tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8646794084908390926.post5780464514838787826..comments2023-10-28T03:20:06.617-05:00Comments on In Defense of the Constitution: Obamacare: Unconstitutional Legislation Passed on Unconstiutional GroundsDarylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188962844511245404noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8646794084908390926.post-56328254105313416472010-03-23T20:19:11.527-05:002010-03-23T20:19:11.527-05:00Indeed, it was a monstrosity, but that is no excus...Indeed, it was a monstrosity, but that is no excuse for any "aye" vote. Minds should have been made up months ago. Obamacare is repugnant to the Constitution and to a free society.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17188962844511245404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8646794084908390926.post-3315087706293291402010-03-23T19:47:07.407-05:002010-03-23T19:47:07.407-05:00Rather than focusing on the pro-life/pro-choice di...Rather than focusing on the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy, I would hope that people would note the standard-issue cult-and-communist "reprogramming"/"re-education" methods which were deployed in order to secure passage of the original House bill and now of the final monstrosity. Our Representatives were confined to chambers, isolated from their friends, family, staff and support structure (and most importantly, isolated from contact with their constituents). They were forced to keep inhumanly long hours, which degrades their judgment and introduces the devil's deal of agreeing to the unconscionable in order to secure near-term rest for themselves. Isolation and sleep deprivation are used by evil-doers who desire to force their victims to act against their principles. These tactics should be banned from the halls of Congress; they're un-American, anti-Liberty and lead to the very WORST legislation becoming law. I'm just sick at the news that this nightmare now has force of law.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15833744984009969953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8646794084908390926.post-8556877269961536962010-03-22T19:34:22.835-05:002010-03-22T19:34:22.835-05:00Muichimotsu-I read you post and am in agreement fo...Muichimotsu-I read you post and am in agreement for the most part. Like all terms used in public discourse, they often fail to properly describe true positions and are instead merely political tools. <br /><br />My point in the post was to be less about Stupak's convictions and more about the use of an executive order to pacify so called "pro-life" legislators, though I did touch on a bit more.<br /><br />Since you ask, I would say that if by "pro-life" we mean anti-abortion, then Stupak has showed that he is not too concerned with preventing federal abortion funding and therefore not consistently "pro-life" according to what he has previously said. The video I posted today is quite telling: http://indefenseoftheconstitution.blogspot.com/2010/03/stupak-is-man-of-his-word.html. <br /><br />Mike-Thanks for sharing. Telling words on the issue.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17188962844511245404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8646794084908390926.post-3731197371386650702010-03-22T17:20:35.246-05:002010-03-22T17:20:35.246-05:00check out what planned parenthood ceo had to say a...check out what planned parenthood ceo had to say about the matter of the "exective order"<br /><br />"...Nonetheless, we regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.<br /><br />What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) had insisted upon. So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban."<br /><br />WOW!!! <br /><br />http://bryankemper.com/2010/03/22/planned-parenthoods-statement-on-the-toothless-executive-order-agreed-to-by-bart-stupak/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13260828090778535111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8646794084908390926.post-20352454735278696792010-03-22T15:12:01.841-05:002010-03-22T15:12:01.841-05:00Are you saying Stupack is not truly "pro life...Are you saying Stupack is not truly "pro life" (which seems like the general critique within the article) or do you also have an issue with the labels "pro-life" and "pro choice" since they make unrealistic polarizations of the opponents? Just inquiring, that's been my two cents on much of that issue in my own blog. Keep at it.Holding Nothinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01824563181864407961noreply@blogger.com