Posts Tagged ‘mandate’

Get This: The CHEAPEST ObamaCare Plan Will Cost $20,000 A Year Per Family, Says The IRS

February 5, 2013

Conservatives tried to tell you what a demonic pile of incredibly expensive lies ObamaCare would be, but you didn’t believe it.

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family
January 31, 2013
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS’s assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare–after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare’s mandate to buy insurance.

To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of different situations families might find themselves in.

In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze plan in 2016.

Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would need to pay a “penalty” (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a “tax”) of $2,400 in 2016.

For those wondering how clear the IRS’s clarifications of this new “penalty” rule are, here is one of the actual examples the IRS gives:

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

“(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

“(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 – $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

“(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”

Is that what you wanted, ye nation of dumbasses?  Because you voted for it.  And then you were beyond-idiot enough to actually vote for it AGAIN.

Obama promised you a bunch of lies that turned out to be complete crap.  He is without question the most dishonest and most cynical demagogue this nation has ever been cursed with.

Now the selfsame liberal labor unions that worked so hard to pimp ObamaCare say they don’t want to have to bear the burden of the burden that they demanded that everybody ELSE bear.

From Anarchist (and I like his forehead-slapping-with-surrendering-disgust Michelangelo avatar):

Posted 31 January 2013 – 04:52 PM
Tip o’ the hat to Nancy “We have to pass the billl to find out what’s in it” Pelosi.

It is a well-known fact that nobody in Congress ever reads, or even skims, any law, and especially not the fine print, it passes until long after it has been enacted into law. It appears the same is just as true for the biggest pillar of support for the Obama administration: America’s labor unions, whose liberal vote every election is instrumental to preserving the outflow side of America’s welfare state. As it turns out, it was the same labor unions who enthusiastically supported the primary accomplishment of the Obama administration in the past 4 years, Obamacare, only to realize, long after it has become reality that, surprise, their healthcare plan costs are about to go up. And, as the WSJ colorfully summarizes, they are now “turning sour.From WSJ:

Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.

So what are the Unions’ demands to offset what they only now realize will push their overall costs higher? What else: Moar!

To offset that, the nation’s largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.
Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage.

But, but, they can’t – that’s the whole point, or didn’t they read that part too? Doesn’t matter – to them it is now unfair, nay “unacceptable”:

“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here, which represents service and other workers.

So now that even the unions have understood that Obamacare is one big tax, maybe it is time to reevaluate its arrival at a time when the already strapped US consumer sees taxes rising, and has their savings extinguished.

After working so hard with their slush funds to push ObamaCare, labor unions became THE number one recipients of ObamaCare waivers as these collectivists collectively said, “Someone ELSE should pay for this, not us.”

Kind of makes you want to grab a giant, stinking ObamaCare turd and then grab every union thug one at a time and just shove it right down his pig face.  You gave this piece of stinking garbage to us; now you EAT it.

But the thing about liberalism is that these weasels always have  a way of making somebody ELSE responsible for the result of their evil programs.  Just as they invariably make somebody ELSE pay for it to begin with.

Advertisements

Reagan Won By A Landslide And Governed Like A Leader; Obama Won By A FRACTION Of Reagan’s Mandate And Governed Like An Arrogant Tyrant.

November 2, 2012

In 1980 Ronald Reagan stunned Jimmy Carter and the mainstream media propagandists – and yeah, all the pseudo-pollsters – by destroying Carter by winning 489 electoral votes to Jimmy Carter’s 89:

In 1984, Ronald Reagan AGAIN stunned the mainstream media propagandists and all the psuedo-pollsters by destroying Walter Mondale by 529 electoral college votes to 13.  Reagan carried 49 states that year; and only Mondale’s home state of Minnesota drank his Kool Aid and pulled the lever for him:

There’s a damn good reason why Gallup still ranks Ronald Reagan as THE GREATEST AMERICAN PRESIDENT IN HISTORY

But here’s the thing: Ronald Reagan won America and won a “mandate” by the largest margins EVER.  And Reagan wasn’t even a FRACTION as arrogant or dismissive of the other side as Obama has been every single day of the last four years.

We have simply got to get the stench of this turd also known as Barack Hussein Obama out of the White House if we EVER want to have anything even CLOSE to resembling a presidency that is capable of reaching out to the other side.  Because just as Obama has destroyed the public election system by being the first candidate to refuse public matching funds – and thus opening the doors to special interests like NO OTHER MAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY – he will destroy anything resembling bipartisanship if he gets to continue to abandon the law and the Constitution and govern by tyranny.

One of the primary things that will ultimately make Obama’s presidency the worst in history was his total inability to compromise, to reach out to the other side, and to champion bipartisan accomplishments.  In those regards, Ronald Wilson Reagan has spent every single day of Obama’s failed presidency bitch-slapping him.

And one of the key ways Obama has shown that at his core he is a demagogue rather than an actual leader is that he has repeatedly said that the conservative Republican agenda somehow equals Bush and equals everything that is bad rather than understanding that the greatest president in history became the greatest president in history by means of the very conservative agenda that Obama is clearly too arrogant, too ideological and too ignorant to even begin to understand.

Barack Obama IS the anti-Reagan president.  He is also the anti-Kennedy and anti-American exceptionalism president.

The saddest thing about Obama’s failed presidency is that it “fundamentally transformed” the thirty year trajectory of success that Reagan’s policies bequeathed upon America.  We now have a labor participation rate that is THE WORST since Jimmy Carter screwed up the universe and it took a Ronald Reagan to fix the mess.  And that rate has gotten worse every single year of Obama’s failed presidency.  We now have consumer confidence rates that similarly are as dismal as they were in the day that Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe.

When confronted by a true economic crisis, Ronald Reagan got to work and gave America its greatest recovery EVER.  When Barack Obama was confronted by a true economic crisis, he and his fellow Marxist ideologues said “Never let a crisis go to waste!” and demagogued all kinds of socialist takeovers through a militant Democrat-controlled Congress.  And as we look at the next four years, all Obama has to offer are failed policies that didn’t work the first four years and won’t work in the future.

Obama has no relationships at all with either the House or the Senate.  He has done so little bipartisan reaching out during his failed administration that when the Republicans swept the House in 2010, Barack Obama’s White House did not have the phone number or any way to reach incoming Speaker John Boehner:

The failure of Obama to connect with Boehner was vaguely reminiscent of another phone call late in the evening of Election Day 2010, after it became clear that the Republicans would take control of the House, making Boehner Speaker of the House.
 
Nobody in the Obama orbit could even find the soon-to-be-speaker’s phone number, Woodward reports. A Democratic Party aide finally secured it through a friend so the president could offer congratulations.
 
While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.
 
“It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama,” Woodward writes.

Because he had never bothered to reach out in any way, shape or form when John Boehner was the Minority Leader and Republicans were shut out.

The man had ZERO outreach to the Republicans.  And more than anything else that was the greatest failure of his presidency.

Obama’s tone with Republicans was thinly veiled contempt straight out the door when he took office:

In Obama’s first meeting with Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders, just two weeks after his inauguration, he told the group that he wanted to hear everyone’s ideas and come to a bipartisan solution—words he had run his presidential platform on. He told those assembled, “If it works, we don’t care whose idea it is.” But the next day his tune changed when Rep. Eric Cantor, then House minority whip, passed out a draft of a potential economic recovery plan that essentially met only the Republican demands. After reading the one-page spread, the president responded: “I can go it alone but I want to come together. Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now.” He then told Cantor, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.” The president’s arrogance is described many times in the book as having a negative effect. Woodward writes of impromptu speeches that Obama would sometimes make over conference calls and which Congress members often muted, specifically naming House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Additionally, one of Obama’s most used “catch phrases” at the beginning stages of his presidency was “I’d be willing to be a one-term president over this.” It was a phrase he used to back up topics he was passionate about. It was also used against him later when Republicans began to hope his quips would come true. […]

Cantor is noted as being a straight-talking politician. So much so that Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, once thanked Cantor for his brutal honesty during a meeting with the president—despite the two being on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. But Obama wasn’t always as appreciative of Cantor’s tendency to speak his mind, Woodward writes. During yet another budget meeting in which House and Senate leaders were talking with the president about the amount of money they were willing to raise through both taxes and cuts, Cantor told the president that the two sides were moving in opposite directions. Obama did not take Cantor’s mild taunt lightly and responded, according to Woodward, “I promise you, Eric, don’t call my bluff on this. It may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.” Obama then stood up and strode from the room.

More on that:

I’ve written about Obama’s divisiveness – in wild contrast to his hypocritical and cynical promises to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority” – and on this day when we celebrate the unity of the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, it seems fitting to examine why any hope of unity went out the door with Obama’s presidency.

Two weeks – just TWO WEEKS – after Obama took office, Republicans (according to Bob Woodward’s new book) came ready to work with him. The problem was that Obama wasn’t ready to work with THEM. When Eric Cantor provided some excellent suggestions to the massive stimulus that Obama demanded, Obama shut him down by saying, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.” Obama flat-out told Republicans he didn’t want to hear any of their ideas and that they weren’t going to be allowed to contribute.

Obama gave a speech just three weeks after taking office in which he said:

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

Eric Cantor was simply amazed. Obama had falsely won election on a promise of true hope and change for rising above partisan intransigence. And he was being more partisan and more bullheaded than anybody. Cantor reflected that Obama had EVERYTHING when he took office. He had the love of the American people. He had total Democrat control over the House for two full years. He had filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate for those two years. He had an opposition party that was shocked and awed and disoriented and dismayed at the loss they had just taken. Obama had all of that going for him. And, in Cantor’s words, in Obama’s very first act as president, “he had unified and energized the losers.”

The New York Times wrote about how Obama constantly overestimates his abilities and underestimates the abilities of those around him:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. […]

He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

They wrote about how Obama is so petty in his competitiveness that he spends extraordinary time trying to compete and win in utter triviliaties:

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

For the record, that pissy, superior, arrogant attitude is NOT what characterized ANY successful American president.  Obama will not be successful in a second term simply because he is not emotionally or psychologically capable of doing what a successful president needs to be able to do.

Reagan had Tip O’Neil, the Democrat Speaker of the House.  And the two had a real relationship such that they could work with each other.  Clinton had Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House, sweep into power two years into his first term.  And the two men had a real relationship such that they could work with each other.

Whatever tree of relationship had existed between the presidency and Congress, Barack Obama pissed on it till it died.  And no, he hasn’t reached out much more to Congressional Democrats than he has to Republicans.  You find out from multiple sources that Barack Obama had an emperor’s disdain for Congress and frankly didn’t like ANY of them, even Democrats.  He is a distant, aloof and detached man when it comes time to stop campaigning and pretending he’s something he’s not and start actually leading and being the president.

The last thing this country can afford is a failed leader like Barack Obama getting a second chance at a job he will NEVER be emotionally or psychologically capable of handling.

Obama is The Empty Chair as a leader and as a president.  It is time to get a man like Ronald Reagan who came into the White House knowing how to lead and led America to greatness.  Granted we can’t do that at this point, Mitt Romney is the only chance this nation has.  Unlike Obama, Romney’s experience as a Governor (i.e., as an actual leader rather than merely one politician in a body of 99 other politicians like Senator Obama was) proved to be a successful one in terms of proving himself able to work in a liberal and overwhelmingly Democrat state like Massachusetts.

If you want more vicious gridlock and four more years of Obama being unable to lead Congress and getting nothing done beyond a series of increasingly tyrannical and self-serving executive orders, well, Lord help you, but you’re just not that bright.  The rest of you can study up on what a mean-spirited, petty man Obama is when it comes to demonizing his opposition and draw your conclusion accordingly.

Obama: ‘My Biggest Mistake Was Not Being A Good Enough Liar, I Mean Storyteller.’

July 16, 2012

You need to know what the “Storyteller-in-Chief” said before I can start expose the demon-possession behind the words.  So here it is:

Obama: Biggest mistake was failing to ‘tell a story’ to American public
Posted by David Nakamuraat 05:27 PM ET, 07/12/2012

As he campaigns for re-election, President Obama is ruminating over the biggest mistake of his first term — and it might surprise supporters and critics alike.

In the president’s view, he has not been a good enough storyteller, putting policy goals ahead of laying out a clear narrative for the American public.

“The mistake of my first term. . .was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important,” Obama told “CBS This Morning” anchor Charlie Rose in a White House interview that will be broadcast Sunday and Monday.

“But the nature of this office,” the president added, “is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Mitt Romney made sure Obama’s chin was at precisely the correct angle when he responded:

“President Obama believes that millions of Americans have lost their homes, their jobs and their livelihood because he failed to tell a good story. Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead. No wonder Americans are losing faith in his presidency.”

Even to cast Obama’s latest “storytelling” in its very best possible light, what Obama is really saying is that his policies are wonderful, but the American people are simply too damn stupid to understand it.

Give me a little time to warm up as I provide my own response to Obama, because I’ve got a lot to say on my way to past-the-boiling-point.

It’s amazing.  This is a man who will never understand that his policies have failed.  He has already doubled-down – having first rammed through his $862 stimulus (which will actually cost the American people $3.27 TRILLION) and then doubled-down with his $447 billion son of stimulus – and now he wants to triple-down, quadruple down, quintuple down, until America is utterly bankrupt.

Obama demonized Republicans for refusing to vote for his massive stimulus.  He called them “obstructionists” who dared to resist the will of messiah who would lower the oceans and heal the planet

Consider this from The Hill, 02/15/10:

Republicans are keen to tie any new jobs efforts to a stimulus bill that has become unpopular. A New York Times/CBS poll found that just 6 percent of Americans believe that it created jobs, even though independent economists estimate that it has saved or created more than 1 million jobs.

What The Hill refuses to tell you is that plenty of “independent economists” predicted it would wildly fail:

Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” — contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package.

But let’s get back to the fact that only 6% of Americans believed the $3.27 trillion Stimulus actually created any jobs.  Understand, that comes from a CBS/New York Times Poll that featured the following:

Obama was a “storyteller,” all right.  But the thing was his stories were lies.  Obama’s economic plan has wildly failed.  According to Obama’s “storytelling,” unemployment ought to be 5.6 percent now because that’s what he said it would be by this time if we passed his stimulus.  That was his “story.”

Obama, of course, once started on the “storytelling” that the Republicans were “obstructionists” never quit telling that story.  It didn’t matter that Democrats COMPLETELY OWNED ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE ENTIRE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA REGIME.  It didn’t matter that in fact Democrats had owned two of the three branches – both the House and the Senate – since November 2006 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress.  It didn’t matter that since Democrats took over Congress food stamp dependency has soared 70 percent and under Obama crippling poverty and food stamp dependency has skyrocketed 53 percent (3o million in 2008 to 46 million now).  If the Republican Party didn’t go along with the Democrat Party’s and messiah Obama’s radical failure and misery they were “obstructionists” even when their “obstructionism” clearly did not prevent the Obama agenda from being implemented.

Obama had previously sold a different “story,” mind you.  Prior to his being the most demagogic and hatemongering president in American history, Obama’s “storytelling” had been of a president whose “core promise” –  instead of constant fingerpointing and demonizing – would be to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  But again, as we found immediately, Obama’s “storytelling” was a complete and utter lie from hell.  We see that particularly now, as Obama relies more on negative ads to demonize and attack and “frame” Mitt Romney with lies and hate than ANY president in American history by far and away (see also here).  In fact, Obama is shattering his own record for negative demagogic demonic attack ads that he himself set in 2008.  And that is, of course, because of his wildly failed presidency and his wildly failing record.

That solemn promise that Obama made to the American people that he would rise above the negativity and bitterness and partisanship and hate was itself nothing but the most hateful “story” ever told by the most cynical demagogue ever to hold office.

Obama had PLENTY of “storytelling” with his ObamaCare takeover of the American health care system.

Obama told the “story” over and over again that ObamaCare was NOT a tax no matter what the facts said at the time:

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.

The Supreme Court literally rewrote ObamaCare to replace the word “tax” with Obama’s cynical and dishonest political “storytelling” of “mandate” and ruled that ObamaCare could ONLY be seen as “constitutional” if and ONLY if it was in fact a TAX.  From the Supreme Court majority decision:

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.”

Obama has – after “storytelling” that ObamaCare was NOT a tax and then demanding his lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that it WAS a tax – now returned to his “storytelling” that it isn’t a tax no matter what the hell the Supreme Court said.  I mean, after all, they’re not “constitutional scholars” the way messiah Obama is.  And the Supreme Court Justices certainly aren’t “storytellers” the way Obama is.  Few people can ever become that rabidly personally dishonest.

Obama as “storyteller” promised the American people over and over and over again that he would not raise taxes on the American people:

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.

But here is the fact according to the CBO: 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.

Obama also did his best “storytelling” to assure the American people that:

 “no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

That was, of course, quite a story.  It was also quite a demonic lie.  Fully 83% of doctors are seriously considering quitting medicine because of demonic Obama’s “fixing what’s broken and building on what works.”

83 Percent of Doctors have Considered Quitting over Obamacare
by SALLY NELSON July 10, 2012

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

And Obama’s “storytelling” wasn’t just a lie about doctors. He lied about being able to keep your health care plan, too:

Now, even the Administration admits that this isn’t the case, stating that “as a practical matter, a majority of group health plans will lose their grandfather status by 2013.”

Another “story,” another damn lie.  I guess Obama’s “storytelling” didn’t include things as silly as “practical matters.”

I can go on and on and on and on with this demon-possessed liar and his demonic “storytelling.”  He demonized Bush over Gitmo and promised the American people that he would close it down within one year of the start of his presidency.  But his “storytelling” was an abject lie and Gitmo is still open because Bush was right in opening Gitmo and Obama is from hell.  Obama demonized Bush with “storytelling” about Bush’s use of rendition to deal with terrorists.  But four years later, guess what?  Bush was right about rendition and Obama was a “storyteller.”  Obama slandered Bush with “storytelling” about Bush “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”  He has air-raided more villages and killed more civilians than Bush could have waved a stick at.  Obama told “stories” about how Bush messed up the world and all the terrorism and violence were Bush’s fault.  Four years later I yearn for the world that Bush created, with Syria in flames and the regime getting their WMD ready for use while Egypt turns to the Islamic Brotherhood for leadership and Iran will have a nuclear damn bomb any day now.  Obama gave us one “story” after another on how he was going to win the war in Afghanistan and that Afghanistan was where Bush should have been fighting all along.  Now we’re doing everything possible to crawl out of that country with our tails between our legs in a way that won’t interfere with Obama’s re-election.  On the domestic front, Obama gave us “storytelling” about how Bush was a failed leader for raising the debt ceiling and literally un-American for increasing the debt when he’s blown Bush away on both categories.  Obama offered “storytelling” about how he would cut the deficit in HALF by now when he has now produced FOUR budgets – the first four budgets in the history of the entire human race – that exceeded $1 trillion.  Obama offered us “storytelling” that his ObamaCare would only cost $900 billion; now the CBO is saying the damn demonic turd will cost three times that much at $2.6 TRILLION and the criminally insane boondoggle STILL HASN’T EVEN BEEN IMPLEMENTED YETObama told Hispanic groups the “story” of how giving them what they wanted would be un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional to give them what they demanded only to literally do what he had previously said was un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

Because storytelling = lying to this dishonorable weasel. 

And for Obama to tell you the damn STORY that he hasn’t told you enough “stories” amounts to his saying that he failed to understand how pathologically stupid you people were.  BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE LIED TO YOU MORE THAN HE ALREADY HAS.

We are going on four years into God damn America now.  And God will surely continue to damn this nation that was once “under God” more and more and more until Obama is either driven out of office or until we simply collapse under the weight of our failed and demonic policies.

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

July 10, 2012

ObamaCare is a TAXThe 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.

July 6, 2012

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.

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

June 29, 2012

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.

June 28, 2012

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.

The Cloward And Piven Presidency

June 20, 2012

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.

Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Reacts To Obama’s Fascist Statements Undermining The Constitution’s Separation Of Powers And Role Of ‘Unelected’ Judiciary

April 5, 2012

First of all, I have previously written – at length – that Barack Obama is a fascist.  I hope more people will believe me now.

In that article, I begin by correcting the historical fabrication that “fascism” was somehow “right-wing.”  It was most certainly NOT.  Hitler and his Nazism was on the far right of the radical far LEFT.  Fascism was a rival brand of socialism along with communism; and the war between the fascist Nazis and the communist Marxists was akin to a war between Pepsi and Coke or between Bratz dolls and Barbie dolls.

Then I start ticking off examples of fascist things Obama has pulled off.  And of course I just go on and on because there’s just so much.   Obama is a spurting firehose of fascism.

Even given the fact that “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” is a loooong article, there are current examples galore: for example there is the recent “hot mic” moment in which Obama reveals he is a Quisling just waiting to betray America when he doesn’t have to be accountable to voters during his second term (and see also here).  There was the issue of ObamaCare and all the lies that went into selling it to the American people and all the terrible developments that have come out since such as the SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR FUNDING GAP and the fact that up to 20 million workers will lose their employee-based coverage and be thrown into an inferior healthcare system.  And then there is the issue of the headline above, of course.

When Obama demonized the Supreme Court and the separation of powers Monday, he was merely continuing to reveal his contempt at the Constitution and the founding fathers who wrote it, such as when he said:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot.”

And so it’s really no surprise that Obama would say to the Supreme Court the moment it revealed it might not support his fascist messiahship, “OUT, damn spot!”

It’s just so much easier for an Obama to “fundamentally transform America” when Hitler is the government and the government is Hitler, isn’t it?

Appeals Court Calls President’s Bluff on Obamacare
Tuesday, 03 Apr 2012 08:17 PM
By David A. Patten

President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.

On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.

He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.

“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.”

The order from the 5th Circuit for the Justice Department to clarify its position on judicial authority came during a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals.

As a Justice Department lawyer began arguing the government’s case, Appeals Judge Jerry Smith interrupted the presentation to ask if the 5th Circuit Court had the legal authority to strike down a law it finds to be unconstitutional. CBS News reports that when the government lawyer answered affirmatively, the judge stated that it was not clear to “many of us” that the president agrees.

The three-judge panel then gave the Justice Department until noon Thursday to provide a three-page letter clarifying whether it believes courts have the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws.

“Clearly, Jerry Smith was upset by the president’s remarks and he has every right to demand clarification,” judicial expert Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice told Newsmax. “Obviously, he’s making a point as well as requesting clarification.

“But the president left himself open to that,” Levey added. “Of course the president doesn’t really believe the Supreme Court can’t strike down unconstitutional laws. But if the president’s going to say things like that to demagogue, then he is responsible for them.”

Many observers saw the president’s remarks as a clumsy attempt to “work the refs” and influence the court’s decision on his healthcare reforms. His challenge to the independent judiciary branch of government provoked widespread criticism from both sides of the aisle Tuesday.

“For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice,” wrote Washington Post correspondent Ruth Marcus, who has been a staunch defender of the president’s policies.

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, published a pointed editorial taking the president to task.

“Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law,” it stated. “As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama’s inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.”

By upping the ante, the 5th Circuit focuses more attention on a misstep that the administration would prefer go unnoticed. The president came under attack from the left and right Tuesday over what looked like a blatant attempt to intimidate the court and influence its verdict. He quickly backed off from his challenge to the judiciary, however.

“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, and all of us have to respect it,” he said. “But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to a duly elected legislature.”

Obama went on to assert that overturning congressional legislation was so extraordinary that the burden of proof would be on those who felt it could be unconstitutional.

That view, however, appeared to be at odds with the position of the key swing vote in the case, however: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional,” Justice Kennedy said to U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli on the second day of oral arguments last week. “But, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

[For the record, I added the link to the WSJ article.]

CBS begins its piece on this “unprecedented” fascism by Obama as follows:

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom. 

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would 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.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

As the CBS piece points out, the heart of Obama’s “case” is simply purely dishonest – and Obama has the law degree to document that he’s a lying fool rather than just an ordinary fool.

And, on the “lying fool” thesis, let me further point out that this ObamaCare law – as dreadful and harmful to America as it is – would almost certainly have been declared constitutional had it not been for pathological deceit by Obama.  An LA Times piece, even while being written from a decidedly liberal perspective, backs up that contention:

In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. “I absolutely reject that notion,” he responded.

But if the president had been brave enough back then to call a tax a tax, his healthcare law might not be in such a mess today.

At the Supreme Court this week, both sides basically agreed that the Constitution allows the federal government to enact a national health insurance plan — even a government-run single-payer plan. (That, after all, is pretty much what Medicare is.) And both sides agreed that the Constitution allows the government to levy taxes to help pay for that health insurance. (We all pay a Medicare tax.)

But that’s not how Obama and the Democrats wrote their healthcare law. Instead, to avoid the stigma of the word “tax,” they included a requirement that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

It turns out that was a big mistake. As we now know, there’s one thing Americans hate even more than taxes, and that’s being ordered around by their government.

Even the left have widely panned Obama’s incredibly harsh remarks directed at the Supreme Court as untrue.  The reliably leftist LA Times editorial board affirmed that “There are several things wrong with the president’s remark.”

And then, the following day, when Obama allegedly tried to “walk back” his remark, he said more things that were untrue.  He tried to say that there hadn’t been a law struck down on economic issues since the New Deal days; that was a lie and Obama has the law credentials to know it is a lie: In 1999, in States v. Morrison and in 1995, in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down laws that had been passed by Congress using an unconstitutionally-overly-broad usage of commerce clause as justification.  It hasn’t been that long since the Court exercised its Marbury powers which it has affirmed since 1803, and it isn’t that unusual.

Justice Kennedy rightly called that out in the first day of oral arguments before the SCOTUS.  Justice Kennedy said that today (Monday) Obama’s mouthpiece is arguing that the mandate is not a tax.  Tomorrow (Tuesday) the same Obama mouthpiece is going to come back to the same courtroom on the same case and argue the exact opposite thing from what he’d argued the day before.  And excuse me for pointing out what a collection of lying fascist fools you people are.

The same swing-vote (Kennedy) also affirmed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

And Justice Scalia pointed out that ObamaCare forced people to buy a product simply so the government could call it “commerce” and regulate it.  Justice Scalia said to the Obama lawyer’s examples, THOSE cases dealt with commerce; THIS case deals with people who HAVEN’T participated in commerce – people without insurance.  You’re going to force millions of Americans to buy something they haven’t bought just so you can then turn around and regulate them.  And if they don’t you’re going to hit them with a penalty you call a tax but only when it’s convenient to you to call it whatever you’re calling it at any given time.

I point out at the beginning of my above article re: Scalia that liberals as a species simply aren’t capable of listening and engaging in the other side’s arguments; they simply either want to shout and chant over you or declare you politically incorrect persona non grata.  And so when oral arguments began arguments that they could have heard and tried to counter for two years came as a complete shock to them – because they had never bothered to actually listen to us or engage with us – like the quintessential fascists that they are.  And the result was that the fascist left was shocked and panicked as they watched their government takeover of one-fifth of the American economy begin to go up in smoke.  Hence Obama’s unhinged statements denouncing the Supreme Court before it had even made its decision and certainly before any grounds for that decision had been provided.

My challenge for those who want to minimize Obama’s incredible words on Monday which followed his public attack on the Supreme Court at a State of the Union address is to find George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan doing anything like that and disrespecting the Supreme Court – a coequal branch of government – that way in such a public forum.

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

March 28, 2012

This must be what it was like just before WWII Germany collapsed for the Nazis.

From Rush Limbaugh:

Left Shocked by Court Developments
March 27, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Grab sound bite two before we get to sound bites 23 and 24.  This is last night.  We’ll do a little timeline here involving Jeff Toobin.  Last night on Charlie Rose, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin — who, by the way, for those of you old enough to remember, is the son of former NBC News reporter Marlene Sanders.  He wrote a big book after the O.J. trial, and he’s been at CNN for quite a while.  And Charlie Rose said, Jeffrey Toobin, “How big a deal is this Obamacare case at the Supreme Court?”

TOOBIN:  Epic! Awesome! Enormous! Huge!

ROSE: (guffawing)

TOOBIN: This is the biggest case involving the power of the federal government since the New Deal.  And if this law is struck down, the federal government is gonna look very different the next day.  And lots of plans and lots existing programs are in jeopardy.  So, I mean, as big as you think this case is, it’s actually bigger.

RUSH:  Last night, Jeffrey Toobin accurately describes the size and scope of Obamacare.  Today, it’s Politico “breaking news,” but we’ve got sound bites from CNN.  Toobin, quote: “This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong… [I]f I had to bet today, Wolf, I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate.” Tom Goldstein, attorney and cofounder, center-left SCOTUS blog: “The individual mandate is in trouble, significant trouble.” Los Angeles Times’ Noam Levey: “Tuesday’s arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law’s program for achieving universal health care coverage for the first time in the nation’s history.”

Politico breaking news: “The conservative justices and potential swing vote Anthony Kennedy raised concerns Tuesday that forcing Americans to buy health insurance would open the door to other intrusive requirements from the federal government…” What was so hard to predict about this?  This goes right to my point.  What’s so hard to predict that this thing is unconstitutional?  It is unconstitutional. And a Civics 101 student in junior high, after having the Constitution explained to them, would know this.  And here come these legal experts: “There’s no way that justices are gonna strike this down! There ain’t no way,” and then after one day of oral arguments, these same experts (probably just as qualified as the economic experts at the Associated Press) say: My God, these justices, they don’t like the individual mandate! We’re in big trouble.

Here’s Jeff Toobin.  He’s on CNN this afternoon.  The coanchor, Ashleigh Banfield, said, “Tell me everything, Jeff.  What happened today?”

TOOBIN:  This was a train wreck for the Obama administration.  This law looks like it’s gonna be struck down.  Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical.  Every comment Kennedy made — uh, at least that I heard — was skeptical of the law.  The wild card in this argument was, uh, Chief Justice Roberts.  Chief Justice Roberts actually asked a lot of hard questions.  Roberts seemed like a much more likely vote to uphold the law than Kennedy was.

RUSH:  See, he had to find something positive after saying today “was a train wreck for the Obama administration.”  And again he said, “I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong… this court is going to strike down the individual mandate.” Wolf Blitzer then weighed in…

BLITZER:  This is really huge! Uh, uh, uh, what you’re saying — and you’re an authority on the US Supreme Court. You’ve written the major book on the current Supreme Court — uh, The Nine. So you fully understand. But just because a justice is asking tough questions, let’s say of the government lawyer — Mr. Verrilli in this case — that doesn’t necessarily mean that that justice is gonna come down on the other side.  Isn’t that right?

TOOBIN:  It’s true, but it’s not very true, Wolf.  Yes, it is true that sometimes we’re surprised by the justices’ votes after hearing their comments at oral argument.  Most of the time — and it’s not all the time, but most of the time — the questions that the justices ask at oral argument are very good predictors of how they’re gonna vote.

RUSH:  So the left is in panic! Wolf Blitzer is in panic, looking for a life preserver from Jeff Toobin, who didn’t give him one.  And they’re shocked!  This is what’s funny.  They are shocked.  We aren’t.  Well, we might be because we’re surprised that the Constitution is actually being adhered to here, or appears to be.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

 RUSH:  Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to temper your expectations on this.  This is just oral argument, and we’re nowhere near the vote on this thing and we really don’t know how this is gonna go.  All we have right now is palpable fear on the left. … This fascinates me, all of this shock and surprise on the left.  The media, court watchers, leftist legal beagles.  They are in a state of shock, a legitimate state of shock, folks.  They really believed this was gonna sail through.  And we have to always keep in mind how relatively young most of these people are, and thus how they’ve been educated. They didn’t get Constitution 101 like I did.  They have been taught that the Constitution’s a flawed document that needs to be changed whenever it can be.

And this represents the greatest opportunity to do that that they have all ever had. The very fact that Obamacare became law against the objection of a majority of the American people — and the way it became law, basically under cover of darkness with every legislative trick under the sun being tried — didn’t matter. It didn’t matter that it might be illegal. It didn’t matter that it might be unconstitutional, because that’s precisely what this was about: Making it constitutional by virtue of changing the Constitution and using this law to do it. Then all of a sudden the oral arguments come up today, and the four conservative justices and the so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, all have problems with the mandate.

And they’re literally shocked, A, that everybody doesn’t have the same worldview of this that they do; and, B, that there is any objection to it at all. Remember for these people the government is the end. It’s the be-all, end-all. Government is the final authority. Government is where everything important happens and every important decision happens for everybody. But it didn’t go that way today in the case of oral arguments and so now they’re scratching their heads and they’re genuinely surprised. Jeffrey Toobin is genuinely surprised. The CNN legal guy predicted this would sail through, and they probably were looking at this court’s actions on campaign finance law, McCain-Feingold. “Well, if that sailed through, this will.”

So where we are with this is the left now blogging incessantly their fears and their hopes at the same time. There is a left-wing blog called SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court of the United States. And this is a very relevant post on that blog: “Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions, Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment.”

So they take all of Kennedy’s questioning here, which indicated to Toobin: This thing’s dead, this thing is a “train wreck.” One question by Kennedy at the end is now given them hope that he might see this as so unique that he would vote for the mandate. A reporter at the Huffing and Puffington Post is saying that it’s, quote, “almost entirely unequivocal that a majority of the court thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional.” They are scared to death. Lyle Denniston used to be the court reporter for the Baltimore Sun. He posts this:

“If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him,” and therefore give us a huge winning majority. “But if [Kennedy] does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.” A lot of these blogs are being critical of the solicitor general, the government’s lawyer, Mr. “Virility.”

One blog is saying: “I can’t believe how poorly prepared this guy was on the mandate! I can’t believe they sent him up there and he had no idea how to answer these very obvious questions on the mandate.” So apparently the government’s lawyer didn’t do a good job. The left can’t believe he wasn’t prepared any better. Well, how do you defend the indefensible? What is this guy gonna say? When that burial analogy comes up, he’s dead. When the broccoli analogy comes up, he’s dead. If you’re up arguing before the Supreme Court that the government has the right to require us to buy health insurance, then why not burial insurance? Why not broccoli?

This guy had no answer for that other than a bunch of gobbledygook. And all of his supporters watching this know what a poor job he did, and so now they’re worried, and they’ve just go on a little carrot. Anthony Kennedy gave ’em a little carrot dangling there at the far end of the mine. It’s right down there next to the canary. He might find a way. This situation is so unique and we’re talking about health care, so maybe this could be okay. That’s what they’re desperately hoping. But their instincts tell them that it was a “train wreck” today. And I must tell you, I still find it… I don’t know, I guess I shouldn’t, ’cause I know how they were educated (which was poorly). I’m still struck by the fact that they’re surprised, that they’re shocked.

What world do they live in?

This could not have been the first day in their lives that they’ve heard these objections to the mandate. But what if it is? What if they live in such a close-knit circle and they hang around only with each other? What if it actually was the first time they’ve heard these objections? That can’t be! These objections, these arguments, against the mandate have been made throughout the media everywhere. So I guess they just locked in on the idea that it doesn’t have a prayer of losing. But like so much of liberalism, and like so many liberals, they live in their cloistered world of the faculty lounge. They sit around and they talk theory all day. They don’t understand dynamism. Everything is static to them.

And then they get confronted with reality one day and it’s like a cold shower or a slap upside the head and they are bewildered. And it still amazes me that people who are reputed to be so intelligent and so smart can be so surprised when they hear arguments — logical arguments — that make it obvious this is unconstitutional. But, again, I fall back on something we must never forget, and that is: This is not about health care and it’s not about the mandate per se. It’s about changing the Constitution. Not piecemeal with this one. This is huge. If you have it codified as the law of the land that the government can make you buy something? Then, my friends, the Constitution has finally been defeated — and that’s what they can taste. In fact, it’s in their grasp, but it’s a little slippery and they can’t hold onto it.

But it’s right there.

Right there.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Wolf Blitzer was in hysterics moment ago on CNN. He had the congressional correspondent Kate Bolduan on. They had this exchange. We already heard Toobin. Blitzer is beside himself with what happened today on oral arguments.

BLITZER: Kate, you were inside the courtroom! The solicitor general, uh, Donald Verrilli, uh, was he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Uh, did he seem unprepared and overly nervous in responding to the conservative justices’ tough questioning?

BOLDUAN: It’s hard to get into his mind. But I can say, if you compare it to yesterday, he did appear to stumble more; almost seem apologetic for some of the answers that he was giving.

RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. So now it’s time to dump on “Virility” here, the government lawyer. Blitzer: “[W]as he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Did he seen unprepared…?” Wolf, you go defend this law up there and see how you do. There isn’t anybody who can! Obama’s not even trying to defend it. Pelosi’s only defense is, “What do you mean ‘unconstitutional’? Don’t be silly!” Nobody can defend this. Nobody. It isn’t constitutional.

END TRANSCRIPT

I just wish I was as confident about the outcome that is so panicking Jeffrey Toobin.  But I can imagine Justice Kennedy giving his ruling in agreement with the liberals and – borrowing a phrase from Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper – saying “BAZINGA!”

Because that’s just how the law often works due to the fact that it is pretty much dominated by outrageous nerds.

But at least it’s fun to watch liberals squirm with the fear that maybe they won’t get their Big Brother takeover of society that they’ve been dreaming about.