Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare

[InTheLight]

You are right, I just googled.

This also explains why obama was so confident the SCOTUS would rule in his favor, even though he (obama) voted against the confirmation of Justice Roberts.

Wait a minute. You are going to assert that Roberts' family was IN FACT threatened based on internet rumors?

 

[LadyEagle]

Wait a minute. You are going to assert that Roberts' family was IN FACT threatened based on internet rumors?

Wait a minute, why would you think otherwise?

When someone has proven by past behavior that they are a

LIAR,

THIEF,

and MURDERER,

why would you think otherwise?

Check out this video:

http://www.dailypaul.com/224923/oba...o-keep-parents-silent-on-obamas-ineligibility

Two alleged casualties of the Clinton’s bid for the 2008 election were Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney, close friend of Bill Clinton, and Stephanie Tubbs. Gwatney was gunned down in the Democrat headquarters office by a lone gunman. Stephanie Tubbs, a 58 year old black US representative from Ohio, supposedly succumbed to a brain aneurism.

How coincidental it was that both Hillary Clinton supporters died at such opportune times.

With 398 notarized delegate signatures ready to be counted and 600,000 Michigan voters who did not support Obama which would be forcibly thrown to support him, a Democratic candidate for the presidency.

Delegates were not counted on the floor instead Barack Hussein Obama was elected by universal acclamation before such a count could take place. According to testimony death threats and intimidation were the preferred method of choice used by Obama’s campaign as the US press corps turned a blind eye to the corruption of the American electoral process.

.http://www.theobamanewsnetwork.com/news/threats-and-murder-get-obama-elected-in-2008/

<snipped>For those who have not been following this, UR’s Washington Insider described how long time Democratic Operative Kam Kuwata (who set up the 2008 Denver Democratic convention and ran Hillary’s West Coast campaign) was found inexplicably murdered after he informed some other Democrats of Obama being carried into a room, weird chanting and suddenly emerging as if he was a new man only moments later. (I know – it sounds preposterous but read the comments in the above linked article and trace the evidence yourself.) Kuwata was Diane Feinstein’s aide and longtime friend.

The actual timeline is much stranger and happens this way:

Source for the rest: http://gulagbound.com/27615/did-obama-assassinate-clinton-delegates/

As posted on another thread, "I have wondered why Congress could allow itself to be eviscerated and allow the POTUS to circumvent them with passage of rules and regulations, overstepping his authority and abusing power, and Congress behaves like potted plants..... Eric Holder, who is supposed to be the top law enforcement in the land, is in contempt, for instance, yet nothing is done. On and on and on....So, could these things on the Internet be more than just rumors or bitter musings and could this be the reason Congress is emasculated - because of FEAR?"

I realized that intimidation of the Chief Justice could be a real possibility, long before I googled it. Especially when I heard people were saying this switch seemed out of character. Even that it was rumoured that he would vote with the conservative wing and seemed to change his mind just days before the decision was handed down.

Now just suppose that is the case? Just suppose these aren't rumors about the threats.... Who would the CJ of the SCOTUS go to about this? The FBI? They are under criminal Eric Holder's DOJ. CIA? Same. Secret Service? Same. Who do you go to, when you are the CJ of the highest court of the land? Do you throw yourself on your spear? Or do you parse your words so very carefully to spare the lives of your loved ones? Give them a just enough room to claim victory, but let the States have wiggle room. Who in their right mind would believe this is rational or Constitutional? Have you read the dissenting opinions? I mean, seriously....what if?

You can believe what you want to believe. It is my belief that obama and his cronies will stop at nothing, there is nothing they won't do for him to retain his tyrranical power. Nothing. If he wins in November (if we have an election), then you tell me how wrong I am 4 years from now, how crazy and what nutcases we all are for even questioning these things, that is if we are still around.

Once you know wickedness is afoot, it is easy to predict what the outcome is.

Unless God Almighty intervenes in some way, our country as we knew it is gone and we are seeing Nazi Germany replayed before our eyes. They just haven't gotten to the boxcars yet. But the euthansia is coming. Thousands of people will be dying in the streets and writhing in pain in their homes. People will be stuffing pillows over grandma's face because they can't bear to see her in pain and she can't get healthcare or pain medicine or insulin or surgery or antibiotics - whatever - before this is all over because only the "select" will have healthcare, in spite of obama's lies. The sad part is, obama knows this and has planned it and surely is having the greatest laugh on all of us while he tokes another one in the oval office and his Chicago thugs do his dirty work. :tear:

Oh, and PS: Wait until CAIR files a lawsuit so muslims won't have to pay the obamacare TAX and it ends up in the SC. How do you think they will rule then?

 

[poncho]

Strange isn't it? We have an illegitimate president pushing unconstitutional laws written by insurance companies (Wellpoint) which is itself controlled by big banks onto the American people and yet the republicans in congress won't challenge Obama about his British citizenship.

The man is an obvious illegitimate fraud and all it would take to render "Obamacare" null and void is for the republicans to challenge his natural born citizen status.

Why won't they? Because they want to "win" the election and put another bankster buddy of their own in office. Run out and vote for Romney so he can repeal "Obamacare" now.

The insurance industry has spent their money well, spreading it across both parties. They got what they paid for with this neoliberal health care bill. Ken Silverstein’s prescient 2006 article in Harpers on Obama’s early vetting by corporate interests still stands up. They sized up the situation accurately years ago.
Thanks indeed, Liz Fowler. The country really does owe you one.

 

[billwald]

>>It is the invention of a new form of tax which can be used to destroy pensions and Social Security.


>I'd ask you to explain but on second thought, I don't want you to go there.



Social Security was supposed to be one leg of a tripod. The other two, personal savings and company pensions. The right wing destroyed (is trying to destroy) pensions and Most Americans have close to a zero net worth.

Say Congress decided to solve the retirement problem by requiring every employee to put 10% of net income into their company's deferred comp with a 5% tax for failing to comply. Company pensions and SS could be phased out and most all of the money would end up being used by international corporations.

 

[LadyEagle]

We need to be willing to accept that this may be constitutional unless we can give a clear explanation or precedence why it is not.

Either way we cannot just make the claim it is not constitutional just because we do not like it or are afraid of it.

The clear explanation you ask for is a simple one: It required the 16th Amendment to the Constitution for the Federal Income Tax to be legal "on income." And in order to amend the Constitution, the states must ratify it.

Sixteenth Amendment text:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


Obamacare is also unconsitutional because it is a direct tax - in direct violation of Article I, Section 9:

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Obamacare is unconstitutional because it is in direct conflict with the 13th Amendment, Section 1:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Obamacare tax (individual mandate) puts us in involuntary servitude.

The reason there was a Boston Tea Party was because of the Stamp Act (from History dot org) which led to our War of Independence and founding of our nation in 1776.

The Stamp Act was passed by the British Parliament on March 22, 1765. The new tax was imposed on all American colonists and required them to pay a tax on every piece of printed paper they used. Ship's papers, legal documents, licenses, newspapers, other publications, and even playing cards were taxed. The money collected by the Stamp Act was to be used to help pay the costs of defending and protecting the American frontier near the Appalachian Mountains (10,000 troops were to be stationed on the American frontier for this purpose).

The actual cost of the Stamp Act was relatively small. What made the law so offensive to the colonists was not so much its immediate cost but the standard it seemed to set. In the past, taxes and duties on colonial trade had always been viewed as measures to regulate commerce, not to raise money. The Stamp Act, however, was viewed as a direct attempt by England to raise money in the colonies without the approval of the colonial legislatures. If this new tax were allowed to pass without resistance, the colonists reasoned, the door would be open for far more troublesome taxation in the future.

Look at this - how appropriate for this TAX now:

 

[Arbo]

Didn't have a problem? Don't you remember all those rancorous town hall meetings in the summer of 2009?

Yes, and I remember the expressed will of the people at these meetings being ignored.

The vote in the House was only 2 votes over the minimum to get it passed. 34 Dems voted against it.

It passed, didn't it?

 

[OldRegular]

If Republicans keep the House, gain control of the Senate, and defeat Obama they will be able to repeal the tax provision of Obamacare with only 51 votes in the Senate. That is the one bright spot in the Roberts decision: The fine is not a fine, it is a tax.

http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-can-not-filibuster-obamacare-repeal-under-a-gop-senate

If the Democrats are expecting to use a filibuster to prevent the repeal of Obamacare next year under a Republican-controlled senate, they will not be able to do this. Consider that most pundits are predicting that the voters will hand control of the U.S. Senate to the GOP. Under today's Supreme Court ruling, the individual mandate was deemed a tax by Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion. And remember how the Democrats avoided a Republican-lead filibuster by enacting Obamacare via the reconciliation process, a procedure reserved for tax and budget bills that doesn't allow a filibuster to stop the will of the majority on those legislative matters.

Since the mandate is a tax, and since the Democrats used reconciliation to overcome any threat of a Republican filibuster, the Republicans can do exact that, if they retake control of the senate, to pass Obamacare repeal in the senate and overcome a Democrat-lead filibuster. It's that easy, Republicans won't need 60 votes to overturn Obamacare next year; they will simply need a majority. Only 51 votes will be needed to repeal Obamacare.​

 

[saturneptune]

If Republicans keep the House, gain control of the Senate, and defeat Obama they will be able to repeal the tax provision of Obamacare with only 51 votes in the Senate. That is the one bright spot in the Roberts decision: The fine is not a fine, it is a tax.

http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-can-not-filibuster-obamacare-repeal-under-a-gop-senate

If the Democrats are expecting to use a filibuster to prevent the repeal of Obamacare next year under a Republican-controlled senate, they will not be able to do this. Consider that most pundits are predicting that the voters will hand control of the U.S. Senate to the GOP. Under today's Supreme Court ruling, the individual mandate was deemed a tax by Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion. And remember how the Democrats avoided a Republican-lead filibuster by enacting Obamacare via the reconciliation process, a procedure reserved for tax and budget bills that doesn't allow a filibuster to stop the will of the majority on those legislative matters.

Since the mandate is a tax, and since the Democrats used reconciliation to overcome any threat of a Republican filibuster, the Republicans can do exact that, if they retake control of the senate, to pass Obamacare repeal in the senate and overcome a Democrat-lead filibuster. It's that easy, Republicans won't need 60 votes to overturn Obamacare next year; they will simply need a majority. Only 51 votes will be needed to repeal Obamacare.​

I hope you are right. I think there is a much better chance of the Republicans taking control of the Senate than Obama losing. No doubt the Republicans will keep the House.

 

[AresMan]

I am still bitter over the incandescent light bulb ban that was introduced by a Republican Congressman. Needless to say, I'm hoarding bulbs....

Hmm, good idea. Perhaps they will be worth a lot soon.

 

[InTheLight]

Hmm, good idea. Perhaps they will be worth a lot soon.

They're cheap right now. The 100 watt bulb will be phased out in August. Then next year the 75 watt bulb, then in 2014, the 60 watt bulb. I actually like CFL's but I bought a 16 pack of 100 watt incandescents and a 16 pack of 60 watt bulbs, just to have them on hand. Each pack was $3.00 (Home Depot.)

 

[InTheLight]

Now just suppose that is the case? Just suppose these aren't rumors about the threats.... Who would the CJ of the SCOTUS go to about this? The FBI? They are under criminal Eric Holder's DOJ. CIA? Same. Secret Service? Same. Who do you go to, when you are the CJ of the highest court of the land? Do you throw yourself on your spear? Or do you parse your words so very carefully to spare the lives of your loved ones?

I think you need to stop listening to Glen Beck and Rush. This is the sort of wild speculation and innuendo they make a living on.

If he wins in November (if we have an election), then you tell me how wrong I am 4 years from now, how crazy and what nutcases we all are for even questioning these things, that is if we are still around.

So you're saying there might not be an election in four months. I bet if I went back in BB archives I could find predictions that there would not be an election in 2002, predictions of no election in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, etc.

 

[poncho]

I think you need to stop listening to Glen Beck and Rush. This is the sort of wild speculation and innuendo they make a living on.



So you're saying there might not be an election in four months. I bet if I went back in BB archives I could find predictions that there would not be an election in 2002, predictions of no election in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, etc.

Even if there is an election it won't make any difference in the core policies of foreign military adventurism and the constant growth of government. The only change will be that we may be more willing to agree with the way these core policies are carried forward by the members of "our team".