MO Says “NO!”, BO Says “SO?”

Missouri voters gave a resounding “NO!” vote to ObamaCare’s individual mandate, 71.1 percent to 28.9 percent, an overwhelming MANDATE of 42.2 percent (As opposed to BHO’s “mandate” of 7.3 percent). The DNC Chair said very clearly that the individual mandate in ObamaCare will not survive because either the Courts will find it unconstitutional or the People will throw it out. “Baghdad Bob” Gibbs, speaking for BHO, upon being asked the meaning of MO’s resounding “NO!” to the individual mandate, said “Nothing.”

Now, BHO has already personally avowed his radical, Marxist bona fides and gave proofs of such bona fides. And that is a real problem for Democrats who are trying to get re-elected. Many of them have declared BHO persona non grata in their re-election campaigns.

Virginia filed suit against ObamaCare and the Obama administration tried to have it dismissed. The judge said, basically, “sorry ’bout yer luck” as the case moves forward. (Evidence of Obama’s lack of concern for the Tenth Amendment.)

During the campaign, Obama spoke derisively of Christians and gun-owners, calling them “bitter clingers”. (Evidence of Obama’s disgust for the First and Second Amendments.)

It is very clear Obama wants what he wants, the People and the Constitution be damned.

HT Foxfier for finding neo-neocon’s article.

9 Comments

  1. No, Hitchcock, you and Foxfier and neo-neocon and a few others have stooped to the level of Obama demonizers. It’s all black, no white, isn’t it. Not a good word about the man and his record to date — which is the telling sign to identify you radical righties.

    There is nothing unconstitutional about mandates, since we already have many, like income tax, other taxes, like required tests for drivers licenses, like liquor licenses, on and on, mandates are numerous.

    No one really likes mandates, therefore should the MO vote be surprising? Not to me. Of interest to me is that not one single one of you righties have come up with a remedy for our skyrocketing medical care costs, let alone making affordable insurance available to the currently uninsured.

    I think we are seeing in MO, VA, and elsewhere is the unfortunate effectiveness of he right wing media hate mongers who are taking full advantage of the blame game when we, as a nation, find ourselves facing really hard times financially and job-wise. Instead of holding themselves accountable for past policy mistakes, and working with Dems on remedies, they have been successful in demonizing Dems who are trying to make things better. What about Repubs who have been uncooperative in remediating the mess they themselves caused? Not a word about that!

    So you people are quite successful so far, most unfortunately, with your nasty and false rhetoric in dragging our country further toward chaos and violence, in my view.

  2. dragging our country further toward chaos and violence

    The anarchist who was paid 500 USD by the Democrat Party, who also tried to blow up a Democrat Party HQ in Colorado.
    SEIU thugs who beat up a disabled black man at a Town Hall protest.
    SEIU thug who BIT OFF a finger of a WWII vet out west.
    New Black Panther Party showing up at a Phila. polling site with a nightstick and intimidating language, scaring voters away from the polls.
    New Black Panther Party declaring blacks need to “kill crackers” and “kill cracker babies.”
    SEIU thugs preventing others from even entering the “town halls” during the “town hall” meetings.
    Weather Underground blew up federal buildings, killed cops, robbed a bank truck, declared 20 percent of US citizens would have to be killed to get their agenda. (Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, others in Obama’s inner circle)

    Yes, I know where the violence comes from, and it ain’t from us Constitution lovers.

  3. Since there is a specific constitutional amendment creating income taxes, your point there is moot and frivolous. Since the Constitution specifically allows for “other taxes”, your point there is also moot and frivolous. Since nobody is required to drive or even have a driver’s license, your point regarding that is also moot and frivolous. Since nobody is required to buy or sell alcohol, your point there is also moot and frivolous.

    I think we are seeing in MO, VA, and elsewhere is the unfortunate effectiveness of he right wing media

    What? ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NYT, LAT, WaPo, HuffPo, Kos, JournoList, Cabalist, etc, ad infinitum aren’t good enough? They combined can’t beat FOX News and talk radio? Seems to me the people are seeing through your lies and distortions.

  4. Perry wrote:

    There is nothing unconstitutional about mandates, since we already have many, like income tax, other taxes, like required tests for drivers licenses, like liquor licenses, on and on, mandates are numerous.

    But you can avoid mandates like automobile insurance if you choose not to own a car; by choosing to drive and using the public roads, you are subjecting yourself to that restriction.

    This is different: the mandate applies to you for simply living. It isn’t a tax, in that it is paid to a private insurer, yet the penalty for non-compliance is a fine imposed by the government, and collected by the Infernal Revenue Service. You might not wish to simply state that it is unconstitutional; a lot of other people, well informed on the subject, suspect that the courts might see it differently.

    And this, both from the same comment, shows that even you have doubts:

    No one really likes mandates, therefore should the MO vote be surprising? Not to me. . . .

    I think we are seeing in MO, VA, and elsewhere is the unfortunate effectiveness of he right wing media

    You recognize that “no one” really likes government telling them what they must do, yet you blame people expressing that on “the unfortunate effectiveness of he right wing media.” You seem to have swallowed the “resistance is futile” line here, Perry, because you like the idea of government-mandated insurance, but not everyone does, and not everyone believes that they will be assimilated.

    A fact you really should understand: the vast majority of Americans already have health care coverage, around five out of every six of us, so the mandate that we buy insurance simply means that we should continue to do what we already decided to do. Yet a majority of Americans don’t like the idea of the government forcing them to do what they already think is wise, and do on their own. We have a libertarian (small l, not Libertarian) streak in us, Perry: it’s part of our history and our culture. What the Democrats have done is to impose upon an unwilling population something that goes wholly against our culture . . . and the Democrats will pay a political price for it.

  5. And Patterico has the story up which notes that, in our voluminous new health care law, “health care” itself is never actually defined. Of course, it was the lovely Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who said that we would have to pass it to find out what was in it.

  6. Nasty Nancy at her most imperious:

    Last November, a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if it was constitutional for Congress to require Americans to buy health insurance. Ms. Pelosi responded, “Are you serious?”

    On Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson got serious. He denied Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia challenging the new health law. His ruling stated that it is far from certain Congress has the authority to compel Americans to buy insurance and penalize those who don’t.

    Judge Hudson’s ruling paved the way for a trial to begin on October 18, with possible appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, a lengthy process. Some states will likely delay creating insurance exchanges and slow down other costly preparations for ObamaCare until its constitutionality is determined by this case.

  7. My comment above, beginning at the second paragraph, should have identified the writer as Betsy McCaughey of the Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2010. The headline reads, “ObamaCare and the Constitution – An Update” Only the first sentence is mine, the balance is McCaughey’s.

Comments are closed.