Nancy Pelosi Concerning the Constitution: "Are You Serious?"

CommunityOrganizer_SnakeCultYesterday the United States Department of the Treasury Special Master of Compensation Kenneth Feinberg announced a wage control scheme for the 175 executives of the seven companies that have received the most funds from the taxpayer funded Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At first the Obama administration denied any involvement in Feinberg’s decision. … Obama appointed Feinberg to be his pay czar without any input from the American people and without any approval from Congress. Heritage fellow Matthew Spalding explained the problem in his recent testimony to Congress:

The issue is not whether the proliferation of “czars” amounts to a usurpation of power by the executive branch. Rather, the fundamental issue is how the rise of modern administrative government has put us in an unsolvable dilemma: whether policy should be made by technical experts, insulated from public accountability and control, or whether policy should be made by our elected representatives in Congress and the executive branch. The rise of government by bureaucrats–due to the delegation of power from Congress to administrative agencies, combined with the removal of those agencies from the President’s control–has given rise to efforts by Presidents from both parties to get the bureaucratic state under control through various mechanisms. The rise of “czars” in the current administration is just another manifestation–albeit, an unfortunate one–of this phenomenon.

The Obama Nation administration and its cohorts in Congress felt no qualms in blitzing and blasting the GW Bush administration in a feeding frenzy – yet they are breaking Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights on a weekly basis:
(1) centralizing power from the state rights constitutional ruling – yet not insisting that the state governments comply with the Bill of Rights;
(2) Censoring FOX News violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution (Bill of Rights);
(3) inserting government’s power in the private sector in the banking field (nothing new here because this has been going on for decades), auto industry, investing and home mortgaging; they are usurping the private sector energy entities;
(4) and using federal funding to blackmail state governments and private industry to tow the line of the Obama Nation Administration or be cut off.
How much more of this will American citizens take?
If you want to see what the future of America will look like under the ObamaCare policies, take a close look at Massachusetts (Taxachusetts) and see how insurance premiums and cost of health care have risen sharply compared to the rest of the nation.
The Founders wanted limited government for these very reasons and the American people have idly sat by for decades unaware of the encroachment upon their liberties and rights that the Founders worked hard for and some sacrificed more than you can imagine for.
We have, the American citizens, have become apathetic and too compromising when it comes to liberties and concerning those that are determined to change America from a democratic republic to some sort of American-style socialism that can only decrease liberties as they continue to gain power. These are not the people that led the Democratic Party that ran with a platform they followed; but instead a diluted socialist party that is coming out into the open with their intended agenda as time progresses in the Obama administration.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama did NOT

  1. create the huge deficit, initiate the government intervention in private banking industry;
  2. initiate the concept of a North American Union;
  3. initiate a movement to provide amnesty to immigration and fraudulent identification lawbreakers or seek to fine and/or punishment employers who hire illegal aliens;
  4. initiate the ideology that there must be a world government and going along with the agenda of the United Nations legislative body on that concept and others.

But this administration, its elective legislative democrat-sociocrat membership, special-interest groups with the blessing of politically controlled media has and continues further to:

  1. spend money like a drunken sailor and instead of reducing spending where necessary (earmarks, for example), then raise taxes and fees as well as pass legislation in non-transparent methods;
  2. further violate the concepts of and the laws of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights;
  3. further its zeal and agenda to incorporate the concept of Big Government until every facet of every citizen’s life is controlled by the elite that operates the government;
  4. continues to weaken the check-and-balance system that created a watchdog within the government to ensure ethical and constitutional standards are met and that the three branches of government comply;
  5. pass legislation that is required and only after it passes the scrutiny of committees designed to ensure its constitutionality, its repercussions in the short- and long-term with the attitude that it is not the quantity of legislation that is passed that is important – but the quality;
  6. continue the concept of amnesty for illegal aliens that amount to more than 12 million lawbreakers of immigration laws and violating federal law concerning false identification – and in a time of high rate unemployment not providing responsible legislation concerning Visa work permits;
  7. continue to pull the wool over sheeple’s eyes concerning nationalization and socialist engineering programs and policies like ObamaCare.

  •  The House Speaker position in the US government has been an important job. CNSNews staff writer, Matt Cover, wrote an article concerning an interview about constitutional authority – part of her New Direction For America … asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” … The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious?” “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and concluded:
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, followed up on the question, e-mailing written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami.
“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” asked the speaker’s office.
“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” asked. “If so, what is that limit?”
Elshami responded by sending a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’”   The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”
The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation.  There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”

And, wouldn’t it be nice to have a legislative body that reads what they are voting for and drafters don’t produce bills that are 2,000 pages or more filled with legal and political mumbo jumbo?
The only way to nip away the fangs of the Obama Nation (via Congress) and its non-compliant actions against the Constitution and refusal to listen to the People is to vote those presently in Congress – out of Washington politics and somewhere other than the US Congress.

Dare grassroot Americans protest and they are called anti-government, stooges for evil corporations and right-wing FOXNews propaganda and not for family viewing. [CNN] [Footage courtesy of Founding Bloggers – the video that CNN didn’t want the public to see.]
However, news media that blasted GW Bush and accusing him of things like staging 9/11 and other vile things – was freedom of speech and not anti-government or propaganda from the political left movement.