Thursday, November 12, 2009

Buy Insurance or Go To Jail

Posted by Tom Sawyer.

For the first time in the two hundred thirty-three years of the Republic, the federal government in Washington, D.C. is poised to mandate by law that citizens (subjects) purchase a commodity. Why has this never happened in the past? There is a simple answer. It is against the law. It is unconstitutional. That little wrinkle will not stop this government however. The House, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has already passed such legislation. They did it while you were enjoying your weekend last Saturday and, hopefully (in their minds), not paying attention.

Is this the kind of transparency Obama promised? Is this the kind of health care reform Obama promised? Witness this short video.



Then there is this video, also short.



Obama, of course, is complicit.



Besides not answering the question, and thus answering it by his silence, this is the most ridiculous argumentation imaginable. Does he apply this reasoning when it comes to welfare? providing of services for illegal aliens? This man's whole ideology and political career is based upon requiring a few responsible people to carry the load for those who are irresponsible. And, now he wants people to start being responsible or he is going to fine them?

But is it fair to send people to jail who refuse to buy a government-mandated commodity? Nancy Pelosi thinks so:






The thirteen colonies declared independence from the crown for lesser grievances.


4 comments:

Allen Lewis said...

I would not necessarily say that this act is unprecedented. The state forces us to pay for things we don't want or need all the time. I'm decidedly anti-war, but I can't check a box on my 1040 to get conscientious objector status. I am vehemently against government-run schools, but I have to pay for the Department of Education. If I had my way I would not pay for anything in the economic "stimulus" bill.

The cold, hard fact is the state makes its subjects pay for things they don't want or need all the time; that is basically what it does.

The difference this time is that our betters in Washington have proposed a system whereby the people get temporary access to their money before it is seized through legal plunder. Instead of lumping the cost in with all the other unconstitutional government spending via a pure socialized system, the criminals have decided to risk a revolt when people realize they have to physically write a check.

And that fact gives me HOPE.

Tom Sawyer said...

Valid points. This bill still has several check-points to get past, including the Senate, some sort of reconciliation for the two differing bills, a signing, then perhaps (is it too much to hope for?) a battle with some states who are mumbling about nullification.

I want nothing to do with it. Is there no other shore to flee to when tyranny reigns here?

James Spurgeon said...

There is a distinct difference, however, between what the House just did and what Allen cites. This new legislation is a step beyond. It is more brazen. Whereas in the past they have cloaked their ability to force us to pay for things we do not want, now they have flaunted it.

Am I wrong?

Allen Lewis said...

That's right...this differs only in level of arrogance.