<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xml:base="http://www.glennbeck.com/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No Obamacare: Whole Foods CEO John Mackey plans to open private office for employees to get free healthcare</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/</link>
	<description>The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 21:13:00 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218866</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218866</guid>
		<description>In days gone by there used to be a saying, &quot;Should have been a Philadelphia Lawyer&quot;...who are you and how the hell did you get so smart....seriously, I knew when I was clicking off the keys that - (in the back of my mind at least, I was hoping to set you a scrambling on a new path to outright destroy and conquer Obama&#039;s Healthcare nightmare) but in reality, the reply you have given is pretty much what I expected. You have the canny ability of getting straight to the point...as it should be, but something tells me, if there were anyone capable enough to find a way of penetration, it would be you, or the &quot;firm&quot; you work for. Kidding aside,I really mean the part about your personal abilities, so start cracking that noggin of yours and put your name on the map as the one who slipped the political rug out from under the liberal ilk residing in DC.

    </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In days gone by there used to be a saying, &#8220;Should have been a Philadelphia Lawyer&#8221;&#8230;who are you and how the hell did you get so smart&#8230;.seriously, I knew when I was clicking off the keys that &#8211; (in the back of my mind at least, I was hoping to set you a scrambling on a new path to outright destroy and conquer Obama&#8217;s Healthcare nightmare) but in reality, the reply you have given is pretty much what I expected. You have the canny ability of getting straight to the point&#8230;as it should be, but something tells me, if there were anyone capable enough to find a way of penetration, it would be you, or the &#8220;firm&#8221; you work for. Kidding aside,I really mean the part about your personal abilities, so start cracking that noggin of yours and put your name on the map as the one who slipped the political rug out from under the liberal ilk residing in DC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218790</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218790</guid>
		<description>

Let&#039;s assume for the moment that everything you claim
about intent and agenda is 100% true.  From
a Constitutionality standpoint, it is also 100% irrelevant.  The Constitution enumerates the power of
creating law to Congress (Article 1, Section 1), and it also allows Congress to
define its own processes (Article 1, Sections 5 &amp; 7).  Therefore, HOW Congress writes, debates,
votes on, and passes bills are self-defined processes -- you can&#039;t argue them
to be unconstitutional when the Constitution itself vests the authority for
defining said processes solely in the two respective houses of Congress.  So you are left with proving criminal action
-- hence the outcry over the &quot;Cornhusker Kickback&quot;, which in itself
was a totally Constitutional action, but was clearly the political equivalent
of a bribe -- which people find obnoxious. 
But you are going to be seriously challenged to find a hidden intent in
the bill -- quite the opposite, Nancy Pelosi admitted she had no idea what the
thing said or what the implications were. 
In fact, I would conclude the exact opposite of you -- the Progressives,
as usual, had this utopian vision of their ideal communist-based world, and
wrote law without a clue of basic economic principles, business principles, or
even human nature.  When you have clueless
community organizers writing law, you get bankrupting stuff like
Obamacare.  I could only WISH somebody
actually had a coherent agenda and plan behind half the junk that came out of
that 2-year Congressional period.  It was
actually 2 years of splurging on a decade of pent-up Progressive wish lists, to
the tune of $Bs of dollars.  


 


As for the law itself, read Article 1, Section 8.  The only limits on taxation are enumerated in
Article 1, Section 9 -- bills of attainder and capitation or other direct tax
(which was subsequently removed in part -- THANKS -- by the 16th Amendment, and
one could argue it also removed the capitation provision, albeit indirectly,
since I could set the &quot;direct&quot; tax to be a set amount for everybody
regardless of income -- and presto, capitation tax.)  That is why Justice Roberts&#039; opinion is
correct, even if it leaves a foul taste behind. 
Congress SHOULDN&#039;T use negative taxation as a coercive measure, but it
is not expressly prohibited from doing so. 
As Justice Roberts&#039; pointed out -- if we don&#039;t like it, we should vote
out the Congress and President, and replace them with people who will repeal
the old laws and refrain from using that taxation approach again.


 


Will Obamacare either bankrupt us, or result in rationing
and death panels like in Canada and Europe? 
Undoubtedly so, and much faster than it did in those places.  That&#039;s why Republicans used the death panels
line during the debates -- only they didn&#039;t explain it enough.  They failed to grasp the concept that
Progressives don&#039;t CARE if they bankrupt the country -- so they never explained
the story enough to show that there were TWO outcomes possible, only one of
which was &quot;feasible&quot; from their standpoint, but both of which were
&quot;acceptable&quot; to Progressives who want to turn the US into a Third
World country.  


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s assume for the moment that everything you claim<br />
about intent and agenda is 100% true.  From<br />
a Constitutionality standpoint, it is also 100% irrelevant.  The Constitution enumerates the power of<br />
creating law to Congress (Article 1, Section 1), and it also allows Congress to<br />
define its own processes (Article 1, Sections 5 &amp; 7).  Therefore, HOW Congress writes, debates,<br />
votes on, and passes bills are self-defined processes &#8212; you can&#8217;t argue them<br />
to be unconstitutional when the Constitution itself vests the authority for<br />
defining said processes solely in the two respective houses of Congress.  So you are left with proving criminal action<br />
&#8211; hence the outcry over the &#8220;Cornhusker Kickback&#8221;, which in itself<br />
was a totally Constitutional action, but was clearly the political equivalent<br />
of a bribe &#8212; which people find obnoxious. <br />
But you are going to be seriously challenged to find a hidden intent in<br />
the bill &#8212; quite the opposite, Nancy Pelosi admitted she had no idea what the<br />
thing said or what the implications were. <br />
In fact, I would conclude the exact opposite of you &#8212; the Progressives,<br />
as usual, had this utopian vision of their ideal communist-based world, and<br />
wrote law without a clue of basic economic principles, business principles, or<br />
even human nature.  When you have clueless<br />
community organizers writing law, you get bankrupting stuff like<br />
Obamacare.  I could only WISH somebody<br />
actually had a coherent agenda and plan behind half the junk that came out of<br />
that 2-year Congressional period.  It was<br />
actually 2 years of splurging on a decade of pent-up Progressive wish lists, to<br />
the tune of $Bs of dollars.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for the law itself, read Article 1, Section 8.  The only limits on taxation are enumerated in<br />
Article 1, Section 9 &#8212; bills of attainder and capitation or other direct tax<br />
(which was subsequently removed in part &#8212; THANKS &#8212; by the 16th Amendment, and<br />
one could argue it also removed the capitation provision, albeit indirectly,<br />
since I could set the &#8220;direct&#8221; tax to be a set amount for everybody<br />
regardless of income &#8212; and presto, capitation tax.)  That is why Justice Roberts&#8217; opinion is<br />
correct, even if it leaves a foul taste behind. <br />
Congress SHOULDN&#8217;T use negative taxation as a coercive measure, but it<br />
is not expressly prohibited from doing so. <br />
As Justice Roberts&#8217; pointed out &#8212; if we don&#8217;t like it, we should vote<br />
out the Congress and President, and replace them with people who will repeal<br />
the old laws and refrain from using that taxation approach again.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Will Obamacare either bankrupt us, or result in rationing<br />
and death panels like in Canada and Europe? <br />
Undoubtedly so, and much faster than it did in those places.  That&#8217;s why Republicans used the death panels<br />
line during the debates &#8212; only they didn&#8217;t explain it enough.  They failed to grasp the concept that<br />
Progressives don&#8217;t CARE if they bankrupt the country &#8212; so they never explained<br />
the story enough to show that there were TWO outcomes possible, only one of<br />
which was &#8220;feasible&#8221; from their standpoint, but both of which were<br />
&#8220;acceptable&#8221; to Progressives who want to turn the US into a Third<br />
World country. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218677</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218677</guid>
		<description>Boy, you got that right. And if we keep spreading the word about GREAT ROLE MODELS like this, we &lt;B&gt;will&lt;/B&gt; have more of this INSPIRING TYPE of person for all of us to emulate. Dr. Carson and his wife have already given out over 2000 scholarships to young people they have inspired to be ALL they can be. How many can say that? :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Boy, you got that right. And if we keep spreading the word about GREAT ROLE MODELS like this, we <b>will</b> have more of this INSPIRING TYPE of person for all of us to emulate. Dr. Carson and his wife have already given out over 2000 scholarships to young people they have inspired to be ALL they can be. How many can say that? <img src='http://www.glennbeck.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218651</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218651</guid>
		<description>It is in my opinion, obviously me and millions of other alarmed Americans, that this bill can be defeated. We are just not looking in the right direction...yet.

First thing to remember is, that all government officials upon entering office...starting with the president, must solemnly promise that, to the best of his ability, he will &quot;preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States&quot; that act is required by the constitution, which also says, that Senators and Representatives and all executive and judicial officers shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this constitution. 

Most it seem, have taken the oath and then done the opposite. Obama has, to the best of his ability, purposely smeared, ignored, or undermined that document. 

Obama and those serving under him and also many preceding administrations, so its not just Obama who&#039;s at fault here, its just that his ideas are the most blatantly radical this nation has ever witnessed. Obama&#039;s platform in his first campaign was to &quot;Fundamentally Transform America&quot; And the fundamental character found written in the US Constitution which has to do with the checks and balances to keep our governmental figures honest are somehow irrelevant, or have somehow become outdated. That is not part of the oath in which these political junkies swore an oath to...just the opposite. 

In truth, the liberals have never been satisfied with our constitution, claiming it ties their hands from allowing government to be all that it can and should be. On the other hand, our founders understood full-well the dangerous implications of government-run-a-muck. So in that argument, is where I feel can be found the only solution in turning this nation paralyzing bill to the curbside where it belonged from its inception. 

Operating on the fringes, or even just outside the confines of the stated charter, is where the fight to right the ship must begin. Conservatives must find a way to show that this healthcare bill and the manipulation of its passing, were not within the law. Its not in what Justice Roberts ruled, but in the very process of this bill from the start - the libs knew that this would happen, or at least they were hoping it would and as luck would have it - well here we are. Because the way the liberals are meticulously chipping away at the very core of our most important document, means within a short time, there will be no constitution left and therefore, no law and without law there is sudden civic breakdown and chaos, leading to riots and national upheaval. If...and I know that is a big if....we can figure a way that shows there was an existing and premeditated agenda to set aside the constitution by implementation of Obama&#039;s bill, then that is where we must begin. 

Again, I realize the road is uphill and very difficult, but as I stated before, this, I feel, will be the straw that breaks the camels back and if something isn&#039;t done quickly to stop and reverse the new mandate - the bleeding will become uncontrollable and this nation is through. Could it be that for no other reason, Obama care was implemented only...to destroy the American Constitution. If that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...isn&#039;t that a start in the right direction? Hey you&#039;re smarter at this by far than I...any thoughts....Z        </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is in my opinion, obviously me and millions of other alarmed Americans, that this bill can be defeated. We are just not looking in the right direction&#8230;yet.</p>
<p>First thing to remember is, that all government officials upon entering office&#8230;starting with the president, must solemnly promise that, to the best of his ability, he will &#8220;preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States&#8221; that act is required by the constitution, which also says, that Senators and Representatives and all executive and judicial officers shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this constitution. </p>
<p>Most it seem, have taken the oath and then done the opposite. Obama has, to the best of his ability, purposely smeared, ignored, or undermined that document. </p>
<p>Obama and those serving under him and also many preceding administrations, so its not just Obama who&#8217;s at fault here, its just that his ideas are the most blatantly radical this nation has ever witnessed. Obama&#8217;s platform in his first campaign was to &#8220;Fundamentally Transform America&#8221; And the fundamental character found written in the US Constitution which has to do with the checks and balances to keep our governmental figures honest are somehow irrelevant, or have somehow become outdated. That is not part of the oath in which these political junkies swore an oath to&#8230;just the opposite. </p>
<p>In truth, the liberals have never been satisfied with our constitution, claiming it ties their hands from allowing government to be all that it can and should be. On the other hand, our founders understood full-well the dangerous implications of government-run-a-muck. So in that argument, is where I feel can be found the only solution in turning this nation paralyzing bill to the curbside where it belonged from its inception. </p>
<p>Operating on the fringes, or even just outside the confines of the stated charter, is where the fight to right the ship must begin. Conservatives must find a way to show that this healthcare bill and the manipulation of its passing, were not within the law. Its not in what Justice Roberts ruled, but in the very process of this bill from the start &#8211; the libs knew that this would happen, or at least they were hoping it would and as luck would have it &#8211; well here we are. Because the way the liberals are meticulously chipping away at the very core of our most important document, means within a short time, there will be no constitution left and therefore, no law and without law there is sudden civic breakdown and chaos, leading to riots and national upheaval. If&#8230;and I know that is a big if&#8230;.we can figure a way that shows there was an existing and premeditated agenda to set aside the constitution by implementation of Obama&#8217;s bill, then that is where we must begin. </p>
<p>Again, I realize the road is uphill and very difficult, but as I stated before, this, I feel, will be the straw that breaks the camels back and if something isn&#8217;t done quickly to stop and reverse the new mandate &#8211; the bleeding will become uncontrollable and this nation is through. Could it be that for no other reason, Obama care was implemented only&#8230;to destroy the American Constitution. If that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt&#8230;isn&#8217;t that a start in the right direction? Hey you&#8217;re smarter at this by far than I&#8230;any thoughts&#8230;.Z</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218646</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218646</guid>
		<description>Saw the movie today..loved it.     We really need more Ben Carsons in our country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Saw the movie today..loved it.     We really need more Ben Carsons in our country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218404</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218404</guid>
		<description>And you come across as an ill informed low information voter. I gotta ask: are you typing all of this on your Obamafone?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And you come across as an ill informed low information voter. I gotta ask: are you typing all of this on your Obamafone?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218372</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 02:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218372</guid>
		<description>Hate to tell you, but you work at a shitty company that cares more about profits for stockholders and executives than the welfare of the employees that make those profits. You are being treated like shit, and so are those who work at walmart. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hate to tell you, but you work at a shitty company that cares more about profits for stockholders and executives than the welfare of the employees that make those profits. You are being treated like shit, and so are those who work at walmart. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218373</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 02:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218373</guid>
		<description>the day we kicked your ass?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the day we kicked your ass?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218371</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 02:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218371</guid>
		<description>so you won&#039;t talk to me, but you&#039;ll talk about me? very mature. lol.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so you won&#8217;t talk to me, but you&#8217;ll talk about me? very mature. lol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/07/glenn-interviews-whole-foods-ceo-john-mackey/#comment-218370</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 02:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=43097#comment-218370</guid>
		<description>So if I tell you to shut the fuck up, you&#039;ll obey? Good. Shut the fuck up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So if I tell you to shut the fuck up, you&#8217;ll obey? Good. Shut the fuck up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
