Easy Riders

Oh, look another of Obama’s pets barfed up on the taxpayer’s carpet…

Despite glowing press clippings in which the CEO of Colorado-based Abound Solar claimed seven months ago that his company was the “anti-Solyndra,” the green-energy firm has filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation. It is terminating all 125 workers at its Loveland, Colo. headquarters, and is blaming China for its failure.

The U.S. Department of Energy awarded Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee in December 2010, funds that the then-three-year-old startup said it would use to compete with solar panel industry leader First Solar.

The company had tapped into about $70 million of those funds by August 2011 when the DOE unplugged it from the taxpayers’ cash stream, around the same time the more famous Solyndra went bankrupt. That company ate through $535 million in loans guaranteed by the federal government before it failed. (DC)

And, of course, it’s someone else’s fault! Hint: China

What a shocker!

And An “The economy is fine” Update:

A record of 8,733,461 workers took federal disability insurance payments in June 2012, according to the Social Security Administration

It also exceeds the entire population of New York City, which according to the Census Bureau’s latest estimate hit 8,244,910 in July 2011.

There has been a dramatic shrinkage in the United States over the past 20 years in the number of workers actually employed and earning paychecks per worker who is not employed and is taking federal disability insurance payments.

In June 1992, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 118,419,000 people employed in the United States, and, according to the Social Security Administration , there were 3,334,333 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 35.5 people actually working.

The federal disability payments made to the record 8,733,461 workers in June averaged $1,111.42. (KFYI)

So Let’s SPEND EVEN MORE! 🙂

************

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

One of the better paragraph’s about Post Traumatic Roberts Syndrome:

That is the kind of sophistry we expect from liberals. The left sees the law as a tool of social justice — so they start with the desired outcome and then come up with legal reasoning to justify it. That is what Roberts did last week. He decided he wanted to uphold Obamacare and rewrote the statute to fit that outcome. (Hot air)

Then There is:

“Bush v. Gore is an example of a decision the left didn’t respect in part because they thought it was political motivated,” said Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor who worked with the National Federation of Independent Business on its case against the law. “What the left says of Bush v. Gore, I think is true of this decision.”…

“He’s an umpire that seemed worried that people from the stands would be hollering at him,” said Chapman University law professor John Eastman. (hot air)

It’s not a Tax (even if the Supreme Court said so): Nancy Pelosi:” It’s a penalty that comes under the tax code for the 1%, perhaps of the population who may decide that they’re gonna be free riders…” So the 30 Million uninsured that this was allegedly for are now 1%ers??  Now that’s hilarious…Orwell would be proud you.

So, like every time a liberal gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, “it’s nothing”, “lets just move on, etc…” Dismissive is the liberal attempt to minimize their poo all over you.

Here’s a fun new twist, but I know it won’t go anywhere:

Namely, doesn’t Article I, section 7 of the Constitution say that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House? And didn’t ObamaCare pass the Senate before it passed the House? And doesn’t that in turn mean that our nifty new health care “tax” was passed according to unconstitutional procedures?  (Hot air)

According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase – not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives. (Rhonda Deniston)

Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. (Hot air)

You mean it was a fake out! No! Say it ain’t so Harry! :0

From the Conservative Descent: For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Actof 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

The Court tolerates the “shell bill” procedure, I think, because the Seventeenth Amendment has somewhat undermined the Framers’ intent of making sure that tax bills begin in the chamber that’s more accountable to the people. The House is still more accountable, but less so now that the Senate is also popularly elected. And in the case of O-Care, which passed a deep blue House at the time and a barely filibuster-proof Senate, there’s no doubt that the tax-mandate would have passed the House easily even if it had originated there. I suppose O-Care opponents could sue anyway and claim that “shell bills” in tax matters should be deemed unconstitutional because they violate the spirit of Article I, section 7, but c’mon: How likely do you think Roberts would be to say, “You’re right, I totally spaced on the origination clause in my earlier landmark ruling. Decision overturned”? (Hot air)

Well, since it was an Image thing and he’s hiding out in Malta for the summer…Nah…
The silver lining here procedurally is that, now that the mandate’s officially a “tax,” it falls squarely within the parameters of budgetary matters than can be dealt with in the Senate via reconciliation. That means the GOP will only need 51 votes to get rid of it, not 60.
So it is vital to the health of America that the House remain with the Republicans and we get rid of at least for Democrats in the Senate.

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Advertisements

The Battle Begins Anew

A Little From our Post Traumatic Image is Everything First (Constitution Second) Conscious Chief Justice:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joked that he’ll spend some time on an “impregnable island fortress” now that the court has ended a session that featured him casting the decisive vote to uphold President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Responding to a question about his summer break, Roberts said he planned to teach a class for two weeks in Malta, the Mediterranean island nation.

“Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea,” Roberts said, drawing laughter from about 300 judges, attorneys and others attending a four-day conference Friday at a posh southwestern Pennsylvania resort.

The only direct question Roberts got about the health care opinion came when those at the conference were invited to ask questions.

That’s when Roberts was asked what he thought his court’s legacy would be in 50 years and “how one recent opinion might fit into that” – an obvious reference to the health care decision.

“Well, I won’t answer anything that has to do with the second part of that,” Roberts said. But he said he hopes that the court under him is remembered as one that “did our job according to the Constitution, of protecting equal justice under the law.”

Lamberth hinted at the controversial decision when he asked Roberts if it bothered him that he can’t respond to his critics.

“No,” Roberts said, his brief answer hanging in the air to more laughter.(AP)

Public opposition to the health care law remains high. Forty-seven percent of respondents in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll said they oppose the law while 33 percent said they support it. Thirteen percent said they are neutral. Those who strongly oppose the legislation also outnumber those who strongly support it, 32 percent to 17 percent, about a 2-to-1 margin.

Critical to both parties, just 21 percent of independents support it, the lowest level of support the AP-GfK poll has recorded on the issue. (AP)

But here comes the old fearmongering and division that Liberals are so congenitally wired for:

“Now the American people are going to say, `Now what’s in that for me?'” Harkin said. “As long as Democrats are willing to go out there and positively say, `Look, now you are guaranteed that you will get affordable health insurance if you had breast cancer in the past … preventive care, free mammograms. … And they (Republicans) want to take it away from you. You have it now and they want to take it away from you. If you want it taken away from you, you just go ahead and vote for them.'” (AP)

So…

Republicans also used the ruling to craft a new attack line. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion said the law’s requirement that Americans purchase health care is a tax, which Republicans argued contradicted Obama and Democrats who insist they aren’t raising taxes on the poor and middle class.

“The court blew the president’s cover,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

The tax debate will be at the forefront when the House votes the week of July 9 to overturn the law, a largely symbolic step with a Democratic-controlled Senate but one that will put Democrats and Republicans on record and provide fodder for the campaign.

Because guess what, IT’S A TAX!  The Supreme Court says so!!

And who will get it in the shorts the  most– why the middle class and the poor!! Will the Democrats tell them that? Nope. It’s all Fear, Loathing, and Me-Generation Greed.

The Battle begins again.

The medical overhaul is also a choice killer. Many will recall Obama promising that under his plan, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Those aren’t the facts.

As we reported in April, the CBO estimates that as many as 20 million Americans will be forced out of their plans as employers toss workers into government health exchanges to avoid ObamaCare’s costs.

A survey by McKinsey and Co. found that nearly one-third of employers will likely to drop coverage for their workers once ObamaCare kicks in.

And an analysis by the Medicare actuary found that ObamaCare’s attacks on Medicare’s private insurance options will force nearly 8 million seniors out of the coverage they’ve chosen.

• Consumer costs will rise. CBO says premiums will increase over the next decade faster than they did in the past five years.

• The Affordable Care Act is just the beginning. It’s the door to a single-payer government system run by a DMV-type bureaucracy.

• The quality of care will suffer. The Democrats’ law will chill the incentives to become a doctor, to create innovative drugs and to produce live-saving and life-enhancing medical equipment.

• Don’t be surprised when treatment is rationed by government. As it takes over a larger portion of health care — it already controls nearly half — resources won’t be able to keep up with demand. Somebody wins, somebody loses based on someone else’s whim. (IBD)

But don’t worry, the Democrats will just focus on fear, intimidation, and “mean” old Republicans who want to throw grandma off a cliff and you to “just die” as former Rep. Grayson once said on the House floor.

Meanwhile, the Democrats WILL tax you to death and give you 2nd-3rd world care (unless you are “rich” that is) but it won’t be their fault. 🙂

And if you increase demand but they supply doesn’t increase or even decreases then what happens? Hmmm….

And it all points to a single solution: Repeal the law before it takes deep root, and replace it with policies that put the patient in charge.

“What has happened in this system for too long is that the patient has kind of been second or third in line behind everybody else,” Ed Haislmaier health policy worker for the Heritage Foundation says.

And then he made a good point on why Democrats may be opposed to it if they get their ideological heads out of their asses:

Critics of the mandate say Republicans and Democrats alike oppose it.

“Republicans are against it because they see it as an impingement on their personal freedom,” says Ed Haislmaier, who works on healthcare policy at the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation in Washington. “The Democrats are against it because they don’t like health insurance companies in the first place, and they don’t like to be told they have to go buy from someone they don’t like.(VOA)

And I would add, make them aware of how much everything costs because this is far from “free healthcare”.

Yahoo question from the public at large: Since conservatives are so greedy, I am surprised they would oppose Free.

Need I say more? 🙂

How about From a UK message board: congratualations {sp} USA on your free healthcare – now you can do something about your obesity and retardation.

The Bright Spot from the perspective of damage and ability to provide clarity on what this really means:

Because the one ”bright spot” of the ruling was on the matter of Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid is the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor, in which both governments split the cost. ObamaCare mandated states accept more federal money and expand eligibility to ensnare a larger number of Americans in this dismal government-run plan. But along with that mandate for the states to spend hundreds of millions more than they can afford, the law included a penalty for states that didn’t expand the Medicaid eligibility – the loss of all federal Medicaid money. Essentially it was a choice between spending more money that states don’t have or receiving no federal money, yet still being obligated to provide Medicaid.

The Supreme Court rejected that provision. It said states can be offered the option but can’t be forced to accept the expansion money, nor to extend Medicaid to people who don’t currently qualify. Given many states are going broke now, and Medicaid is their largest expenditure already, it’s highly doubtful many will spend more on this program.

So, given Medicaid was a key component to extending coverage to all Americans under ObamaCare, and given it’s now dead or at least an unlikely option, the uninsured near-poor – the people this whole mess was designed to help – won’t be getting Medicaid. Since they also probably won’t soon earn enough to buy insurance on their own, they finish right where they started – in no-man’s land.

Middle-class Americans without insurance will have to pay an Obama Tax that will grow with each passing year. The near-poor were exempted from the tax, but they won’t get insurance either.

Given the ease – relative to the rest of the world – with which Americans can move up the economic ladder, many will work at jobs that can’t afford to provide insurance under ObamaCare and are too small to be required to provide it. But those jobs will pay enough so employees eventually will qualify for the Obama Tax. So, just as these near-poor approach some semblance of economic security, the IRS (which Obamacare empowered to enforce the Obama Tax) will be right there to whack them back down.

Therefore, and not for the first time, the people ObamaCare was supposed to help will be hurt the most.

Middle-class families also will take a hit.

Most Americans work for small businesses. The law requires businesses with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Since ObamaCare forces insurance companies to accept everyone with pre-existing conditions – which is like requiring car insurance companies to insure cars after their owners have wrapped them around a tree – premiums will skyrocket. Companies quickly will notice it’s easier to simply pay the fine. This means a new group of uninsured Americans.

If the slight bump in pay doesn’t permit them to afford insurance, they will be hit with the Obama Tax. (And for those of you keeping score at home, they make significantly less than the $250,000 per year the President promised to never, ever raise taxes on. “Read my lips!” anyone?)

The government doesn’t care about your expenses. It doesn’t care about your kids in private school, your mortgage or student loans or the relatives you’re trying to help through a bad time. It doesn’t care how or really even whether you make ends meet as the Obama Recession rolls into another year. It sees you as a number – the number of dollars you make, whether you make enough to buy insurance according to its formula.

Don’t believe me? Try discussing with a bureaucrat anything you owe government on any level and see if you can appeal to their mercy. You might get a traffic fine reduced occasionally if you catch the right bureaucrat on the right day. But the IRS deals with tens of millions of people over hundreds of billions of dollars. Bureaucracies are not in the mercy business.

So now that Obamacare has morphed into a tax on staying alive, it will become yet another liberal “well-intentioned” attempt to “strengthen the social safety net” that ends up functioning more like a spider web that ensnares people in the life it was supposed to help them escape.

It also forces the health insurance market into a bastardized market that threatens its very existence. It will cause many insurers to fail, which will lead to consolidation, concentration and ultimately corporate welfare. Or the government will step in, take over the entire market and give us the American version of Britain’s detestable National Health Service, which is something Democrats have been working towards for decades. Either way, government wins and we – all of us – lose.

Of course none of these taxes and insurance drops will take effect for these impacted people until after the election, which was by design. Costing people you need to vote for you more before they vote is fool’s errand, a lesson Barack Obama learned from President George H.W. Bush. But once he no longer need their vote, ever, for the rest of his life…lookout.

Did we reject a tyranny 236 years ago to gradually create our own without the accent and powdered wig? Did we replace “No taxation without representation” with “Taxation through misrepresentation”? As you celebrate our nation’s independence this week, commit yourself to talk to as many people as you can about how we’ve lost that which we are celebrating and how November is our next, and maybe our only, chance to declare it again. (Derek Hunter)

Time for a more literal TEA PARTY revolution against our Would-be King. And time to re-instill freedom into this great land.

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

The DNA of Dishonesty

Another great example of the Left’s Orwellian love affair with doublespeak occurred yesterday on America Live on Fox.

The Topic same sex/gay marriage. Our little cherub of Orwell said that 80% of Americas were for “marriage” so he didn’t see the problem.

When pressed he said same sex/gay/straight, it’s all marriage so he didn’t see any distinction and neither should you.

Much like “migrant” for illegal aliens the language is dishonest and manipulative.

Did you know that the “improving” jobs figures the Media touts are dishonest at best?

Simple, really, you announce the figures have gone down on Thursday when they come out. Then before the next Thursday when the figures are revised UPWARDS you just don’t mention that and when they go down again on the next Thursday you have “growth” and “improvement”.

The fact that it has been revised UPWARDS the last 47 weeks  (59/60 weeks total) straight is totally unimportant to you if you’re liberal or Obama.

And the love fest on the Mainstream Media can continue.

Sen. Patrick Leahy: I trust that he will be Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch. It is the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, not the Supreme Court of liberals or conservatives. It’s the Supreme Court of the United States and the Chief Justice is the Chief Justice of the United States, all 320 million of us.

Leahy suggesting that a justice voting based on their personal beliefs, against Obamacare, would be committing conservative judicial activism (aka voting against ObamaCare is “activism”).

“The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”-Sen Leahy.

Mind you this is the same guy who after the Citizens United case decision didn’t go the Unions way:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, ripped the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to buy political ads attacking candidates, calling it the “most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore.”(politico).

And we all know THAT was partisan decision and the Liberals obsess about to this day. It’s an open would that the Democrats are constantly pouring salt in.

The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not, to override the law and constitutional legal understandings that have been settled since the Great Depression, and to overturn the actions of the people’s elected representatives in the Congress.  I was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress, and of how dismissive they were of the months of work in hearings and Committee actions and debate of amendments and motions and points of order on the Senate and House floors before the measure was enacted. (Leahy’s own website)

You mean the partisan “summits”, the legal maneuvering,The bribes and horse trading, the distortions, the “pass the bill to find out what’s in it”, the exclusion of opposition and the most partisan vote in US History???

Oh that’s right, when Liberals do it it’s “fair”. 🙂

  They are supposed to begin their inquiry by respecting the will of the people…

You mean the 60% that has been against Obamacare since it was born?

No, he doesn’t.

According a recent poll, half of all Americans expect the justices to decide the challenge to the Affordable Care Act mainly based on their “partisan political views,” while only 40 percent expect them to decide the case “on the basis of the law.” (also from his website)

This, of course comes from the Washington Post, a very “fair” and “unbiased” member of the “journalist” community.

The actual Poll: Notice the difference in the Democrats (political) – of which their are two categories and the Republicans (law)- 1 category and then you average them together and you skew the poll in your favor and proclaim it as if you weren’t manipulating people dishonestly.

The health care case: Politics and the Supreme Court

That is until Obama gets the chance to appoint more leftists to the court and tip the balance in their favor, then it will be “fair” when they can just run over the conservatives like a steam roller… 🙂

But that wouldn’t be activism though… 🙂

SPENDING

Ann Coulter: It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.”

To be Precise- “I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,” he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. “My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.”–Obama in Denver (gatewaypundit)

Obama: I’ve “Cleaned Up” GOP’s “Wild Debts”–My Spending Is Lowest In 60 Years.

There’s even a chart!  (See Below) I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on … This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC.

As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”

Note that Schultz also said that the “part of the chart representing President Obama’s term includes a stimulus package, too.”

As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie. Schultz’s guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: “And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.”

Everybody’s keyboard OK?

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: “Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.”

In response, three writers from “The Daily Show” said, “We’ll never top that line,” and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation’s premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: “Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.”

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.That’s not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)

Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending.

And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”
Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush …” On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending?

Hey — we just found out that ObamaCare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!

Nutting’s “and not to Bush” line is just sleight of hand. He’s hoping you won’t notice that he said “$140 billion” and not “$825 billion,” and will be fooled into thinking that he’s counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama’s spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush.

This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009.

Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Bros. collapsed.

By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money.

That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. This, too, is called Bush’s spending.

Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?

American Enterprise Institute: Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

So what you do is raise the baseline AFTER you’ve spend the money, blame it on your predecessor, then proclaim how little you’ve spent since then with a straight face.

Now that’s “honest” and “transparent” isn’t it.

So the fact that the Debt was 10 trillion in 2009 when you took over and now it’s approaching rapidly 16 trillion isn’t his fault because he’s been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans have! 🙂

Mr Nutting: Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond. (AEI)

<<Barf bag overload>>

So we end today’s listen in Liberal dishonesty with a bit of comedy:

Chris Matthews (MSNBC) on CSPAN:

“Is the thrill still there?” asked Scully.

Matthews wasn’t thrilled with the question.

“I hope that you feel satisfied that you’ve used the most obvious question that is raised by every horse’s ass right-winger I ever bump into,” Matthews responded, after defending the comment.

“Perhaps I shouldn’t have said so because I’ve given a lot of jackasses the chance to talk about it,” Matthews continued.

“And usually they say ‘tingle’ which says something about their orientation, but that’s alright,” he added. Later he interjected, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. I have to throw that in.”

Yeah he wouldn’t want to be “homophobic” or “bigoted” now would he! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden