Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

He started a joke

He started a joke

Via @DrMartyFox:

Via Newsbusters:

And the laughs continue:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

He started IS a joke

So let’s hear them. Let’s hear the stories of Free Health Care.

Anyone…?

That started the real constitutionalists crying. Bah!

TrooperJohnSmith | July 1, 2012 at 10:43 am

This absurd kabuki is starting to look like a Monty Python skit.

Follow the circular logic:
1.) Obama & his cabal say “Individual Mandate” is not a tax.
2.) Solicitor General argues that “Individual Mandate” is a tax.
3.) SCOTUS upholds the ACA on the basis that the “Individual Mandate” is a “Tax”, otherwise ACA is as dead as fried chicken.
4.) Obama & his cabal say “Individual Mandate” is not a tax.

Anyone who’s had a teenage daughter or argued with a Democrat understands this circular type of (il)logic.

Somewhere old Joe Goebbels and Saul Alinsky are smiling at their progeny!

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | July 1, 2012 at 10:47 am

Gee… its almost as if they’re starting to figure out that their ‘big win’ with the SCOTUS isn’t such a good thing after all.

I’m still waiting to hear exactly what kind of constitutionally authorized tax this is supposed to be. Roberts specifically stated that it wasn’t a direct tax, so that’s out (but of course his opinion could ‘evolve’ I suppose); and I don’t see how it could be an excise tax since it’s triggered by the absence of a transaction, not the existence of a transaction; and it’s not income so I don’t really see how it can be considered income tax. So if it’s not direct, excise, or income tax, how can it be a valid constitutional tax? Seems to me that Roberts punted on this one… didn’t want to overturn the law and dug just deep enough to say that the mandate is ‘some sort of tax’ and congress has the power to tax… but didn’t bother to look at all at the constitutionality of the specific tax. Gotta believe that future historians will say this is one of the worse SCOTUS ‘non-decisions’ ever.

    jimzinsocal in reply to Snorkdoodle Whizbang. | July 1, 2012 at 10:57 am

    As Steyn poinys out in his recent article: Contortion.
    Imagine a real “umpire” attempting to call a baserunner “out” and “safe” at the very same time.

    We could define it as an Exaction Tax

    ex·ac·tion
    noun \ig-ˈzak-shən\
    Definition of EXACTION
    1a: the act or process of exacting
    1b : extortion
    2: something exacted; especially : a fee, reward, or contribution demanded or levied with severity or injustice

      Joy in reply to OcTEApi. | July 1, 2012 at 2:57 pm

      As one who grew up in an ethnic neighborhood filled with families who were members of the Mafia I think more of it as a Protection Racket with the only difference being that all of us are going to get our knees broken.

      Definition of the Mafia term ‘Protection’ —> An extortion racket in which business owners are assessed a tax by a local Mafia group in exchange for assurances that no harm will come to them.

. . . and Congressman Boehner under equally aggressive questioning (on Meet The Press) refuses to acknowledge that the citizenry will have to accept a commitment to reducing government promises of care as part of a goal to lessen government expenditures.

We have, per our own wishes, surrounded ourselves with the most fantastic liars ever assembled to manage a government! 8-o

As jokes go, this one is dirty, filthy rotten and not the least funny.

Henry Hawkins | July 1, 2012 at 11:51 am

Just the phrase “under intense Chris Wallace grilling” is enough to trigger cognitive dissonance and make one’s head spin.

l read a post on Volokh , David Bernstien? reminding that during Roberts confirmation he was notable of having no decernable paper trail. l now remember that. He did it deliberatly. Remind you of one with a habit of voting present?

On Face the Nation this morning, CBS legal correspondent and Supreme Court watcher Jan Crawford seems to have confirmed the theory that Chief Justice John Roberts originally voted to strike down the individual mandate before switching his vote, and that a sustained effort was made by the dissenters to win him back, to no avail.

“I have sources that say Roberts initially sided with conservatives to strike down the individual mandate,” Crawford said. “Roberts, I’m told by my sources, switched sides. There was a one-month campaign to bring Roberts back into the conservative fold, led, ironically, by Anthony Kennedy.”
____________________________

The Corner-NRO

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Senator Barack Obama.

jimzinsocal | July 1, 2012 at 2:24 pm

That has to have been a tough article for Barnett to write.

radiofreeca | July 1, 2012 at 3:47 pm

I think we need to take control of the narrative – no longer refer to it as “Obamacare” – refer to it as “Obamatax” – it is both more technically accurate, as well as more difficult to sell – who’s not against “care” and who’s for “tax”?

Let’s see conservative commentators start using “Obamatax” – it is just as legally accurate for ACA as “Obamacare”.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to radiofreeca. | July 1, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    FOX News, or at least a few of its shows, have changed their graphics to just that: ObamaTax. I think I saw it on Hannity, can’t recall. Somebody on FOX though.

I might remind some that Bush appointed Roberts. The conversation at that time was that Roberts would be against abortion. What people don’t seem to understand is that if you want government to control the body functions of a woman then that person has no problem controling any other aspect of society. They are big government and not committed to freedom. Many of the people who have been elected by the Republicans are committed to controling people’s lives. So why are we surprised that a prominent Republican would uphold this terrible law?

As a physician, I can assure you that the US can not afford what is coming. I know that the law will kill our economy and drive unemployment. I know that the quality of medical care will take a nose dive, even as we are told it is much better (with stats). All doctors train in government controled medical facilities and we know what government can do, it is not pretty. In the 80’s we had the best medical system in the world. At that time, the government took on the task of fixing it. Thus, we have the problems of today. Imagine what will occur in the next 10 years. I have taught medical students and seen what is coming to you, I would suggest getting your medical problems taken care of in the next few years.

George S. on “This Week” couldn’t get a straight answer out of Lew either – he asked him flat out 3 times about whether it was a tax or not and couldn’t get an answer. He finally gave up and went to another question, but it looked like GS was a bit perturbed at the lack of an answer from Lew.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend