For The Simple Factual Record, No Homosexual Has EVER Been Deprived Of The Right To Marry.

I’ve heard this argument – a la Hitler’s “big lie” – so many times that if I’d vomited every time I heard it, I would have barfed myself into vapor by now.  That’s why they call it “ad nauseum,” I suppose.

“Everyone has a fundamental right to marry,” we’re told.  And so homosexual marriage is not merely a Constitutional issue, but a human rights issue.

But here’s the damn obvious question: when have homosexuals EVER been denied the right to marry?

A homosexual can marry anybody of the opposite sex of maritable age and status who will have them, the same as everybody else.  Nobody has had their right to marry deprived from them.

I challenge anybody to find me an example of a single case in which a homosexual was denied the right to marry, given what marriage is: the union between one man and one woman.  Just find me one time when a homosexual tried to marry and was denied the right to do so.

Let’s put it this way: if homosexuals are somehow being defined as having been denied the right to marry, you have to employ a definition of “marriage” that no society has ever before embraced.  Which is to say that you literally have to assume what you want to prove and then use what you just assumed as your “proof.”  To wit, “marriage” is the union between a man and a woman under God.  That is what it has ALWAYS been.  Which is why no civilization has ever called for homosexual marriage.  And unless you assume that marriage is somehow something else (which it isn’t and has never been), no homosexual has EVER been denied “the right to marry.”

That’s what we call facts.  That’s what we call logic.  That’s what we call morality.  And that’s what we call history.  Homosexual marriage fails on all counts.  It is an oxymoron.  “Homosexual marriage” is like “liquid solid.”  It is like “adult children.”  You can’t have both.  It is either one or the other.  Unless you want think of “adult children” in the Obamanomics sense in which young people have been ”fundamentally transformed” into permanent “children” because they’ll never be able to get a job in this disastrous economy and will therefore be helpless dependents forever.  In that Orwellian sense in which “freedom is slavery” and “ignorance is strength,” I suppose anything is possible – even “homosexual marriage.”

“Homosexual marriage” is non sequitur unless you begin by perverting the thing in language that you then want to pervert in actuality.  When I hear somebody mouthing this idiocy of homosexuals being denied the right to marry, I know that I am in the presence of a true moral and intellectual idiot.  And I excuse myself in search of somebody who is actually worth having an intellectual conversation with.

If homosexuals don’t want to marry, fine by me.  But don’t whine because you don’t want what decent, healthy people want.

Homosexuals don’t want the right to marry; they want the right to pervert the institution of marriage.  Period.

‘Separation Of Church And State’:The Theory That Government Should Grow Larger And More Powerful And Religion Should Grow Smaller And More Marginalized

Those who claim that the doctrine of the separation of church and state is in the Constitution are frauds.  It is NOT.  The concept existed in a private letter written by a man who did not write so much as a single word of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights which followed the Constitution.  Oh, and Jefferson’s intent in using the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was wildly taken out of context and applied in a manner in which Jefferson is even now rolling in his grave (and see here).

What is the clear result of this doctrine?  It is one thing: that government should have absolutely no limit on its growing power and influence while religion should be marginalized and forbidden from increasing areas of discourse.

Now the government of “God damn America” can impose abortion and the radical homosexual agenda on the church and the church is immoral for publicly decrying the impositions.

Another great authority, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said that there ought to be a wall of separation between LABOR UNIONS and the state:

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Not that that mattered.  I mean, FDR didn’t have much more to do with the Constitution than Jefferson did, but somehow you don’t see liberal Supreme Court Justices dictating that all government unions be immediately abolished citing FDR the way they so gleefully cite Jefferson to undermine and replace religion in America.

But wouldn’t it be nice if FDR phrases such as “a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government” and that government labor unions represent “the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it” the way they exploited Jefferson’s phraseology???

But lets just stick with the words of the founding fathers.  Because we can stick with them all the livelong day and make our point.  In fact, let’s just stick with the words of Thomas Jefferson for a while.  Because it’s rather easy to demonstrate that the liberal justices who decreed that Jefferson’s words were the soul of the Constitution even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution dishonestly and blatantly ignored pretty much absolutely everything else that Jefferson ever said.

It’s a shame that the liberals on the Supreme Court fixated on Jefferson’s words that could be twisted and distorted to attack religion in America rather than focus on OTHER words of Jefferson that would have shaped a better society such as:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

Why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America with these words by Jefferson the way her ideological liberal judicial forerunners changed America with words by Jefferson???

A nation in which there was a rigid separation of labor unions from government would be a far better and stronger one than the one that we have now which wars against and undermines the influence of religion.  And I say that conclusively based on the clear words of our founding fathers that the liberal justices of the Supreme Court chose to deliberately and studiously ignore while instead choosing a few words radically out of context to hamstring the free exercise of religion.

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

I would argue it’s a damn shame that liberal justices seized Jefferson’s “wall of separation” line while refusing to acknowledge what Thomas Jefferson said about THEM and their fascist abuse of judical-tyrant power:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and 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.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I hope you see the hypocrisy by now.

Liberals are people who want to destroy the last vestige of true religion in America while imposing the union agenda in the church’s place.  And if they can literally read a phrase such as “wall of separation between church and state” while specifically omitting the rest of the context of the letter those words are found in, and then blatantly ignore the very clear intent of the founding fathers that America needed to be what Lincoln described as “one nation under God,” well, they’re liberal ideologues and that’s what liberal ideologues do.

Which is why the beast is coming.

ObamaCare Is A TAX. It Is The Largest Middle Class Tax Increase In History. And It Will Bankrupt America.

ObamaCare is a TAX.  The key part of the Supreme Court decision that allowed ObamaCare to stand had this to say:

“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

ObamaCare was ONLY allowed to stand if it was deemed a “tax.”  Which means it is either a tax or it is unconstitutional.  Period.

The second major thing to understand is that ObamaCare is the largest tax on middle class in the history of America:

Obamacare: Biggest Middle Class Tax Hike in American History
Sunday, July 01, 2012 6:11

Nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on people earning $120,000 or less per year.

Democrats lied to the American people when they claimed that the mandated payment for refusal to purchase health insurance wasn’t a tax. Then, the administration argued that it was a tax before the Supreme Court. Now, they’re denying that it is a tax after Chief Justice Roberts declared the penalty payment to be a tax.
 
From Gateway Pundit:
 
A Fraud Has Been Perpetrated On the American Citizenry
 
Democrats told us Obamacare was not a tax. Then they went before the Supreme Court and argued that it was a tax. Now they’re saying it’s not a tax again.
 The American Spectator reported:

Critics of the majority’s decision will say for the foreseeable future that Chief Justice Roberts rewrote Obamacare to save it. Michael Carvin, who argued against Obamacare before the Supreme Court, noted dryly, “I’m glad he rewrote the statute instead of the Constitution.”
 
Carvin’s summary of the Supreme Court’s ruling was on target: “What the Obama Administration… thought they were doing was completely unconstitutional; what they lied to the American people about was constitutional.… Unfortunately they got away with that bait-and-switch. A fraud has been perpetrated on the American citizenry.”
 
In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the administration’s attorneys argued — as they knew they had to — that the mandate was constitutional as a tax. This despite the fact that Democrats passed Obamacare by stating specifically and repeatedly that the mandate was not a tax, including a testy response by President Obama himself to unusually challenging questioning by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in 2009.
 
As recently as a few months ago, President Obama’s budget director said in a Congressional hearing that the mandate is not a tax, with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying “it operates as a tax, but it is not per se a tax.”
 
If the bill had been marketed to members of Congress and the public as a tax, it is unlikely that even the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase would have been enough to pass the law, despite the large Democrat congressional majorities at the time. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that “if it had been seen as a tax, they wouldn’t have gotten ten votes, much less sixty.”
 
As for those Democrats in Congress who have argued, and may continue to argue, that the Obamacare mandate is not a tax, Graham said “they either don’t know what they’re doing, or they lied to us. So this is a huge issue in the fall.” Graham called for every Congressional Republican who is up for election to ask their Democratic opponents whether they support this tax increase; given that Democrats have little choice but to support Obamacare, this is the political equivalent of asking someone if he has stopped beating his wife yet, and a solid political tactic.

 Nearly 75% of ObamaTax costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year.

The Gateway Pundit article title centers on the sheer moral depravity of the Democrat Party who “told us Obamacare was not a tax. Then they went before the Supreme Court and argued that it was a tax. Now they’re saying it’s not a tax again.”

Many Democrats and even many elements in the Obama White House are refusing to call the tax a tax.  But Valerie Jarrett at least admitted the following:

“We will take it any way we can get it. I mean we argued both ways…we thought that it fell within the commerce clause, the court ruled it was…um, a tax, but we really look at it as a penalty, whatever they want to call it.”

She went on to say in the same interview:

“A country as wealthy as ours A country as wealthy as ours is now going to provide healthcare for everyone.”

Which is another way of saying she recognizes that it is pure socialism and that you middle class people ought to pay for the poor who vote Obama to have something that will give them more incentive to keep voting Obama.

Let’s take a look at the taxes that Democrats said were NOT taxes and then argued that they WERE taxes and are now arguing that the taxes that they said weren’t taxes until they said were taxes are now not taxes again:

Obamacare Tax Hikes Irk Taxpayers; Illegal aliens, prisoners exempt
By Car Czar Consulting

Car Czar Consulting says:

Here’s a Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare.

Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on an historic repeal of the Obamacare law. While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history. Below is a comprehensive list of the two dozen new or higher taxes that pay for Obamcare’s expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients.

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)

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. This provision 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).

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

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the 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

	Capital Gains	Dividends	Other*
2010	15%	15%	35%
2011-2012 (current law)	20%	39.6%	39.6%
2011-2012 (Obama budget)	20%	20%	39.6%
2013+ (current law)	23.8%	43.4%	43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget)	23.8%	23.8%	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.

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). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

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

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)

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.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . 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 education.

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. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

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; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

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

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

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.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

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.

This boondoggle is going to be the anvil that broke America’s back.

Let’s Set The Record Straight: ObamaCare Is A Tax; It’s The Obama PRESIDENCY That’s A Penalty.

Obama told us that he was opposed to using waterboarding (even if we couldn’t get information we needed to save the lives of millions of Americans) because waterboarding is torture.

Unfortunately, Obama is FINE with torturing the truth; it’s just terrorists he won’t torture.

Try to bear with me as we rehearse the sheer torture that Obama has administered on truth and logic:

1) Obama promised the American people up one side and down the other that he would never, ever ever raise taxes on Americans earning less than $200,000 a year (and less than $250,000 for a family):

Example 1:

BARACK OBAMA: And 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.

Example 2:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

2) Obama told the American people that raising taxes on Americans earning less than $200,000 a year would be an absolutely terrible thing to do to the US economy:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

3) Obama promised the American people that his ObamaCare mandate was absolutely NOT a tax.  Because, of course, if the mandate was a tax, then Obama would be a) a documented liar by 1) above and 2) an anti-American saboteur of the US economy by 2) above:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

[....]

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

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

4) In outright contradiction of 3) above, Obama had his Soliciter General argue that ObamaCare IN FACT ACTUALLY WAS A TAX (hoping that the Supreme Court would recognize that he is a rabid, frothing liar and an anti-American saboteur of the US economy but that the rest of the American people would be too damned ignorant to understand.  As a further element of sheer hilarity and chutzpah, note that conservative Justice Samuel Alito points out the sheer, unadulterated galling hypocrisy of the Obama administration argument:

From the Daily Beast:

Despite being defined in the bill as a “penalty” (the word “tax” is never used), Solicitor General Donald Verrilli will argue tomorrow on behalf of the administration that the measure is a tax, since it is collected by the IRS and is intended to raise revenue and thus falls under the Taxing and Spending clause of the Constitution that gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes.” He will also argue that the law falls within the enumerated powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause, which gives it the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.” In recent years, the clause has become a fiercely contested battleground with many on the right arguing forcefully for a far more limited reading.

Alito pressed the tax question Monday, saying: “Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?” Verrilli answered no.

Verrilli argued on behalf of Barack Obama that ObamaCare WAS IN FACT A TAX:

“In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law,” a court is “concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it.” The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law. It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance…The Court has never held that a revenue-raising provision bearing so many indicia of taxation was beyond Congress’s taxing power, and it should not do so here.”

More:

GENERAL VERRILLI: It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn’t done so, it seems to me that it’s — not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

Of course now the most dishonest administration that has ever contaminated the White House is arguing that they never said any such thing no matter how blatantly they must lie to say it.

5)  The Supreme Court allows ObamaCare to stand entirely because it is a TAX and NOT a penalty:

“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

FACT: ObamaCare is either a tax or it is unconstitutional and must be overturned.

Only a traitor to the United States of America and its Constitution would argue that ObamaCare is NOT a tax but that ObamaCare should be allowed to stand.

6) Obama argues that the sole constitutional grounds that ObamaCare can stand does not apply to his blatantly unconstitutional takeover of health care and one-sixth of the US economy:

Obama campaign: It’s a penalty, not a tax
By BYRON TAU |
6/29/12 10:49 AM EDT

A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax — despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds.

“Don’t believe the hype that the other side is selling,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call.

“This is a penalty,” Patrick said. “It’s about dealing with the freeloaders.”

(Also on POLITICO: How to repeal the health law: A GOP recipe)

The Supreme Court upheld the entirety of the health care law Thursday on narrow grounds, declaring that the individual mandate was legal under Congress’ taxing powers.

In the wake of the decision, Republicans and conservatives have accused Obama of raising taxes. Radio host Rush Limbaugh called the act “nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world” on Thursday.

The White House has repeatedly insisted that the mandate is not a tax, with President Obama telling ABC in 2009 that he rejected that notion.

But Patrick said that it was about keeping people from getting care in expensive emergency room settings rather than private care settings. Further, he said that it would affect about one to two percent of Americans.

“By whatever name, it’s a solution,” Patrick said — still insisting that it was not a tax.

7) Seventy-five percent of ObamaCare TAXES will fall on those making less than $120,000 a year:

There are actually TWENTY-TWO new taxes created by ObamaCare that add up to $670 BILLION.  The mandate/penaty TAX is actually not a big deal when compared to the rest of this monstrosity.

ObamaCare IS a tax.  The Supreme Court ruled that it is a tax.  It is unconstitutional if it is not a tax.

It is the Obama presidency that is a penalty.

The American people have been rightly penalized for voting for this fool for the last four years.

A nation that does not deserve to suffer does not re-elect a pathologically dishonest liar like Obama.

America is like a puppy that made a mess and has spent the last four years having its nose wiped in its own feces.  I guess in four months we’ll see if we’ve learned our lesson or whether we actually like God damn America.

Mitt Romeny Racks Up 47,000 Donations Totalling Over $4.6 Million In 24 Hours After ObamaCare Decision Announced

Maxine Waters said to the Tea Party, “Let’s get it on!”

Well, game on, you corrupt, dishonest hack.

Admiral Yamamoto was said to have made a frightening prediction for Japan even as all of his fleet was celebrating their apparently wild success at Pearl Harbor:

“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

Obama and Democrats most certainly have a moment of success that was handed to them by Bush-appointee John Roberts.  But history amply documents that many such apparent victories turn out to be slow-moving disasters for those who celebrate them.  Not only is the ObamaCare that can now only be overturned by Republicans still wildly unpopular – and most importantly, wildly unpopular with independents to the tune of a whopping 70 percent who wanted it repealed - but it is also now officially the largest tax on the middle class in American history.  And that torpedoes Obama’s primary campagin rhetoric to be the protector of the middle class.

Then there’s also this: ObamaCare just ignited the Romney base to white-hot anger and very terrible resolve:

Romney campaign donations hit $4.6 million following health care decision
In a brief televised statement following the decision, Romney vowed that his first priority upon entering the White House would be repealing the so-called Obamacare law.
By Kristen A. Lee / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, June 29, 2012, 1:17 PM

President Obama may have won the health care battle at the Supreme Court, but Mitt Romney is claiming a victory in the money wars.

Since the court released its stunning 5-4 decision upholding Obama’s health care law Thursday morning, the Romney campaign has taken in a flood of donations from Republican supporters angry about the ruling.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul tweeted Friday that the campaign received more than 47,000 online donations totaling $4.6 million in the 24 hours since the ruling.

The surge in small donations indicates that the decision may be an effective weapon for Republicans to mobilize conservatives for the general election.

The Obama campaign is asserting that they took in even more.  The fact that they refused to produce any of their numbers to back those assertions up is evidence enough to refute their bogus claims.

In 2010 enraged Americans rose up in righteous outrage over the even-then wildly unpopular ObamaCare and gave Democrats a historic ass-kicking:

[Consider] the sheer extent of the disaster Obama led the Democrat Party into: this wasn’t the worst election drubbing since 1994; it was the worst election drubbing since 1938 (and since 1928 in the state legislatures).

We also took 11 governorships.

Here is the map of that 2010 ass-kicking (red = “Democrats SUCK!”):

Well, now ObamaCare is back on the table.  You are literally voting for your very lives, people.  Time to get really, really angry again.

And now Obama is a big-time major documented liar to go with being a narcissistic sociopath:

[ObamaCare is] the largest tax of the American middle class in the history of the Republic.

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And 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.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

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

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase. It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact. And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying. Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.

You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.

There is already a $17 TRILLION funding gap in this monstrosity. And you aint seen nothin’ yet. Not only the absolute number but even the rate of those without insurance has INCREASED since ObamaCare was passed. And ObamaCare has raised the cost of medicine; the average family is paying over $2,000 more in health insurance premiums in a number of states since ObamaCare was passed. And that was EXACTLY what was predicted as compared to what would have happened HAD OBAMACARE NOT EXISTED, according to the CBO. But now we’re finding that health premiums are increasing by as much as 1,112 percent. And the Supreme Court decision today will likely cause this escalating cost spike to shoot at an even higher trajectory into the stratosphere.

This is what you will be voting for in 2012: do you want the kind of government-controlled health care system in which hundreds of thousands of elderly patients are terminated every single year just to make bed-space available as the inefficient government system crashes into chaos?  To put it into parallel terms given the population differences, 130,000 British elderly citizens euthanized every year amounts to at least 687,000 elderly Americans terminated.

Do you want 160 death panels?

Vote for Romney.  Vote for your very own life and most certainly forn the lives of your parents and grandparents.

Why Did John Roberts Play Brutus In The Shakespearean Tragedy Of ObamaCare?

We even had key swing vote Anthony Kennedy on our side.

We had the opinion being written by BUSH’S pick for Supreme Court Justice.  It was in the bag for conservatives.

All over America – even in the WHITE HOUSE – people were looking at the decision and initially believing it was a 5-4 ruling against ObamaCare.  People read what Roberts in his majority opinion wrote about the the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare as it pertained to the Commerce Clause:

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

And it seemed to everyone that the decision had been to strike ObamaCare down.  The majority opinion clearly states that ObamaCare is unconstitutional if the mandate derives from the Commerce Clause, as ObamaCare in fact did derive it’s authority.

When suddenly the worm turned.

Yes, the mandate, the very heart of ObamaCare, was ruled unconstitutional.  But John Roberts decided if he just rewrote the law to make the mandate a tax and the power deriving not from the Commerce Clause but from the power of Congress to tax, it would fix everything.

In the minority opinion that should have been a MAJORITY opinion given that all the conservative justices but that Bush-picked guy supported it along with Anthony Kennedy, the statement was:

[T]o 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.

ObamaCare was NOT a tax.  We have Democrats and Obama on the record saying that all over the place and actively arguing with anybody who said it was a tax:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

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

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase.

And none other than Bush Justice John Roberts rewrote the law to “fundamentally transform” it to turn what was in every Democrat’s words NOT a tax increase (and therefore unconstitutional according to the decision yesterday) into a tax increase (and therefore “constitutional enough” for John Roberts).

John Roberts played the role of Brutus in being that sudden, surprise stab in the back.

Why in the hell would he do this?  Why would he abandon his conservative philosophy and betray not only conservatives but America itself?

Well, in a nutshell, here’s why:

Today Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) took to the Senate floor to warn his colleagues and President Obama about public comments about the Supreme Court as it deliberates the health care case.

“Attempts to manipulate or to bully the Supreme Court, especially during deliberations in a particular proceeding, are irresponsible and they tend to threaten the very fabric of our constitutional republic, ” Lee said during a floor speech.

Lee was responding in part to a speech in May by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Leahy took to the Senate floor to warn the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, not to strike down the Affordable Care Act.

Leahy said that when he attended oral arguments in March he “was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress.” He said some of the justices seemed “dismissive” of the months of work—including dozens of hearings—on the part of both the House and the Senate to enact the law.

Leahy singled out Roberts, explaining why he had voted for him during the Chief Justice’s confirmation hearings: “I trusted he would act to fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with the testimony he gave to the United States Senate. I said then that if I thought he would easily reject precedent or use his position on the Supreme Court as a bulwark for activism, I would not have supported his confirmation.”

During a Rose Garden ceremony in April President Obama said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, to his great personal disgrace, put the “reputation” of the Supreme Court ahead of the law, the Constitution, and the nation.

And he did so in the face of frankly terrorist threats to delegitimize the SCOTUS that Roberts – who was appointed directly to the role of Chief Justice by George W. Bush – loves more than anything.

Call it the Stockholm Syndrome, which amounts to the desire for a captive to please the terrorists in order to stay alive.

John Roberts, we are now told, almost certainly switched his vote.

We have never seen a president demonize the Supreme Court the way Barack Obama did when he started the terrorist-threat ball rolling.  George Bush was confronted with a decision that he came out and announced he disagreed with immediately before stating that he respected the Court and would follow the law.  Obama flat-out stated that if the Supreme Court overturned his ObamaCare, this “unelected body” would be exceeding its authority and would no longer be deemed legitimate.

Obama directly threatened the Supreme Court.  His terrorist bomb was the “extraordinary disruption” of Medicare that his “law” had already created and he would see turn into total chaos to punish America if ObamaCare wasn’t upheld.

There was the threat to implode the Medicare system, yes.  There was the demonization of the Supreme Court as an illegitimate body that was all over the place, yes (conservatives kept asking liberals, but what are you going to say if ObamaCare is upheld?).  That demonization was ALL over the place as every liberal crawled out to join in on the Supreme Court bashing in the days before the decision.

And John Roberts blinked.  He switched his vote to appease the demonic, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Democrat hate-machine that had been switched on by Barack Obama.

Everyterrorist will confidently tell you something: terrorism works.  That’s why we do it.

The narrative was as follows: John Roberts was troubled by the 2000 lawsuit in which the SCOTUS ultimately ruled that George Bush won the election and the left decried the Supreme Court as a politically biased institution.  And John Roberts listened to Barack Obama’s threat and his ugly words about the Court he loved, he listened to Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Charles Schumer, he listened to all the liberal punditry and he realized that the only way to save the reputation of the Supreme Court from charges of bias was to side with the liberals.

Now, interestingly, there was never any pressure on the four liberals to not rule in lockstep liberal fashion.  This idea of “bias” that was crafted by the left to demonize the SCOTUS doesn’t work that way; it only works against conservatives for ruling according to their conservative philosophy.  Liberals are free to be as biased and as political and as ideological and as partisan as they want.  So there was never any pressure whatsoever for the four liberal justices to ever rule in any other manner but according to their lockstep-liberalism.

Nope.  It was the five Republican-appointed Justices who had to cave.

We were told that a 5-4 decision against Obama would be dreadful.  But if there were to be a 5-4 decision FOR ObamaCare, well, “The highest Court in the land has spoken.”

So John Roberts “fixed” everything.  Just listen to the Democrats and the liberal media praising Roberts and the Court now???  And all he had to do was utterly abandon his conservative principles.  It’s that easy.  It’s just as easy for Republicans in the House and the Senate.  “Bi-partisan compromise” isn’t when 17 Democrats join Republicans in holding Obama Attorney General Holder in contempt; no.  It is when 3 Republicans join Democrats in passing the stimulus.

The Democrats demonized the Court as a political body, and that cut Roberts to the core so much that he was willing to do whatever it took to keep Democrats from politicizing the Court.  Even if it meant politicizing the Court by rewriting a law that his own decision argued was unconstitutional without rewriting the law (with said rewriting the statute being a very political thing to do).

If you want to see true politicizing of the Supreme Court – just as if you want to see ANYTHING evil in America, whether it be slavery, or the Ku Klux Klan, or re-segregation, or the resurgance of the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th Century under the banner of the Democrat Party, or racist union-imposed segregationism, or putting people in camps - you look at DEMOCRATS.  And what is so for everything else is so in the case of the politicization of the Supreme Court: FDR tried to pack the court with “yes men” judges when the Supreme Court told him much of his New Deal was unconstitutional.  And you throw in what the Democrat Party did to destroy Robert Bork and the “high-tech lynching” they demonized Clarence Thomas with, and you ought to get the picture.

Chris Matthews actually libeled John Roberts by comparing him to the judge who passed the fugitive slave act:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, one other concern here, Ezra, a friend of mine, who is a fellow Roman Catholic said, he doesn’t want to be the second Roger Taney. Roger Taney, of course, was a Roman Catholic who upheld the Fugitive Slave Law back before the Civil War and was villainized throughout history because of that.

The Democrat Party overwhelmingly passed the fugitive slave act over Republican opposition.  It is frankly evil to so turn history on its head.  But since when did facts matter to liberal propagandists like Chris Matthews?

Terrorist Democrats had planted a bomb under the foundation of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Only by bowing down to the left could the SCOTUS be allowed to be viewed as “credible” or “legitimate.”  It only works one way.

I agree with the Democrats who say the Supreme Court is a purely political body.  Given that presidents pick the judges, how on earth could it be anything else?  And why should Republicans feel guilt over the fact that Republicans have held the highest elected office in the land than Democrats, such that they have an advantage in “picks”???

Why is it a travesty of justice if five Republican justices decide the law from their philosophy but it wouldn’t be a travesty of justice if five Democrat justices decided the law from their philosophy, apart from the very partisan bias that the left had been dumping on the Supreme Court in the months before Roberts caved?

Let me take this a little bit further, to the practical level: Republican presidents – including the hated George W. Bush – have appointed two of the justices who sided with liberals in monumental decisions like ObamaCare (President Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to go with John Roberts).  Oh, and perennial swing vote Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.  Consider that Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will NEVER rule with the conservatives on a major issue.  They were in lock-fascist goose-step on ObamaCare.

If John Roberts ever wanted to be welcom at another hoity-toity Georgetown cocktail circuit soiree, well, he knew what he had to do (hint, hint: the same thing that Brutus knew he had to do to Caesar).  Because he would have been a poster boy for left wing contempt if he’d decided the way he apparently clearly had decided before caving into the intimidation of the left and changing his tune.  Now Roberts has miraculously been transformed from right-wing goon to hero (see also here for the same).

It only works one way, you see.

Like the horror of a 5-4 decision overturning ObamaCare, as NBC anchor David Gregory amply documents:

Early the 7 a.m. et hour of Today, Gregory melodramatically fretted over the possibility of ObamaCare being ruled unconstitutional: “What happens if it is struck down in part or in whole by a 5 to 4 decision? Would that not underscore how dysfunctional our government is, the major institutions of our government are? That is a real nightmare scenario, I think, for the political class in this country.”

Now a 5-4 decision is wonderful and healthy for the nation.  Now “the highest court in the land has spoken.”

What a million metric tons of manure.

Let’s just all agree with the Democrats the days before the ObamaCare decision.  The Supreme Court is nothing more than nine political hacks wearing weird black robes like evil priests of some strange god that has nothing to do with us.

The thing that most bothers me is that “justice” is very much working against conservatives.  And that is because the way the game is being played.  You’ve got the liberal “justices” who can do ANYTHING.  They can literally make up rights (such as “privacy”) to use those made up rights to then make up other rights (abortion).  And how did they justify abortion?  Did they find it in the Constitution?  Nope.  But they found – and this in their very own words – “penumbras and emanations” of abortion in there when they stared into the Constitution like a crystal ball.

What on earth do conservatives have to fight against penumbras and emanations?  We read the Constitution like it actually MEANS SOMETHING and seek the intent of the founding fathers who didn’t intend us to make up whatever we needed to make up to justify whatever the hell we want to do.

Maybe at some point we’ll have the rightwing equivalent of liberal justices who will use the ObamaCare verdict against liberals by forcing all Americans to buy Bibles or pay a “tax” and then force all Americans to go to church or pay a “tax” and then force all Americans to buy a gun or pay a “tax.”  Maybe we’ll have a rightwing president who will decide to arbitrarily abrogate the tax laws the way Obama abrogated immigration law and simply declare that he will not enforce the laws against any American who refuses to pay capital gains taxes.

The reason we’re going to ultimately lose this war for American culture is because in order to do things like this, we’d have to sacrifice our core principles.  Whereas the left have no such principles to sacrifice.

Again, principle is something that only works one way.

In the short run this could actually work out well for Republicans.  Remember, it was the rage of ObamaCare that prompted Americans to come out in droves and give the Republican Party the largest landslide win in history.  And now that issue is right back on the table.  The Supreme Court won’t save us; we must save ourselves from Obama and his tyranny in November.  And that was when ObamaCare was a mandate and not the largest tax in the history of the United States directly smacking the middle class.

The long run is another beast entirely.  America will lose in the long run.  Because too many critical things only work one way.  I’ve listed several above, but there are many other cancers, such as spending and debt.  They can only work one way – and that one way is taking us up like a rocketship until we come down in utter economic collapse.  This is because it is simply too easy for the left to demonize the right over ANY cut in spending.  If Republicans cut spending its because they’re greedy and want to protect the rich at the poor’s expense, etc. etc.  And Republicans will do the very same thing that John Roberts did and blink and then cave in the face of demonic attack.  And as a result America will never be able to cut spending enough to save itself.

The beast is coming.  The Bible tells us that this Antichrist will be a big government world leader who will literally be worshiped as he leads the world straight into hell.  Prior to these last few years, my major stumbling block in believing this was America; how could America do such a thing as worship the beast and take his mark? 

Those illusions have been utterly dispelled.  The beast will come.  When he does America will vote for him.  And then worship him.  And then take his mark.  And then burn in hell forever and ever.

The Socialist ObamaCare Takeover Of Health Care Is An Unmitigated Disaster. Just Ask Doctors.

I write this the night before the Supreme Court releases its decision on ObamaCare, obviously not knowing how the SCOTUS will rule.

Will the SCOTUS overturn the entire law?  I think so, in the sense that the Democrats who rammed the disgraceful takeover of our health care system could have placed a severability clause in it, but didn’t.  One of the Justices (Scalia, in my memory) famously asked just how on earth they could be expected to divide this 2,700 page monstrosity up if they were to decide to overturn part of it and keep part of it.

On the other hand, The Supreme Court seems to have a penchant for deciding as little as possible and ruling as narrowly as possible – which guarantees that the same issues will come before them again and again and again.  If you are a fan of the SCOTUS, you might argue that this is because they don’t want to involve the Court in important issues which ought to be decided by the elected branches.  But if that’s true, why bother to even take up these cases with decisions that decide almost nothing?  On the other hand, if you are a SCOTUS skeptic, you might well conclude that the Supreme Court never issues bold decisions so it can have job security.

The court issues so many narrow decisions that merely force them to issue subsequent narrow decisions on basically the same damn cases ad nauseam.

An example of this was the Arizona SB 1070 Law.  By keeping the major provision and overturning the other three, you ended up with a joke of a system in which the states get to demand immigration papers and the suspects get to refuse to show them their immigration papers.  Antonin Scalia’s frustration over the near-useless ruling which guarantees that immigration will remain a mess would have been funny if the situation wasn’t such a travesty.  His harshest remark may have been:

The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

So, while I am believing the Court will issue a bold decision and overturn ObamaCare simply because it will create a genuine disaster if it overturns the mandate (the funding mechanism) but leaves the rest of the law that forces trillions in spending intact – or even worse, leaving the mandate intact and choosing some other details to quibble over – I recognize that such a decision is how the SCOTUS normally does business.

A new survey that just came out that demonstrates just what a turd this ObamaCare law is worth broadcasting from every rooftop.  If ObamaCare gets thrown out as unconstitutional, then we need to keep doing everything we can to expose just how breathtakingly evil this demonic law truly was in the face of the Democrat Party’s “The Supreme Court is only a valid entity if it rules the way we fascist liberals say it should” mantra (see more of that here from elected Democrats).  And what the heck.  Here’s still more.  And we need to expose it even MORE if any part of this beast is allowed to limp out of the Supreme Court (and if the SCOTUS doesn’t overturn it, figure on the same people who demonized the Court saying, “The highest court in the land has now spoken …”).

So take a look at the following two surveys:

Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit
Kate Hicks
Web Editor, Townhall.com 06/14/12

The Doctor Patient Medical Association has released a new survey of about 700 doctors, and the results are bleak. Scary bleak. Among other dismal figures, Doctors’ Attitudes on the Future of Medicine: What’s Wrong, Who’s to Blame, and What Will Fix It found that 83% of respondents are contemplating leaving the industry if Obamacare is fully implemented, owing to its disastrous projected consequences. Indeed, they openly blame the healthcare law for their industry’s woes:

KEY FINDINGS
 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
 83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
 61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
 85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
 65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
 72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
 49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
 74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
 52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
 57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
 1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
 2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
 95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
 80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
 70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.
 
If this isn’t an airtight argument for the repeal of Obamacare, nothing is. When the people providing the actual healthcare are thinking of getting out of the game, the system is clearly broken. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare this month.

The other survey gives us more information on just how rancid physicians think ObamaCare is.

Some screenshots I took from the survey:

And:

So other than the fact that doctors will have less control over medical decisions while government bureaucrats will have far MORE control, and other than the fact that it’s going to escalate the process of driving doctors out of medicine when we ALREADY HAVE A DOCTOR SHORTAGE, ObamaCare is hunky dory.

Well, maybe not so hunky dory.  There’s a lot more crap wrong with this ObamaCare turd:

For Physicians, Obamacare a Net Negative
Posted on 15 June 2012 by jmorris
By Jeremy Morris, Associate Editor, US Daily Review.

Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare and leader in permanent and locum tenens physician staffing for over 30 years, endorsed the results of a new survey by its parent company that finds that a “D” is the mean grade physicians give the health law, despite its primary intention to reduce the cost of healthcare and provide coverage for the uninsured. Physicians who said they were very knowledgeable about the law were even more negative.

The survey was conducted online from May 25 to June 4, 2012. Invitations for the survey were emailed to physicians who had been placed by Jackson Healthcare staffing companies and those who had not. Respondents were self-selected, with 2,694 physicians completing the survey. (The error range for this survey at the 95-percent confidence level is +/- 1.9 percent.)

In addition, the survey shows 68 percent of American physicians disagree that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare,” will have a positive impact on physician/patient relationship.

Only 12 percent of physicians said the law provides needed healthcare reform. A majority of physicians said the ACA would not improve healthcare’s quality, rising costs or patients’ control over their own health care. They also said it would worsen the amount of control physicians have over their practice decisions.

The only positive rating physicians gave the ACA was related to access. Fifty-four percent of respondents said the new law will increase patients’ access to care. The health law is estimated to drive 13 million new Medicaid enrollees beginning in 2014.

“Physician opinions are important since they are a primary driver of healthcare decisions and costs,” said Richard L. Jackson, chairman and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, a national healthcare staffing company. “Overall, they believe the law does not meet its intended objectives, negatively impacts the patient-physician relationship and hinders their ability to control the treatment of their patients.”

One important provision in the law set to take effect next year is the Independent Payment Advisory Board charged with finding savings in Medicare. Sixty-four percent of physicians said it would have a negative impact on patient care.

Among other key survey findings:

• 70 percent said ACA would not stem rising healthcare costs.
• 66 percent said ACA would give physicians less control over their practice decisions.
• 61 percent said ACA would not improve the quality of healthcare.
• 55 percent said Congress should scrap ACA and start over.
• 49 percent said ACA would give patients less control over their healthcare.
• 35 percent said it did nothing to reform healthcare.
• 31 percent said ACA didn’t go far enough and a single-payer system is needed.
• 22 percent said ACA went too far and impedes a physician’s ability to practice medicine.

“Improving the quality of patient care and managing rising healthcare costs are undoubtedly the two biggest issues facing physician practices today, and this survey certainly indicates the new health law is doing little to address these key challenges,” said Tony Stajduhar, president of the Permanent Recruitment Division, Jackson & Coker. “With a shortage of physicians already projected in the coming years, especially among permanent physicians, we need to actively engage this key group in discussions regarding healthcare reform that will bring about impactful changes in our current healthcare system―in turn, positively influencing recruitment and retention within this profession.”

To view the survey or learn more click here.

According to a statement, “Jackson & Coker believes that all hospitals, clinics, physician practices, and patients should have access to a physician whether for a day, a lifetime, or any of life’s changes in between. For over three decades, Jackson & Coker has been uniting physicians and hospitals to ensure that all patients’ needs are met by providing physicians for as little as a day and as long as a lifetime. The firm specializes in doctor opportunities for physicians at any stage of their professional career. Headquartered in metro Atlanta, the physician recruitment firm has earned a reputation for placing exceptionally qualified candidates in commercial and government practice opportunities. Recruiters work in two divisions of the company: Permanent Placement, which places providers in over 40 medical specialties in permanent placement jobs, and locum tenens, a staffing model that recruits medical providers (physicians and CRNAs) for temporary vacancies. Jackson & Coker’s in-house client credentialing specialists perform comprehensive credentialing services that adhere to the highest industry standards, with a dedicated individual for each specialty team.”

The “Obama Akbar!” liberals who most support ObamaCare frankly don’t care if it is evil and will kill people by medical neglect.  In fact, the worse it is, and the more people die because of ObamaCare, the better – because that would lead to the next step in liberal’s most cherished dreams of a state-controlled society.  Because the sad, pathetic, tragic fact of the matter is that the bigger and more intrusive government becomes and the more wildly said government fails, the more essential still bigger and still more intrusive government becomes.  If a small, limited government that conservatives yearn for has a crisis, most people aren’t gravely impacted.  If you have the sort of giant government bureaucracy that liberals dream of and it has a crisis, people will suffer by the hundreds of millions.  If we had a catastrophic collapse of the government – and believe me, one is coming SOON – you can rest assured that millions of frightened, hungry people would demand the government step in and help them – which is precisely what liberals want.  The system crashes, liberals seize power, and they never look back.  And it won’t even MATTER that they were the ones who created the collapse in the first place.  We’ve already seen this story before.

Update, 6/28/12: Well I was wrong – and very right.  SCOTUS issued one of its quibbling decisions in which it played around with the regime’s draconian Medicaid threats against the states while asserting that the mandate was a tax even though Obama and the Democrat Party swore up one side and down the other that it was NOT a tax.  But overall, as long as you play bait-and-switch and arbitrarily declare what Obama and Congress said was not a tax to be a tax, it’s “constitutional.”  All the Supreme Court had to do to not be “activist” in Democrat demagoguery was to rewrite the clear intent of the law to use the Commerce Clause rather than Congress’ taxing powers.  Which of course is pretty damned activist, isn’t it?

It is also the largest tax of the American middle class in the history of the Republic.

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And 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.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people:  if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

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

But Obama lied to you.  It IS a tax increase.  It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact.  And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying.  Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.

You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.

There is already a $17 TRILLION funding gap in this monstrosity.  And you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Not only the absolute number but even the rate of those without insurance has INCREASED since ObamaCare was passed.  And ObamaCare has raised the cost of medicine; the average family is paying over $2,000 more in health insurance premiums in a number of states since ObamaCare was passed.  And that was EXACTLY what was predicted as compared to what would have happened HAD OBAMACARE NOT EXISTED, according to the CBO.  But now we’re finding that health premiums are increasing by as much as 1,112 percent.  And the Supreme Court decision today will likely cause this escalating cost spike to shoot at an even higher trajectory into the stratosphere.

Let me put this into the context of the Star Wars fight of good versus totalitarian big government-gone insane evil: “Help me, Mitty Won Romnobi.  You’re my only hope.”

Please use your presidential lightsaber to slice this Death Panel to pieces before it’s too late.

Obama Administration Turns Down Inexpensive And Successful Solution To Illegal Immigration Invasion Even When It Is Offered To Government FREE

This story ought to make you angry.

When we were trying to build the fence, Democrats – you know, the people who keep demonizing Republicans as “obstructionist” - blocked it at every turn and said it wouldn’t work.  And we were responding that it worked better than NOTHING.  Well, now there’s a REAL solution that is inexpensive and would literally be able to completely stop ALL illegal immigration dead if it were only implemented.

Well, now we know one thing: Democrats don’t WANT to stop illegal immigration.  Democrats WANT illegal immigration; they want as much illegal immigration as they can possibly get.  They want it because they have cynically and frankly treasonously concluded that they can exploit it politically.

High-Tech Solution to Border Problems Ignored
By Chuck Holton
CBN News Military Reporter
Tuesday, June 26, 2012

U.S.-MEXICO BORDER — Government spending to secure the United States’ southern border with Mexico has surged since 9/11 with mixed results.

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is down, while drug smuggling has only gotten worse.
 
John Ladd works on the same Arizona ranch his family has owned since 1896. His 14,000-acre lot includes 10 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Out there, you don’t have to look far to see the effects of illegal immigration.
 
“I’ve had a group of people, at least one group a day since Thanksgiving. I’ve been robbed, I’ve had them in the house,” Ladd told CBN News.
 
But migrant workers aren’t the real problem. What worries Ladd most is the drugs crossing onto his land.
 
“We’ve had five drive-thrus with 14 trucks total since February of this year,” he said.
 
According to government estimates, only about 15 percent of those illegally crossing the border are caught. And the fence isn’t making much of a difference.
 
“This has been a smugglers point for a hundred years. They cut the mesh out at the bottom and the side and across the top, and then they open it up and ramp over,” Ladd explained. “This is a little bit better than a seven strand barbed wire fence, but not much.”
 
Hi-Tech Possibilities
 
Arlington, Texas, is home of the Cowboys stadium, and one of the most technologically advanced municipalities in the country.

CBN News met a man there who developed the security system for the Super Bowl, and may also hold the key to securing the southern border.
 
“The fence is a wonderful tool if you want to stop wildlife, if you want to stop livestock, if you want to stop somebody for 30 seconds,” Dan Hammons, owner of Hammons Enterprises, explained.
 
“We think the border needs to be a line in the sand as opposed to a wide area,” he added.

“If a person crawls over that fence or crosses that border illegally, we have a wide array of sensing technologies that will set off an alarm and will turn on a camera on a node tower,” Hammons said. “So you can determine, is it a person, is it a deer, is it a cow.”
 
“With our system, I’m confident that we are going to detect 100 percent of the people crossing that border illegally,” he boldly claimed.
 
Key Benefits
 
Hammons’ system also costs about $1 million less per mile than a border fence. While there are already many cameras on the border, there is a major difference in this network: bandwidth.
 
“We don’t have to compress high-definition video. We can pump thousands of video streams thousands of miles, and you are looking at it in true real time,” Hammons explained.
 
“So it gives us the ability in a border environment to actually track somebody with a video camera all of the time for as far north as we want to go,” he said.
 
The objective is to give U.S. Border Patrol more accurate and timely information, which in turn keeps them safe.

“We’re going to add a layer of safety for these men and women that are on the border every day putting their lives at risk,” Hammons said. “We’re not going to send one person to apprehend a group of people armed with AK-47s.”
 
Ladd loves the idea because of the accuracy and timeliness that Hammons’ system could provide.
 
“Absolutely in favor of that technology, but yet we can’t seem to come to terms that that’s the way to do it,” Ladd said. “And so we depend on a 10-foot wall that an old woman can climb over with help.”
 
“On our ranch… the length of it, you could have one guy sitting at a computer module and he’d be able to monitor that whole 10-and-a-half miles. One person!” Ladd continued.
 
Government Cold Shoulder
 
Still, decision makers in Washington have repeatedly turned down Hammons’ ideas.
 
“They have shut the door in our face,” he said.

“We offered to do this for them for free. We wanted to build a three-mile section of it for free. No cost or obligation to the government, all we wanted was an operational evaluation,” Hammons recalled.
 
He hinted that the system’s potential may be viewed by some as a political problem.
 
“We’re going to be able to tell the truth about what’s going on on the border,” Hammons said. “We’re going to be able to show the American public exactly what is happening down there.”
 
In the meantime, ranchers along Arizona’s border feel like they’re stuck in a war zone.

“Regardless of what Homeland Security and Border Patrol says, the border isn’t as safe as it’s ever been,” Ladd said. “There’s more drugs coming right now than ever before.”
 
“A guy driving a Border Patrol truck up and down the fence isn’t going to cut it,” he added.

Watch the report here.

Senators John Kyl and John McCain of Arizona are both livid over Obama’s response to the Supreme Court verdict allowing police to question suspects about their illegal immigration status by refusing to allow the federal government to share immigration status dat with state law enforcement.  McCain rightly pointed out that it was the most childish behavior he had ever seen coming from a president.  And Kyl pointed out that the president’s reasoning for his executive dictates that amount to amnesty for all illegals other than those who had committed felonies (i.e. illegals can commit all the misdemeanors they WANT with impunity) were baseless by the administration’s own previous statements.  Obama is justifying his decisions on the premise that there are insufficient resources to remove illegal immigrants; but when the US Senate has told Obama they would increase federal border security resources if the government needed them, the administration has previously stated that they have all the resources they NEED to enforce the laws which require the federal government to act to remove ALL illegals.  As we speak, Obama is continuing this bogus charade: on the one hand he’s claiming resources are too scarce to follow the law which requires him to remove every illegal immigrant the system comes across; at the same time he is now claiming that he doesn’t need any help from the state of Arizona whatsoever.

And now we find out that Obama is trying to exploit illegal immigration and the misery and crime that follow from it in order to try to win re-election.

This is an administration that has compared illegal immigration to jaywalking.  This is an administration that views Obama as being above the law, as being a king who can abrogate the law and do whatever he pleases.

Barack Obama is merely a new variant of fascist.  Where Hitler exploited white Aryan racist policies to benefit politically, Obama is cynically exploiting black and Hispanic racist policies to benefit politically.  In a nation whose premise has been that it is a realm of laws in which justice is supposed to be blind to the race and to the political party of those who break it, this is a stab in the guts of everything our nation is supposed to be.

The Cloward And Piven Presidency

What is Cloward and Piven, you ask?  I’ve written about it and Obama’s connection to it before.  Allow me to cite the same information I provided in 2009:

From Discover The Networks:

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. [...]

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

Newsmax offers a further description of Clowar-Piven, and raises the very real possibility that Obama not only studied the strategy, but in fact even studied under Richard Cloward:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly newsmedia to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth. It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

On my own view, Obama has a “win we win, lose we win” strategy. To wit, the Obama administration and the Democrat Party are pursuing incredibly risky policies across the board. If the country and the economy somehow manages to survive these measures (which I would compare to a man surviving a poisoning), Obama and the Democrats will claim victory. If, on the other hand, the entire national system collapses due to these shockingly terrible policies, the liberals believe that a terrified, hungry public will turn to the government for help – and allow the statists to restructure the nation into a completely socialist system.

I have talked about Obama directly using the Cloward and Piven strategy to implode America in the past (and see):

Politico Article Reveals Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy Backfiring

ObamaCare Just Another Leftist Attempt To Bankrupt America (Cloward And Piven Alert)

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Redistributionism Shaping The Future Collapse

Cloward-Piven Alive And Well: Progressives CONTINUE To Push For Destruction Of U.S. System

I have also provided direct evidence that Obama-allied liberals are directly trying to produce the collapse of the American financial system.  And I cited the following article in my own:

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America
Henry Blodget | Mar. 22, 2011, 9:44 AM

A former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, SEIU, has a secret plan to “destabilize” the country.

The plan is designed to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street’s grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.

The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner’s remarks. Many Americans will undoubtedly sympathize with and support them. Still, the “destabilization” plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.

Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore–the redistribution of wealth and the return of “$17 trillion” stolen from the middle class by Wall Street–is to “destabilize the country.”

Lerner’s plan is to organize a mass, coordinated “strike” on mortgage, student loan, and local government debt payments–thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.

Lerner’s plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.

Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations.

In former SEIU Lerner’s own words at this liberal think-tank event:

Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability

Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.

I have repeatedly documented and explained how the 2008 financial crisis was created almost ENTIRELY by Democrats who repeatedly refused to allow Bush or Republicans in Congress to do ANYTHING to avert a disaster they saw coming:

DEMOCRATS Set Up America For 2008 Collapse, And Barack Obama Became Their KING

More Proof Democrats Destroyed The Economy In 2008: The Ongoing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Disaster

Why Did Our Economy Melt Down In 2008? (Email This To Your Friends)

It Was DEMOCRATS Who Blew Up Our Economy In 2008

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

Democrat Lies About Their Key Role In 2008 Economic Collapse Reaches Laughable Proportions

How Should Democrats Eat The Half-Trillion $ Monsters Fannie And Freddie? One Bite At A Time

Barney Frank Video Proves Democrats At CORE Of 2008 Economic Collapse

AEI Article: How Fannie And Freddie Blew Up The Economy

With Eyes Finally Wide-Open, Reconsider Why The Economy Collapsed In The First Place

Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy, Liberals Or Conservatives?

Biden: ‘We Misread the Economy’ – And it’s all the Republicans’ Fault

Selective Liberal Outrage: Fannie’s $210 Million In Bonuses A-OK

Blaming Republican ‘Obstructionism’ For America’s Economic Problems Is A Demonic Lie. Let’s Look At The REAL Obstructionists.

Who’s To Blame For The Economic Mess We’re In? Two Views.

JP Morgan And MF Global Prove That Democrat Regulations DON’T WORK. Democrats Create Disasters And Then Run By Demagoguing Those Disasters.

Barack Obama And His Fascist Crony Capitalist Connections To MF Global, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup – And A Coming $600 Trillion Collapse

With that accusation in mind, here is a liberal SEIU guy – and let’s not forget what Obama had to say about his intimate relationship with SEIU -

Obama to SEIU: “Your agenda is my agenda.” And as you shall see, their “agenda” which is being pursued by proxy is to implode America.

- saying the following.

The recorded words of now former senior level SEIU official Stephen Lerner at Pace University:

“Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability.

Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.

What’s changed in America is the economy doing well has nothing to do with the rest of us

They figured out that they don’t need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.

We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate.

The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up.

If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new financial crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn’t be paying anything.

In other words, I have often contended that Democrats created the 2008 crisis.  And I literally have them ON TAPE strategizing about trying to do the same thing again.

I’ve directly stated that ObamaCare was an example of a Cloward and Piven-style strategy that would bankrupt America and thus create the need for the government to nationalize and take over the entire health care system.

I was right.  Read the following:

Obama Admin. to Implement Parts of Health Law
CBNNews.com
Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Obama administration said will implement parts of its health care law, even if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down major portions of the legislation.

The high court is set to release its decision in coming days, and it may strike down the whole law or just the individual mandate that requires Americans to buy health care insurance.

If only the mandate is struck down, that will still leave in place a major expansion of Medicaid and federal tax credits to help people purchase insurance.

Critics say those policies will lead to a huge increase in the federal debt.

But the administration said it is moving forward to put those policies in place no matter what the court decides.

“We do believe it’s constitutional, and we … hope and expect that’s the decision the court will render,” senior adviser David Plouffe told ABC News on Sunday.

“We obviously will be prepared for whatever decision the court renders,” he said.

Administration officials have declined to discuss contingency plans to avoid creating the impression that the president is preparing for a high court rebuke.

If ObamaCare gets struck down, Obama – who is now being described as an “imperial president” and “another Nixon” even by the left – is going to simply ignore the Supreme Court and abrogate the power of Congress and enact it anyway.

I’ve also repeatedly pointed out that Barack Hussein Obama is a raw, naked fascist.  There is no question that Obama has disregarded both Congress and the Supreme Court and imposed himself as an emperor.  Consider that Obama made what he called “recess appointments” when Congress by its own Democrat Party-passed rules wasn’t even in recess; consider how Obama issued waivers to the No Child Left Behind LAW if states followed Obama’s policies instead; consider Obama declaring that he would simply ignore constitutionally passed by Congress and signed by the President such as the Defense of Marriage Act; consider how Obama first forced loans to campaign contributors at green firms such as Solyndra and then pressured the Solyndra Board to hold off on layoffs until it was more politically convenient for him;  consider how Obama has outright refused any and all oversight by the Congressional Oversight Committee on matters such as Fast and Furious.  All that and more in addition to what he just did ignoring the LAW on illegal immigration and imposing his own substitute for binding law by act of executive tyranny.  And I was right about that, too.  But let’s stick to ObamaCare for the time being. 

What’s going to happen if the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare and Obama ignores the Constitution, the rule of law, the Supreme Court and Congress and imposes it anyway is this: it will force the private insurance industry to either go bankrupt (as he also verbally promised to do to energy providers once, for what that’s worth) or they will be forced out of the industry altogether.

If – or we can now still say “when” given what Democrats are saying Obama is going to do – that happens, the health care delivery system will completely implode and either millions of Americans will literally die deaths caused by medical neglect or the government will be “forced” to step in and nationalize health care.

I say “forced” in quotes because it will be analogous to Adolf Hitler being “forced” to attack Poland after fabricating a ruse of a Polish attack to rhetorically justify his action.  Obama will have fabricated the very conditions that would “force” him to take this action.

I state as a fact that Democrats have degenerated into the sort of weasels who will deliberately create economic or medial catastrophes and then impose their government fascism while blaming the very opposition that tried – albeit at times gutlessly - to prevent the collapse that Democrats created.

Richard Andrew Cloward would have been thrilled at the impending collapse.  Frances Fox Piven is still calling for the Arab Spring- style popular uprising and its accompanying reign of terror complete with violence, and it’s looking more and more like she’ll be getting her wish.

It is past obvious that this country can not survive as a democratic republic with this “imperial president” in power.  It is also past obvious that if Americans re-elect Obama this year, it will be “fundamentally transformed” from the most powerful nation in the history of the world to just another banana republic by the time he leaves office.

Supreme Court AGAIN Poised To Rule That ‘Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief’ Obama Is A Fascist Thug

First ObamaCare and now Arizona law S.B. 1070.

The otherwise bizarre way Obama demonized the Supreme Court AFTER that court had taken it’s vote strongly suggests that Obama had been tipped off as to the outcome – which even most liberals predicted would go against Obama following the disastrous showing by the Obama administration’s attempt to defend its fascist takeover of the health care system - is itself a tipoff as to how the SCOTUS will rule.  Because why would Obama demonize and try to delegitimize the Supreme Court if it is going to rule in his favor???

Obama’s attack against the Supreme Court of the United States follows his attack against the United States Congress.  And when a president attacks and demonizes the two separate branches that are co-equal with him according to the United States Constitution, that president is a fascist.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals forcibly rubbed Obama’s nose in his own fecal matter.  And very deservedly so.

Obama has been slapped down before for his fascist Constitution-defying power-grabs.  And we’d better hope he gets slapped down again for his fascist takeovers.  Because what he’s dong is frightening to anyone who loves liberty.

Obama has ALREADY BEEN SMACKED by the Supreme Court regarding his fascist-takeover attempt in Arizona.

Now we’re seeing Obama – the “constitutional scholar – on the verge of getting slapped hard in the face yet again because of his inability to understand that HE IS NOT A DICTATOR.

Supreme Court takes up Arizona immigration law
By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – 4/25/12

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.

Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of the Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.

“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court’s term.

The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states’ role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government’s control.

Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to “engage effectively in mass incarceration” of undocumented immigrants.

But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli’s characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.

Even Sotomayor may very well rule against Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted Verilli to say, “It is not an effort to preempt federal law, it is an effort to enforce the law.” Roberts added that even if Arizona detains an undocumented immigrant “It’s still [the federal government’s] decision” who to deport.

Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia sided almost entirely with Arizona and ventured to an extreme where not even the state of Arizona seemed uninterested in spending much time. Scalia argued in court that the states not only have the right to enforce federal immigration law but also have the right to wholly close their borders to undocumented immigrants.

Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was the most sympathetic to the government’s claims, seemed unconvinced. “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” she said, as Verrilli attempted to explain why it’s okay for states and the federal government to cooperate when the federal government takes the initiative but not when a state moves to mandate their cops to do so.

“Putting aside the argument that systemic cooperation is wrong,” adding, “you can see it’s not selling well,” Sotomayor asked Verilli to explain “what’s left?”

Verrilli did not have a great deal to offer.

Obama has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the United States Congress.  He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the Supreme Court.  He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the states.  He has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t give one flying damn about the Constitution.

I’ve written about the Arizona law a number of times before (from newest to oldest):

Obama’s Dismissal of Civil Rights Violator Shabazz Case Continues Racist Democrat Policies

Mexico Says Their Citizens Returning Home Are A Burden: How Were They Not A Burden To America?

California To Arizona: ‘Please Don’t Boycott Us For Boycotting You’

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

The Real Issues Behind Arizona’s New Illegal Immigration Law

Based on the oral arguments, it looks like I was right and the “Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief” was überfascist wrong.