Is De-Funding ObozoCare Our Lexington Green?

Since ObozoCare is designed to fail, what is Obozo actually trying to do?  (Wherein we walk back our Sensenbrenner-bashing but propose another theory.)

Before we get into the technical stuff on ObozoCare, keep some other things in mind:  the politicization of the IRS and its database, the use of NSA and its database for domestic spying (not to mention drones), Obozo's increasingly strident class- and race-war rhetoric, and the rear-guard actions of  Tonto Holder.  It's also very important to recall that Obozo is, and always has been, an Alinskyite revolutionary who ran with a crowd of bomb-throwing Communists.  He's not just a rabble-rouser with a pretty face.  And despite the focus on ObozoCare, this is NOT just about ObozoCare.

...The far bigger portions of the program, including the billions and billions of dollars in subsidies that will start going to Americans on Jan. 1, are mandatory spending, an entitlement funded by an automatic appropriation which is written into law and runs without further congressional action. To change that, Congress would have to change Obamacare.

In the Senate, that would take 67 votes — the amount needed to overcome a guaranteed presidential veto. If the 46 Senate Republicans voted unanimously to end the Obamacare entitlement, they would have to persuade 21 Democrats to go along....Human Events quoting Byron York.

On that point, Sensenbrenner was correct.

But that's not all that York wrote.

...Money to fund Obamacare comes from two sources. A relatively small part of it, including some of the funds used to get the program going, comes from Congress’ regular yearly appropriations. Congress could raise or lower the amounts without changing Obamacare itself. The defund-Obamacare Republicans in the Senate hope to strip out that discretionary funding from a continuing resolution needed to fund the government that Congress will debate in September.

They know they won’t succeed. Democrats, with 54 votes, have enough to pass anything that requires a simple majority, and won’t have much trouble getting to a filibuster-proof 60 votes, either....

IOW, the Pubbies could tug at ObozoCare's cape, but not really derail it.

There are consequences either way.

Karl Rove...warned he was nervous about the effort because “it gives the President the bully pulpit and a gigantic stick on which to beat us, because all he has to do is say, ‘Look, this law was passed, it’s on the books, I’m going to veto your continuing resolution that doesn’t fund ObamaCare, and it’s on you for shutting down the government.’”

No kidding, Karl.  Really?  Will pResident Divisive really do that?  My stars!

In fact, Karl, that's exactly what he's hoping to do.

Weakening this parasitic system before it takes root is vitally important.  Karl Rove may be overestimating the threat ObamaCare’s failure poses to the grand design.  It’s supposed to fail, and the answer proposed by its authors will be more government control, not less.

Review again:  IRS, NSA, Holder, race- and class-war rhetoric, and then think.

Why is the Gummint buying every round of ammo that it can??

Hayward, our essayist, is subtle, but makes the point and invokes a couple of the right images:

...is ObamaCare really an irreversible mistake?  It’s difficult to repeal a Big Government program with billions of dollars in subsidies and slush funds, but this whole notion of Americans as slaves to political destiny is both offensive to our traditions, and untrue. Everything can be changed.  Even the Constitution can be amended.  The people who say the Constitution is a meaningless old scrap of parchment also claim a law passed in 2010 is chiseled in stone, and hung around the neck of every American for the rest of history with an unbreakable chain. What’s needed to effect meaningful change is determination....Remind Americans that forcing them to finance the propagation of ideas they disagree with is tyranny...

God help us all, because "determination" may not be the only necessity here.