Missouri Says “No” to Obamacare with Proposition C

| Comments (2)

On Tuesday, August 3rd, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda received another smackdown, when the people of Missouri — more than 71 percent — voted yes on the Show-Me State’s Proposition C, the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act.

Proposition C was the state’s attempt to exert its Constitutionally endowed rights as a state, and say “no” to the mandates of Obamacare, in this case defying the mandate that Americans must purchase health-care insurance.

More than 70 percent of Missouri’s voters (from both parties), reflecting most national polls on the subject, have now set the stage for voters in 42 other states that will be voting on similar propositions in the months to come. In fact, the day before this vote, a judge in Virginia ruled that yes, the vote in that state could indeed go forward – with results, we might presume, similar to what we witnessed this week in Missouri.

Though the White House and democractic Congress would rather we not remember, the health-care atrocity was slammed through Congress last March through the use of bribery, threats, trickery and lies. Congressional leaders, the President and the administration used any means they could find to pass this legislation that is necessary, as Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) admitted so candidly, “to control the people.”

But the people Dingell and his colleagues seek to control, the American people, they cannot be so easily coerced into supporting a bill that promises to gut the finest health care system in the world, as well as the bank accounts and liberties of Americans who recognize clearly the face of tyranny when they see it. And Missouri proved this on Tuesday. Whenever Obamacare and the agenda behind it have been put to the test of democracy, the results are drastically different from the propaganda oozing out of Capitol Hill and the White House.

Many thanks, then, to Missouri, a state typically considered a bellweather, offering a glimpse into the direction the nation is headed at a given time. Missouri has sent a message to the rest of us who are anxiously awaiting another election: the midterm elections of November, less than 100 days away. Missouri’s results on Tuesday have sent a clarion call that the anger among we the American people remains fresh, and we intend to take that raw anger with us to the polls on November 2nd.

Rest assured that Washington has heard the call, too. And don’t think they aren’t panicked. In the wake of Missouri’s vote, always-so-eloquent White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked what the results meant to the White House. His as-always-so-eloquent answer was: “Nothing.” No matter. We know the real answer, Bob. Everything.

2 Comments

  1. Cheri
    Posted August 5, 2010 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    I wonder how long it will be before the White House will file a lawsuit against this decision? Maybe they will invoke the supremacy clause once again. This use of the courts to prevent the voters wishes makes me sick.


  2. Posted August 11, 2010 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    This email came to me from a friend in London a month ago. I was devastated to hear about the ruling against the governor’s law by Bolton. The legal hard working citizens of the US are the ones that are being harmed and they are the ones who keep paying their taxes so that the illegals can keep making money on our system.

    I am forwarding this email to you for Senator Brown to see. My family and I and most of our friends are supporting the Arizona law as all US Legal Citizens should. We do not want to be part of the “lawsuit” against Arizona for doing what is right for the preservation of our country, the United States of America.

    The more that this present administration is allowed to carry on in the manner that they continue, the closer to destruction our country gets. He has all kinds of excuses. Always.

    PLEASE do not let this happen. It is a step in the right direction and we need to support the governor and state of Arizona.

    I have a friend who lives in Arizona and he said what is happening because of the illegal people is devastating the area. Rapes, murders, stealing, destruction, it is getting worse by the day. They need to stick with this law and proceed. We all need to enforce the existing laws and make some new ones to preserve our country.
    US government to sue Arizona over immigration law

    The US Justice Department is to sue the state of Arizona over its controversial new law targeting illegal immigrants weeks before it comes into effect.

    By Our Foreign Staff
    Published: 8:22PM BST 06 Jul 2010 – The Daily Telegraph

    A US Border Patrol officer in Arizona. Los Angeles council has approved an economic boycott of Arizona. Photo: AFP/GETTY
    The lawsuit will argue that the new law, which requires state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops, violates the Constitution and usurps federal authority.

    The law, which President Barack Obama called “misguided”, requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents.

    The federal government will likely seek an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved.

    Arizona’s senators John McCain and Jon Kyl criticised the planned lawsuit arguing that it was “far too premature” for the US government to sue the state over the law “since it has not yet been enforced.”

    “The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law,” the duo said in a joint statement.

    Mr Obama addressed the law last week, warning on the possibility of other states following Arizona’s lead.

    “As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country,” he said.

    “A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.”