The Constitution, Playboy Pelosi and the Oblivious Column

Dear Mark: Nancy Pelosi just revealed the 2,000-page House version of health care reform. A large part of their plan mandates that individuals must buy health insurance or face penalties. Is this even legal? — Banging My Head in Houston

Dear Banging: The government forcing an individual to buy anything is unconstitutional, but to Libs, the Constitution is merely an inconvenience.

Speaker Pelosi is trying to stand behind the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution as her justification for this massive government encroachment upon our personal liberties. Using this clause is pitifully ironic considering the Democrat plan will not allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. By definition, wouldn't that be interstate commerce?

Pelosi showed her disdain for the Constitution when a reporter from CNSNews.com asked her, "Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" The speaker simply responded: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Let me get this straight — the third person in line for the presidency doesn't think the constitutionality of a 2,000-page bill is a serious question.

Fortunately, the speaker's press spokesman later cleared the air by saying "That is not a serious question." I think I just woke up in "The Twilight Zone."

Dear Mark: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has come up with a clever gimmick to try to pass the Democrat health care reform legislation. She wants to take the government option and rename it the "consumer option." Does she think we are all idiots? — No Wool-Pulling in Putnam City

Dear Pulling: She may not think we're all idiots, but she is counting on the fact that many citizens are gullible, ill informed and lazy.

The Democrats are trying every trick in the book to pass their government-controlled health care legislation, including changing the name. Remember it began as health care reform, and then it was changed to insurance reform. The government option evolved into the public option, and now market research must say that the "consumer option" is more palatable to the voters.

Speaker Pelosi tried to justify this name change when she said, "When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars." Wow, the people of San Francisco must be proud of their elected Einstein. Where exactly does Nancy Pelosi think the money is coming from to pay for this monstrosity of a bill?

Clever marketing changed Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC, yet the chicken is still fried. Madam Pelosi can change her name to Miss November, but that doesn't make her Playboy material. Democrats can change the name of their health care bill to "Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice," and it will still be an overpriced, liberty-sucking, deficit-busting, government boondoggle.

Dear Mark: A researcher at Western Washington University found that people talking on cell phones are twice as oblivious as people who aren't. The professor used a clown riding a unicycle as proof. I am tired of distracted cell-phone users. Don't you think we need to outlaw them? — Anti-Phone Fanatic in Fargo

Dear Anti-Phone: No, we already have enough laws on the books. Instead, let's send that researcher to Washington, D.C., because those clowns in Congress are oblivious to anything resembling common sense. Your humble columnist was part of a research project back in college. The discovery was made that after six beers, I didn't become oblivious, I became bulletproof.

Dear Mark is a public platform for your entertainment and enlightenment. Please e-mail your questions or comments to marklevy92@aol.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM