Borked

The Liberals are all up in arms and livid about The Senate Republicans saying their will be no Confirmation hearings for a new SCOTUS in an election year.

They are ranting about “obstuctionism” yet again. This of course means THEY are being obstructed. When they do it to you, that’s not “obstuctionism”. 🙂

borked

So expect King Obama to make a recess appointment, if he can, of Loretta Lynch just because he’s the King.

Obama emphasized he will nominate someone supremely qualified for the job while still lamenting how he’s grown “accustomed to how obstructionist the Senate’s become.”

“The fact that we’re even discussing this,” he said, “is a measure of how, unfortunately, the venom and rancor in Washington has prevented us from getting basic work done.”

One reporter confronted the president about him filibustering Samuel Alito, one of George Bush‘s nominees, while he was a senator. Obama admitted that the obstruction is “not the fault of any single party.”

But it’s only mentioned when it happens to Democrats and they get “outraged” by it.

The bigger question is, does Mitch “The Ditch” McConnell have the balls to sit on this for 9 months with the Liberal Media firebombing him 24/7?

Liberals do not believe in objective truth, as writer/comedian Evan Sayet writes in the opening paragraph of his book, “The Kindergarden of Eden”. If there is no objective truth, and words don’t mean what they say, and can be interpreted to mean something other than what they say, then the Constitution suddenly becomes a “living document”.

And suddenly, everything our nation was founded on goes out the window. It’s not like the Founding Fathers just spit-balled around a table and threw everything into the Constitution. It was written by the greatest minds in a tortured and highly political process.

Yes, the Constitution is open to some degree of interpretation because of the deliberate ambiguity in some portions of the text. Yet the point of originalism is to avoid drawing inferences from a statute and rely on the text itself. Scalia said, “the Constitution, or any text, should be interpreted [n]either strictly [n]or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably”. (Lawrence Myers)

But reason and Logic is as far from a Liberal as the light of the Big Bang is from us.

for thee - schumer

And because of Doublethink, they can’t even conceive of the problem, let alone the solution.

social contracteuphemism

The Land of the Ignorant and Home of The Slave.

 

The Death Trolls

The Liberals had quite a party this weekend. The Death Trolls were partying like it was 1922 and the Communist Revolution.

scalia

Said no Liberal Ever.

So has Obama appointed Loretta Lynch yet? She properly Black -Not an evil Uncle Tom Conservative (Doubleplusgood), She’s a Woman, and a Left Ideologue who will stay the Partisan course no matter what the nasty, old, white guy Constitution says…

Retirement is one thing. Death is quite another. Antonin Scalia leaves behind a wife, children, grand children, friends, and other family. Life is something we should all be respectful of, even when we disagree with the politics of the person.

But plenty of people who politicize everything disagree. It is the measure of how miserable a person’s life is that they would politicize the death of someone who served his country with distinction because they disagree with him.

Not everything is political. Death will come to us all. Therefore, we should work hard to not make death a political issue, even if it is the death of one we disagree with. We then only incentivize others dancing on our own graves when that day comes. We will not all become Supreme Court justices. We will not all become someone of note. We will not all merit even a Wikipedia entry. But we all will die. So show some class.

 

“I feel bad for his family” and “That guy was a homophobic, racist jerk” are not mutually exclusive sentiments. — Brooklyn Spoke (@BrooklynSpoke)

Scalia was a retrograde bigot who, just this week, voted with his colleagues to kill climate regs and the planet. I don’t care how he rests.— Bae Talese

Scalia *gleefully* shat on minorities of all stripes while he was alive. No one owes him respect and decorum now that he’s dead.— Bae Talese

Wow, Scalia died. it’s not cool to speak ill of the dead, so RIP to one of the BEST racist, fascist enemies of democracy & humanity.— dave ciaccio

Wow, TWO Supreme Court openings! (I assume Thomas will be buried alive with Scalia)

— Drew Magary

The party of “compassion”, “sensitivity” and “tolerance” strikes again. 🙂

Ann Coulter: [The Republicans know] “if they screw us over one more time, on something as big as this, Trump gets another ten million voters right there.”

But how likely are they to stand on principle? Really…

 

 

The End

Well, it is the end and The moment has been Prepared for.

My Prediction: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder today helped the Left disband The Constitution of The US to be replaced by the Orwellian Diversity, Fairness, and Inclusion Contract on America.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died, the San Antonio Express-News reported on Saturday afternoon. He was 79.

Scalia passed away in his sleep while on a hunting trip in Marfa, Texas. Foul play is not suspected.

But the Foul stench of Sith Lord Obama is going to smell up the place for generations.

But Paul Ryan and The Republican will stop him….Really? If that’s our only hope then we need help, serious help.

No, it’s campaign season, and Hillary Clinton is fired up. Unfortunately, she’s fired up about who should nominate a judge to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Harry Reid and his coalition, which very likely includes the president himself, are urging President Obama to put up a nominee as soon as possible, while Mitch McConnell and crew maintain that the next president should make the decision.

Clinton has weighed in, and, as usual, the “progressive who gets things done” takes a shot at conservatives.

Mind you, she NOTHING BUT PARTISAN Herself.

Talk about NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE!!  I’m surprised they haven’t got a nominee already (hence the Holder allusion at the beginning of this blog) for entirely partisan reasons.

And we all know how much the Left respects The Constitution. 🙂

It’s certainly no surprise that the No. 1 trending topic in the United States tonight is #Scalia, but why is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas trending just a couple of steps behind?

The Liberals are on Death Watch. They are praying as hard as their non-secular hearts can go for all the Conservatives to just DIE!

Leftists, ever tolerant, loving assholes that they are, want him to die this weekend too.

— Amy Curtis (@moderncomments)

They have your best interests and the interests of The Founding Fathers and the Constitution at their core. 🙂

Their care and compassion overflow this Valentine’s Day with Love. 🙂

The love of Death to your enemies.

This is going to sound cold, but one down, one to go. Uncle Ruckkus (Clarence Thomas) needs to go next. Then our country can start healing.

— George freeman (@Numbers28)

Spread the Love. Here Comes Big Brother to give you Bear Hug. After all, The Constitution and Conservatives are the evil that must be exterminated for real compassion, caring and sensitivity to take over.:)

Now we just need the Grim Reaper to take out Clarence Thomas and Mitch McConnell and there’ll be #DancingInTheStreets! 😃👍

— Rosetta_GhoSTONED ;D (@RedRoseQueen1)

So a moment of silence for the end. She was a grand country, but the rot is nearly complete.

Conservatives will be hunted down and “re-educated”.

The End is nigh.

(if you’re expecting the Establish Republicans or Paul Ryan to save you…Why?)

The Final Arbiters

Thomas Jefferson: When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. — Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

The Health and Human Services Department earlier this year exposed just how vast the government’s data collection efforts will be on millions of Americans as a result of ObamaCare.

Big Brother will be watching you! And he will know everything…. (and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter -see later farther down)

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., asked HHS to provide “a complete list of agencies that will interact with the Federal Data Services Hub.” The Hub is a central feature of ObamaCare, since it will be used by the new insurance exchanges to determine eligibility for benefits, exemptions from the federal mandate, and how much to grant in federal insurance subsidies.

In response, the HHS said the ObamaCare data hub will “interact” with seven other federal agencies: Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Veterans Administration, Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense and — believe it or not — the Peace Corps. Plus the Hub will plug into state Medicaid databases.

And what sort of data will be “routed through” the Hub? Social Security numbers, income, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, and enrollment status in other health plans, according to the HHS.

“The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic,” noted Stephen Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor.

Not to worry, says the Obama administration. “The hub will not store consumer information, but will securely transmit data between state and federal systems to verify consumer application information,” it claimed in an online fact sheet .

And no one will steal or hack anything. 🙂 No Wiki-Snowden… 🙂

But a regulatory notice filed by the administration in February tells a different story.

That filing describes a new “system of records” that will store names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, taxpayer status, gender, ethnicity, email addresses, telephone numbers on the millions of people expected to apply for coverage at the ObamaCare exchanges, as well as “tax return information from the IRS, income information from the Social Security Administration, and financial information from other third-party sources.”

They will also store data from businesses buying coverage through an exchange, including a “list of qualified employees and their tax ID numbers,” and keep it all on file for 10 years.

In addition, the filing says the federal government can disclose this information “without the consent of the individual” to a wide range of people, including “agency contractors, consultants, or grantees” who “need to have access to the records” to help run ObamaCare, as well as law enforcement officials to “investigate potential fraud.”

Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., complained that just months before ObamaCare officially starts, the Obama administration still hasn’t answered “even the most basic questions about the Data Hub,” such as who will have access to what information, or what training and clearances will be required.

Beyond these concerns is the government’s rather sorry record in protecting confidential information.

Late last year, for example, a hacker was able to gain access to a South Carolina database that contained Social Security numbers and bank account data on 3.6 million people.

A Government Accountability Office report found that weaknesses in IRS security systems “continue to jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the financial and sensitive taxpayer information.”

A separate inspector general audit found that the IRS inadvertently disclosed information on thousands of taxpayers between 2009 and 2010. In 2011, the Social Security Administration accidentally released names, birth dates and Social Security numbers of tens of thousands of Americans.

If these government agencies can’t protect data kept on their own servers, how much more vulnerable will these databases be when they’re constantly getting tapped by the ObamaCare Data Hub?

In any case, creating even richer and more comprehensive databases on Americans will create a powerful incentive to abuse them among those looking to score political points by revealing private information or criminals who want to steal identities.

A recent CNN poll found that 62% of Americans say “government is so large and powerful that it threatens the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans.”

What will the public think once ObamaCare and its vast data machine is in full force? (IBD)

More likely, what will they be allowed to think?

The Imperial Judiciary

A House, Senate and president together defending traditional marriage is ruled unconstitutional. Can a Roe v. Wade-like “right” to same-sex marriage — pulverizing religious liberty — be far behind?

Under ObamaCare, the Obama administration is already trying to force religious institutions to violate their precepts and fund abortions, or be found in violation of law. There is little, if any, distance between that kind of disregard for religious freedom and forcing churches to marry same-sex couples — a new kind of “shotgun wedding” for the 21st century.

That is where the imperial judiciary quite clearly intends to take us, running over anything standing in the way. As Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent in Wednesday’s 5-to-4 U.S. v. Windsor ruling observes: “In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy — Ronald Reagan’s biggest, longest-lasting mistake — joined with the high court’s four liberals, charging in his decision that large majorities of both houses of Congress, not to mention President Bill Clinton, in 1996 chose “to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage” today.

The court declared Congress “cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” It takes the judicial elite to construe the Bill of Rights’ safeguard against being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” as a license to keep elected officials from acting to protect man’s oldest institution from being revolutionized.

As Scalia noted, the court was “eager — hungry — to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case” — so much so that it, unprecedentedly, took on a case in which the five justices actually “agree that the court below got it right.”

The result is “a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere ‘primary’ in its role.”

“The most important moral, political, and cultural decisions affecting our lives are steadily being removed from democratic control” Judget Bork 1996 (!)

Thomas Jefferson: If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

Thomas Jefferson: You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. ….Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

“The Teahouse of the August Moon”. Glenn Ford plays an American officer attempting to explain democracy to the Japanese after World War II. He says, “democracy is where the people have the right to make the wrong decisions.” The statement is the essence of democracy. If elected officials make the wrong decision on behalf of the people voters can rectify the situation by electing replacement officials to make the right decisions. If non-elected officials make the wrong decisions the people have no recourse other than overthrowing the government.

People don’t become infallible just because they hold a high government office even if they are absolute monarchs who have supposedly been chosen by their deities to run the government. Those of us who are familiar with the history of the Supreme Court known that it is extremely fallible. The Supreme Court has made some extremely bad decisions, particularly.when it has gotten involved in social issues with decisions involving social theories rather than law.

The decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford is easily the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court. The Court attempted to use the case to deal with the divisive social issue of slavery. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s ruling inflamed northern public opinion against slavery which many northerners regarded as immoral. The decision insured that slavery would be a major issue in the 1860 presidential election. The decision didn’t cause the Civil War, but provided the catalyst to turn the controversy over slavery and broader economic issues into a war.

The 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision is the Court’s second worst decision. The Court’s acceptance of the questionable social concept of “separate but equal” condemned generations of black southerners to mistreatment including rape and murder. The Court refused to admit that “separate but equal” was nonsense until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

“Separate but equal’ wasn’t the only nonsense theory the Court accepted in the late 19th Century. The Court prevented state government from protecting workers from exploitive employers by accepting a nonsense theory called “freedom of contract”. Under this theory, government protection of workers supposedly prevented their “free” ability to contract with employers. The Court ignored the fact that workers weren’t in a position to negotiate. They had to accept bad working conditions or risk possible starvation. (Free Republic)

So with the trend of making the Supreme Court the final arbiter of everything makes them supremely powerful and that is a very dangerous game.

After all, the people Boo-ing and Hissing the Supreme Court the day before on the Voting Rights Acts are the ones dancing in the street and celebrating the next day!
And Vice  Versa.
If that doesn’t mean the whole thing is unstable what does?
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

White Devils

The White Devils are evil and must be collared and chained because given half a second they will put black and minorities back on plantations and “disenfranchise” them.

Damn! Them Crackers!

That’s effectively what the race baiters are saying about the Voting Rights Act decision by the Supreme Court.

You must have “black” districts or “hispanic” districts just to be “fair”. But if you want to have a “white” district, you’re a racist! 🙂

So you must segregate to be “fair”.

And the Liberals in government must have a veto power on Voting decisions in racist states like Arizona, and South Carolina.

It must always be the Mid-1960s. Time can never move on. They must fight the good fight against the White Devils and The Uncle Toms….

Meet Ryan Patrick Winkler. He’s a 37-year-old liberal Minnesota state legislator with a B.A. in history from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. He’s also a coward, a bigot, a liar, and a textbook example of plantation progressivism. 

On Tuesday, Winkler took to Twitter to rant about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down an onerous section of the Voting Rights Act. The 5-4 ruling overturned an unconstitutional requirement that states win federal preclearance approval of any changes to their election laws and procedures. Winkler fumed: “VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.”

This Ivy League-trained public official and attorney relied on smug bigotry to make his case against a Supreme Court justice who happens to be black. “Uncle Thomas” wasn’t a typo. Denigration was the goal, not an accident. It was a knowing, deliberate smear.

After being called out by conservative social media users for his cheap attack on Clarence Thomas, Winkler then revealed his true color: yellow. He deleted the tweet (captured for posterity at my Twitter curation site, twitchy.com) and pleaded ignorance. 

“I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he sniveled. “I didn’t think it was offensive to suggest that Justice Thomas should be even more concerned about racial discrimination than colleagues,” he protested.

Holding a black man to a different intellectual standard based on his skin color. Accusing a non-white conservative of collectivist race traitorism. Employing one of the most infamous, overused epithets against minority conservatives in the Democratic lexicon. “Apologizing,” but disclaiming responsibility. Sorry . . . that he got caught. 

Just another day at the left-wing racist office.

Rabid liberal elitists expect and demand that we swallow their left-wing political orthodoxy whole and never question it. When we don’t yield, their racist and sexist diatribes against us are unmatched. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, name, authenticity, and integrity have been routinely ridiculed or questioned for more than two decades because I happen to be an unapologetic brown female free-market conservative. My Twitter account biography jokingly includes the moniker “Oriental Auntie-Tom” — just one of thousands of slurs hurled at me by libs allergic to diversity of thought — for a reason. It’s a way to hold up an unflinching mirror at the holier-than-thou NoH8 haters and laugh. 

We conservatives “of color” are way past anger about the Uncle Tom/Aunt Tomasina attacks. We’re reviled by the left for our “betrayal” of our supposed tribes — accused of being Uncle Toms, Aunt Tomasinas, House Niggas, puppets of the White Man, Oreos, Sambos, lawn jockeys, coconuts, bananas, sellouts, and whores. This is how the left’s racial and ethnic tribalists have always rolled. But their insults are not bullets. They are badges of honor. The Uncle Tom card has been played out. 

Of course Winkler didn’t think it was offensive. Smarty-pants liberal racists never think they’re being racist. In their own sanctimonious minds, progressives of pallor can never be guilty of bigotry toward minority conservatives. Ignorance is strength. Slurs are compliments. Intolerance is tolerance. 

And when all else fails, left-wing prejudice is always just a well-intended joke. (PBS commentator Julianne Malveaux’s death wish for Justice Thomas set the standard: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. . . . He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”) 

Back in her day, before the advent of democratizing social media, Malveaux and her elitist PBS friends could get away with such vile bile. But liberal crabs in the bucket, viciously trying to drag dissenters “of color” down, can no longer engage in hit-and-run with impunity. Conservatives on Twitter have changed the dynamic in an underappreciated, revolutionary way. The pushback against liberal political bigotry is bigger, stronger, and swifter than it’s ever been.

You can delete, but you cannot hide. (Michelle Malkin)

The fatuous claim that nothing significant has changed in the field of American race relations since the 1960s was expressed most perfectly yesterday by Senator Bernie Sanders. The Voting Rights Act, Sanders wrote, “is as necessary today as it was in the era of Jim Crow laws.” We wonder whether anybody genuinely believes this. Perhaps MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry does, for she went further than Sanders. “Damn,” Harris-Perry tweeted, “that citizenship thing was so great for awhile.”

Contrast this hyperbole with the Supreme Court’s actual ruling. By five votes to four, it held that, while certain states may still be required to submit changes in their voting rules for federal approval, Congress must update the data it uses to determine which are subject to its adjudication. The dramatic changes of the last 40 years, the majority concluded, have rendered the existing formula worthless. This should come as no surprise. That formula was last amended in 1972, while George Wallace was still governor of Alabama.

In making the case for reform, Chief Justice Roberts noted that

in the first decade after enactment of [Section 5] the Attorney General objected to 14.2 percent of proposed voting changes. In the last decade before reenactment, the Attorney General objected to a mere 0.16 percent.

The difference is remarkable. In 1965, Mississippi saw a gap of 63.2 percentage points between white and black voter-registration rates; by 2004, black voters were 3.8 percentage points more likely to be registered than their white counterparts. It is a similar story across the South. So successful has the Voting Rights Act been that New York University election specialist Rock Pildes recently observed that, instead of ensuring the franchise, the Justice Department now employs Section 5 primarily as a tool to ensure that minorities are well-represented in legislative bodies. For a law that was cast as a temporary emergency measure, this evolution is problematic.

Notwithstanding the peculiar claim of ABC’s Terry Moran yesterday morning that “now there is no Voting Rights Act operative in the United States,” the rest of the Voting Rights Act remains very much intact and in effect. Americans whose voting rights have been violated are still able to take to the federal courts and sue their local or state governments. The decision brings an end to the automatic and perpetual punishment of states that are guilty of crimes in decades past. It does nothing else.

Many of the Court’s critics appear to believe that the VRA serves as vital scaffolding, the even partial removal of which will prompt the United States to backslide into segregation or worse. This strikes us as nonsense. Like Boy Mulcaster complaining to Charles Ryder in Brideshead Revisited that he never got the chance to fight in the First World War, many of today’s naysayers exhibit a palpable regret that they missed the moral clarity of the 1960s. It is not the role of Congress to indulge them.

Justice Ginsburg complains that it is not the role of the Court to force a revision to the law. Perhaps not. Amending the law to reflect contemporary realities remains the right thing for Congress to do. Instead of gnashing our teeth and reliving old battles, we Americans should consider it a source of great pride that legal provisions contrived to ensure that the Jim Crow era was brought to a welcome close have finally outlived their necessity. (NRO)

So the Left will continue to CROW forever. That’s how their bread is buttered.

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

 

Lies, Damn Lies…and Liberals

If you’re thinking about buying a fuel-efficient hybrid, electric or otherwise eco-friendly vehicle as a way to save money over time, do your homework — or be prepared to wait.

Buyers who choose Nissan’s all-electric Leaf ($28,421) over its approximate gas-powered equivalent, Nissan’s Versa ($18,640), will likely wait nearly 9 years until they break even, according to a new report by The New York Times that examines the cost of fuel efficiency.

For drivers of the Chevrolet Volt ($31,767), the wait is even longer— 26.6 years.

A few vehicles begin paying off relatively soon after leaving the dealership. Two hybrids— Toyota’s Prius ($23,537) and Lincoln’s MKZ ($33,887)— as well as Volkswagen’s diesel-powered Jetta TDI ($25,242) all take less than two years before they start saving their owners money.

Another reason to buy the Obama Vehicle- The Volt. 🙂 It promises great things, costs too much and is a fake (only 40 miles on electric charge) and then underperforms spectacularly.

But I’m sure it’s the Republican’s Fault!!! 🙂

In an interview with South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), TIME magazine asks if she will tip Sikh taxi drivers more during her visit to New York City.

Haley, who was born into a Sikh family, now identifies herself as a Christian.

“In New York City, which you’re visiting for a couple of days, a lot of our taxi drivers are Sikhs. If you get one, are you going to give them a slightly bigger tip?” Belinda Luscombe, a TIME editor, asked Haley.

“I give the same tip to everyone,” Haley responded.

Wow.

Mary J Blige is apologizing for A Burger King Commercial which according to some race obsessed Liberals (who see racism everywhere and in everything): “Having a black woman sing about chicken was no mistake. They’re trying to reach the ‘urban’ (aka black) demographic and they used you,” in an open letter. “Because God knows black folk won’t buy anything unless there’s a song, and preferably a dance, attached to it.”

“Crispy chicken, fresh lettuce, three cheeses, ranch dressing wrapped up in a tasty flour tortilla” — is set to “Don’t Mind,” a song from Blige’s album “My Life II… The Journey Continues (Act 1),” the Washington Post reports.

Yeah, that was what I was thinking… 😦

SO Blige decides to cover her butt:

“I agreed to be a part of a fun and creative campaign that was supposed to feature a dream sequence,” Blige tells Us Weekly in a statement of the spot, which was slammed by critics and subsequently yanked from the airwaves after going viral earlier this week.

Furthers Blige: “Unfortunately, that’s not what was happening in that clip, so I understand my fans being upset by what they saw. But, if you’re a Mary fan, you have to know I would never allow an unfinished spot like the one you saw go out.”

So the next time you see a Burger King ad, you must think , gee was that racist in your wildest most insane moments? Because the Liberals will.

Since even You Tube buckled.

Here it is: http://www.tmz.com/2012/04/04/mary-j-blige-burger-king-chicken-ad/#.T37nftU0jTo

If after seeing it you don’t get it, you’re not a Politically Correct Race Obsessed Liberal and have some brains left in your head.

ERIC HOLDER SCOLDED

Attorney General Eric Holder’s 3 Page Homework assignment about Judicial Review and his whiny ,”yes, mom” response is here : http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/04/05/justice-department-letter-to-5th-circuit-court-appeals/

“Sure, SCOTUS can overturn a federal law, declaring the law unconstitutional, but SCOTUS should give President Obama and congressional Democrats what they want anyway.” (Wizbang)

I agree. It’s a typical liberal argument. I want what i want when I want it and how are you have the temerity to question my superiority.

OBAMACARE

During a tense White House press briefing Wednesday, Jay Carney had a long exchange with Fox News reporter Ed Henry about what President Obama really meant when he said the Supreme Court would be engaging in activism should ObamaCare be struck down. Carney’s response to the outrage?

Americans just didn’t “understand” what President Obama said because he is a “law professor.” 

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

So you are too dumb to understand. Yeah, that’s the ticket!!

At that press event, Obama told any justice thinking of overturning ObamaCare’s central tenet that “in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care.”

But this is false.

In fact, Obama himself argued precisely the opposite during the 2008 campaign, saying a mandate wasn’t needed to achieve universal coverage. “The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it,” he said then. “It’s because they can’t afford it.”

Plus, ObamaCare itself proves a mandate isn’t needed to cover those with pre-existing conditions. The law set up federal “high risk” pools that offer insurance to those denied it by private companies. Yet instead of making this a permanent solution, Obama kills these pools off in 2014 in favor of the mandate.

Obama also claimed at that press conference that the law “was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Also false.

The House approved it by a slim 7-vote margin, with 34 Democrats joining every Republican to oppose it. Less than a year later, the House voted to repeal ObamaCare by a significantly larger margin, 245-189.

It was only in the Senate, where Democrats held a temporary supermajority, that it did well, and even then they could only get it through using a variety of unusual parliamentary tricks. What’s more, just 51 Senators voted to keep the law in a 2011 vote.

But as the old saying goes, lies beget more lies. Here’s just a sampling of past Obama prevarications about his signature reform law:

“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. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 20 million will be forced off their plans as employers dump workers into the government health exchanges to avoid ObamaCare’s costs. A survey by McKinsey and Co. found that nearly a third of employers were likely to drop coverage for employees once ObamaCare kicked in.

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

“If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that’s not a bill I can support.  It’s going to have to control costs.”

Fact: The law Obama signed contains no meaningful cost-control provisions, something every honest health care analyst admits.

“We will bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.”

Fact: The CBO projects that premiums over the next decade will climb at a faster rate than they did in the past five years. The CBO also projects that premiums in the individual insurance market will be as much as 13% higher in 2016 as a result of the law. Premiums for small businesses could go up 1%. Meanwhile, a study done for Wisconsin by one of the architects of ObamaCare found that “the majority of individuals in the nongroup market will pay more in premiums for health insurance in 2016 than they do today.” The average increase: 30%.

“And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.”

Fact: ObamaCare will accelerate spending at every level. In 2014, when the law takes full effect, national spending on health care will shoot up 8% and go on climbing at more than 6% a year, according to official government forecasts.

“The plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.”

Fact: The current Congressional Budget Office report pegs the 10-year cost of ObamaCare at $1.7 trillion. The only way Obama could get his price tag down so low is by putting off the start date by four years. Once Obama-Care fully kicks in, it will add $260 billion a year, and rising, to the budget.

“To help ensure that everyone can afford the cost of a health care option in our exchange, we need to provide assistance to families who need it. That way, there will be no reason at all for anyone to remain uninsured.”

Fact: Despite spending $800 billion to subsidize premiums in the government-run exchanges, over the next 10 years, along with $931 billion in new Medicaid costs, ObamaCare will still leave 27 million — or 10% of the population — uninsured, according to the CBO.

We could go on, but you get the idea.

The best thing the Supreme Court could do for the country is to chuck the entire law, and give Congress the opportunity to put together an honest package of reforms.(IBD)

But Liberals want what they want when they want it and will lie to get and if you don’t you’re a racist and a liar.

Ah, 2012 in America.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne