advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

DID YOU GET YOUR NEW MARCHING ORDERS?

By
Neal Boortz
@ October 27, 2009 8:01 AM Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)

Maybe the Democrats are hoping that third time is a charm?  What I mean by that is that the Democrats are trying anything and everything they can to make you people like their plans to take over our healthcare system.  In the past, they have relied on simple tricks to sway public option ... like buzz words and focus groups.  But something has gone awry lately.  No matter what the Democrats call their government takeover of healthcare, people aren't liking it. 

 

Oh, no!  What is a Democrat to do?

 

So first we had "public healthcare reform."  Then it was "insurance reform."  There was also the "public option."  Some say that the original name for the "public option" was the "government option."  I can't verify that, and it seems unlikely our political class would be that honest.  Well ... it's time to rename "the public option" and  Princess Nancy has come up with a new moniker .... "the consumer option."  If you don't like that one, she suggests another name:  "the competitive option."  This is how Nancy Pelosi would like to refer to the government takeover of healthcare.  Now you good Democrat myrmidons remember -- if you are unfortunate enough to get into a conversation with a liberal today, remember to use the new phrase "competitive option" so as to not offend him or her.

 

You will love this explanation from Princess Nancy as to why the name needs to be changed.  Listen to this: "You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this ... When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."  Oh right, Nancy.  No taxpayer dollars involved, right?  And by the way ... the proper phrase is "taxpayer dollars," not "public dollars."  Do we see another change in terminology coming here?

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: DID YOU GET YOUR NEW MARCHING ORDERS?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/48499

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • retwisted
    I'll check out the book. Thanks!

    I justify all of govt's actions soley on the basis that we have elections. We also have two other branches to check the power of congress and the executive.

    You seem to think that because these "programs" have not been successfully challenged that the "good guys lost". Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe ...you're just wrong? and the good guys actually won?
    By snarkybird @ 10/29/09 09:36:02 AMreport abuse
  • @Snarky
    First: What makes that book "cult-like"? It's basically a research paper. It draws upon history and the writings of the founders of the constitution to arrive at logical conclusions. Maybe to liberals that is cult-like...who knows.

    Anyway, your own words: "It is absurd to assume that means govt can do whatever the hell it wants." Well, when you say the govt take as much property as it needs, no matter how much, that is exactly what you are saying.

    You justify all of government's actions solely on the basis that there is no precedent and other things it has done that are unconstitutional were not challenged.

    None of the entitlement programs, including Medicaid are constitutional, but that unfortunately did not stop those in power. By the way, the New Deal was immensely challenged, just like all this crap in Congress now....but sadly to no avail. That doesn't make it right, though. The good guys don't always win.
    By Twistedsaint @ 10/28/09 03:16:18 PMreport abuse
  • snarkybird
    my example was meant to show exactly the conclusion you assume I have reached.

    question is - do you agree?
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 02:27:41 PM

    OK Snarkybird
    I try not to make assumptions. I try to look for facts and figures and reach a conclusion. What got me fired up was your statement "Imagine if" aka pretend if, make believe if. I could state "That snarkybird is so clueless I imagine hitting him right in the beak and I imagine that I would like it." Fact is your beak would be broken which you wouldn't like, my hand would be broken which I wouldn't like and you would still be clueless which no-one likes.
    By billJ @ 10/28/09 01:02:51 PMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    You said "but now we have liberal-minded lunatics interpreting that to mean the government can basically do whatever the hell it wants"

    It is not absurd logic to say that we are govt. It is absurd to assume that means govt can do whatever the hell it wants.

    There are two other branches in place to check the power of congress, in addition to the power of the votes of citizens, the press, and free speech.

    Unfortunately it is undeniable that we get the govt we deserve.

    Again, if you're right about these healthcare proposals being unconstitutional, then Medicare is also unconstitutional. And, as I asked - has anyone challenged that? I don't think so... if they have, they weren't successful.

    And our current minority party is creating a "Medicare Bill of Rights".

    I dont agree with your opinion that govt is over reaching. But, I also believe that what they're doing is very constitutional. And there is a process in place to check that power.

    If you were going to take this to court as being unconstitutional, you'd need to have precedent of some kind on your side. The SCOTUS wouldn't just take this up as a matter of debate.

    So, what previous cases could you possibly use to support your argument that this is not allowed under the constitution?

    If you have none, do you really think a judge at any level is just going to take this up as a matter of debate?

    how could you possibly make that case given what's come before?

    I guess I could see a case being made for your rights being violated because you're forced to buy insurance, right? But, isn't medicare forced at a certain age? has that ever been challenged? Auto insurance is forced at the state level, right? Keep in mind, judges often look to state precedent to help inform their decisions at a federal level.

    How could you make a case against the notion that it's in the public interest for you to have health insurance?

    I'm asking... I think it would be a great debate to have.

    You said "You're one of the few liberals here that actually think for themselves (maybe the only one, in fact)"

    Thanks. But that book seems kind of "cult like". Why do you think it's valuable?
    By snarkybird @ 10/28/09 10:11:06 AMreport abuse
  • @Snarkybird - "Prove it" you say
    Yes, Snarky, it is very unconstitutional. This is plainly evident by reading the writings of the founding fathers as well as the writing in the Constitution itself. This document is clearly designed to dramatically limit the powers of the federal govt-- not expand them.

    You're one of the few liberals here that actually think for themselves (maybe the only one, in fact)-- as such, I urge you to read "The 5000 Year Leap." Great primer on the Constitution.

    Expansive, over-reaching govt is exactly what they were trying to get away from in the first place.

    This is why the right to personal property is so important and fundamental...which you discredit with your notion that "we are government and therefore govt owns all our property and can take whatever it wants."

    This logic is absurd and goes against everything the Consitution stands for. Unfortunately, the framers put the clause in there that gives Congress the right to levy taxes to "promote the general welfare" of the public (or something similar-- I forget the exact wording). In the spirit of the constitution this shouldn't be a problem, but now we have liberal-minded lunatics interpreting that to mean the government can basically do whatever the hell it wants as long as it says it's for "the general welfare.".....sorry, but that's hogwash. And unconstitutional.
    By Twistedsaint @ 10/27/09 03:31:48 PMreport abuse
  • rebillj
    You said "Seems to me you have already reached a conclusiion. You sir or lady are a fraud."

    my example was meant to show exactly the conclusion you assume I have reached.

    question is - do you agree?
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 02:27:41 PMreport abuse
  • reACE
    sorry ace, I've answered that one but, since you're so diligently slogging away at this...

    Which taxes? just federal income?

    If so, we all pay it but some, through tax policies we (through our elected representatives made legal) get rebates equal to or sometimes exceeding the amount they pay in for federal taxes. And sometimes that even eclipses the amounts they pay into SS and medicare/caid.

    So, through our elected representatives, meaning "us", we allow people to pay no taxes at all or sometimes even get more back than they put in if they meet certain economic or lifestyle (read mortgage holder, parent, etc) criteria.

    Is that fair?

    Ask your reps.

    Do I think it's fair? Yes.
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 02:25:36 PMreport abuse
  • rejoycebigjoe
    I hate to steal but this says it better than I could (from your link joyce in the comments)

    ""Scott, Upstate NY writes:

    Does the Constitution give the Federal Government the authority to create the FAA and run the Air Traffic Control System, NO! Come to think of it, the word airplane does not appear in the Constitution.

    The Commerce Clause could be used to justify Federal oversight of flights from state to state, but not a flight from Houston to Dallas. All flights that are within a state must be handled by the state air traffic control system.

    Sorry, I have to go. I’m on my way to a tea party at the airport demanding that my tax dollars stop funding the FAA.""

    But, one might also ask - in the 50 or so years Medicare has been in place, has anyone challenged it's constitutionality?

    Not that I am aware of.

    But surely republicans are working on something for this right?

    Oh, that's right, the GOP is busy creating the Medicare Bill of Rights.
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 02:19:02 PMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    You said "Now you know they have introduced bills, but your guys just keep sideswiping them. And even amendments on your bills they get put off.

    This congress does not intend to let any conservative bill out of the gate."

    Um, Joyce - did ya read the article? I mean, it's right there in black in white. Heck, the ENTIRE article is about the GOP being frustrated with ITS OWN LEADERHIP for not agreeing on a bill. For the reasons I stated.

    SO spare me the lecture on how this works.
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 01:56:45 PMreport abuse
  • snarkybird
    imagine a world where the roles were reversed. where the GOP had a plan that dems hated but dems couldn't put forward their own alternative for the same reasons. Imagine the sniping that would come from the right about "hand wringing liberals" who are only concerned with "politics" instead of solving real problems.
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 11:39:46 AM

    Seems to me you have already reached a conclusiion. You sir or lady are a fraud.
    By billJ @ 10/27/09 01:41:06 PMreport abuse
  • "CANINE FLU SHOTS NOW AVAILABLE"
    I swear to God a local Animal Hospital here in North Georgia had that very advertisement on their billboard. And they were serious.

    Folks, This is getting retarded, so I'm gonna go George Carlin on you for a minute...

    When we are gonna die, we are gonna die. It doesn't matter if you shoot 15,000 viles of chemical agents into your system with a syringe in the hopes of reflecting whatever disease, illness, or plague it is you're trying to save yourself from. But when our government passes this illegal, criminal, unConstitutional, corrupt, thieving, mindless, power-grabbing, dangerous, psychotic, poor, worthless, healthcare system takeover bill which will be run by nothing more than bureaucratic, union-member, ass-kissing, ego-maniac, socialist, lying, thieving, corrupt, moral-less, son-of-a-b!+ch, "C"-student graduates....................well, then we're all screwed.

    Plan your escape routes!
    By Big Joe Williams @ 10/27/09 01:34:09 PMreport abuse
  • Illegal, Criminal, Unconstitutional Govt. Healthcare.
    Snark, sorry the "anonymous" post was mine. Forgot to put my name on it.

    Do you not understand that this government is working tirelessly to pass a healthcare system takeover legislation against the will of the American people? And if you don't like it, reject it, or do not buy it.....they will FINE you, STEAL YOUR PROPERTY and put you in JAIL.

    Now is this not contradicting the "right to be secure in your persons, places, houses and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure"? They're not asking you, they are FORCING you. Yes, it is very, outrageously, obscenely ILLEGAL. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CRIMINAL.

    Only tyrants would pursue such a path for their people.

    When a group of men can show up at your doorstep, pull out their guns and FORCE you to buy something against your will........at that point you are the SLAVE and they are your MASTER.

    Hell, why don't you explain to me how it's "legal". I'm all ears.
    By Big Joe Williams @ 10/27/09 12:54:31 PMreport abuse
  • Unconstitutional (sorry BN)
    They do a better job of explaining it than any of us could:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/20/is-national-health-insurance-constitutional/

    Even Steve Cobble/Huffpo recognizes the need for an amendment:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-cobble/a-health-care-constitutio_b_138934.html

    Face it, if they try to pass this crap, it WILL be challenged.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/27/09 12:52:09 PMreport abuse
  • @Brutha Butt
    You are just full of beans today ...

    Don't hold back, we're all standing upwind.

    oh, and pass the jug, wouldja pleeze?
    By Jubilation T Cornpone @ 10/27/09 12:42:53 PMreport abuse
  • Re: snarkybird [From yesterday's discussion] If we have a duty to turn over our private property to the government no matter how much they want, THAT IS Socialism.
    And you failed to answer the question about how those who pay no taxes fulfill their responsibility to the collective.

    In a sense, they have Representation WITHOUT taxation, how is that fair to those who do pay into the system?

    Since you would just dearly love to answer those questions, I brought them forward to today.

    Oh, and to you posting to anonymous to prove that '"IT'S ILLEGAL. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CRIMINAL. "

    Where is it Clearly spelled out in the founding Constitution that the government has the authority to do this?

    I realize that in your mind, the government has an Unlimited claim on everyone's time and property to do what ever it wants.

    Most reasonable people would call that a form of Statism(Socialism,Progressivism,Fascism, Marxism,Collectivism,Leninism,Stalinism,..) what do you call it when the government Owns the country?
    By ACE @ 10/27/09 12:38:01 PMreport abuse
  • snark
    Now you know they have introduced bills, but your guys just keep sideswiping them. And even amendments on your bills they get put off.

    This congress does not intend to let any conservative bill out of the gate.

    And "moving on a plan"??? Yeah that's what we're afraid of.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/27/09 12:29:42 PMreport abuse
  • she has been warnin' ya......................
    RESISTANCE IS FARTFUL..............
    By butt neckid @ 10/27/09 11:47:06 AMreport abuse
  • reanonymous
    you said "IT'S ILLEGAL. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CRIMINAL. "


    prove it.
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 11:40:42 AMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    You said "Oh an snarky we haven't heard your guys come up with anything productive since day one"

    Fair enough, given your stance.

    But, at what point do republicans get out of the weeds on this and introduce a bill?

    Did you read the article? If not, it essentially says the GOP is stuck. They cant offer a plan because it might be considered "socialism lite" by their base and they can't offer a plan because then the Dem's will criticize it for not addressing the problem.

    So they just sit on their hands.

    I mean, Reid and Pelosi are bad, don't get me wrong but - they're moving on a plan. I mean, the GOP can't even get out of the gate because of ...fear?

    imagine a world where the roles were reversed. where the GOP had a plan that dems hated but dems couldn't put forward their own alternative for the same reasons. Imagine the sniping that would come from the right about "hand wringing liberals" who are only concerned with "politics" instead of solving real problems.
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 11:39:46 AMreport abuse
  • Klubber Lang
    "Those who seek government control over freedom are, themselves, programmed to be slaves"
    By Big Joe Williams @ 10/27/09 11:29:41 AMreport abuse
  • Klubber Lang
    You want someone to tell you something that is wrong with the public option? I'm no conservative, liberal, democrat, republican, nor libertarian, but I'll answer that question for you...


    IT'S ILLEGAL. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CRIMINAL.

    If they pass ANY of this so-called "Healthcare Reform", they are CRIMINALS. Anti-Americans. Thieves. Liars.

    But hey, the government media and the traitorous, treasonous politicians keep working on it like it's perfectly okay, and legal. It's not.

    And let me ask you this KlubberLang:
    When the government controls your healthcare, your business, your salary, your property, and your bank account, well guess what............................You're nothing more than a SLAVE at that point. You will do what the master says or you will be punished, and maybe even with your life. Then what are you gonna do? Sit around making fun of the silly conservatives? That may be all you have left to do.
    By anonymous @ 10/27/09 11:26:49 AMreport abuse
  • Klubber's back
    "I still have not heard one conservative tell me something wrong w/ the public option."

    Of course you haven't. That would entail you having to LISTEN.

    Oh an snarky we haven't heard your guys come up with anything productive since day one. Operative word being "productive".
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/27/09 11:23:35 AMreport abuse
  • Government DeathCare.
    How are you gonna feel when the government deprives you of healthcare that you are being forced to pay for?

    Where are you gonna go to see a doctor?

    I guarantee you people this...when the federal government illegally takes over the healthcare system, any of you who protest(ed) this government will be the first ones to be rejected at the doctor's office. I'm sure we're all already on a blacklist.

    Every time communists, socialists, dictators, and tyrants take over a country, they almost immediately start trying to impose death sentences to all who disagree with them. They only want allegiance. Blind allegiance.
    By Big Joe Williams @ 10/27/09 11:00:08 AMreport abuse
  • typical
    sniping about labels without doing anything productive

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64877-gopers-impatient-on-healthcare-alternative
    By snarkybird @ 10/27/09 10:45:36 AMreport abuse
  • START A LIST
    ETERNAL ENTITLEMENT
    BURGEONING BUREAUCRACY
    RADICAL RIDER
    SOCIALIST SUPPLEMENT
    ...
    By LEN @ 10/27/09 10:29:56 AMreport abuse
  • Government Healthcare
    The want to control healthcare but can't even get the name right.
    By Wade @ 10/27/09 09:41:54 AMreport abuse
  • nancy
    she's dumb as a box of rocks. what do you expect? she thinks natural gas doesn't hurt the environment 'cause it's "natural"!
    By the other phil @ 10/27/09 09:30:20 AMreport abuse
  • Conervative crybabies
    I still have not heard one conservative tell me something wrong w/ the public option. I have heard them cry that they dont want people to have it despite how successful the program is in Texas, but they bring in random states like Maine that nobody lives in. Again you cannot argue what comes with a public option

    -uninsurable people can get insurance

    -it will bring down the costs of my private health insurance

    -More money will go to the government so taxes will be lowered

    -People who cannot afford private health insurance can purchase the public option

    Now conservatives can sit there and cry about everything but the public option is the best method.
    By Klubber Lang @ 10/27/09 09:17:23 AMreport abuse
  • "Competitive Option"
    How about the "non taxpayers option paid for by taxpayers"
    By Dustin @ 10/27/09 09:08:33 AMreport abuse
  • Pelosi's Pathetic Power
    Say, here's an idea: How about a new moniker for SanFranNan. Maybe....
    FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
    By Randy @ 10/27/09 08:56:30 AMreport abuse
  • A rose by any other name...
    ...still has thorns.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/27/09 08:46:51 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement