I listened to the C-Span coverage of the Senate committee led by Max Baucus (D-Montana) which slapped together the original Senate version of Obamacare. It was frustrating when Olympia Snowe voted with the Dems to get the bill on the floor.
Now that Obamacare is law, Baucus has stated what the true purpose behind the legislation is, namely redistribution of wealth, i.e., Socialism.
“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”
Sign the petition here. But also, whether you are in favor or opposed to Obamacare, you have to admit that the argument spelled out by Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli is sound:
Petition in Support of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s Suit to Overturn the Health Care Individual Mandate
WHEREAS, the health care bill recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama includes a mandate requiring Americans to purchase health care insurance, and
WHEREAS, federal officials claim that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase health care insurance, and
WHEREAS, by definition, a person who refuses to purchase is NOT engaging in interstate commerce, and
WHEREAS, a citizen who is not engaging in commerce may not be compelled to engage in commerce by the federal government, and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not regulate non-commercial activities using the commerce clause, and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has passed a law protecting Virginia’s citizens from this unconstitutional mandate,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the undersigned citizens of the United States support the lawsuit brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia to declare the health care individual mandate unconstitutional.
Why do Democrats want tax-payers to buy Viagra and other related drugs for sex offenders?
Democrats killed an amendment by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to prevent the newly created insurance exchanges from using federal money to cover Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders. The amendment failed 57-42.
Statement from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli after the U.S. House of Representatives’ passage of the Senate’s health care bill:
“The Office of the Attorney General of Virginia will move forward with our lawsuit against the federal government and its unconstitutional overreach of its authority with the passage of the federal health care bill. We will file our complaint with the court as soon as the president signs it into law.
“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce. We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.
“Virginia is in a unique situation that allows it the standing to file such a suit since Virginia is the only state so far to pass a law protecting its citizens from a government-imposed mandate to buy health insurance. The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia. Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.
“Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do. There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services.
“While we believe the health care reform bill the House just voted on suffers from constitutional problems, we do want to thank Speaker Pelosi for not trying to enact the bill through the questionable “deem and pass” procedure. By requiring an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill, she is living up to the letter of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. As someone who is sworn to protect the Constitution, she did the right thing in that regard.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in other cases that Congress cannot regulate non-commercial activities. In United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court struck down attempts to regulate non-commercial activities based upon their predicted effects on interstate commerce because those attempts went beyond the outer limits of the Commerce Clause.
The suit will be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division.
—
Godspeed, Kenneth, Godspeed.
I spent this gorgeous Saturday afternoon in D.C. with 10s of thousands of other patriots at the “Code Red Rally.” Here are some of the photos taken by my girlfriend and myself:
In the Christian obsessed with “social justice” it isn’t easy to discern whether charity is flourishing or faith is expiring.Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Glenn Beck is being criticized for telling folks to leave churches in which “social justice” is casually mentioned as a tenet or principle of the faith. News Hounds says that Progressive and Conservative religious groups are upset with Beck.
Beck is a very religious person. He talks a lot about God and Jesus on his show. The problem here, seems to be an assumption and a misunderstanding.
The assumption:
Beck has also done a lot of reading. He’s read modern and historical documents which outline Progressivism, the cancer of American politics. Anyone who has done this or similar reading, or knows the ins and outs of Progressivism, is well aware that “Social Justice” is a term used pretty much synonymously with “Socialism.”
For example, here’s a taste of how the Green Party of Canada construes ‘social justice’ (I’ll embolden key points):
We assert that the key to social justice is the equitable distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally, to meet basic human needs unconditionally, and to ensure that all citizens have full opportunities for personal and social development.
…
This requires:
a just organization of the world and a stable world economy which will close the widening gap between rich and poor, both within and between countries; balance the flow of resources from South to North; and lift the burden of debt on poor countries which prevents their development.
In other words, ‘social justice,’ here stands for redistribution of wealth under the guise of protecting the environment.
a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity and equality of outcome than may currently exist in some societies or are available to some classes in a given society.
In other words, ‘social justice,’ here, is one of the key components of Progressivism.
Beck is very excitable and often things spring from his mouth that are factually inaccurate or could be construed as such. But that is not the case here. Beck merely assumes that the sense in which he uses ‘social justice’ is understood by the constant warnings he gives about Progressives and Socialists on his show. I think this is a reasonable assumption.
We’re troubled by the extent of social breakdown today.
We’re troubled by how it afflicts individual lives and how it affects our society in general.
We’re troubled by the fact that a teenage boy going to school in one of our major cities may learn more about a life of delinquency than he does about a future filled with hope and opportunity.
We’re troubled that four out of 10 children and nearly seven out of 10 black children in America are born to unmarried mothers, a fact that will cast a long shadow down the course of a child’s life.
We’re also troubled by welfare state responses to problems like these. It’s not only that welfare state responses discourage independence and self-sufficiency and that costly programs have proven ineffective at stopping social breakdown. We’re also troubled because some of these approaches actually make people and society worse in the process. Welfare state programs have sometimes hurt the very people they were intended to help.
This group is using the same term, ‘social justice,’ not as a means of promoting Big national and, indeed, global Government, but as a the goal which a free society can achieve without becoming a welfare state.
Concerning religion, you have to determine whether or not the ‘social justice’ your religious institution advocates resembles that of the former examples or that of the latter example.
New Comments