The Choice

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

Obama 2009: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

How about Health Insurance!? 🙂

IT’S NOT A TAX! IT’S A PENALTY Levied and enforced by a tax collection agency. But it’s not a Tax! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

According to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, the White House disagrees with the Supreme Court in its ruling Obamacare is a tax. From Twitter:

Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket

Orwell is intact. Even though the EXPLICIT reason the  mandate survived is because the SCOTUS called it a tax, the Liberals are still spinning away from it.

When is a tax not a tax? When President Obama says it isn’t, or when the Supreme Court says it is?

Obamacare was sold on several fraudulent lines. The president knows the country doesn’t want to pay higher taxes, given the deplorable way their government spends the money. And so the administration packaged it as something different.

That’s called bait and switch, which is defined as “an illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product.” And Obamacare, if it is not repealed, is guaranteed to be more expensive, not to mention more bureaucratic, delivering lower-quality care and eventually rationing to save money.

Does it matter what this president promises since so many have turned up empty?

This ruling will impose a massive tax increase during a lingering recession. Twenty-one new taxes are associated with Obamacare, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. That doesn’t include the scheduled year-end expiration of the Bush tax cuts. President Obama has said taxes shouldn’t be raised during a recession.

Simply put, if government is going to take more money from the people who earn it — mostly small businesses — it will result in those businesses hiring fewer people, or laying off more employees, or both, thus increasing already high unemployment. People who have never run a business, or made a payroll, like most in this administration, have no sense of that.

The list of lies and deceptions by this administration is long and growing. When campaigning for president in 2008, candidate Obama made “a firm pledge” not to raise taxes: “Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” In 2009, he vigorously denied to George Stephanopoulos of ABC that the individual mandate is a tax. Now Chief Justice John Roberts says it is. If money leaves your pocket and goes to government, it’s a tax, no matter the label.

Some congressional Democrats, especially those running for re-election in traditionally Republican districts, might not have voted for this law had it been presented as a tax increase. They will now have to either defend the tax hike or vow to repeal the law. One way, they appear not to have known what they were doing. The other way, they will be portrayed as having lied.

In the short term, the president may have won the argument, but the Supreme Court has given Mitt Romney and the Republicans three issues: higher taxes, a loss of individual freedom and the wrong solution to reforming health insurance.

So the Republicans just have to have their viable plan for replacing ObamaCare, sell it. The liberal media will tear it apart faster than piranhas would a cow in the Amazon River NO MATTER WHAT IT SAYS  but they have to just go for it.

But will they? I don’t know.

The Founders sought to “secure the blessings of liberty.” This president wants to secure the power of government. And so government, which has done a poor job of running Medicare and Medicaid, will now be responsible for an even bigger program. This is like renewing the license of a serial drunk driver.

Roberts joins a long line of justices nominated by Republican presidents, beginning with Earl Warren, who agreed with the liberal wing of the court on cases favored by the Left. Rarely, if ever, does a liberal justice vote with the conservatives.

Roberts suggested he wouldn’t do the work of the people. If they don’t like Obamacare, they can change the leadership. The Republican Governors Association is planning to do nothing on Obamacare until after the election, an indication they believe a Romney presidency and a Republican Congress will repeal the law.

In a statement following the court’s decision, President Obama promised to implement the law with all deliberate speed. He apparently hopes that with more of it in place (except the taxes that come in 2014), people will become dependent on it and won’t want to do away with it.

In just four months, voters will have the opportunity to live up to the responsibility that Roberts says is theirs. Otherwise, voters will become co-conspirators in the weakening of health care and the further destruction of our liberties. (Cal Thomas)

It’s all on you now.

Do you want to be a nation of Serfs or Free (relative to Serfdom) People? Your Choice. Your Children’s choice. Your Grand children’s Choice.

THE TAX BOMB

Summary (from Heritage Foundation)

PPACAcontains 18 separate tax increases that will cost taxpayers $503 billion between 2010 and 2019. Three major tax hikes make up nearly half of the new revenue raised by PPACA:

  1. Section 1401 imposes a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans. This new tax will apply to health plans valued in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Those thresholds will grow annually by inflation plus 1 percent. The tax takes effect in 2018 and is projected to raise $32 billion by 2019.
  2. Section 1411 increases the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax. This provision will increase the employee’s portion from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for families making more than $250,000 a year (and for individuals making more than $200,000). Combined with the employer’s portion, the total rate will be 3.8 percent on every dollar of income over $250,000 when the tax hike takes effect in 2013.
  3. Section 1411 also imposes a new payroll tax on investment. This tax provision applies the new higher 3.8 percent Medicare tax to investment income—including capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties—and is scheduled to become effective in 2013. Together, the Medicare tax hikes will raise $210 billion between 2013 and 2019.

Table 1 lists all of the tax increases in PPACA.

Impact

As a result, the tax hikes in PPACA will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages. These economy-slowing policies could not come at a worse time. PPACA tax increases will impede an already staggering recovery.

They Will Slow Economic Growth and Destroy Jobs . Taxes transfer money from productive private hands to the less efficient public sector. A politicized allocation is less efficient than market-based allocation because political decisions do not consider the highest-value use of resources, while the private sector considers such issues and therefore does a better job of assigning resources where they will contribute the most to economic growth.

They Will Discourage Work and Savings. Congress must levy high tax rates to take more Americans’ money, and this has a number of negative implications. Higher tax rates decrease the incentives for individuals to work and save more, both of which are essential for economic growth. Additionally, high rates discourage individuals from working harder and saving larger portions of what they earn. Combined, these two effects impede economic growth and reduce the number of jobs that businesses would have created had tax rates been lower.

They Will Not Reduce Deficits. Higher taxes never close budget deficits because, in the short run, Congress will spend all of the extra revenue it receives from higher taxes. Congress always spends every dollar of tax revenue it raises and however much it can borrow from credit markets. In the long run, the extra revenue will dissipate as individuals adjust their behavior to minimize their tax liability. The only way to close deficits is to cut spending and align it with how much revenue the tax code typically raises.

A New Direction

All tax increases have negative economic effects because higher taxes take resources from the productive hands of the private sector and transfer them to the wasteful hands of politicians. Higher taxes also lessen the incentives for individuals and businesses to engage in activities and behaviors that expand the economy and create jobs.

The tax code is a severe drag on the economy and is badly in need of fundamental reform. Ideally, a revised tax code would adhere more closely to the well-known flat tax. This new tax system would tax all wage and salary income at one rate and provide for only minimal deductions, credits, and exemptions. Tax reform is not an excuse to raise taxes. The new tax code would raise the same amount of revenue as the current system but in a more efficient manner in order to enhance economic growth.

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes

(From Americans for Tax Relief)
Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses

Taxpayers are reminded that the President’s healthcare law is one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses.

Arranged by their respective effective dates, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, where to find them in the bill, and how much your taxes are scheduled to go up as of today:

Taxes that took effect in 2010:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion).  This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion).  This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

Taxes that took effect in 2011:

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

Tax that took effect in 2012:

9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

Taxes that take effect in 2013:

10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013):  Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

  Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

  First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

13. Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs educationBill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

Taxes that take effect in 2014:

17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

  1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014):  If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  Phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

Taxes that take effect in 2018:

20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family).  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions.  CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

Obama 2009: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

But don’t worry, even now after the SCOTUS has called it a tax, the DOJ that defended it in court said it is a tax, the White House still maintains it is not tax and thus they are not lying out what’s left of their collectivist asses.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

Victims of a Bullied Justice

The IRS Can NOW Enter Through The Rear

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

What do you know it’s a TAX!

2009: “That may be, but it’s still a tax increase,” said Stephanopoulos.

“No,” said the president. “That’s not true, George.  The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. 

Stephanopoulos cited Merriam Webster’s Dictionary definition. “Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” said the president. “Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition….I absolutely reject that notion” that it’s a tax increase. (ABC News)

Yeah, But Chief Justice Roberts just ruled that it was a TAX. That’s why Obamacare is “Constitutional”, because it’s TAX in the view of the “majority” opinion.

Like he did when Obamacare was being debated, Obama will try to hide from Americans the fact that Obamacare is a tax increase when he is on the stump. But in 2012, he won’t be able to take credit for Obamacare without admitting that it is a tax increase because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in upholding his law, called him out on it. (Breitbart)

But at least 1700+ companies, mostly unions are exempt because of the waivers passed out like candy to his apparatchiks. Oh happy Days.

Why Roberts did it

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, June 28, 1:11 PM

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do?

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

So he gave into pressure to be “liked” and to not appear to be a “right wing judicial activist”. Image Politics at it’s finest and darkest.

So like the Republicans in the Debt Ceiling vote they caved into the pressure from the intolerant and partisan media and we all get to be victims of the Bully Pulpit.

Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a “corporate dominated arm of the Republican party.” The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily–not by corporate interests, but by Obama’s imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media. 

If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite–not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals–still smarting over Bush v. Gore–and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that “bipartisanship” is the legacy of the Chief Justice’s apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest. (Breitbart)

Also worth reading: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-its-not-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it

He was for it After he was against it. The tortured logic of a bully’s victim.

He’s got Stockholm Syndrome.

And we all get hit with the shrapnel. I wonder if Post Traumatic Roberts Syndrome will be covered by ObamaCare?

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy)- a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected  by the least capable of producing,and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or  succeed,are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of
a diminishing number of producers.

One last thing:  As soon as the law was ruled Constitutional, some members of the DNC showed their class.  A tweet was sent out that read, “It’s Constitutional, bitches!”  That’s class for ya. It’s must be that new “civility” they were talking about.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

And The Winner Is…

BIG BROTHER!!!!

Its "for the childern"

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the court’s judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Roberts provided the swing vote to uphold the president’s health care law as the court ruled 5-4. The court’s four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Justice Roberts: The chief justice came to the conclusion that the mandate was constitutional as a tax after finding that it was not, in fact, a legal “command” to buy health insurance.

WHAT WAS HE SMOKING?!!!

“Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income,” he wrote.

“As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test ‘has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.'” –Justice Thomas

Justice Roberts still toking the Weed: The Constitution’s commerce clause does not allow the federal government to force people to participate in a particular economic activity, Roberts stated.

“The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because they will engage in particular transactions,” Roberts wrote. “Any police power to regulate people, as such, as opposed to their activities, remains with the states.”

BUT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS THE JUSTIFICATION YOU MORON!

The justices rejected two of the administration’s three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts said.

The court found problems with the law’s expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states’ entire Medicaid allotment if they don’t take part in the law’s extension.

“The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding,” the dissenters said in a joint statement.

The court’s ruling has a far-reaching impact on the nation’s health care system. With the law being upheld, about 30 million of the 50 million uninsured Americans would get coverage in 2014 when a big expansion begins.

Obama has vigorously defended the health care overhaul as critical to the public’s health and well-being in campaign events this week.

“I think it was the right thing to do. I know it was the right thing to do,” he told supporters in Boston.

Republican campaign strategists said presidential candidate Mitt Romney will use the court’s ruling to continue campaigning against “Obamacare” and attacking the president’s signature health care program as a tax increase.

“Obama might have his law, but the GOP has a cause,” said veteran campaign adviser Terry Holt. “This promises to galvanize Republican support around a repeal of what could well be called the largest tax increase in American history.”

So Now the Government can demand you buy they deem, all they have to do is      call it a tax and claim it’s “commerce” and you’re toast!

And if your State objects to Federal Laws, too f*cking bad for you!

Do you think if it was sold as a Tax originally and that if  you didn’t comply an  IRS Agent would be punitively coming to your bank account  would you have embraced it?

The Left would have, it’s their Holy Grail. They now control who lives and who dies and How you Live! What could make them happier!

So coming soon:

The BMI Tax

The Salt Tax

The Soda Tax

The Obese Tax

The Fat Tax

The Vegan Tax

The Recycling/Global Warming Tax

The Chevy Volt Tax

The Gasoline Tax

The Light Bulb Tax

The Home Garden Tax

The Fast Food Penalty Tax

The MSNBC Tax

If they can TAX you for this what can’t they TAX you for??

NOTHING! Certainly not the Supreme Court!

What’s next, a TAX if we don’t work? So they they can get us working and not working.

You are now Serfs of the Big Brother who can now TAX you for anything they want and you have no say! So just suck it up, Serf!

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. Costing you $744 on a  $40,000 a year job to begin with.

But testing a website for poor people: The law expands Medicaid to all individuals and families with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. But the court found that states cannot be penalized if they decline to comply with the expansion, raising questions as to how effectively the federal government will be able to implement it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

Under 26, Single, Low income of $20,000: You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state’s exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be no more than $800 to $1,260. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 15 percent of the total cost.

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of 1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $695.

And everyone making that kind of money can certainly pay a Tax to nearly $700!!

So let me get this straight. We are taxed on things we do and now we are taxed if we don’t do anything?

And since the Government will now be in control of your Life through your health congratulation citizen you are now the proud servant of your Master not the Master of your our destiny!

R.I.P. USA 2012. It is almost officially over for this country.

We sure as hell ain’t a Constitutional Republic anymore. A blighted, bloated, and not-so-benign Dictatorship more like.

Hope you will remember fondly with nostalgia that now vanquished concept called FREEDOM. It was a quaint nothing while it lasted.

Future generations will look upon it with puzzlement  completely unable to understand the concept. It will be like a Roman trying to understand an airplane.

The Government is ALWAYS Right. There are Three Lights!

ALL HAIL YOUR KING!

Sen Mike Lee: The Court really messed up with that part of their decision — it isn’t a tax, it wasn’t sold as a tax, it doesn’t have the hallmarks of a tax.  I respectfully but forcefully disagree with the opinion.  Politically, we have to take this thing down.  We’re going to win.  People are going to show up in droves in November.”

And the only way to do that is to VOTE AGAINST OBAMA and the Democrat Senate!

THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

Sarah Palin Obamacare
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Unreal

Barack Obama suggested that any decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn his landmark healthcare law would send the country “backwards” and that Americans did not want to “re-fight” the battle over healthcare.

I do. Since they pulled every dirty trick known and unknown the last time to by-hook-or-by-crook to cram it down our throats.

Mind you they will lie, cheat, threatening, intimidate and class warfare it to death again anyhow and with even more zealotry than last time.

It’s the Holy Grail. Being able to control everyone and everything completely. How can authoritarian fascists like the Left pass that up? They can’t.

“The American people fight for what’s right. And the American people understand that we’re not going to make progress by going backwards. We need to go forward,” he said.

Translation: “The American Left fights dirty for what’s THEY WANT. And the American people have to understand that we’re not going to go away or go backwards by giving in to what you want. We need to go forward and control everyone and everything,” he said.

So I will appoint even more liberal justice to the Supreme Court given the chance so this kind of thing doesn’t happen anymore and we get what we want when we want it and you can’t do anything about because the Federal Government reigns supreme.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on Obamacare–and, in particular, the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not.

Let us hope that the Court invalidates this law.

The individual mandate is the apotheosis of the modern Democratic party’s way of doing business. In particular, it is the quintessential example of how, hiding behind a smokescreen of egalitarian rhetoric, the party has become deeply, perhaps hopelessly, anti-republican, happy to dole out favors to privileged groups while the rest of the country is left with nothing.

But you have you Two Minute Hates (or in the case of MSNBC- 24/7/365) and it makes liberals “feel good” because after all, they have a very high opinion of their greatness and charity. Reality is another matter.

Rasmussen has conducted 98 polls of likely voters.  All 98 times, support for repeal has outpaced opposition to repeal.  Across 98 contests, Obamacare has gone 0 and 98.

Real Clear Politics lists 20 other polls on repeal from across the past 27 months.  In 19 of those 20, support for repeal has outpaced opposition to repeal — giving Obamacare an overall record of 1-117.(TWS)

And you know that one poll is all the Left will ever mention. That’s their reality.

Because the LEFT still thinks it’s the greatest boon to mankind since the invention of fire and that’s because it’s what THEY have always wanted and THEY want even MORE.

First, the individual mandate represents an enormous transfer of wealth, completely independent of income or social status. It transfers resources from the healthy to the sick, from the young to the old, without regard to who has more money to begin with. Democrats typically rail against supposedly regressive GOP tax proposals, but nothing the Republicans have ever cooked up compares to the individual mandate. While we’re on the subject of Democratic regressiveness, LBJ’s Medicare is a similarly regressive form of taxation, and ditto Social Security, ever since Johnson turned it into a pay-as-you-go system. Yet watch Democrats howl with outrage whenever the GOP dares suggest reforms that would alter this socially unjust status quo. (Jay Cost)

And it still begs the question: If the Federal Government can force you to buy Health Insurance, what else can they force you to buy? Or not buy? Do or not do?

Or what other aspects of your life are “unhealthy” and the government must step in to save you from yourself. Hmmm??

In a move that could significantly expand insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments, a federal health advisory panel on Monday recommended that all obese adults receive intensive counseling in an effort to rein in a growing health crisis in America.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force urged doctors to identify patients with a body mass index of 30 or more — currently 1 in 3 Americans — and either provide counseling themselves or refer the patient to a program designed to promote weight loss and improve health prospects.

“I’m sorry, Ms. Smith, But your BMI card shows you are Obese and have not been attending your mandatory classes so I can’t sell you this Big Mac with Fries. How about a nice Salad instead?” 🙂

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

The phone number for the “Racial profiling” hotline set up just hours after the SB1070 decision has been overloaded already. 2 days later.

Boy the La Raza Crowd has been busy. 🙂

Over the 12-month period from April 2010 to March 2011, the number of DOJ prosecutions resulting from referrals by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) totaled 21,669. By comparison, the period April 2011 to March 2012 accounted for 19,149 prosecutions based on ICE referrals – an estimated 12 percent drop.

DOJ prosecutions stemming from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) investigations dropped by six percent over the same period, from 69,840 in the April 2010-March 2011 period to 65,440 between April 2011 and March 2012.

So they aren’t even prosecuting the Felons they say they are “focused” on!!

So they won’t take calls from Arizona on Illegals, the DOJ isn’t even taking ICE seriously!

Under the Obama administration, ICE in June 2011 determined it would employ prosecutorial discretion in deciding which illegal aliens to deport. It is now focusing on aliens with serious criminal records.

“Until February 2011, ICE criminal prosecutions had been climbing, reaching a peak of 21,686 on an annual basis,” TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) said in releasing the latest DOJ immigration prosecution figures. “Since then, using a 12-month moving average, numbers can be seen to have been falling.”

TRAC noted that while the number of ICE criminal prosecutions has decreased, the number of ICE deportations is on track to reaching its stated goal of around 400,000 during FY 2012.

CBP-referred prosecutions have decreased over the first three years of the Obama administration, according to the figures obtained by TRAC.

“CBP prosecutions display a sharp rise beginning in February 2008. One year later in February 2009 CBP criminal prosecutions reached a peak of 80,147 over a 12-month period,” said TRAC.

“However, over the past three years (with some month-to-month variation) there has been a steady decline in criminal prosecutions resulting from referrals from the Border Patrol and other CBP officers catching violators at ports of entry. For the 12-month period ending in March 2012, CBP prosecutions had fallen to 65,440 – 18 percent below their peak.”

In FY 2011. an illegal alien faced an estimated 20 percent chance of facing criminal prosecution if apprehended by CBP: There were 340,252 apprehensions nationwide, but only 69,080 CBP-referred prosecutions that year, according to the data obtained by TRAC.

The previous year, 463,382 apprehensions nationwide resulted in 72,572 prosecutions, putting the odds of prosecution for an illegal alien who had been arrested by CBP at an estimated 16 percent.

In FY 2009 and FY 2008 the proportion of arrests to prosecutions was 14 percent and nine percent respectively. (CNS)

And now with Fiat Amnesty and the “We Don’t Care if you call us” attitude I bet it goes even lower.

So keep calling that Hotline if some cop looks at you the wrong way. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

His Imperial Majesty Has Arrived

“If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”

But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

“What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that ‘federal policies’ of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites … but leaves unremedied in its disposition.”

“Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives states of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,”

“And it is an assault on logic to say that identifying a removable alien and holding him for federal determination of whether he should be removed ‘violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the federal Government,’”–Justice Scalia.

Put simply, we now have a legal precedent that if the Federal government wants to willfully ignore Federal Law there is no force in this nation that can prevent it, halt it or counter it. If they willfully refuse to enforce the law you have no recourse whatsoever. You’re just plain F*CKED!

Then the most “controversial” aspect of SB1070 remains where if you have already stopped someone you can inquire about their status upon reasonable suspicion (like they have no id, they run from the scene, they have 15 people crammed into a Honda Pilot).

But since that is automatically, “racial profiling” in the mind of the Pro-Illegal hysterical Left crowd they howled like banshees over that 8-0 decision.

So what does our Imperial President do? He yanks the 287-G Federal cooperation on such matters with JUST Arizona, no one else.

“At every turn,” she said, “we see the federal government putting their finger down on other places … They rescinded the 287(g) for all law enforcement in the state of Arizona immediately after this ruling came out. They’re taking away the ability for us to work hand in hand with ICE. So now instead of being able to access the [citizenship] database we’re going to have to call in and go through ICE to verify if somebody’s illegally in the state or not. That’s an assault on Arizona. And it was only rescinded in the State of Arizona.”- Governor Jan Brewer

And Obama & Napalitano have effectively told ICE Agents to basically ignore the calls from the police about illegal immigrants unless they are an axe-wielding serial killers then they might care.

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police. (townhall)

It’s Like a parent taking the toy away from a misbehaving child.

Mommy Government is very mad at you. You have been a bad boy.

If Mommy wants to ignore the problem you can’t fix it yourself.

So the White House and Homeland Security set up a “rat out” hot line so that any La Raza, MeCHA, or other radical hispanic advocacy group can rat out any cop in Arizona that looks at them funny.

Pure intimidation. It’s the Chicago Way. And maybe you can use your “Obama Phone”. 🙂

“Republicans Don’t Care About Dead Mexicans”— Obama Million Dollar Donor Bill Maher

And yes, the hotline was set up by the same Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department that refused to prosecute New Black Panther Party members for intimidating voters outside of a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.(townhall)

The trend in recent decades toward more power being concentrated in the executive branch has reached its high point in the Obama White House. Obama’s first three and a half years have resurrected the title “the imperial presidency,” a term that captures how much Obama’s presidency has exceeded its constitutional limits.

Obama has not hidden his imperialism. When Obama’s legislative agenda stalled , former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel promised that Obama would govern through “executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues.”

“Now, whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we’re going to act,” Obama promised at a February 2012 event on the payroll tax cut extension. “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”

“What I’m not gonna do is wait for Congress,” Obama declared in an April interview on 60 Minutes when asked what he’d do if the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare.

Obama has been similarly dismissive of the U.S. Supreme Court, which he recently referred to as “an unelected group of people” who need to show “deference to democratically-elected legislatures” by upholding Obamacare or risk its “credibility.” (Gary Bauer)

The Separation of Powers doesn’t exist with Obama and his cronies. They are Supreme and they will get what they want when they want it and no one can stop them, certainly not any old dusty document called the Constitution!

Obama issues Executive Orders, He orders his Cabinet Cronies, He order regulatory agents to do his bidding if he doesn’t get it.

He is the Imperial president and ANYTHING HE WANTS is “the right thing to do”. Screw you, if you disagree.

He’s the spoiled rotten kid who got everything he every wanted in life. Then he met people who didn’t want to kiss his imperial ass and he throws a tantrum every time someone thwarts what the Imperial President wants.

In 2011, Obama ordered the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against court challenges. Later that year the Department of Homeland Security announced it would no longer deport noncitizen spouses of homosexual Americans in direct contradiction to DOMA.

Obama’s Department of Education has granted waivers to ten states that free them from having to follow the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

Obama appointed dozens of “czars,” White House liaison officers who were neither elected nor confirmed and who were accountable only to the president.

When Obama’s cap-and-trade bill failed to pass the House, he ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the energy industry through bureaucratic fiat.

Obama’s had no luck passing immigration reform. And with sky-high unemployment among Hispanic Americans, he was desperate to do something to energize that key voting bloc. So he issued a memo earlier this month ordering DHS no longer to deport certain illegal immigrants.

The Dodd-Frank financial bill created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is headed by a presidential appointee with unconstitutional power. As David Limbaugh explains in his new best-seller The Great Destroyer:

Obama didn’t want to wait on the Senate to confirm his appointee to run the CFPB, so he carved out a “special advisory role” at the bureau and appointed the anti-capitalist Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren to lead a team of thirty to forty people at the Department of Treasury. “This legalistic gambit serves as a fig leaf for a very different reality: Mr. Geithner will never reject any of Ms. Warren’s ‘advice,’” observes Yale Professor Bruce Ackerman. “The simple truth is that the Treasury secretary is being transformed into a rubber stamp for a White House staffer.”

When Warren left the CFPB, Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to replace her. When the Senate refused to confirm him, Obama took the unprecedented step of issuing a recess appointment—but at a time when Congress was actually still in session.

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in announcing Cordray as his pick “When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama,” Jonathan Turley, a liberal constitutional law scholar at George Washington University Law School, told Politico recently.

In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strove for. On everything from [DOMA] to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.

Obama has acted with little respect for the Constitution’s checks and balances and separation of powers. The result has been an unprecedented three and a half years of power grabs, executive orders, unconstitutional appointments and a series of veiled and not-so-veiled threats against the other branches of government.

Checks and balances and separation of powers are crucial components of limited government. But limited government and separation of powers are not concepts that the president respects. (Gary Bauer)

Then he extended Executive Privilege over an issue he had maintained he know nothing about and the White was not even involved in.

He did because he wanted to. He wants it to extend to anyone within his Imperial Reach that might hurt HIM.

It’s after all all about WHAT HE WANTS. Not the rule of Law. Not The Constitution. Not the Separation of Powers. NOTHING BUT WHAT HE WANTS.

And by hook or by crook he will get what HE WANTS.

So if he get re-elected and has “more freedom” (as he said) to do whatever he wants, even more than he has done, we’ll definitely have King Obama The First the absolute sovereign of all his disrespectful serfs.

Mind you, he had a complete super majority in BOTH houses of Congress and could have passed anything he wanted. So where was “comprehensive immigration reform” amnesty then?

He was too busy with Health Care. It’s what he wanted at the time.

So you are at the mercy of the mercurial whim of our Imperial President.

The irony is that Obama has been a strong booster of the Secure Communities program, introduced by President George W. Bush, operated under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and expanded under this administration. The program forwards fingerprints taken by local law enforcement to ICE, where officials check to see whether arrestees are in the United States legally. Obama is happy to have local law enforcement check on the immigration status of people it arrests, as long as only his feds make the decision over what to do — or not do — about it.

“There’s a difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. That’s what Arizona did in this case, and we believe it is an unconstitutional interference with the federal government’s prerogative to set and enforce immigration policy.”

Or, in this case, not enforce immigration policy. Clearly, the president objects only when states seek to bolster immigration law, not flout it.

As dissenting justice Antonin Scalia reasoned, “the sale of illegal drugs, for example, ordinarily violates state law as well as federal law, and no one thinks that the state penalties cannot exceed the federal.” “There’s a difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. That’s what Arizona did in this case, and we believe it is an unconstitutional interference with the federal government’s prerogative to set and enforce immigration policy.”

Or, in this case, not enforce immigration policy. Clearly, the president objects only when states seek to bolster immigration law, not flout it.

As dissenting justice Antonin Scalia reasoned, “the sale of illegal drugs, for example, ordinarily violates state law as well as federal law, and no one thinks that the state penalties cannot exceed the federal.”

What Obama is really saying: “Move over, Arizona. Only I have the right to undermine federal law.” (Debra Saunders)

And if you don’t like it Tough Sh*t!

And if you won’t pass something I like I will simply go around it and do anyhow.

Up Yours! I am the Imperial President. It’s all about ME!

ALL HAIL THE EMPEROR,KING OBAMA THE FIRST!

Or else! :0

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

What A Week

This is the most important week of President Obama’s bid for a second term in November.

Consider:

●The Supreme Court will rule not only on the constitutionality of Obama’s landmark health-care law, but the highest court in the country also will hand down judgment on Arizona’s stringent illegal immigration law.

●Congress will be forced into action (or inaction) on federal student loans and highway projects — both of which will expire within the next week.

●The House will vote on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress due to his refusal to turn over some documents related to the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation.

Any one of those issues — in isolation — would be a major political event with resultant consequences on the presidential race. Combined them all in the space of a week and we may well look back at this coming seven days as where/when Obama’s second term bid was made/broken.

“We are in a short period right now where the candidates and the terms of the presidential debate will be defined, with several critical issues coming to a head and voters’ perceptions of the economy, and who will best deal with it, clarifying,” said Steve Rosenthal, a longtime Democratic strategist. (WP)

But don’t worry, the Liberal media will blow it off, blames someone else or just plain go “eh, so what..” because that’s what liberals do when they are repudiated.
The Spin should Obama lose big should be enough to stop the Milky Way from spinning.
After all, ObamaCare was as ABC’s Charlie Gibson in December 2009 that “this will be the single most important piece of domestic legislation passed since Social Security.”
But he’s a “journalist”. 🙂
The latest AP/GfK poll showed that only 33 percent of Americans support the plan while 47 percent oppose it.
Barack Obama 2012: Elect me and I’ll spend the political capital of my second term fixing the unpopular, unconstitutional health care law that I wasted the political capital of my first term pushing through. Then I’ll get to the issues that you care about with whatever diminished political capital I have left.(DC)
But don’t worry, the Liberals won’t mention it and certainly no “journalist” will.

In Congress, time is running out on a long-standing stalemate — what else is new — over funding for federal highway projects, and a dispute over the interest rate paid on federal student loans, which is set to double on July 1 if no action has taken.

Obama, who is doing his best to run against the unpopular Republican Congress at the moment, seized on both issues during his weekly Saturday address. “This makes no sense,” Obama said of the impasse. “It’s up to the House . . . to put aside partisan posturing, end the gridlock, and do what’s right for the American people.”

Yeah, the Republican passed a bill, the Democrats didn’t like it so they ignored it completely and blamed the Republicans for “obstructing” the process.

That’s how things are done (or not) in Washington D.C. these days.

And of course, there’s SB1070, the state level version of the Federal laws that are so “racist”.

Holder held in contempt (since he has loads of it for everyone else) unless at 11:59:59 he gives in but don’t bet on it. I wouldn’t especially with Obama who “knew nothing” about it has extended his Executive Privilege that says he did to be a legitimate use and not just a political ploy to delay it after the election. 🙂

WH SpokesKid Jay Carney: “We absolutely agree with the need to find out why Fast and Furious happened …”

“… and why it was employed in the previous administration.”

It was, after all a botched Bush Administration operation… 🙂

Oh, and the Muslim Brotherhood, radical Muslims with ties to Al-Qaeda, take Egypt a year and half after Obama’s glorious “Arab Spring”.

So it should be a fun week. 🙂

Then there’s :

Godfather of global warming hysteria admits he was “unduly alarmist”

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it. (Toronto Sun)

HERESY! They will have to disavow their own God! 🙂

Bet no one in the liberal media listens. They are, after all, “journalists”.

 

Divorce From Reality

‘Here’s a little secret,” Keith Olbermann told viewers in 2010. “When racist white guys get together and they don’t want to be caught using any of the popular epithets that are in use every day in this country about black people . . . the racist white guys resort to euphemisms and code words.”

At least Olbermann acknowledged that not all white people are racist; but three and a half years into the first “post-racial” presidency, one might get that impression. Take the list Olbermann enumerated on air: “Cocky, flippant, punk, and especially, arrogant.” Last week, Congressional Black Caucus executive director Angela Rye added cool to the list: “Even cool, the term cool, could in some ways be deemed racial.”

Liberals have spent the past four years tearing out page after page of Merriam-Webster. “Articulate” and “bright” were forbidden early in the 2008 primary season, with Obama defenders dredging up a classy Chris Rock joke that “articulate” is “some s**t you say about retarded people that can talk.” But CNN, Legal Affairs, and other media outlets had bestowed the same compliment on John Edwards during his meteoric rise years before. A 2004 Slate headline called Edwards “bright and articulate and really, really youthful,” while Steve Benen wrote at the Carpetbagger Report in 2003 that “Edwards is a very bright, articulate, and aggressive lawmaker.” (NRO)

Then Senator Biden in 2007 about Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” (CNN)

In April, Mitt Romney unveiled a new campaign slogan at a stop in Ohio: “Obama Isn’t Working.” Racist, cried Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: It evokes “the stereotype of the ‘lazy,’ ‘shiftless’ black man.” Van Jones, Obama’s erstwhile “green-jobs czar,” said in a web chat that the slogan set off “racial fire alarms.” But as the Romney campaign explained, the slogan was a tribute to Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative party, whose “Labour Isn’t Working” poster, designed in 1978 when the Iron Lady was running for prime minister, was named by Campaign magazine the poster of the century: Its image of a winding unemployment line “pointed to Britain’s economic climate of rising unemployment, rising inflation, and a growing national debt.” Sound familiar?

Criticism of Obama policy is also racist. During debates over the president’s health-care overhaul, NPR claimed that “a sharp divide [exists] between whites who have a liberal outlook on racial issues compared with those who have a conservative outlook on racial issues.” Meanwhile, responding to South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during the president’s 2009 health-care address to Congress, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote, “But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”

Reflecting on C-SPAN on Obama’s election to the presidency, filmmaker Michael Moore said Obama succeeded among young voters “because they’re not as racist as the previous generations,” implying that all those older white folks who rejected Obama at the polls were racist.

And if liberals can find racism in Obama’s electoral victories, they can certainly locate it in his defeats. After a federal prisoner received more than 40 percent of the vote against Obama in May’s West Virginia primary, state Democrats blamed the racist voters. But, of course, in a closed Democratic primary, those could not be bigoted Republican voters. The state Democrats condemned their own.

The Left hears so many “dog whistles” in today’s public discourse that one fears to say anything at all. And that’s the point. Liberals use the accusation of racism as a cudgel to cow political opponents. But the refusal by so many on the left to approach with honesty disagreements on questions of policy indicates intellectual bankruptcy, and many are growing savvy to the invocation of race to forestall substantive debate. Furthermore, what anti-black racism does exist in America could not possibly account for the nearly 50 percent of voters who disapprove of the president’s performance, or his policies’ frequent failure in the courts, or his poor performance in his own party’s primaries.

In his book Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, Josef Pieper wrote, “The dignity of the word, to be sure, consists in this: through the word is accomplished what no other means can accomplish, namely, communication based on reality.”

Liberals have spent the last four years manipulating and excising words because they refuse to confront reality.

But then, we already knew that.(NRO)

And as if that wasn’t enough unreality for you:

A Tax for Nothing

Question: Do you fill your car’s tank with gasoline that is part cellulosic ethanol, an environment-friendly distillate of wood chips, corn cobs, and switch grass? Let me answer for you: No, you don’t. You couldn’t if you wanted to. Petroleum products blended with cellulosic ethanol aren’t commercially available, because the technology for mass-producing cellulosic ethanol hasn’t been perfected. None of which has stopped the Environmental Protection Agency  from imposing hefty yearly fines on oil refiners. According to the The New York Times, in 2011 automotive fuel producers were assessed $6.8 million in penalties. That amount is expected to climb dramatically this year. Guess who ends up footing the bill for the difference?

This has got to be the ultimate example of government bureaucracy gone mad. How did it happen? Blame can be divided over the last two administrations. In his 2006 State of the Union Address, George W. Bush promised to “fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass.” The following year, Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which mandates that oil refiners begin blending cellulosic ethanol into their gasoline and diesel products.

The “advanced biofuel contribution” under the law was to begin in 2009 at 0.6 billion gallons of cellulosic biomass and rise incrementally, first to 1.35 billion gallons in 2011, then to 2 billion gallons in 2012, and so on. By 2022, 21 billion gallons of fuel pumped into the nation’s cars and trucks was to be cellulosic ethanol.

The law further stipulated that if refiners failed to comply with the EPA mandate, they would pay a penalty.

The only problem with this arrangement was that the grant recipients responsible for coming up with Bush’s “cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol … from wood chips and stalks or switch grass” instead came up empty. In a 2011 report, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “currently, no commercially viable bio-refineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel.” The report also noted that the renewable fuel standard “may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,” since the full life cycle of the fuel, including its transport, could lead to higher emissions than conventional petroleum.

Undaunted, the Obama administration has forged blindly ahead, continuing the elusive search for a technology that will produce cellulosic biomass—at taxpayers’ expense. Since thanks to the EPA mandate we are already paying more at the pump, the American people are truly getting nothing for something. (Hot air)

But at least if you agree with a Liberal you’re not a racist. But if you’re White you were born one. But everyone gets taxed for a non-existent technology. Now doesn’t that just make you feel so much better…. 🙂

And if not, there always the Obama Event Registry (as mentioned yesterday):

Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?

Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy–so get started today.

Yesterday, Michelle Obama suggested that Americans give her husband money because he once shoveled snow around her car. He was apparently a husband to us all. (ahh…..)

When you click through to the Obama Event Registry, the Obama campaign informs you just why you should send Obama money rather than having grandma buy you that crockpot:

Got a special milestone or event coming up?

Instead of another gift card you’ll forget to use, ask your friends and family for something that will go a little further: a donation to Obama for America. Register your next celebration—whether it’s a birthday, bar or bat mitzvah, wedding, or anniversary—with the Obama campaign. It’s a great way to show your support for a cause that’s important to you on your big day.

Because Obama and his potential $1 billion campaign can use the money better than you ever could. Your special day should be his special day.

But wait – it gets even more fun. You actually get to build and customize a registry page! You can suggest a fundraising goal (I suggested negative $16 trillion – I’d like the Obama campaign to pay back the country for what their man has taken out of our pocket). Then, you type in a message to your friends. The Obama website suggests: “For my big day, I’d like to show my support for a cause I believe in — re-electing President Obama. That’s why I’m asking my friends and family to donate to the Obama campaign. Thanks for chipping in!” Finally, you input a picture – and voila! You’re ready to shill for Obama on your wedding day.

No wonder Democrats support divorce-on-demand. A wedding that starts like this certainly won’t end well. (Ben Shapiro)

The American people and Obama are the ones that need a Divorce in Reality not From Reality.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
 Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler