Since the day Ann Coulter told us Bill Maher is a swell guy, she’s been suspect. Her enthusiasm for Mitt Romney is her right. It’s my right to find her opinions presented to be facts when she speaks of Romney, to be noxious. Mark Levin reads her own words, line-by-line, from her “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” column and gives response worth your time. He says she is making the same arguments as the Obama administration! Ouch! Says she is “ridiculous,” and conveniently leaves out the opinions of informed individuals. It gets really interesting at about 4:45-in. Senator Scott Brown is mentioned at about 7:10-in.
The following are snippets – the entire video is a must-listen:
So now we’re going to cite Scott Brown, who voted for RomneyCare and now opposes ObamaCare. You know why that is? Because his constituents are turning. The more people are involved in RomneyCare, the less they like it. But once again, what does that have to do with anything, particularly if you are a Constitutionalists? The fact that you have a majority, and an overwhelming majority who supports something that violates private property rights, and empowers a government, whatever government, to interfere with your private medical decisions, and you bet RomneyCare does, no matter how many vote for it, is that a principled position? No. Temporary politicians imposing their will on individuals.
The Founders rejected all that. And they keep saying RomneyCare is constitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution. I haven’t read the Massachusetts Constitution. I do know that John Adams had a lot to do with writing it. I really question that, or maybe the courts find this constitutional, but that’s a separate matter, isn’t it?
She goes on, “as the New York Times put it, Mr. Romney’s bellicose opposition to ObamaCare is an almost comical contradiction to his support of the same idea in Massachusetts when he was governor there.” She says, “this is like saying State School Choice plans are the same idea as the Department of Education.” No it’s not. It’s like saying it’s the same mindset, that government knows best, and because government can pass laws, they are going to pass laws and that there is no respect for the circle of liberty, private property rights, private industry. That’s what it’s saying…
“One difference between the two bills is that RomneyCare is constitutional and ObamaCare is not.” Well, under the Federal Constitution I suppose that’s true. So what? I don’t believe people are arguing that RomneyCare is unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, and not even under the state constitution, for that matter, so who cares?
Romney cares, so that’s where he says, I would not impose RomneyCare on the whole nation. ‘I believe in the Tenth Amendment,’ but you don’t believe in the individual. That’s the problem…
…there’s absolutely nothing in American history, including the examples Ann has given that compels two private parties, an individual and a business, to enter into a private contract for goods or services the individual may not want and that the business may not want to give, and none of the examples given by Ann disputes that.
In fact, she’s making arguments that the Federal Government, the Obama Administration is making in the Supreme Court, if she’ll read their briefs.
She says no one is claiming that the Constitution gives a person an unalienable right not to buy insurance. Nobody…no one is claiming that the Constitution is giving each person a unalienable right? No. What we’re saying is, the “unalienable rights thing,” is that people should be free to pursue their own interests to be unmolested by government, as much as possible. And this is one area where it is possible to be left alone, because the vast majority of states have not adopted ObamaCare, excuse me, RomneyCare, or its equivalent, have they…the Constitution is there to limit what the government can do, the Federal Government in particular…
“If ObamaCare were a one-page bill that did nothing but mandate that every American buy health insurance, it would still be unconstitutional but it wouldn’t be the God-awful train wreck that is. It wouldn’t even be the God-awful train wreck that High Speed Rail is.” Really? Now some of us think, and we’re arguing to the Supreme Court that this individual mandate changes the relationship of the individual to the government. In the case of ObamaCare particularly, the relationship between the individual and the government. Ann doesn’t think that would be a “God-awful” train wreck, but that is the main problem with ObamaCare, Ladies and Gentlemen. When Congress can order you to enter into private contracts, against your best interests, against your will, or fine you, or penalize you, or sic the IRS on you…I’m waiting for the long list of history on that, but…I don’t see them in her column.
On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show: Mitt Romney won in Florida – but can anyone actually say what his conservative message was? Just because the establishment is telling us that Romney should be our guy, just like they said John McCain would be the winner, doesn’t mean we should follow what they’re telling us. Romney is playing into Obama’s hands and this is why it is going to be hard to defeat Obama with someone like Romney. We need a principled conservative that believes in the Constitution – that trumps any liberal utopian visions. Romney is now getting involved in arguments over class warfare that make him sound like Obama and not a conservative.
If the video disappears or does not work, view it here.
Mark Levin on Ann Coulter’s RomneyCare Insanity (video)