to their will.

This explains the incredulousness of Nancy Pelosi recently when she was asked where in the Constitution is the authority given to mandate that the government force people to buy a particular good or service, in this case health insurance. Her reply to the question: “Are you serious?” In so many words, this is the answer given by every Senator or Congressman that has been asked the same question. The dirty little secret in all this is that, not only is it NOT in the Constitution, they do not care that it isn’t there.

One of the biggest lies that has been promulgated by the Progressive movement is that of the “living Constitution.” Being a product of the public education system in the United States, I was fed the lie throughout my education that the Constitution has to be able to change and grow with the times. Luckily, I had some matter left between my ears after my sentence, er, education, so I was able to deduce for myself that the living Constitution thingy was a load of Leftist poo.

Luckily, the Left has felt so sure of itself over this past year that it has abandoned many of the smokescreens and double-speak that it has used for years to cover up their true intentions. So, instead of feeding us some line about constitutionality and compassion and lawyers (apparently, Mary Landrieu did not get the memo), Ms. Pelosi felt she could reveal her true derision for the Constitution.

As we approach 2010, and an election year, it is important for all those who love liberty and respect the true, original intent of the Constitution to continue keeping score. We must deliver a message that is so clear and so unmistakable, so as to be noticed by even Ms. Pelosi.  Yes, we ARE serious…now answer the question!

Cross-posted at Pro Libertate


Category: , , ,

RSS feed

4 Comments Leave a comment

They start with mandating health care and when....

JadedByPolitics (Diary) Wednesday, December 23rd at 3:52PM EST (link)

it survives court challenges (I pray it doesn’t) then WE will be on the downward spiral to complete control because at the moment EVERYTHING WE do will be mandated by the government through threat of jail or fine. The United States of America was NEVER supposed to have the government DICTATE to the people it was the people who dictated to the government and this bill in all its horror has changed the balance of power.

I suggest everyone find a good attorney because they will be the only one’s in the future making a good living off of the fines and jail sentences handed down to citizens of the United States of America by their ELECTED officials for the ACT of living.

We're having a change of model...

acat (Diary) Wednesday, December 23rd at 8:44PM EST (link)

From “Everything that is not specifically forbidden is allowed” to “Everything that is not specifically allowed is forbidden”.

Ponder, for a minute or three, where that ends.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Some argue I myself join in

avgamerican (Diary) Wednesday, December 23rd at 10:28PM EST (link)

That abortion was a cornerstone in progressive movement. It invited radical thinking to arbitrarily invent a right that could not be conceived by normal human conscientious reasoning. ANother point. Several years ago a law student called into the Rush Limbaugh show. He stated that one of his law professors stated point blank, the purpose of tort law, is the redistribution of wealth. I knew then that education was our enemy.

 
 
 

The health care debate says a lot about Progressivism

pro_libertate (Diary) Monday, December 28th at 1:34PM EST (link)

in that it is an easy example of the its desire of an activist, involved government. There are very few things more immediate to someone’s well-being (outside of the basics) than health care. If you can convince the population that it is their “right” to have health care provided, and that the only “fair” way to do it is to have government involved in it, than most other things become waypoints on the slippery slope of socialism.

The health care debate is a microcosm of the intellectual war between conservatism (or true liberalism) and progressivism/collectivism. On one side stands the individual and on the other the “group”. One side thinks the individual is primary, the other the collective.