Supremely Scary: Nine Rich, Old People In Robes To Decide Fate Of Nation's Health Care

Rejoice, America! Barack Obama's signature Socialist legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, which doesn't so much insure all Americans with actual health care as it does no longer allow billionaire health care executives to cackle wildly while doing the jitterbug on the sick, weakened bodies of children denied coverage, is finally heading to the Supreme Court, where nine men and women dressed in glorified Snuggies will rule on its Constitutionality, like whether your heart arrhythmia makes you 3/5ths what the white landowner with the robust, perfectly-beating heart next to you's worth.

Hooray?

But will the wonderful, infallible pro-slavery document of the late 1700s permit American citizens the right to not die, penniless and alone in the streets, even if it's not explicitly covered within its tattered, yellow pages of animal parchment?

From Reuters:

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system’s biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.

The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation’s highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.

And then, if all goes well, drowned in a lake of brimstone and fire with the rest of the sinful acts of justice like Social Security, Civil Rights, and Voting Rights, where it belongs.

At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.

Legal experts and policy analysts said the healthcare vote may be close on the nine-member court, with five conservatives and four liberals. It could come down to moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote.

The law, aiming to provide more than 30 million uninsured Americans with medical coverage, has wide ramifications for company costs and for the health sector, affecting health insurers, drugmakers, device companies and hospitals.

A decision by July would bring the healthcare issue to the heart of the presidential election campaign. Polls show Americans are deeply divided over the overhaul, Obama's signature domestic achievement.

Less divided are the fringe-right millionaire and billionaire business executives, who thanks to the biggest provisions of the law not taking effect until 2014, have a rare chance to completely erase the whole Obamacare "affordable insurance for everyone" fiasco before it actually happens.

But what about the people, you ask?

The people???

Ugh, to health with them!!

So, remember those death panels you keep hearing about?

It's called the Supreme Court.

[image via AP]

Forget Russia, Sarah Palin Can Sue Sweden From Her Backyard!

Sarah Palin knows she has what it takes to be President of the bestest, most God blessed, freedom-lovingest country in the whole wide world, the United States of Jesus Christ's America, because unlike that no-good NObama, she knows how to sue evil, arugula-eating lamestream media blogs who leak her sensitive documents all over the Internets.

It's true!

I mean why can't the U.S. military simply stop every single one of its strictly heterosexual soldiers, like say, Palin's other oddly named non-special needs son Track, from leaking sensitive, classified documents to Wikileaks the way Sarah singlehandedly stopped the website Gawker from publishing unauthorized excerpts of her newest ghostwritten book ode to herself, America By Heart??

Probably because Sarah Palin is not currently commander-in-chief, duh! All you have to do is repeat on a respectable news site the same logic she attempted on Twitter, and viola! it almost makes sense:

Sarah Palin was able to get a federal judge this month to stop a website from publishing unauthorized excerpts of her book. Now, she wants to know why the White House couldn’t put the breaks on Sunday’s WikiLeaks document dump, Politico writes.

Hear that people? Sarah Palin's Twitter Account would like to know why exactly NObama's White House couldn't stop WikiLeaks release of 250,000 documents when she, Snow Goddess of Wasilla, was easily able to get a federal judge to stop Gawker from publishing terrible, embarrassingly written excerpts from her book several days before its release, with little more than a wink, growl and millions of dollars in legal fees.

“Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book ‘America by Heart’ from being leaked," she tweeted, "but US Govt can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act?”

By "stop" Sarah, of course, means "drop a predator drone missile on."

What is even more inexplicable, however, is that Constitutional scholar Sarah Palin doesn't seem to understand that while America may be her (and Jesus') favoritest country in the whole world who can smart bomb all the evil Muslims it wants anytime, anyplace, anywhere, sadly, its wonderful system of laws (including treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution) does not apply to other sovereign nations like Sweden, where the founder of WikiLeaks is located, because a foreigner cannot commit treason against the United States. That's reserved for citizens, and whatever Joe Lieberman is considered, only.

Whoops.

Oh and also, Sar, in America we have this little thing known as the “Freedom of the Press” which includes the right to be free from prior restraints aka oppressive censorship or stopping publications and communications before they even have a chance to reach the public.

So there you have it Sarah...that's why the black man can't do anything about this right now.

Inexplicable: Obama managed to have his Portuguese water dog Bo neutered, but SarahPalinUSA can't keep her dumb clan of grizzly cubs from spawning all over the place??

Please, please, dear God, let this woman become President so she can be in charge of all pointless wars everywhere, sue the dickens out of evil blogs like Gawker for freedom, and run our government the way it it is supposed to be run:

In 140-special-needs-characters or less. On Twitter...from her snow-covered back porch in the middle of the frozen Arctic tundra.

Oh, you betcha!

Christine O'Donnell's Lack Of Knowledge On Anything Besides Masturbation & Meatballs Raises Questions About Her Ability To Function At All, Let Alone As Delaware's Actual Senator

Much like her past experience dabbling in witchcraft, crusading against the sin of self-pleasure, and pallin' around with Ronald McDonald 'n friends, Christine O'Donnell remained true to form while debating Democratic rival, and exasperated, smart guy foil, Chris Coons in their native Delaware, talking 'bout the need to teach creationism in school so America's children can have the necessary math and science skills to get jobs in the burgeoning Jesus is Magic industry.

But then old, bald man Coons went and dropped a bomb on the Wicked Witch of the East, Christine, saying creationism does not belong in public schools because of something called the Constitution, or whatever, which much to Christine's dismay, is not the same thing as the complete pocket-sized Wiccan handbook. Oopsies!

Well, Christine would like to know exactly “where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” How's that for gotcha journalism!?

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.
“You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,” Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it "raised questions about O’Donnell’s grasp of the Constitution."

Consider if you will, for a second, good sir, that those questions had already been both raised and answered. Perhaps we, the voters, have moved beyond the whole question-raising stage and into the actual "OMG, panic, this insane woman is really trying to be a senator" phase, no?

As if everyone was feeling just dandy about O'Donnell before this latest incident "raising" questions about Christine's capacity to do anything, except spend most of the 90s showcasing bad hairdos and pissing off various A, B, but mostly C-list celebrities on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show, right?

Sure beats the last time Grand High Witch Christine raised not questions, but the recently departed, at a secret Wiccan ceremony in the back of an abandoned church lot on the outskirts of Wilmington.

Not to take anything away from Democrat Chris Coons, who managed to keep his cool, avoid falling under one of Christine's enchanting spells (think it's called stupidity), and offer clear, coherent responses on a variety of different constitutional questions. Nonetheless, it does help when your opponent knows less than the wooden table you're seated around.

And, unlike that non-masturbating trainwreck, Coons can, in fact, recite much of the Constitution by memory, which can be helpful when debating things other than, say who is frighteningly less qualified, SarBear or her Meatball-gobbling wiccan protege of the Arugula-eating East, Christine "No Hands" O'Donnell.

Answer: Eenie, meenie, miney, mo...

Anyway, so back to the debate, where Democrat Chris Coons only had to recite the First Amendment to prove that indeed religious freedom is established within it. But, O'Donnell still looked skeptical! In her defense, O'Donnell hadn't even heard of the Constitution (that is what it's called, right?) until just the other day when she was googling remedies for her terrible constipation woes (just awful!) and accidentally spelled it wrong! Guess it must be destiny!

Coons said that creationism, which he considers "a religious doctrine," should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution's First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state.

"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment? The First Amendment to what? The Constitution? Of the United States of America? Does Jesus know about this?

Cause Christine always thought the darn thing began with the 2nd Amendment, and ended there too! It's all the other "crap" stuffed in between that she has trouble with. Maybe if they didn't make it so darn long, something nice 'n compact like the "Dummies Guide to Modern Witchcraft," we wouldn't be in this little pickle.

Also during the debate, O'Donnell stumbled when asked whether or not she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected.
"The 17th Amendment I would not repeal," she said, before asking the questioner to define the 14th and 16th amendments, adding: "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me."

Or her brain, for that matter. Luckily, the witch woman still has a few tricks up the ol' sleeve.

For instance, she didn't need to actually attend some hoity-toity elitist librul college like her arugula-eating opponent over here. She can simply pretend her college degree came from a real, accredited university (like Oxford or Yale?) instead of, say, her real framed diploma from the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College currently adorning her office wall.

Blasting her opponent for having the audacity to know that evolution is science, creationism a religious doctrine, and a beautiful angel doesn't die every time you touch that sinful place between your legs, Christine said, "Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools. You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Ha ha, monkey people!

"Perhaps they didn't teach you Constitutional law at Yale Divinity School."

Aww, snap! Score one for Christine! After all, she is you.

And since she is you, you her, and all of us, no one, everyone, even the Grand High Enchantress Christine herself, knows she is sooooooo not cut out for this whole Senator thing. Whoops!

But, hey, at least she got some good practice blurting out whatever crazy, asinine thing comes to mind (she already had the stupid part down pat!), for the next awesome, new adventure of old Christine (still, no rubbing/touching allowed!), her newest gig as the beautiful, brilliant, and most of all, bewitching Fox News host (of Hooters?), freedom, and sorcery, the world (of witchcraft?) has ever known.

The Only Thing The GOP's Newest, Craziest Idea Repealing The 14th Amendment Accomplishes Is Making Life Even More Awkward For John McCain

"You know, look, I know it's babies we're talking about and it's hard to be tough on babies but let's remember we're talking about illegal aliens coming to this country for the purpose of birthing a child, not because they love the kid, cause they want that child to provide them the benefits of U.S. citizenship."—Attorney Wendy Murphy arguing to repeal the 14th amendment on Fox News (where else?)

When you have to start your sentence with the words "You know, look, I know it's babies we're talking about and it's hard to be tough on babies," perhaps that's a point you shouldn't be making.

I don't know, call me old fashioned, but any way you slice it, hating on babies just doesn't seem to be a very tasteful, not to mention, winning strategy.

Oooooh, sounds like Republicans just found themselves the perfect new rallying cry to fire up the base and boot that no good Barry fellow out of the White House and back into the harsh Kenyan wilderness where he belongs. This time, in the form of wretched diaper-wearing ne'r-do-wells looking for a free lunch, bottle of formula, lactating nipple, or whatever the case may be, by committing the unforgivable crime of being born within the nation's beautiful borders (Alaska included!), or at the very least, one of its lesser "territories" like Guam or "American" Samoa. The sweetly, conservative-named "anchor babies."

No, no, we're not talking about the adorable new cartoon infants to join Dora the Explorer on her maritime adventures, but something far far more sinister: pregnant women desperately climbing barbed-wire border fences (and dodging armed gangs of trigger-happy white supremacists) all for the chance to drop a tiny brown automatic U.S. citizen out of their gross foreigner wombs onto once-pure, now-sullied American soil.

Such 142-year-old aggression simply cannot stand!

Because in these terrifying times when anyone including a half-black man (from Kenya!) with nothing but a Hawaiian certificate of live birth to show for, can waltz into the oval office as President of America, something must be done to save the nation from descending into total multicolored chaos, at the hands, err make that wombs, of all these unwelcome invaders from Africa and their equally sinister Latin counterparts.

Good thing there are still a few brave (white) souls left in this mongol-overrun cesspool of muddled brown and black hues to stand up and say, "enough of this 142-year-old constitutional madness, and century-old Fourteenth Amendment oppression giving the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship," a blight that's been destroying the very fabric of this great nation since the dumb liberal, immigrant-lovin' bastards in the McKinley administration.

Proud patriots like Senate Minority Leader and human-turtle hybrid Mitch McConnell who has decided to join the rest of the brilliant visionaries in his party in their spectacular new idea to change the Constitution and repeal the part of the 14th Amendment that grants children born in the United States citizenship.

“I haven’t made a final decision about it, but that’s something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don’t think anybody thinks that’s something they’re comfortable with,”  McConnell explained, before retreating into his protective shell, safe from terrible drooling intruders, where he feels comfortable.

Of course, one could argue that all the Americans born here, whose parents are immigrants, are already comfortable with the law, but that's assuming immigrants are actual people, which everyone knows is just absurd!

What is not absurd, however, is the notion that nothing screams red-blooded conservatism like concocting new and creative ways to kick more brown people out of the country via changing hundred year old constitutionally enshrined laws. Yay!

“People come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Fox News. “That shouldn’t be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.” 

Ugh, ya know, wrong reasons like providing a better life for their li'l bundles of Al-Qaeda disciples-to-be, escaping persecution in their native country, and all the rest of the silly, senseless, rash reasons why grown men and women decide to upheave the only life they've ever known, leave livelihoods and loved ones behind to make the uncharted, often perilous journey across thousands of miles of ocean and land. All to settle in a scary, unknown place where they don't speak the language, have no means of support, and are often subject to the wanton discrimination and cruelty that comes from those lucky enough to have their grandparents, great grandparents, and other ancestors blaze the trail for them.

As opposed to the right reasons like say Republican senators from crazy wingnut states like South Carolina desperately trying to prove they're not turning into some gay liberal because they voted to confirm lesbo softball playing socialists to the Supreme Court, and don't shriek "cooties!" every time a Democrat comes near them in the congressional cafeteria by going after that highly dangerous, all powerful Huggies-and-Pampers crowd, disingenuously forcing their way out of uteri all to take advantage of good, hard-working, real 'merican babies, whose parents had the decency to be born here instead of some stupid, remote village in China, in the first place.

At least some Republicans understand that without the 14th amendment, Chinese people couldn’t be citizens, because, come on, Chinese people!? The last thing this country needs is more math-and-science-savvy Asians running around, inverting their T's and R's, building railroads, inventing things, and contributing to America instead of Mother China for the last century and a half.

Almost as amazing as watching Republicans try to out-crazy each other with terrible, untenable ideas, aimed at those most disadvantaged and unable to defend themselves, is the comical lengths some Republicans, such as certain former Prisoners of War turned current Prisoners of Wingnuts, are willing to go to try not to have to support this crazy idea, during an otherwise ho-hum morning press conference.

“We’re talking about the stimulus right now,” John McCain said, before darting off to the elevators down the hall from the Senate studio, where he again declined to take a question. Reporters eventually caught up with McCain in the basement of the Capitol, where he was walking toward to the man-operated train connecting the Senate with the Russell office building.

TPMDC asked, “Do you support the Minority Leader’s push for hearings into the repeal of birthright citizenship?”

“Sure, why not?” McCain said briefly.

“Do you support the idea itself?”

“I support the idea of having hearings,” McCain said.

“Do you have a problem with the 14th amendment?” another reporter asked.

“You’re changing the constitution of the United States,” McCain said. “I support the concept of holding hearings.”

“I support the concept of holding hearings,” McCain repeated, turning to the rail car conductor.

“Let’s go!” he snapped. "I don't have anything to add to that."

Now, typically there is something both hilariously funny and tragically sad about witnessing a withered old man shed every last fiber of his integrity en route to becoming a soulless, brain-dead puppet of the right, dancing (err, at least attempting) slowly around an issue as clear-cut and obvious as taking away the constitutional rights of the toothless, under-1 crowd who use pacifiers and diapers, need constant 24-hour care and coddling, and can't even do anything for themselves.

Be careful now, Johnny, after all, the only thing separating a nursery from a nursing home are three measly letters.

And judging by your Grand Old Party's logic, you're one pacifier away from deportation yourself.

Hasta la vista, baby!

Constitutional-Lovin' Republicans (+Joe Lieberman) Discuss The Various Ways To Shred It...For Freedom!

Wingnuts from sea to shining sea, across this great land, are coming out in droves over the arrest of would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, each with their own unique perspective on how best to (mis)treat this awful terror suspect, and deny him his constitutional rights as a naturalized American citizen. Hooray!

But with so many congressional crazies saying so many asinine things, it's hard to decide which fair wingnut on the wall is indeed the nuttiest of them all!

Naturally, leading the chorus of shrieking weasels on the right is Arizona's own Mexican-hatin' maverick John McCain, who simply doesn't understand why we don't pick and choose which Americans deserve rights under the law.

Like which (if any!) detained suspects, especially Pakistani-born American ones, deserve to be reminded of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to remain silent.

"I think obviously that [mirandizing Shahzad] would be a serious mistake until we've—at least until we find out as much information as we have, and there are ways—legal ways—of delaying that."— Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

Like a quick cat nap to help refresh your Alzheimer's-ravaged mind?

Of course, you might assume that someone who spent half a decade rotting away in a Vietnamese cage with no rights whatsoever in the defense of this nation and its system of justice, would have the utmost respect for the rule of law. You might also assume that said person would still have some semblance of integrity left in tact. You would, of course, be wrong on both fronts, however.

Luckily, that other shrill voice of hysteria reason, Rep. Peter King never really had any credibility to begin with, unless you consider his one-man boycott over the media's coverage of that no-good lowlife Michael Jackson's death, a sicko pervert he wouldn't even let in the same room as his child or grandchild. He doesn't care if the King of Pop moonwalked his way into it!

Well, luckily for us, Long Island's own King of Nothing, Peter King, has his own ideas about what to do with the newest scumsucker on the block, a common Muslim named Faisal Shahzad.

"I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get?"

"Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen but still." — Rep. Peter King (R-NY).

BUT STILL!! Sure he's an "American" and all, BUT STILL, does this really mean he deserves to be treated as one? Does anyone, really?

Eh, not really, according to Connecticut's favorite sniveling pariah, Joe Lieberman, whose own one-man jihad on fun and the dumb rule of law includes maybe changing the Constitution, sometimes, for some people, like those "affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations."

"I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act," Sen. Joe Lieberman said.

Ooooh, does this include his other terrorist affiliations, like big business and the Republican Party??

Although, we must admit, there is something incredibly tempting about the thought of Joe Lieberman no longer having the constitutional right to make the rest of us want to immediately denounce our citizenship, and hastily flee somewhere where they don't elect backstabbing traitors, moonlighting as constitutional shredders, as their esteemed representatives.

But surely somewhere in the Grand Old Party of terror-fightin' Constitutional scholars and loyal patriots of freedom and teabags, there is at least a single voice of reason, right?

"He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens. If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution."

"We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing."

And yes, apparently, there are times when that does include listening to the craziest mother of 'em all, Fox News's own blue-eyed angel of truth and tears, Glenn Lee Beck.

The now, sole voice of reason(?) left in the Republican Party.

So, God bless America? We're certainly gonna need it!

Though, I guess if things get really bad, we can just take Rush Limbaugh's advice and move to a place where silly, trivial things like the Constitution don't matter much anyway. Ya know, like Somalia or Arizona or whatever.

Look on the bright side, at least unregulated access to all of Rush's favorite narcotics will be a whole lot easier to snag!

Sarah Palin Knows We Need Constitutional Shredders, Not Scholars, As President Of America

It is no secret the Tea Party movement and its loyal herb 'n spice obsessed 'baggers live, breathe, and procreate solely for the Constitution of the United States.

In fact, the teabaggers' undying affection for our nation's founding charter is soooooo strong, that the very constitution of their entire movement is strict adherence to and devoted worship of the original sacred document of freedom, the U.S. Constitution.

So, naturally, the weekend's Burning Man festival for disgruntled wingnuts in Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nevada was teeming with overweight, middle aged white men donning colonial garb and carrying signs, posters, and slogans expressing their deepest devotion to the only God they answer to, the 4,543-unamended-word document known as the Constitution.

Not to mention, all the homages, reverence, and idolization for the document they've never read (waaaay too long!) you'd expect from the freedom-fightin', public-speaking abortion and common sense holocaust known as one of Sarah Palin's keynote addresses to everyday, average American Joe's and Jane's dressed like 18th century revolutionaries complete with breeches, stockings, waistcoats, and three-cornered felt hats, while sipping cider and snacking on Johnnycake and molasses in the middle of some desert town in 21st century Nevada.

"Our vision for America is anchored in time-tested truths that the government that governs least governs best, that the Constitution provides the path to a more perfect union — it's the Constitution," Sarah exclaimed.

"By the way, it's within our own borders and homeland where we we should feel so safe and not condone...err...umm...any type of violence...it's within the homeland that we should feel safe and that makes me want to say:

In these volatile times when we are a nation at war, now more than ever is when we need a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor lecturing us from a lectern.

WOOOOOHOOOO!! Yeah!!! Hear that NObama?? We don't need your stinkin', elitist knowledge of the Constitution to tell us what's actually in the Constitution and what is simply a figment of our deranged pea brains.

What America NEEDS is another semi-literate "MBA" President who doesn't know the difference between Constitution and Constipation to save us from this one-year Socialist hell, and lead the nation back into dual economic and international crises, like a true freedom-loving, teabagging patriot.

Just like our founding fathers intended.

The Great Gay Invasion Moves Into America's Heartland

The pink, homo-loving commies on Iowa's Supreme Court struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional on Friday, moving the Hawkeye State one step closer to becoming California before it was taken over by the great Mormon-led Prop 8 invasion.

With one strike of the gavel, the activist judges on Iowa's highest court unanimously ruled that the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, making Iowa the third state, along with Massachusetts and Connecticut, to threaten the moral fiber of America by legalizing gay marriage.

But some like U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) are not about to let the American heartland be overrun by some rainbow parade of marriage-crazed queers.

Which is why he is urging the Iowa Legislature to avoid this catastrophe by passing a Marriage Amendment preserving the union of one man and one woman, or at the very least, issue marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa "does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering."

The last thing the great state of Iowa needs is thousands of sinful gay couples streaming in to exchange vows and pump millions into the state's budget. Millions in gay money that is.

Blue-Eyed Hetero Warrior Rep. Steve King