The Ruling on Obamacare is…?

By Sherry on

The Ruling~

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax

Thanks Findalis, for the cartoon headsup~

Cartoon headsup-Dan Miller in Panama

More updates in the comment line…

Posted in: Abortion, aggressive progressives, common sense, conservatism, fraud, Freedom of Religion, Health, liberalism, Marxism, opinion, politics, senior care, socialism, The U.S Constitution, U.S. history, women's issues, You Tube Videos

49 Responses

  1. Sherry | Reply

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/06/28/white-house-insider-obamacare-now-we-are-truly-ready-to-fight/

    A longtime D.C. political operative considers today’s Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare a good thing in the fight to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.

    1. Sherry | Reply

      The Obamacare ruling is good news for us. Real good news. It’s 2010 all over again now. Swing states will shift over to Romney in most cases. Trust me on this. We’ve done the polling. The data is conclusive on this. It’s a huge tax. We got Obama lying. Again.

  2. Sherry | Reply

    http://kah81.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/where-we-now-live/
    Interesting…

  3. Sherry | Reply

    Isn’t this the goal?~

    From Carla K. Johnson with The Associated Press:
    An Illinois Democrat who has led work on implementing a key part of President Obama’s healthcare overhaul now says the state will need to partner with the federal government for its insurance exchange….that would put Obama’s home state among a majority of states limping unsteadily toward implementing the law.

    1. Sherry | Reply

      A federal-state partnership.

  4. Sherry | Reply

    1. Sherry | Reply

      Oh, the draaaammmaaa~

      1. Sherry | Reply

  5. Sherry | Reply

    An aside, but not by much~

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/28/david-horowitz-discusses-the-new-leviathan-at-the-wednesday-morning-club/

    Horowitz went on to explain that there are 553 anti-free market, left-wing organizations with about $9.5 billion in assets at their disposal as opposed to 32 free-market organizations with approximately $38 million in their coffers. When it comes to immigration, the picture is just as alarming. There are, he said, 117 open-border, illegal immigrant organizations, most of which regard assimilation as a racist idea. Conservatives are outmatched both in numbers and fire-power. One knows, at last, how Custer must have felt.

    Later in his talk, Horowitz went on to describe the social apocalypse that has been induced by the policies promoted by the tax-exempt organizations that are accountable to nobody and have been elected by no one. Affirmative action, for example, rewards the undeserving, results in inappropriate job placements and stigmatizes its presumed beneficiaries. Government has been steadily blighting the poor and blacks, Horowitz claimed. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was an example of how leftists, obsessed with imposing affirmative action standards on lending practices, were actually responsible for the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. They bullied lenders into granting loans to blacks, Hispanics and poor whites and thereby granted by fiat what was normally obtained through thrift: ownership of a home.

  6. Sherry | Reply

    1. Sherry | Reply

  7. Sherry | Reply

    1. Sherry | Reply

  8. Sherry | Reply

    The Rush Limbaugh take on the fraud that was perpertrated on the American people-listen or read the transcript

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/28/the_court_rules_obamacare_is_the_largest_tax_increase_in_the_history_of_the_world

    1. Sherry | Reply

      The chief justice was hell-bent to find a way to make this law applicable, so he just decided, you know what, as a tax increase, it works, because there’s no limit on the federal government’s ability to tax. And it’s right there in the preamble of the Constitution, right there, Article 1, Section 8, the general welfare clause, it’s been established Congress can tax whatever, whoever, whenever, how much they want. Even when they don’t ask for it, the Supreme Court is gonna find a way to make what they want to do legal because John Roberts said it’s not our job here to forbid this. It’s not our job to protect people from outcomes. It’s not our job to determine whether it is right or wrong or any of that. We just get to look at it. We can’t forbid this. This is what the elected representatives of the people want.

    2. Sherry | Reply

      Well, what about when we are deceived? The court upheld a law that was not what we were told it would be. What has been upheld here is fraud, and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama’s domestic army.

  9. Sherry | Reply

    1. Sherry | Reply

  10. Sherry | Reply

    http://tammybruce.com/2012/06/this-obama-wins-the-battle-roberts-wins-the-war-by-gutting-commerce-clause.html

  11. Sherry | Reply

    http://crockettlives.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/obama-demilitarizes-the-military/

    The individual mandate provision of Obamacare was a Bait and Switch from the gitgo – advertised as a penalty, sold as a tax. Which, except in scale, makes Barack Obama and the Democrats no different from any other sleazy merchants that make a living by defrauding their customers.

  12. Sherry | Reply

    A bit more detailed
    http://danmillerinpanama.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-holds-obamacare-individual-mandate-unconstitutional/

  13. Sherry | Reply

    We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

    http://mypoliticalmusings.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/what-if-hes-right/

  14. Sherry | Reply

  15. Sherry | Reply

  16. Sherry | Reply

    Mark Levin’s analysis:
    http://nation.foxnews.com/mark-levin/2012/06/28/levin-ravages-roberts-illogical

  17. Sherry | Reply

    How nice of these morons:
    http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/justice-thomas-dissents-left-hurls-vile-racial-slurs-house-nigga-uncle-tom/

  18. Sherry | Reply

    YUP~
    http://dennismillerradio.com/b/The-New-Minority-is-the-Majority/749642125247871376.html

  19. Bob Mack | Reply

    If Obama & the Dems are not dumped in November, St. Helena Island might be a fine place to relocate. It’s miles from anywhere & accessible only by boat.

    1. Sherry | Reply

      {packin’ bags} ~ Just in case ~

  20. Sherry | Reply

  21. Sherry | Reply

    http://whateverhappentocommonsense.com/?p=1743

    “I suspect … the chief switched very late in the game,” constitutional lawyer David Rivkin told FoxNews.com.

    Further, Rivkin speculated that the remaining conservative justices in the minority left a trail of clues for the public to find. “To say that they’re angry, I think, is an understatement.”

    Skeptics like Rivkin point to:
    ■The fact that the dissent repeatedly referred to liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s argument as the “dissent,” suggesting she was at one time in the minority.
    ■The commanding tone of the conservative justices’ language.
    ■The way the dissent addresses the pivotal issue of whether the law’s so-called individual mandate penalty can count as a tax.

  22. Sherry | Reply

  23. Sherry | Reply

  24. Sherry | Reply

    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-just-happened-to-rule-of-law.html

  25. Sherry | Reply

    http://www.cccamedia.com/2012/07/america-is-waking-up-video-over-10-million-views/

  26. Sherry | Reply

    http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wordpress/supreme-court-rules-lawless-federal-government-can-tax-liberty.html

  27. Sherry | Reply

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/2/socialized-medicine-from-a-survivor/

    1. Sherry | Reply

      First, don’t panic: It’s not all bad. The National Health Service is what in Britain we call a “curate’s egg” – which is to say, it’s good in parts. The problem is, on any given occasion, you never quite know which it’s going to be. Will the hospital, doctor and nurses’ treatment be as it would by the cloyingly sycophantic maitre’d of your favorite high-class restaurant? Or will they treat you like Oliver Twist with his begging bowl, pleading piteously for a dollop of gruel? Are you a cherished customer or a darned nuisance? The NHS can never quite make up its mind.

  28. Sherry | Reply

    http://godfatherpolitics.com/5961/did-justice-roberts-pull-one-over-liberals/

  29. Sherry | Reply

    However, Nina E. Olson, who runs the Taxpayer Advocate Office [TAO], a federal IRS overseer, has warned the new health law may require more IRS intrusions on taxpayer privacy, to determine whether individuals got appropriate health coverage, and whether small businesses provide “affordable” coverage, all of which is defined by the government.

    That’s because the health-reform law’s individual mandate requires almost all legal residents of the United States to have “adequate” health-care coverage, as determined by the federal government. And it requires businesses of all sizes must provide “affordable” coverage as defined by the federal government.

    Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/06/29/scotus-ruling-means-bigger-more-intrusive-irs/#ixzz1zb857CEc

    Did you get that? Even if you are insured, the Federal Government can tell you its not adequete in order to get money out of you. Do you think you will ever have enough insurance if you have private insurance coverage?

    1. Sherry | Reply

      Here’s more from that link:

      Next, to assess the fine, the IRS would take the total household income divided by the number of household members who must have insurance under the law.

      Got that?

      This raises questions of your responsibility for your other household members to abide by the new health reform law. All of this could mean a heavier enforcement hand at the IRS.

    2. Sherry | Reply

      And more:

      The IRS penalty is either a fixed dollar amount, or a percentage of income above the filing threshold, whichever is greater. The law sets the fixed dollar penalty at $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016, and indexed to inflation thereafter (capped for a family at 300% of the individual amount).

  30. Sherry | Reply

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/health-361378-court-tax.html

    For longer than one might have expected, the U.S. Constitution was a happy exception to that general rule – until, that is, the contortions required to reconcile a republic of limited government with the ambitions of statism rendered U.S. constitutionalism increasingly absurd. As I also wrote three months ago (yes, yes, don’t worry, there’s a couple of sentences of new material in amongst all the I-told-you-so stuff), “The United States is the only Western nation in which our rulers invoke the Constitution for the purpose of overriding it – or, at any rate, torturing its language beyond repair.”

    1. Sherry | Reply

      Instead, constitutionalists argue that Chief Justice Roberts has won a Nelson-like victory over the ever-expanding Commerce Clause. Big deal – for is his new, approved, enhanced taxing power not equally expandable? And, in attempting to pass off a confiscatory penalty as a legitimate tax, Roberts inflicts damage on the most basic legal principles.

  31. Sherry | Reply

    http://grumpyelder.com/?p=32256

    A good read-it gives us a remedy

    In the final paragraph, Madison says Art. I, §1, cl. 1 does not vest in Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever: Clause 1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which immediately follow it.

    To put Madison in modern English: Clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2.

    THAT is the Constitution We ratified.

    What the Lawless Five Assert it Means:

    See where it says in Clause 1, “To lay and collect Taxes”? The Lawless Five assert that this phrase authorizes Congress to lay & collect taxes for any purposes whatsoever.

    They IGNORED the “specification of the objects [Clauses 3-16] alluded to by these general terms” [Clauses 1 & 2] – the “enumeration of particulars” which “explain and qualify” “the general phrase”.

    In effect, they repealed Clauses 3-16. In a nutshell, the Lawless Five asserted that Congress and the President may do whatever they want to us. Just call it a “tax”.

    1. Sherry | Reply

      Obamacare is altogether unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the legislative powers We granted to Congress. Nothing in Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to control our medical care (or to exercise the other powers in the Act).

      I challenge those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court [Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, & Breyer], all other totalitarians, mushy liberals, gullible fools, and parasitic humans who support Obamacare, to point to that clause of The Constitution where We delegated to the federal government power to control our medical care.

  32. Sherry | Reply

    Enuff with the blame game and the phoney racial dividing games this prez plays. This song is made with Real Americans that love this Country and wanted to do something about saving it.

  33. Sherry | Reply

    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/04/judicial_betrayal

    Betrayal is hard to take, whether in our personal lives or in the political life of the nation. Yet there are people in Washington — too often, Republicans — who start living in the Beltway atmosphere, and start forgetting those hundreds of millions of Americans beyond the Beltway who trusted them to do right by them, to use their wisdom instead of their cleverness

    1. Sherry | Reply

      But this question, like so many questions in life, is a matter of degree. How far do you bend over backwards to avoid the obvious, that ObamaCare was an unprecedented extension of federal power over the lives of 300 million Americans today and of generations yet unborn?

      These are the people that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed when he declared constitutional something that is nowhere authorized in the Constitution of the United States.

      John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: