A blog at the Atlanta Journal Constitution asks a question about whether “ObamaCare” is a disparaging word. Extreme liberal Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz from Florida thinks so and got into a huff about it. She felt it was important enough to pick at this that she had to interrupt a colleague’s speech (hey, I thought interruptions earn a nasty glare from her leader, Pelosi?) and unintentionally cause a video clip to be floated around the blogosphere. The previously unknown Congressman Graves got a bunch of free publicity, as did his interrupted speech. The speech would have been completely ignored had it not been for the esteemed Florida Democrat’s helpful interruption. Thanks for the promotional entertainment, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

As an opponent to the multithousand page boondoggle that was rammed through Congress without initially giving a chance for the Democrat rubber stampers (some of whom were later shellacked) to even read and digest it, my opinion is that you can call skunk cabbage by whatever lengthy name you want and it still stinks. But let’s face it, everyone knows what one means mean when they say “ObamaCare.” It just rolls off the tongue so easily. Unfortunately, when Congresspersons bloviate on the House floor, they have limited time. Repeatedly saying “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” takes precious seconds away from the allotted time for pontificating. “ObamaCare” is short, simple, and to the point. Democrats would have more time if they would just use it like some Republicans.

But beyond that, was it not Obama’s signature issue to force all citizens to pay big insurers by the month as a sort of “life tax,” and give the Secretary of Health and Human Services nearly limitless power over our personal health decisions (note the multithousand page bill has hundreds of places where it allows the HHS Secretary to promulgate regulations — growing a boondoggle of a few thousand pages into tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages!)? So, with that said, why would anyone consider the term “ObamaCare” to be disparaging? It was his major goal and he achieved it via massive Democrat control of Congress due to the 2008 “hope and change” hysteria, um, I mean election, as well as things like the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback. He should be proud of that achievement and rightfully take credit. Afterall, this is the president who has been merchandised like no other, from dolls to collector plates to collector coins (not legal tender) to just about everything. He’s a mega super star, the biggest modern celebrity we’ve ever had as president. But with 2012 fast approaching, the guy is going to need more marketing. Get those plates and coins rolling out of the likely Chinese factories again. Fly him all over the country (at our expense this time) and at each stop get him before his teleprompter so he can read phrases like “hope and change” and “yes we can” to mesmerized zombies. There’s never enough money to do it all in a campaign, and those presidential campaigns need all the money they can get. So really, saying “ObamaCare” is just free advertising for him. It reminds people of Obama and the “health care” bill brought to us by he and his party. Why balk at a freebie?

Seriously, visit West Virginia and you’ll find many things named after Robert Byrd. If he didn’t mind putting his name on things the pork projects he championed for West Virginia, why should Obama shy away from having his name on his signature issue? As we are constantly being told how great it is and taxpayers are funding commercials promoting it, OF COURSE Obama should want his name on it!

So, anyway, Wasserman Schultz was funny as usual. As she is OBVIOUSLY sensitive about the term “ObamaCare” and declares it to be “disparaging,” I’d like to get her take on people who call governors “NAZIs” and such…

You may know it as the current Health Care Reform Bill that just passed in the Senate, but others know it by another name: The Nebraska Compromise. The reason it’s being called The Nebraska Compromise is because Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska , in an effort to bring home some bacon for his State, sold his vote on the Health Care Reform Bill in exchange for his State being exempt from paying the increased Medicaid Taxes that this bill would levy on each of the 50 States. It should also be noted that Nelson isn’t the only Senator who garnered favorable terms for his State in exchange for his vote. The States of Vermont Louisiana and Massachusetts were also successful in selling their votes on the floor of the Senate.

What has our nation turned into? The image that I see before me is not that of the United States of America, but it is that of a Divided States of America, where our elected officials resemble auctioneers selling their votes to the highest bidders more than they resemble legislators. They used to just sell us out to corporations, but now they sell us out to other States as well.

The question as to whether this is Constitutional or not is indeed an interesting one, but one that is easily answered nonetheless.

Article I Section 9

Limits on Congress

“No capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”.

This part of the Constitution was CLEARLY written to prevent uneven taxation by the federal government. The premise of “no taxation without representation” was what our nation was founded upon. Article I Section 9 takes things a step further and says that we have a right to “equal representation for equal taxation”. How is it that this right NOT being infringed upon by our Senators buying and selling their vote in exchange for unequal taxation. Does this not amount to taxation without representation? Are we not paying the tax burden for Nebraska, Vermont, Louisiana, and Massachusetts with regard to this bill? Because the other 46 States are not represented by the Senators from Nebraska, Vermont, Louisiana or Massachusetts, this DOES amount to taxation without representation.

The 16th Amendment

The Federalists Overturn Article I Section 9

Outraged yet? Well, get ready for more; I’m not finished. Legally, it does not matter if the federal government taxes one state more heavily than the other. Since FDR and the Congress passed the 16th Amendment, you no longer have a right to equal representation for equal taxation. The 16th Amendment, which was created to impose an income tax on the American people on April 8th, 1913 also stated that such income tax may be imposed “without regard to census or enumeration.”, which in laymen’s terms means that you can be taxed regardless of whether or not you are represented.

While this only pertains to income tax, we have seen in recent years where Federalists have “interpreted” the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean rather than to mean what it actually says. I would bet that the lawsuits coming from the State of South Carolina with regard to The Nebraska Compromise will fall on deaf Federalist Court ears because they will “interpret” the 16th Amendment to carry over onto other forms of taxation as well. In short, you and I are likely in for a wild ride unless the Congress repeals and rewrites the 16th Amendment.

The Federalists have turned the respective floors of the House and Senate into an auction block. Do I hear $5.00? I’ve got $5.00. Do I hear 10? I have 10. Do I hear $20.00? I hear FORTY FIVE MILLION dollars… going once, going twice, going three times… the Senate is SOLD for FORTY FIVE MILLION dollars!!!!

This concludes Anti-Federalist No. 2