obamacare (204)

4063788098?profile=originalPolice Officer arrested for wearing mask at Anti-Obamacare Rally – Photo Credit Flickr

Has America entered the new age when even the police are not safe from being suspect because they do not support Barack Obama as president?  This seems to be the case for a Florida police officer who was off duty and just happens to be black and attending an Anti-Obamacare rally, according to the Raw Story.

 

Police officer Ericson Harrell wore his Guy Fawkes’ mask proudly as a “symbol of protest.”  Yet as he stood at the rally exercising his First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech, a police officer approached him and begged to differ. She ordered Harrell to remove his mask and told him he was in violation of the law.

 

The law that the officer claimed Harrell was in violation of dates back to the 1950’s civil rights era when the Ku Klux Klan used their robes and hidden faces to intimidate minorities.  But Harrell tried to educate the officer that he and other were acting peacefully and was “just standing on the side of the road trying to express their first amendment rights.”

 

( Click to read more )

Read more…

 

By Oscar Y. Harward

 

The United States of America was founded on certain principles; principals that our Founding Fathers felt were necessary to insure the future viability of this Country and the governing structure as they had envisioned. Their applied wisdom, embedded in our Constitution, is irrefutable.

 

Today (y)our Federal Government is rapidly drifting away from the intent and expressed commands of the Constitution.  The all-consuming quests for power at Federal levels are far exceeding the intent of our founding fathers and the intent as they had envisioned into the Constitution.

 

The Founding Fathers were striving to create a system of check-and-balance insuring that our Federal Government would remain a Republic.  The United States was founded by a collection of 13 States united to give a central voice in international affairs, a limited national affair, to regulate commerce, and to harmonize across-state laws.  They even gave the States the right to withdraw from this Republic if they felt the Republic was not fulfilling its responsibility to the State(s).

 

Our Founding Fathers fought incredibly hard for our Independence from England.  These men understood the value of a free people's government in protecting the peoples’ freedoms and rights.  If anyone has any question on this issue, they should read the Declaration of Independence; a Document that should leave no question(s) as to our Founding Fathers intent. 

 

Furthermore, the "Federalist Papers" will further substantiate the defined intentions as incorporated within the Constitution.

 

Every student in all schools should be required to read, understand, and achieve the ability to articulate the details and limitations within our Constitution and its’ full understanding.  The same student requirements also apply to the Federalist Papers.

 

Each candidate for election seeking any and all ‘Federal’ office(s), or any appointed manager in any Federal government department, should be compelled to openly share his/her personal detailed knowledge, findings, and conclusions on our Constitution and the Federalist Papers, before their approval.

 

Our Founding Fathers, with their wisdom, set up three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary); all of equal significance so neither of the three branches of government could supersede any of the others.

 

Article I, Section. 9 of or Constitution addresses "State's Rights" and their taxes: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State".    

 

In 1832, President Andrew Jackson made the first substantive attack on "State's Rights" when he sent troops to Charleston, SC in response to their refusal to submit to a tariff on goods exported to northern States.  Fortunately, cooler heads convinced him to recall the troops before they reached Charleston.  Vice-President Calhoun did resign in protest and wrote the "States Right's Doctoring".  In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln sent troops to South Carolina in response to their threat to withdraw from the Republic. 

 

While each of the ‘Bill of Rights’ Amendments are of significance in difference to different individuals, one as a ‘sore of dispute’ with me is where President Obama, his administration, and Capitol hill Democrats seem to ignore, attack, disobey, and prosecute (y)our Constitution in my personal life is the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

 

The Tenth Amendment is now under attack and in violation of the Constitution by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.  Several States’ Amendments, as passed by the voting electorate, are under attack and prosecuted by this administration; even though these Amendments are in compliance with our US Constitution.  While our Constitution was based on Christian values, President Obama and AG General Eric Holder are filing Federal lawsuits against these ‘States Rights’ Amendments.

 

Today, we have legislation named as ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ more often called ‘ObamaCare’ as passed in early 2010; defined by SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts as a tax bill.  Today, President Obama is passing out ‘waivers’ to Labor Unions, his own staff, Capitol Hill legislators, and other political friends.  Whenever in US History was a President able to dictate in giving ‘waivers’, other ‘differences’, or ‘exceptions’ to others on tax issues while requiring the remaining ones to pay; another unconstitutional active violation?  Additionally, this legislation is not working as promised.  ObamaCare is not protection and is not affordable to middle Americans.  ObamaCare legislation does characterize a ‘redistribution’ of the wealth.

 

Throughout our history, Moderate to Liberal Presidents and ‘Liberal’ Capitol Hill legislators continue to whittled away at our Founding Fathers in expand entitlements to other Americans and others around the world; some who have fallen through the cracks and in real need, while others desire all and will take anything and everything without helping themselves.  These latter ones would not work in a pie factory where all food was for free.  This is contrary to the intent of our Founding Fathers who wanted to provide an opportunity for all.  All of these entitlements are at (y)our taxpayers’ expense; now mostly with out-of-control deficit spending.

 

Why do ‘Liberal’ legislators always want to support and vote for spending more of taxpayers’ money?  Why should those who are motivated to work harder and smarter, in creating a better life for themselves and their own family, be penalized?

 

The evolution of our Federal Government has reached the point where one or two States may champion a cause and have a National law passed along party lines.  National laws supersede the laws of any individual State.  Effectively, a few States or  even cities, seem to believe they have the ability to impose their will on all other States.

 

For example, the Second Amendment protects (y)our ‘RIGHTS’ to gun ownership: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  With that being totally clear, New York, Chicago, and others elected and appointed officials seem to believe they can supersede the Constitution.  Each elected and appointed officials responsible for their derogatory irresponsibility should be imprisoned, themselves.  (Y)our schools should be teaching ()our children gun safety, the use of guns in hunting for food, and to protect their self and their family from criminal activity. 

 

The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

Many Americans with a left-wing view are even denying ‘life’ as unalienable Rights of human life; even denying (y)our ‘Creator’ in Heaven.

 

Reality law appears to be from passion without reason being applied.  We see a passion for power and notoriety without the reason to see, or understand, the effect it has on the American people.  Laws are written by lawyers and politicians with personal and political agendas; their only constraints are usually, but not always, in the limits of the law; absent morality.

 

Under current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), we have recently seen in the Senate a 225-year old law changed so that a single majority political party could gain absolute control of the Senate.  This change is reducing the 225-year old law from a previous 60  votes out of 100 Senate votes to proceed with legislative action to a now 51 votes out of 100 votes to proceed. 

 

Today the intent, and the explicitly, of our Constitution seems to have been largely forgotten by our elected officials in the White House and on Capitol Hill.  We see a manipulation of the laws and we see, somewhat, absolute partisanship.

 

We see President Obama and the Democratic Party united with a common agenda without regard for the History of this America, without respect for the sacrifices made by our Founding Fathers,  without respect for the wisdom embedded in the Constitution, and/or more than 600,000 Americans who gave their lives in wars to protect our Constitution, and our American Flag.  We see President Obama and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) that may compel each elected Democrat to toe-the-line on these ‘left-wing’ issues so as each candidate to ascertain DNC monies for (re)election(s).

 

What we see is a rapidly evolving Democrat Party that views itself as a ruling party answerable only to itself.  A ruling party that can pass laws at will, change laws by decree, and exert dominion over the people.  We see President Obama and the Democratic Party as a party that uses the law but does not have an appropriate understanding of or reverence for the law.  We see President Obama and the Democratic Party as having an insatiable thirst for revenue - and history has shown that thirst ultimately leads into conquest.  If we continue on this course, without respect to the intent of the Constitution, we will see the evolution of a ruling party over an oppressed populace?

 

This is not idle speculation, read the history of the rise of the Nazi party during the 1920's and 1930's.  In the USA, we have seen laws changed and people exempted from the law through decrees by our President and we are seeing the Democrat Party change procedural law in order to obtain and exert more control. We are beginning to visualize a spiraling taxation generated by a forced ObamaCare plan that seems to ignore the people's hardships and further suppresses the populace, all in the name of this same Party sponsored plan.

 

This is a control over the populace that is far more reaching than just providing a national health care.  It is a control over the livelihood and wellbeing of the populace forcing them to be dependent on the Government - and dependence removes the option of choice.

 

It is well within reason to assume that ObamaCare is just an early step in increased governmental control that will evolve to the point where our Government can decree the level of healthcare we are allowed, disallowed, or to receive.  This makes us further dependent on our Government and gives it much greater control of our lives.  By definition, this is truly a form of conquest.

 

It can be visualized that the implementation of ObamaCare is an important cornerstone in the governmental evolutionary process; a process which will allow implementation of an absolute monitoring of the populace under the guise of protecting people's health welfare.

  

If this is the case then there is a high probability that within less than a decade we will see increased electronic tracking of the populace, including the requirement that any individual using ObamaCare must have a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) device implanted on their person under the guise of insuring accuracy of healthcare and preventing fraud.  If we carry this visualization further we can envision a point where the Government can use our healthcare information to determine our acceptability in society, whether it be a chemical or mental imbalance (real or perceived), to remove undesirables from the populace for the safety of the populace. 

 

Although the Constitution does not address political parties we do have a two party landscape today; Republican and Democrat.  With both the Senate and President being from the Democrat Party and seemingly in full accord that the Government appears to have evolved into an only one controlling Democrat Party. 

 

The Republican Party can be discounted, or considered a non-player, for several reasons; the first being that the powers of the Senate are greater than that of the House, thus giving the Republicans limited ability to effect change, the second being that, of the three branches of government, the two most singularly powerful are controlled by the Democrats and they appear to be in full collusion. 

 

The Capitol Hill Republicans appear to be fragmented.  The RINO Republicans appear to be in bed with the Democrat Party on more and more deficit spending.  Many Americans are inquiring as to what is any difference between a Capitol Hill RINO Republican and a Capitol Hill Democrat.

 

Americans are listening and TEA Party Republicans are gaining strength across the USA among the Republicans at large.  Political polls show that Americans are now seeking a more Conservative leadership in Washington, DC.

 

Is President Obama's signature achievement investing all in ObamaCare?  Has, or is Capitol Hill Democrats too embedded in their support of ObamaCare to get out?  Is it too late for Capitol Hill Democrats?  Is ObamaCare just a stepping stone for President Obama and the Democratic Party; a major step for something more far reaching - maybe the evolution of a Socialist form of government?

 

A major problem in the USA today is that many in our schools, colleges, our universities, and even our law schools are just not teaching our children/students World and US History, the Declaration of Independence, our US Constitution, and/or our Founding Fathers’ ‘Federalist Papers’.  Our children are being cheated for not be exposed and taught more about our US History.

 

As Judge Robert  Bork once said, "Few professors spend even a week on Story [former Chief Justice Joseph Story's commentaries on the Constitution], or The Federalist Papers [the Founders' commentaries on the Constitution], or the original Constitution. I know I didn't [at the University of Chicago Law School].... Nobody in law schools is teaching the Constitution. They are teaching Supreme Court opinions."

 

Every voter should be required to pass a simple test on our US History, our US Constitution, and our Founding Fathers.

 

Every politician going to Washington should know and understand the Declaration of Independence before taking this/her oath of office.  If they understood its’ meaning, each would have a much greater realization and appreciation of this great nation.

 

"Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes." George Santayana (1863 – 1952), philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist.

 

‘We, the people’ must remain vigilant in both our understanding and awareness of our government and of the people we place in office if we really want to keep America a land of the free.

Read more…

By Oscar Y. Harward 

In late October 2008, Barack Obama said, “We’re five days away from the fundamental transformation of the United States.” 

 

The first time ever ‘Nuclear Option’ in the Senate ‘rules’ was sanctioned with Vote Number 242 by the Senate Democrats’ majority on November 21, 2013 to approve President Obama additional radical Judges in the US Courts. 

 

President Obama, and Capitol Hill Democrats continue to cram ObamaCare down (y)our throats.  Now, Capitol Hill Democrats are joining President Obama and his ‘promised’ anti-Constitutional transformations with the changing of our USA and our Constitutional ‘freedoms and values’ from a Republic system of government to a Socialistic system are dissembling our Constitution.  Capitol Hill Democrats are now legislating anti-Constitutional changes.

 

All Senate Republicans voted ‘YEA’ to maintain our Republic, all but 3 Democrats and all Independents voted ‘NAY’ for a more move to Socialism. Senator Levin (D-MI) and Senator Pryor (D-AR) who both voted with the GOP are facing a strong challenger in the 2014 General Election.

 

Are you elated with President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats, or are you disgusted?

 

See how your Senator voted.

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00242

Read more…

mr. obama – TEAR DOWN THIS LAW!

mr. obama – TEAR DOWN THIS LAW!

Someone told me that with obummer , every morning is the dawn of a new error.

I don’t think so. Every morning is a new chance to continue his mission to transform

our Rebublic into a 3rd world communist cesspool.

He makes errors. Everybody does. But most of his actions are the result of cold, calculated, malicious,

plans to destroy America. The ACA is simply just one more of many other results he has gotten away with because nobody (at least way too few) in Congress have the fortitude to call him out.

 

Fortunately, the ACA has provided some Sunshine , that great disinfectant. The heat from obamacare

has finally awoken enough citizens that the DC gang is worried about their jobs.

 

obamacare  has been outed as the greatest job killer program ever perpetrated by the Gov’t. Ironically it finally reached the point of personal pain when it threatened the jobs of democraps; and precipitated yet another LIE from nobummer. His FIX, you see, is NOT a FIX for Americans with an insurance problem. His FIX is nothing more than a deception (very poorly veiled) to take some heat off those poor frightened democraps thru the 2014 elections. After that, his FIX is …. Back to losing your insurance.

He did make an error when he refused to negotiate over delaying the ACA. The Nation would have benefited if agreements were reached. However, those agreements would NOT carry the banner of “I/ME” did it. So he refused to negotiate and was later forced (by his own democraps) to apply the FIX.

The end result is that HE has been outed as a LIAR, regardless of oprah.

 

For that and many other egregious failures he needs to be Impeached, or likely better tried for treason or as a subversive. But the spineless, self-serving, gang in DC won’t do that.

The ACA , like prohibition and segregation, needs to be dismantled, unfunded, repealed.

If Ronald Reagan were alive today I sure we would hear………………..

mr. obama, tear down this law!

 

 

Read more…

Has anyone else seen this?  Freaky----Courtesyof National Report

Obamacare officials have been inserting RFID chips into citizens hands, despite significant protest.

First, they chipped the welfare recipients and government employees who couldn’t afford to refuse. Next, they chipped the school children, who didn’t know how to refuse. Now, they are chipping Christians who try to refuse.

National Report, the only major agency refusing Obama’s implicit order to not cover RFID chipping, has been receiving reports from small congregations throughout Wyoming that Obamacare officials have been entering churches, giving a brief demonstration on the importance of RFID chipping, and refusing to let church members leave until RFID chips have been implanted in the hands of the members. Thus far, we have received reports from 11 congregations throughout rural Wyoming. No doubt, more will continue to emerge.

An excerpt from one such report is included below. It has been edited for publication, but its content has not been altered.

“We had just finished our closing prayer, when we heard the door to the sanctuary open. I turned around, and saw 3 men in suits standing in the door. One of the men walked down the aisle and asked if he could say a few words. Being good Christians, and assuming his intent was pure, we told him he could. He proceeded to tell us that he was from the government, and was here to implant us with our new RFID chips. He told us the chips were important, that they would help heal the weak and sickly. He quoted to us from the scripture. Suspecting that he may be an agent of evil, we refused the chips. Our protests were met with force. More men entered the church, and we were systematically forced down and chips were inserted into our hands.”


Diego James, PhD

Diego James holds a PhD from South Dakota State University. He has worked as a scientist in both industry and academia. Dr. James now works as a freelance, investigative journalist.
- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/wyoming-christians-report-forced-obamacare-rfid-chipping/#sthash.UbG5U4GP.dpuf

chipped hand

Obamacare officials have been inserting RFID chips into citizens hands, despite significant protest.

First, they chipped the welfare recipients and government employees who couldn’t afford to refuse. Next, they chipped the school children, who didn’t know how to refuse. Now, they are chipping Christians who try to refuse.

National Report, the only major agency refusing Obama’s implicit order to not cover RFID chipping, has been receiving reports from small congregations throughout Wyoming that Obamacare officials have been entering churches, giving a brief demonstration on the importance of RFID chipping, and refusing to let church members leave until RFID chips have been implanted in the hands of the members. Thus far, we have received reports from 11 congregations throughout rural Wyoming. No doubt, more will continue to emerge.

An excerpt from one such report is included below. It has been edited for publication, but its content has not been altered.


“We had just finished our closing prayer, when we heard the door to the sanctuary open. I turned around, and saw 3 men in suits standing in the door. One of the men walked down the aisle and asked if he could say a few words. Being good Christians, and assuming his intent was pure, we told him he could. He proceeded to tell us that he was from the government, and was here to implant us with our new RFID chips. He told us the chips were important, that they would help heal the weak and sickly. He quoted to us from the scripture. Suspecting that he may be an agent of evil, we refused the chips. Our protests were met with force. More men entered the church, and we were systematically forced down and chips were inserted into our hands.”

rural church

Rural Christian congregations in Wyoming are the latest targets of RFID chipping.

- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/wyoming-christians-report-forced-obamacare-rfid-chipping/#sthash.UbG5U4GP.dpuf
Read more…

4063773439?profile=original 

By Oscar Y. Harward

 

Has the time arrived for a new political party with ‘genuine’ Conservative values on ‘social, fiscal, and National Security’ issues to replace the nationwide Republican Party?  Are RINO Republicans joining the Democrat Party on more and more spending?  When does the ‘out-of-control’ ‘deficit spending’ end?  Is the RNC leadership and Capitol Hill Republican Party splitting  the Republican Party; Conservatives v. Moderates?

 

Will a ‘new’ national ‘Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party’, a ‘Conservative Party’, or some other named political party replace the disconnected ‘Republican ‘RINO’ Party’?  Tens of Millions of Americans are crying out for a political party that will support ‘social issues’ first and ‘fiscal issues’ second; in that order.  With ‘social issues’ first, the ‘fiscal issues’ will usually follow flawlessly; not necessarily so in the opposite order.

 

TEA Party members and supporters defend working-class Americans and businesses that create ‘new jobs’ and ‘expand existing jobs’ in the ‘private sector’.

 

TEA Party members and supporters seek to ‘preserve’ (y)our Social Security program, and our Medicare and Medicaid system.  TEA Party members and supporters oppose ObamaCare and seek to ‘maintain the current very best Healthcare system in the entire world’.

 

TEA Party members and supporters’ desire to work hard and work smart in an ‘effort to exceed in life’ while on their job(s) in providing their family’s necessities of shelter, food, other needs, and additional comforts in life.  TEA Party members and supporters accept the ‘importance to pay reasonable and sensible taxes’ rather than excessive and/or disproportionate taxes for ‘unwanted and unneeded government benefits and services’.

 

TEA Party members and supporters favor a Balanced-Budget Constitutional Amendment to ‘stop the excessive wasteful out-of-control spending’.

 

What has happened to the Republican Party guided with a GOP ‘Platform’ based on our US Constitution as founded by our Founding Fathers and established on ‘Christian values’?  Why has the RNC and the Capitol Hill Republicans walked away from our Republican National Committee’s GOP Platform and its’ ‘social values’?  Why did the RNC leadership take Republican National Committee money away from many TEA Party Republican candidates?

 

Why did so many Americans, and specifically Republican leaders, ignore and/or walk away from our Founding Fathers’ Constitutional freedoms that inspired our nation, and as reaffirmed in our GOP Platform?

 

Republican National Committee (RNC) leaders, and now the Chamber of Commerce, are rejecting Taxed Enough Party (TEA) Party Republican candidates; apparently based on ‘social issues’.  TEA Party Republican candidates are simply attempting to restore our Constitutional freedoms based on Christian values and to ‘stop-the-spending’ added upon more ‘deficit’ expenditures imminent to a taxpayers’ Credit Card; an effort to save our nation for our child(ren), their our child(ren), etc. 

 

Many Capitol Hill Republican ‘Moderates’, better known as RINO Republicans, now ratify ‘fiscal’ (money) issues first, with ‘social’ issues later; ‘if social issues ever come to life of day’. 

 

President Obama, Capitol Hill Democrats, and RINO Republicans have now voted ‘AYE’ in allowing our National Debt to exceed more than $17 Trillion; leaving each American citizen, young and old, with more than $54,000 of a ‘bloated’ federal government liability in debt to China, Saudi Arabia, and others.  How and when can this debt be paid?  Where is any play to repay this $17 Trillion, plus debt?  This mounting splurge of further spending must end, even if all government is forced to ‘shut down’ in order to ‘stop-the-spending’ of ‘deficit spending’.  The Capitol Hill Republicans must not allow President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrat to ‘bully’ Conservatives.

 

Has the RNC management, Capitol Hill GOP RINO Party leaders, and the US Chamber of Commerce now ‘turned left’ in ‘crossing the aisle’ to join the ‘left-wing’ ‘more spending’ Democrat Party to ‘ignore, snub, and/or reject’ Constitutional freedoms and ‘social issues’ based on ‘Christian values'?

 

Have we reached a timeline when ‘dedicated’ Conservatives must walk away from the National GOP leaders and legislators and vote against all ‘Liberal’ Democrats’ legislation?  Have all of our 2 political party leaders rejected our Constitutional values?  Are our ‘social issues’ as defined within our GOP Platform being ignored and/or deleted?  Oh, I am so saddened!  Republican candidates will lose many elections on these issues, but will it really matter when the Republican Party RINO legislators displays no concern in restoring our Constitutional freedoms based on Christian based ‘social’ values as exemplified by our Founding Fathers and defined in (y)our GOP Platform? 

 

Ronald Reagan once said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party.  It left me.”  Today, It look as if the RNC leadership and the Capitol Hill ‘RINO’ Republican Party leadership are ‘leaving’ tens of millions of Conservative Republicans away from Conservative ‘social’ issues.  Where will these ‘true’ Conservatives turn?  There must be more meaning to any leader than having an (R) placed beside a candidate’s name.  Conservatives will return to another political party that supports Conservative ‘social’ issues.

 

Perhaps, and sadly, the time may have arrived for many millions of us to ‘just say no’ to the GOP and any other political party until a ‘newer’ political party supporting ‘Constitutional freedoms and principles based on Christian values appear.  Has the GOP outlived its’ life?  I am tired of supporting Republican Party candidates just because they have an ‘R’ listed beside their name(s).  There must be more historical personal and political ‘treasured’ trusts and/or verifications associated to any candidate(s) than having an (R) attached to their name(s).

 

God Bless the USA, again!

Read more…

(Before It's News)

On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:22 PM
I of all people am for independent thinking and action on the part of people, but we have been sooo brainwashed by the government and U.S. press most people don’t have a clue as to what is happening.

You should certainly do what you want, but I HIGHLY suggest you DO NOT sign up for Obamacare until you read this CAREFULLY.  Chief Justice Roberts carefully worded his ruling and left out any requirement to participate for 95% of Americans.


One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
 
“So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand, he struck down the Philistine and killed him.” – 1 Samuel 17:50
 

—————————————–
Many people are very angry at Chief Justice John Roberts for his ruling that Obamacare is Constitutional as a tax. They are outraged at what they see as his validation of the complete usurpation of Constitutional protections, and terrified that America has been effectively destroyed. Some of them are even talking “revolution,” and asking each other in person, and in print, “what are you prepared to do”?
Well this analysis of the Roberts ruling asks the same thing, but in a different context. What are you prepared to do? Are you, for example, prepared to read? Are you prepared to learn? Are you prepared to entertain the concept that you might be wrong about Roberts – about what he actually ruled, about what he actually meant, about what he actually did, and why the rest of the Court would not stand with him?
Because if you aren’t, then don’t bother reading any further. Beware: this analysis pops bubbles - hard. Here’s a taste of what I mean:
You know all the yowling and screaming about how Roberts changed a penalty into a tax? In his ruling, Roberts quoted Obamacare itself, at Title 26, § 5000A (g) (1), which reads:
The penalty provided by this section … shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.
Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips – he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says:
The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be … assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. …any reference in this title to “tax” imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.
Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: “The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.”
Let’s see, Roberts said the penalty must be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes” after reading that Obamacare itself invokes § 6671 (a) – which literally and specifically states the penalty must be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes.”
Wow, that’s a radical ruling.
And what exactly is § 6671 (a)? It a part of the Internal Revenue Code that was there before Obamacare was even created! All Obamacare did was point to it, and say “use that.”
So why weren’t Americans enraged about how § 6671 (a) equates the treatment of penalties as taxes before Obamacare?
People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is “legislating from the bench” when he simply repeats back pre-existingtax law that Obamacare references for itself? Of course, the answer to that question is simple – no one actually looked up the laws before they decided that their country had been “destroyed.” Yet they’re ready to fight a “revolution” over it!
A revolution for what - to make new laws that they still won’t read?
If you want to get angry, get angry about how the other eight Justices didn’t point out this simple fact about penalties already being treated as taxes. After all, that’s what judges are supposed to do - right? Point out what the law is, rather than what anyone wants it to be? Right? And isn’t that exactly what the Chief Justice did here?
Maybe that’s why he’s Chief Justice – he gets to read the actual laws. Maybe all the other Justices have to listen to the media to find out how they should rule.
So you’re warned: this analysis is not for the squeamish. But if you really want to learn what Roberts did, and why he did it, and what the Obamacare tax lawsactually mean (as opposed to what you thought they meant), read on.
And you can start by understanding this:
• Chief Justice Roberts limited the Constitutionality of Obamacare to ONLY those statutorily-defined “persons” upon whom the income tax is imposed.
• 95% of the American population are NOT those statutorily-defined “persons.”
• Therefore, Obamacare does NOT apply to 95% of the American population.
Don’t believe me? Then like I said, read on.
 

—————————————–
Point #1: Imposed Means Enforced – Part 1
Taxes, whether “voluntary” or not, are subject to enforcement. If a tax can’t be enforced, it’s not a tax.
That’s why the income tax law, Title 26, Chapter 1, Section 1, starts out with: ”There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual…”
And the Obamacare law, Title 26, § 5000A, (b) (1) starts out with: “…there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer who is an applicable individual a penalty…”
Notice the mutual use of the word “imposed”? It means enforced by the government.
 
Point #2: Obamacare is Part of the Income Tax Laws
Obamacare, at Title 26, § 5000A, (b) (2) states: “Any penalty imposed by this section … shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1…”
Chapter 1 of Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) is where the income tax is imposed. Title 26 is also where Obamacare is found. So when Obamacare penalties (which enable it to be imposed and therefore enforced) are specified within Obamacare itself to be part of the income tax return, they are also thereby making those penalties subject to the income tax enforcement laws of Title 26.
 
Point #3: Obamacare is Written to Deceive
In his ruling, Roberts observed that Obamacare specified that it’s penalty “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68,” which in turn specifies that those penalties “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes.” Then he notes that the authority for those acts are found in “§6201 (assessment authority); §6301 (collection authority),” which are the same authorities used for assessing and collecting income taxes.
Then Roberts says something very curious. He says: “That interpretation is consistent with the remainder of §5000A(g), which instructs the Secretary on the tools he may use to collect the penalty. See §5000A(g)(2)(A) (barring criminal prosecutions); §5000A(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies).”
Look what stands out – what Roberts is saying are “tools that may be used to collect the penalty” are actually, if you look at his parenthetical descriptions,denials of the tools necessary to collect the penalty. The first refers to “barring criminal prosecutions,” and the second refers to prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies.”
So how are they “tools that may be used to collect the penalty”? And besides, just how is the Obamacare tax penalty going to be collected, if both criminal prosecutions and liens and levies cannot be used to go get it?
Roberts is drawing our attention to these statutes. Let’s look at them.
Title 26, § 5000A (g) (2) says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law-
(A) In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) The Secretary shall not (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
Section (A) has to do with “barring criminal prosecutions.” Sounds nice – but what does it apply to? A failure to “timely pay” a penalty.
Guess what? Failure to timely pay a penalty is NOT a criminal act. Usually, it invokes further penalties and interest. Only if you fail to pay altogether could the situation reach criminal status, and even then, it would have to be willful. Otherwise, the penalties and interest would just continue to pile up. “Willful failure to pay” is not ”failure to timely pay.” So since the ONLY criminal charge that § 5000A (g) (2) (A) protects a taxpayer from doesn’t exist, the entire statute is a fraud. It’s meant to make people think Obamacare is harmless, and that deliberately putting off paying its penalty won’t make anyone subject to criminal charges. But this isn’t true.
How about Section (B)? Well, a levy is a seizure of property. For that to happen, a lien has to be filed first, specifying what property is to be seized, and that due process has been followed. After the lien has been filed, but before the levy is made upon the property, a notice of lien is sent to the taxpayer who owns the property the government intends to seize through levy, to let them know that the lien has been filed against them.
Now what does (B)(i) say? That a “notice of lien” shall not be filed. Well, notices of lien aren’t filed, except as copies of the mailing that was made to the taxpayer. Liens are filed - that’s the functional act. Not “notices of lien.” Filing a “notice of lien” is NOT the same thing as filing a “lien,” because it does NOT legally enable a levy. It’s literally just a “notice” that an actual ”lien” has been filed. And it’s supposed to be mailed, not “filed.” So when (B)(i) forbids it to be filed, well good – because it’s not supposed to be anyway! Yet this was obviously written to make you to think it’s talking about actual liens, when it says “notices of lien” – when it’s not.
How about (B)(ii), where it is specified that no “levy on any such property” shall be made. Well, what ”such” property? None other than the property in (B)(i) of course, that was specified in the “notice of lien.” But wait a second – you can’t legally levy property from just a “notice of lien” anyway! You need a real lien to levy property! So this section, once again, is saying that something illegal will not be done by the government – specifically, that no property will seized with just a “notice of lien” to back up the levy. Hey, thanks a lot.
So what are we left with here? What did Roberts draw our attention to, when he specified laws in Obamacare that he said are tools to collect the penalty, when they seemed to be tools to prevent the collection of the penalty? He did nothing less than to indicate that these prevention tools are no such thing – that they block nothing, and that the only actual tools that are indicated enable the full collection powers of Title 26 tax laws to be used (i.e., it’s a fully functional Death Star). And not just those directed by “subchapter B of chapter 68,” but also criminal penalties, and lien and levy powers. Even worse, both of these were cited by Obamacare not only to mislead the public, but also to establish a judicially noticeable reference to legitimize their usage against the public.
Roberts deliberately drew attention to this. And in doing so, he effectively said, “watch out – read carefully, this ruling is dealing with a law that was written to deceive. You have to be very careful in your reading of both it and my ruling if you want to understand what everything means.”
Then, concerning enforcement, he showed that nothing in Obamacare blocks the usage of Subchapter B of Chapter 68, Criminal, or Lien & Levy powers against taxpayers to collect Obamacare penalties.
And most importantly, Obamacare is written to deceive.
 
Point #4: “Person” has Different Legal Definitions for Different Purposes
So what else is Obamacare being deceptive about?
Well, when Chief Justice Roberts referenced Obamacare’s use of “subchapter B of chapter 68,” he cited a statute from within that subchapter to support his interpretation of its usage – specifically, he cited §6671(a).
If you look up §6671(a), you’ll find that it does, indeed, support Robert’s interpretation.
You also find, underneath it, §6671(b) – right where the Chief Justice wanted you to find it.
Title 26, Chapter 68, Subchapter B, § 6671 (b) states:
• The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
That’s a very important definition of “person.” But before we get into that subject – remember those other two enforcement tools that were supposedly banned from use, but actually were not, discussed above in Point #3? The first was criminal enforcement. The second was lien and levy powers.
Criminal enforcement is found in Chapter 75 of Title 26. Thus, the definition of “person” for the purposes of criminal enforcement is found in that chapter. Specifically, it is found in Title 26, Chapter 75, § 7343, which reads:
• The term ‘”person”‘ as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
Finally, lien and levy powers are found in the chapters 63 and 64 specified by Chief Justice Roberts in his ruling, where he references them as the “assessment § 6201 (a)” and “collection § 6301″ chapters, respectively. Now, liens are only useful to enable levies, so definitions for levy powers also reference lien powers. And in the levy chapter (64), at § 6332 (f), we find the following definition of “person”:
• The term “person,” as used in subsection (a), includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.
Take a moment at this point, to compare the three definitions of “person” cited from references from Robert’s ruling listed above, that are found in three different enforcement sections of Title 26.
They are identical.
Yet, if you look up the general Title 26 definition of “person” in § 7701 (a) (1), you’ll find:
“The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”
Notice that generally speaking, for the entirety of Title 26, the term “person” also means the term ‘individual.’ That’s why when the income tax laws and Obamacare laws address ‘individuals’ and ‘persons,’ they have identical meanings.
But compare: the general definition of “person” in § 7701 (a) (1) above says it’s just “an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.” That’s it – no fine print.
But the definition of “person” for enforcement purposes in the above cited §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) are way, way, way more narrow. To be that ‘person,’ you have to be:
1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.
That’s a lot more specific than just being an “individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”
So what does this difference in the definitions of the term “person” mean? It means that the definition of “person” the government can punish for tax violations, is NOT the same definition of “person” that is used in the rest of Title 26.
More specifically, it means that the only ”persons” the government can impose tax violation enforcements against, are officers or employees of a corporation, who have a duty to act in some way regarding tax laws on behalf of their corporation, and who violate those tax laws on behalf of the corporation they officially represent.
Do you represent a corporation in an official capacity to the government, on behalf of that corporation’s tax obligations? If not, then you are not a §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) “person” who can be liable for violating the tax enforcement laws.
And by direct reference through Obamacare itself, the enforcement laws that the government would use to go after “persons” it claims are violating Obamacare taxes OR penalties OR fines are also found in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f).
So if you are not that definition of “person,” (which is repeated three different times in Title 26 to make absolutely clear exactly who it is talking about), then you are NOT liable for any other taxes which make use of the enforcement provisions linked to that definition, including income tax OR Obamacare.
And in his ruling, Chief Justice Roberts deliberately cited a law which, if you actually look it up, is right next to the enforcement definition of “person” for Chapter 68, Subchapter B, and he also indicated that further enforcement definitions should be sought for the fully applicable criminal, and lien and levy, chapters of Title 26 – all of which turned out to be identical enforcement definitions for the term “person.”
That extraordinary sequence of events is no accident – it is a communication.
 
Point #5: Taxpayers are Individuals are Persons
So if the definition of “person” is so important, why do both the income tax laws and Obamacare laws refer to individuals?
To confuse you, of course!
And in any event, they both refer to taxpayers.
Think of it this way – persons or individuals may be subject to the enforcement of a particular tax, depending on a lot of things. Taxpayers, however, are persons or individuals who are subject to the enforcement of a particular tax.
That’s why Title 26, § 7701 (a) states: The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
So it’s clear that both individuals and persons may be subject to tax, depending on what definitions of those terms apply to them.
IF they are liable, THEN they are referred to as “taxpayers.”
That’s why both the income tax statutes and the Obamacare statutes make so much use of the term “taxpayers.” When they are talking about someone whomight be subject to the tax, then they use the terms “person” or “individual.” But when they are talking about someone who absolutely is subject to the tax, then they use the term “taxpayer.”
 
Point #6: Imposed Means Enforced – Part 2
Both the income tax, and Obamacare, start out by saying “a tax is imposed.” Not “a tax is made,” or a “tax exists,” or just “a tax.”
And imposed means enforced: If it can’t be enforced, it can’t be imposed.
So if it can’t be enforced against your definition of “person,” it can’t be imposed on you.
Even (and especially), if you fit the general definition of “person” or “individual,” but not the enforcement definition of “person.”
And if it can’t be imposed on you, you can’t be a taxpayer for it.
And if you’re not a taxpayer for it…
… it doesn’t apply to you.
 
Point #7: News Flash – The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Knows All of This
But if he knows it, then why didn’t he say it?
Well, he did say it. Specifically, Roberts wrote: “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.”
Did you catch it?
This is the paragraph that drives everyone crazy. This is the paragraph that makes everyone scream that Roberts is crazy. But apply what has been explained above, to what Roberts wrote. He’s talking about what “The Federal Government” has “the power” to do. And as has been explained, you have to ask yourself: do what, to whom?
He says: “the power to order people to buy” Then he says: “the power to impose a tax on those”
He’s differentiating! “People” are not the same as “those!”
Order people - the government does NOT have the power to “order” a free people.
Impose tax on those - the government DOES have the power to “impose” on “those,” because: “THOSE” are TAXPAYERS!
Taxpayers are – literally by triple definition - imposed persons subject to enforcement via the detailed descriptions provided in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26, specifically: 1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.
And, regarding “those ‘persons,’” – and ONLY “those ‘persons,’” – Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Obamacare IS Constitutional:
“The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”
HOWEVER, he also specifically ruled that against the people (as in We The People), Obamacare is NOT constitutional:
“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.”
Roberts specifically protected the constitutional freedom of the American People, right in front of their eyes, according to the actual meaning of the actual tax laws…
…after ruling against any other constitutional clause that could serve to confuse the tax issues.
And THAT is why no other Justice would support him -
Because in Doing So, He Isolated and Exposed The Secret of LIMITED Tax Liability!
 
Point #8: The Two Powers
If you’ve come this far, and didn’t know this material beforehand, you might be in a bit of a shock at this point. Basically, the reason that Obamacare doesn’t apply to 95% of Americans is because it can only be enforced against people responsible for running corporations – not normal people simply working and living on their own personal behalf. And more, those limitations on the enforcement laws don’t come out of Obamacare. Rather, they’re a part of the income tax laws that have been there all along, and that Obamacare has attached itself to, in order to make use of them.
Can this really be possible? It would mean that there are two separate enforcement powers held by the Federal government – one for corporation “persons,” and one for non-corporate, regular human-being-type, natural persons. And that a giant scam has taken place by the government using legally defined terms such as “person,” and “individual,” and “taxpayer,” in order to confuse these identities, and especially to hide the two different powers of government.
Well, let’s look at Chief Justice Roberts again, and see what he said about this subject. In his ruling, Roberts wrote:
“This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
Now that’s a hell of a thing to say, isn’t it? “This case concerns two powers.” If you disregard the analysis presented above, then ask yourself - what two powers?
After all, isn’t that why the country has been ripping itself to shreds over Robert’s ruling, because it’s only taking into account a single power – that of the Federal government? You might say, well, there’s the powers of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause that Roberts threw out, when he kept the taxing power in. But that’s three powers total, not two. So what’s the difference between them? How do you turn three powers into two? And for that matter, why should there be multiple powers in the first place? Don’t we have only one government?
No, we don’t. We have two “governments,” in fact. Two completely separate ”governments,” under one Constitution.
The first ”government” is the original one. It deals with human beings acting as human beings and nothing else. That government has to deal with a position derived from those human beings. And those human beings are acknowledged as possessing God-given natural rights, that existed before the “government” was created, and which cannot be removed by that “government,” because it simply does not have the authority.
The second ”government,” however, is exactly the opposite of the first one. The second “government” creates, controls and runs corporations. The very word “incorporate” means “give body to,” or “bring into existence.” And because that “government” creates corporations, it owns those corporation completely -because of the fact that it is their creator.
Thus legally, corporations are slaves to the “government” that created them, by definition. They are created, live in obedience to, and die at the command of that “government” – including paying taxes to that “government.” And the rules that that “government” can make for those corporations are literally unlimited,because those corporations have no rights. They only have privileges that are granted to them by their creator “government,” privileges which can be changed or terminated at any time, solely at the pleasure of that “government.”
Functionally, those are the two “governments” which comprise the two main Federal jurisdictional powers of our one constitutional Republic. And thus, they are the “two powers” to which Roberts is referring. And he acknowledges them both as constitutionally legitimate.
But he also warns that it is extremely dangerous to mix them up. In fact, he points out that if you mix them up, you can end up with what he calls ” a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
But isn’t that exactly what everyone is afraid Roberts has actually done with his ruling?
Yet here he is specifically warning everyone against making that interpretation of his ruling, and teaching that the way to avoid that terrible mistake is to “read carefully.”
So that’s what this analysis is – a very, very careful reading. It is not my interpretation of Roberts. It is my careful reading of what Roberts actually said, per his specific instructions.
Two governmental powers exist. Roberts said so, and warned against confusing them. For the Chief Justice said that if we mix them up, WE will create – by our very ignorance - “a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
So what does that mean? It means enabling the Federal government, through Obamacare, to start treating We The People of inalienable human rights, like wholly-owned government-privileged corporations, for everything.
 
Point #9: Bait and Switch and Presumption
But wait a second, (I imagine you say again). What about forcing everyone to pay income tax already? If Obamacare doesn’t apply to 95% of Americans because it is imposed by corporate income tax enforcement laws, then how the hell does the government get away with applying those same corporate income tax enforcement laws to non-corporate, regular human people-persons for the income tax?
Answer: You volunteer to be treated as a corporation.
Remember in his ruling that Roberts said that “without a careful reading” you can create “a general federal authority akin to the police power” concerning Obamacare?
Well concerning the income tax, most Americans have NOT made a “careful reading” of the tax laws, and therefore HAVE created a specific ”federal authority akin to the police power” concerning the subject of income taxes.
You see, as free human beings, we have the right to make contracts. And there is such a thing as a presumed contract. What the government has done is argued to the courts – and the courts have agreed – that the government is not responsible for people’s legal ignorance, and that if they act in such a way as to functionally volunteer to be treated as a corporation, then the government gets to treat them like a corporation.
Even worse, courts have agreed that neither they, nor other government officials, have to tell you you’re being treated as a corporation, under the interpretation that you don’t need to be told, since you volunteered in the first place.
And then, to top it off, the government has created rules to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to not be treated like a corporation anymore, by presuming that until you have proven you’re not a corporation, they get to pound down on you just as if you were a corporation that was faking being a human being. As a result, you can actually be convicted for fraud, and go to jail, for demanding you not be treated as if you were a corporation!
That’s the way it is.
So the technical answer is no, 95% of Americans don’t have to pay the income tax, because it’s enforcement mechanisms specify that only corporations, or people responsible for corporations, are subject to income tax enforcement.
The practical answer, however, is that without a lot of money and legal representation, the government will use the presumption that you are a corporation against you to seize your money and property, and throw you in jail, long before you can get through all the court hearings necessary for them to admit that you are a non-corporate human being-type person. Or they will simply show you that that’s what they are going to do to you, unless you sign a document agreeing that you are, in fact, a corporation, and agree that you’ve been a very, very bad corporation, and that you deserve to pay all sorts of fines in order to stay out of jail.
That’s the way it is.
So DO NOT THINK you can use the information in this analysis – even by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court – to stop paying income taxes.
It. Won’t. Work.
The IRS will simply STOMP you into oblivion, because legally, they get to treat you under the presumption that you are a corporation - and they don’t have to acknowledge any “presumed corporations” that try to claim they are not corporations.
In fact, the technical legal name for that particular argument is “frivolous.”
That’s right, according to tax laws, interpretations and rulings, pointing out that you are a human being who does not fit the specifications of the actual income tax enforcement laws, is frivolous.
Not “funny-frivolous.”
But rather, “go-to-jail-frivolous.”
Read carefully: you’re warned.
 
Point #10: Generalization – A Bridge Too Far
Contrary to what most people think, judges can’t just go rule on something if they think it is wrong. They have to wait for an appropriate case to come to them, and sometimes it never does. Also, cases themselves have all sorts of issues and parts to them. Sometimes a case will seem to be about one thing, but it’s actually about another. So for the purposes of what it seems to be about, it’s useless. And if political operatives have decided that certain types of cases will be ruled against their interests by certain judges, every effort will be made by those operatives to keep those cases out of those courts. Thus a judge can wait a whole career, and never rule on what he or she wants to rule on.
The opposite is also true. Sometimes a case shows up, and a judge realizes – this is it, now or never. Another opportunity may never come, or come too late to matter. So they act.
That, I believe, is what Chief Justice Roberts has done with his Obamacare ruling. If he waited longer to make this ruling, Obamacare would be in another form, and perhaps not so amenable to exposure for what it really is. Or, such a vast bureaucracy will have been formed by the time he got to rule on it, that enormous damage to the country would have been done in the mean time. Or he simply might not have gotten to be the swing vote, and would have been out-voted no matter what his position was.
So he chose this, and he chose now.
But what did he actually do?
Simply put, he raised the alarm about something that goes far, far beyond Obamacare. In fact, it goes straight to the heart of why everyone is so upset. Roberts not only drew attention to the fact that, by simply positioning anything they want as a tax, the government can force anyone to do anything at any time – he certified that concept as constitutional. And by doing that, he made sure the vulnerability of the country to totally legal tyranny would not go away. For even if Obamacare was repealed, his ruling would still stand, and Congress could just try again with something else.
But why would Roberts do such a thing? After all, he actually warned against the creation of “a general federal authority akin to the police power.” And he also said elsewhere in his ruling, “our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed.” Yet after saying these things, he then went and enabled them!
Except he didn’t. Because he pointed out – subtly, but clearly, for those who follow his hints as I have here – that these powers Congress is trying to use against the People do not, in fact, apply to them, but only to corporations.
But the man is a Federal judge – the TOP Federal judge. Do you think, even for a moment, Roberts isn’t fully aware of what the IRS “legally” does to people who try to use Roberts own argument against them?
Of course he does.
That’s why he wrote the argument. Because now HE wrote this argument – not YOU.
 

And that matters. Because by definition, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is not frivolous. Even by the interpretations of the IRS.
You see, Roberts jammed the machine. And scared the shit out of the entire Federal government by doing it. That’s why no other Justice would join him – heterrified them.
And he did it because it was the only way he could find to halt the unstoppable expansion of a process that was originally promised by Congress to be limitedonly to the income tax – but technically could be applied to anything.
What was that process?
• The ability of the Federal government, to presume that natural human person Americans had volunteered to be treated as corporations under the law;
• The ability of the Federal government to do this without telling them that such a presumption had been made against them;
• The ability of the Federal government to use this presumption to deny Americans their inalienable constitutional rights by replacing them with government-controlled corporate privileges;
• And finally, the ability of the Federal government to not tell Americans how to get out of that presumption without being harmed by trying to do so.
When Obamacare came up as a tax law, Roberts – and all the Justices – knew what this meant. It meant Congress had gone back on their promise to presume this terrible corporate tax power upon people only for the purpose of the income tax, and use it for everything. Because Obamacare was the generalization of this principle that opened the door to its infinite use. As long as the only application of these tax laws were for income taxes, that single application stood as a kind of protection. But with a second application, the principle became generalized, and with that, the door swung open.
But the real problem was that it was legal. Yet Roberts did not make it legal – it was made legal before Roberts was even born. People have a constitutional right to contract. Contracts can be presumed by behavior. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It’s all there – but in its application to tax laws, and now Obamacare (and with that literally everything else), it has become diabolical.
So what was Roberts to do? Throw it out? If he did that, it would come back. Congress is obviously licking it’s chops over expanding this principle of empowerment through tax enforcement. Obamacare, or something like it, or something else, would come back again, and again, and again – and each time it would be, technically, constitutional.
So Roberts decided to make a stand. Like John Hancock signing his name big enough on the Declaration of Independence to make sure the King saw it, Chief Justice Roberts ensured with the signing of his Obamacare ruling that unless everyone works together, no one is ever going home to freedom again. Because the only way out of this problem is for Americans to know about it, understand it, and craft a constitutional protection against it.
Not against corporations.
But against people being treated as corporations, and losing their rights, through presumption.
Remember Pelosi gloating that you’d have to pass Obamacare to see what was in it? She was telling you the truth about the government’s use of presumption.The government presumes that you’ve voluntarily surrendered your humanity for corporate status, and then passes bills without telling you what’s in them, because you have no right to know what your corporate masters are doing until they want to tell you. Even then, they don’t have to tell you – Pelosi didn’t say she’d explain it, just that you could read it, if it was passed.
That’s what happens if you fight the IRS, too – they are allowed to presume the corporate laws apply to you, and that you therefore have to pay the tax before you can challenge the tax in court. But then, if you pay and fight, the government doesn’t have to tell you you’re being treated as a volunteer corporation. Instead, they rule that your claims of humanity are frivolous because you’re obeying corporate laws and standing in a corporate administrative court. This secret presumption been repeatedly ruled as Constitutional. You just don’t know about it.
So you can see why those who would convert the entirety of the Constitution into tax laws, are drunk on the mechanism of presumption. That’s why Pelosi replied, when asked if Obamacare was Constitutional, “Are you serious!? Are you serious!?” Look at her reply legally: she mocked the question as frivolous,because in doing so she limited her response to only incorporated ”persons”!
And remember, she was saying this as Speaker of the House of Representatives. In other words, she wasn’t without authority when she said it. She specifically invoked the power of secret presumption by using contempt, in order to hide behind it’s legal protections. Government employees use this indemnification technique all the time, because the people don’t know it’s a legal statement!
Before Obamacare, secret presumption meant income tax. Now, it means people forced to face death panels and perform abortions against their religious beliefs – when they don’t actually have to!
That’s why SECRET PRESUMPTION is the monumental problem Roberts has chosen to expose with his courageous ruling. And he did it now because our country is poised on the edge of a precipice - right now. Compared to the absolute catastrophe of generalizing the secret taxing authority presumption, all the hell of Obamacare is merely one example, with an infinite number of the same kinds of tax laws right behind it, waiting only for Congress to vote.
But Roberts also showed the SOLUTION to the problem, when he wrote, “The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
Only the People can put a Constitutional Stop to the government’s currently LEGAL use of the secret presumption of corporate status against human beings. Robert’s can’t do that himself. But in a single astonishing ruling, Chief Justice Roberts has warned the American People of what is being done to them, how it is being done, and the immanent danger of its expansion of use.
What the American People will now do about this problem remains to be seen. One thing is sure, though – the more people who know about it, the better. Peaceful change can only come from knowledge. So pass the word.
 

God Bless America. 


Copyright July 4th, 2012. All rights reserved. Permission given for non-profit distribution only.



A FURTHER COMMENT


THE SCOTUS RULING CALLING IT A TAX, CAME OUT AFTER THE SENATE / HOUSE VOTES, AND THOSE WHO WERE PUSHING IT COULD NOT FORESEE THAT IT’LL MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO SCOTUS,
NOR COULD THEY PREDICT THE SCOTUS’s VERDICT, SO THEY’RE STUCK BIG TIME – CONSTITUTIONALLY, LEGALLY, PROCEDURALLY AND OTHERWISE …
 
NOW, DUE TO CONSIDERATIONS IN THE LEGAL ANALYSIS ABOVE, IT MAY BE UP FOR A NEW SERIES OF LEGAL AND POLITICAL CHALLENGES DUE TO THE GROSS MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW, TITLE 26, IRC, ETC. IN TERMS OF
WHAT “PERSONS” OR “INDIVIDUALS” Obamacare ACTUALLY APPLIES TO. IF THE GROSS DECEPTION IN ITS LANGUAGE IS WIDELY EXPOSED, CHALLENGED AND UPHELD BY THE COURTS, IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO THE S.C.”TAXPAYERS”,
AND AS SUCH, COULD AS WELL BRING THE S.C.INCOME TAX MISAPPLICATION SCAM AND FRAUD DOWN, ALTOGETHER !
 
PROVIDED, THOUGH, THERE ARE ENOUGH NOT-SO-CORRUPT JUDGES WILLING TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND THIS SCOTUS RULING. AND, THAT IS A BIG QUESTION.
 
THAT’S WHY THE BRILLIANT AUTHOR ABOVE IS NOT EXACTLY RIGHT WHEN SAYING: “Peaceful change can only come from knowledge“.
“KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY POWER WHEN IT HELPS YOU INTO A POSITION OF POWER”, SAYS G.E.GRIFFIN.
 
THIS IS TRUE WHEN IT COMES TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS, INCLUDING JUDGES AND JUSTICES, WHO DO HAVE THE INSIDER KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, BUT COMMIT TREASON
BY SILENCING IT TO HELP PERPETUATE THE FRAUD, MISUSE, MISAPPLY THAT KNOWLEDGE TO FURTHER USURP AND STRENGTHEN THEIR DE-FACTO POWER OVER THE PEOPLE THEY’VE TAKEN OATH TO PROTECT !
 
WILL “WE THE PEOPLE”, OR LARGELY AND GROSSLY IGNORANT SHEOPLE USE THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR “Peaceful change“, OR EVEN CARE TO LEARN THIS KNOWLEDGE EN MASSE, STILL REMAINS TO BE SEEN …..

kWozqZwpW4U

Source:  Before It's News

Read more…

4063772054?profile=originalMillions of American Families losing health care must stand up for their Healthcare Freedom

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” Samuel Adams, January 21, 1776

For many of the 3.5 million American families that according to the Associated Press, the loss of their family health insurance came at them like a wrecking ball. Their very economic health and stability for their family members has been shattered because of a president who comforted millions of citizens with the one phrase which shall live in historical infamy: “If you like your health care you can keep your health care guaranteed and period!” Barack Obama – 35 times!

That one statement which as it turns out was a carefully plotted assault upon the comfort and trusting nature of the middle of the road America was used to plant the Trojan horse into the health care system like a deadly killer virus causing mass destruction. Now, 3.5 million families, much like you or your neighbor or co-workers are faced with the onerous choice of Obama’s one size fits all brand of engineered socialism or face possible excessive fines, liens against your home and in the end a surgical neutering of your own self determination and freedom. You have been obamafied!

Recent responses from readers as well as on conservative radio and in print have examined the horror and dismay that many families are facing as they attempt to deal with providing health insurance for a family member undergoing an operation, or a child who is faced with an illness or a female member who is suffering from breast cancer. Tens of thousands of examples of the gloomy prospects are pouring in, and yet in each one there is a solution.

Instead of worrying about what and when the congress will remedy this debacle it is clear that the solution lies with the family that has suffered this individual injustice. This is truly the point in the American experience when your neighbor, your distant relative and even your babysitter or church member can create your own distinctly American Insurance Freedom From Obamacare Campaign.

Imagine how the nation’s founding fathers felt at the beginning of the American Revolution and even months and years before. Sure there were writers and patriots in the colonies that were demanding justice from the British, which were largely ignored. Did that deter the common patriot who decided that his neighbor’s home that had been invaded time and time again by the British was not his fight? What about the British loyalists who were working to destroy the rights and freedoms which were God given to each and every American colonist member? These rights were stripped away by colonial government loyalists that cared more for the cruel boot and heel on their necks than the true essence of what freedom from continued oppression represented. These modern day sympathizers are the Obama democrats that stand with the socialist-in-chief and continue to mine the harbors of freedom.

( click to read more )

Read more…

4063770927?profile=originalFailure To Launch – HHS Notes Reveal Only 6 Signup On 1st Day – White House knew disaster was possible – photo credit – Americans for Tax Reform

The lies and the continuing revelations of purposeful or incompetent cover-ups by the Obama Administration continue to strain believability. Last week the president abandoned his lie which he told and retold countless times over five years. You know the one: “If you like your healthcare you can keep it – period!” Now more hidden documents are surfacing that point to an administration which hid the truth of health plans being grandfathered and the very competency, according to Fox News of the administration being able to implement Obamacare.

David Cutler who had been Obama’s health care advisor informed the White House in 2010 that “the White House lacked anyone with experience in start-ups and warned that this could lead to obvious issues of coordinating tech and health information,” according to the Blaze on Monday. Either Obama did not get the memos, refused to deal with the truth, or worse did not care if he placed the health and welfare of millions of Americans at risk!

Recently, Fox News and other mainstream media outlets like NBC News and CBS reported that while the president was continuously lying to the American people, administration documents indicate that the administration officials at HHS and the IRS were saying something quite different since July 2010. It seems irrefutable that Obama has been lying for three years straight, and used those lies to win re-election in 2012!

While Republican presidential candidate was correctly telling the American truth about the now seemingly preposterous claims being made by Obama and his own administration officials, the president told the nation in an October 2012 debate that Americans could in fact keep their health care and their doctor if they wanted to.

The reality of course was different and the truth about his falsehood was contained in administration documents from June and July of 2010. That year the Department of Health and Human Service published a regulation that all but nullified the President’s claims of “If you like your healthcare you can keep it!” The truth did not matter to Obama, just the lie.

( Click to read more )

Read more…

 

By Oscar Y. Harward

 

Americans are discovering more about President Obama’s and Capitol Hill Democrats’ ‘ObamaCare’ falsified declarations, misgivings of medical care, more enormous ‘ObamaCare’ premium increases, and other catastrophes.  We are finally learning as to how dishonest President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats have been, and continue to deliberately ‘lie’ about (y)our most needed and trusted Health Care system in the entire world.  Where are the responsible ‘main-stream’ Medias?  Why do so many of the ‘main-stream’ Medias continue to fail Americans on this issue?

 

With our ‘private’ Health Care industry, along with Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and other individuals’ personal plans, Americans are very well cared for.  There are ‘little to no’ needs for disrupting our current Health Care system with ‘ObamaCare’ or any other government plan(s).

 

While marketing ‘ObamaCare’, President Obama and others declared, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period.”

 

While marketing ‘ObamaCare’, President Obama and others declared, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”

 

While marketing ‘ObamaCare’, President Obama and others stated that your Health Care premiums under ‘ObamaCare’ would be reduced.  This, too, is untrue on almost all cases!  Americans are finding ‘ObamaCare’ premium increase averages from 62% in California, 60% in Alabama, 34% in Texas, 41% in Arizona, and 92% in North Carolina.  Some Americans are finding increases of ‘ObamaCare’ at or around 100% and higher.  Due to these extreme ‘ObamaCare’ premium increases, many middle-class, working Americans are being forced into Medicaid coverage.

 

‘Millions’ of Americans are having their current personal and business Health Care policies cancelled due to ‘ObamaCare’ requirements; for example, males are forced to pay for pregnancy medical care costs on themselves.  Wow!

 

Many other ‘untrue’ statements as reported by President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats are now arriving in the public area on a daily basis; deceptive words, phrases, and other statements that are unworthy of ‘integrity’ from government leaders.

 

Many ‘main-stream’ Medias continue to deceive Americans by covering up President Obama’s falsifications.  Except for the ‘main-stream’ Medias ‘First Amendment’ with ‘Freedom of Speech’, some of these members would and should, otherwise, be investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail.

 

President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats are now commencing to blame the ‘insurance industry’ as they are now attacking this industry that has served Americans for hundreds of years.  In the near future, you may see President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats pursue and introduce new legislation that would totally destroy our Health Insurance industry and other insurance subsidiaries, and, perhaps, lead to a government takeover of our entire banking industry.

 

With recently presented verification of earlier claims from President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats now turn out to be falsified with facts, and with additional information arriving about ‘ObamaCare’ that turns out to be fraudulent claims now confirms that ‘ObamaCare’ must be repealed.  Many more political bombs in this legislation may be yet to come.  You and I can expect President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats to continue to ‘cram ‘ObamaCare’ down our throats’.  2014 General Election will prove that a large majority of Americans will overwhelmingly reject ‘ObamaCare’, a much different law than as previously promised.

 

Americans are finding that the ‘Affordable Care Act’ is not affordable at all for most individuals and families.  The selfish and ignorant must awaken before it is too late.  ‘Main-stream’ Medias should become more honest and professional with their own ‘Freedom of Speech’ protections.  President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats must stop praying on the selfish and Ignorant.

Read more…

Meet the New Enemy

With millions of Americans preparing to lose their health insurance to be forced into a government-run exchange, a Democrat pollster has called insurance companies "a fantastic enemy."  

“For the life of me, I do not understand why we as Democrats are not aggressively blaming that on the insurance companies,” Celinda Lake said on Monday during a media breakfast marking the release of the George Washington University Battleground Poll alongside Republican pollster Ed Goeas.

“We ought to say, The insurance companies are absolutely undermining this,’ and they don’t want to have policies that meet the minimum requirements and we’re not going to stand for it,” she continued. “It’s beyond me why Democrats don’t go after insurance companies for engaging in these practices. We’ve always said we’ll see what works and we’ll fix what doesn’t. Well, this is something we should fix.”

Insurance companies deserve their fair share of the blame for ObamaCare.  They went along with the scheme in the hopes the government would pad their profits.  But now, one can hope, they are begining to understand, they made a deal with the devil.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2538447#.Unf2HMtB0Bc.twitter

Read more…

4063769412?profile=originalHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and White House knew of millions of Americans losing their coverage.

                                                               HHS photo by Chris Smith.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry, June 5, 1778.

Were you one of the six Obamacare enrollees, which according to Fox News, made it through on the first day of Obamacare while 700,000 got caught up in the avalanche of the launch disaster? Secret notes from an Obama administration HHS War Room meeting revealed only six people made it through the rollout gauntlet, while another 248 succeeded the second day. These unfortunate souls are now well aware of the sticker shock which awaits all other who must now succumb to the President’s purposeful lie, “"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, I guarantee it!" - Barack Obama.

After a month, according to the Washington Times the actual numbers of enrollees remain a well protected mystery. What is known is that Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-Ca) chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is enraged that America and the 2 million citizens who had their insurance policies terminated may be left in an Obamanized limbo. Subpoenas are sure to be flying fast and furiously from his committee to HHS and the White House to seek the truth.

Unfortunately for the 2 million of an expected 14 million individuals scurrying for affordable healthcare coverage, this is only beginning of their difficulties. With each persistent lie by Obama the stinging reality of its impact has cut at the very heart of American families and undermined their own economic and health freedom. The nightmare spiral of the president’s deception is just beginning.

Whether you are a young hard working family with children in Ohio, or a middle aged couple in Florida or an individual in Kentucky trying to live paycheck to paycheck, the vicious lie of Obamacare is strangling you no matter which way you try to turn. October was bad, but November and December will get worse.

Consider the dilemma that you and countless millions of Americans are only now beginning to face. You had an insurance policy that covered you and your family and your budget could make that work for you. It should have been grandfathered in, but it was not. As Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly suggested on her broadcast this week, the administration knew about those facts.

Now, the government mandate which was voted on by only democrats in both the House and the Senate has torn away your economic security blanket from underneath you. Where do you think you are going to turn to next for securing your family’s health and pay your bills?

(Click to read more )

Read more…

4063769412?profile=originalHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and White House knew of millions of Americans losing their coverage.

                                                               HHS photo by Chris Smith.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry, June 5, 1778.

Were you one of the six Obamacare enrollees, which according to Fox News, made it through on the first day of Obamacare while 700,000 got caught up in the avalanche of the launch disaster? Secret notes from an Obama administration HHS War Room meeting revealed only six people made it through the rollout gauntlet, while another 248 succeeded the second day. These unfortunate souls are now well aware of the sticker shock which awaits all other who must now succumb to the President’s purposeful lie, “"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, I guarantee it!" - Barack Obama.

After a month, according to the Washington Times the actual numbers of enrollees remain a well protected mystery. What is known is that Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-Ca) chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is enraged that America and the 2 million citizens who had their insurance policies terminated may be left in an Obamanized limbo. Subpoenas are sure to be flying fast and furiously from his committee to HHS and the White House to seek the truth.

Unfortunately for the 2 million of an expected 14 million individuals scurrying for affordable healthcare coverage, this is only beginning of their difficulties. With each persistent lie by Obama the stinging reality of its impact has cut at the very heart of American families and undermined their own economic and health freedom. The nightmare spiral of the president’s deception is just beginning.

Whether you are a young hard working family with children in Ohio, or a middle aged couple in Florida or an individual in Kentucky trying to live paycheck to paycheck, the vicious lie of Obamacare is strangling you no matter which way you try to turn. October was bad, but November and December will get worse.

Consider the dilemma that you and countless millions of Americans are only now beginning to face. You had an insurance policy that covered you and your family and your budget could make that work for you. It should have been grandfathered in, but it was not. As Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly suggested on her broadcast this week, the administration knew about those facts.

Now, the government mandate which was voted on by only democrats in both the House and the Senate has torn away your economic security blanket from underneath you. Where do you think you are going to turn to next for securing your family’s health and pay your bills?

(Click to read more )

Read more…

4063768705?profile=original            Obamacare launch failure sends President’s Poll numbers plummeting

If you are one of the unlucky 2 million Americans who received an insurance termination notice due to Obamacare, then help may be on the way. It turns out that according to Fox News, the president’s plummeting poll numbers largely due to the disastrous launch of his signature legislative piece may be driving his fellow democrat lawmakers into the congressional weeds.

According to NBC News a newly released WSJ/NBC News poll shows that the failed launch of the president’s Obamacare has resulted in approval rating of 42 percent. In fact the president’s poll support numbers slid 5 points from the month before. Meanwhile White House officials and democrat lawmakers are cringing from disapproval numbers on Obamacare escalating to 47 percent.

The falling poll numbers of the president coincide with each day’s revelation of another set of insurance cancellation horrors confronting the American people and you pick the state. According to Bloomberg, in Florida, “Blue Cross and Blue Shield, is dropping 300,000 members and California’s Blue Shield and Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente will terminate a projected 280,000 who are insured.” In Pittsburgh alone, 40,000 insurance customers will lose their plans. Obamacare is wrecking havoc on American families and their healthcare costs all over the nation.

Well, this healthcare nightmare ride may been seeing a little sunlight on the horizon due to the President’s 5 point drop in the polls in less than a month since the torturous launch. With each family being kicked off of the insurance rolls, a new blue state or red state anti-Obama and democrat voter is created.

What is also occurring inside the halls of the House and Senate are Democrat lawmakers worried that the 2010 Tea Party victory may be a stream compared to what could happen in 2014. Democrats know not a single Republican voted for passage of Obamacare which makes it easier for angry voters to target any and all Democrats.

( Click to read more )

Read more…

4063768159?profile=original       "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, I guarantee it!" - Barack Obama

 

This is the morbid lie which has been repeated no less than 12 times since president Obama first spoke it in 2007 as candidate Obama and deceived Americans with . It is quite possibly the very presidential lie that shall lead to Impeachment Hearings in the House of Representatives. Remember the last Democrat President that spoke to the American people about another memorable lie, “I did not have relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky!” He was equally as adamant about his statement and he was also impeached in the House.

Does lying about 14 to possibly 16 million Americans being thrown out of their insurance plans count as an impeachable offense due to undo reliance on a presidential guarantee? Impeachment count one: The White House knew millions would lose health plans under ObamaCare, according to Fox News.

On Wednesday, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took responsibility for the disasterous launch of the website, according to U.S. News and World Report. While she attempted to divert attention and responsibility away from Obama, she had to finally admit that the buck does stop at the president’s desk.

In fact, it is the very cavalier attitude and artful dodging of responsibility for the administration’s open knowledge of the known impact of Obamacare implementation that indicts Sebelius and the President. According to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly’s Tuesday night broadcast, the proof was contained in an IRS July 2010 document which states, “A reasonable range for the percentage of individual policies that would terminate and therefore relinquish their grandfather status is 40 to 67 percent.” That is about 14 millions Americans folks!

Thus far, 2 million Americans have received insurance termination notices due to HHS destroying grandfather status protection in June of 2010. Are these Americans permissible collateral damage due to a healthcare fiasco which was predicted by Tea Party and many conservative leaders before it was voted on? Are Americans and their families cannon fodder to be used and tossed aside due to Obama’s hidden agenda to decimate American lives and their healthcare?

This is a new kind of horror in the nation that can and must not stand. Then U.S. Senator John Kennedy said in a 1959 speech, This is not a time to keep the facts from the people—to keep them complacent. To sound the alarm is not to panic but to seek action from an aroused public. For, as the poet Dante once said: ‘The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.’

Obama evades the truth and practices in hiding the facts from Americans. These hidden facts are not just a simple oversight, but are a calculated road to a socialist state that the president envisions for America. His conduct is both purposeful and injurious to the very fabric of Americans and their individual and family’s health. President Clinton lied about an affair, and Obama lied about destroying a health system. Impeachment should and must be the answer for his actions.

There is a threshold which must be met in order for impeachment proceedings are initiated in the House of Representatives. The president, “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It seems that clear that Obama has trampled all over the threshold conditions of high crimes and misdemeanors, and dares the congress and the American people to hold him accountable because he is allegedly the first black president of the United States.

 

( click to read more )

 

Read more…

Obamacare hasn't officially kicked in yet but it's evils are already rooted - and spreading. This morning my disabled son (who receives Medicare) received a call from the Medical Supply Company who provides his diabetic needs like glucose monitors, test strips, etc., asking him to bring his glucose monitor (which stores downloadable info like blood sugar numbers) in the next time he came into town because he was being audited by Medicare.

Audited by Medicare? That sounds something like the IRS would do, but Medicare?

Really, this didn't sound right so I called the Medical Supply Company myself and inquired. Yes, they told me, under the 'new rules of Obamacare' Medicare will be auditing regular users of diabetic supplies and other medical devices every three months.

We've been using this same medical supply company for at least 3 1/2 years and nothing like this has happened before. This employee I spoke to was very apologetic but tense as she explained they were having to call all their customers to tell them about the audit. Not everyone took this news well. She has been spoken to harshly, even 'cussed out' by 'a number of people' and she wasn't having a good day. People were complaining and furious.

I realize the fault isn't hers, tell her so, and she's now more willing to talk. She is really upset over the entire audit ordeal, how people are reacting, and she seems to think a few of their customers believed it was the medical supply company (not the government) who was doing this and she was worried about a loss of customers. Her company doesn't want to do this but they have no choice and neither will other medical supply companies.

 I've been against Obamacare from the beginning and if we think this is bad - just wait - it's going to get worse. If we can't get Obama out of Office and repair the damage he's done to our great Nation we are headed into communism and we will become slaves of Obama's laws.

Read more…

4063766540?profile=original Did CGI Federal use White House Insider influence to secure failed Obamacare website contract?

Last Thursday, America was treated to an incredible dodge ball performance by Cheryl Campbell, senior vice president of the Canadian firm CGI Federal which handled website development. She became the latest in a line of private and public officials to not accept responsibility for the gigantic hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to go down the sinkhole due to the Obamacare site failure. Her firm wrote the code for the website and appears largely responsible for its volcanic systemic. Now the president wants to waste more money yet, the question still remains how CGI Federal ever selected for building the website when it has a history of similar meltdown problems.

It appears that the White House, via Michelle Obama and her connection with former Princeton classmate Toni Townes-Whitley, a senior vice president at CGI Federal may have given her back door access to the apparent no-bid contract. The Daily Caller reported that the purported $678 million website contract went to the Canadian firm, perhaps due to Michelle Obama’s influence.

This deal cheated the nation out of hundreds of millions of dollars in the failed construction. President Obama has not taken the blame for the failure, which one has to has to wonder where are the subpoenas for the documentation of CGI’s other federal and state contracts and projects that the firm has ongoing in the United States. Shouldn’t a financial fiasco so vast warrant more than a casual nod by Obama for his signature legislation?

What is equally troubling is that according to the CGI senior vice president who testified before congress last week, the White House was kept abreast of the possibility that when the website switch was turned on, on October 1st, Millions of Americans would be locked out of it. According to her, the White House knew. So the age old question from Watergate days remains: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

Are you angry enough yet? You should be!

On Friday, according to Fox News, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is blaming congress for the problems of the website malfunction. This is in response mounting bipartisan calls in congress for her resignation over the website debacle. The nation and many Democrat senators are not taking the bait.

In fact there is mounting support among Democrats in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to put Obamacare on hold. Democrat senators, Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va, Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Kay Hagan, D-N.C., are moving for Obamacare to be delayed in full implementation, suggests Fox News.

( click to read more )

Read more…

It appears the ACA is unconstitutional

28 October 2013

 

The Honorable Congressman Smith

The Honorable Senator Cornyn

The Honorable Senator Cruz

 

Good morning Gentlemen!

 

On this bright Monday morning I have a question I would ask you ask yourselves...... once you have the answer, what comes next appears to be obvious and unavoidable... the only way to fix this is remove it.

 

The "version" of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, obamacare) that became Law originated in the Senate.

 

Chief Justice Roberts clearly stated the ACA was "constitutional" as a TAX (not healthcare).

 

The Constitution of the United States clearly tells us that the House holds the purse strings, controls funding - and is able to tax.... The SENATE is incapable of creating a TAX according to law.

 

The question to ask yourselves is this: Since the Senate version of the ACA is what became Law - Chief Justice Roberts said the ACA is a TAX - and only the House can create a tax....

Why does the ACA continue to exist - as it is an unconstitutional mandate from a government body unauthorized to do what was done. Yet signed by all......................

 

Respectfully,

SFC (USA Retired) Aubrey Mason

San Antonio, Texas

 

cc;

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott

The Honorable Congressman Stockman

The Honorable Congressman Issa

The Honorable Senator Paul

Social Media

Read more…