Thread: Individual Mandate has been struck down

Repeal ObamaCare in 2013!

Today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the ObamaCare law has provided the perfect issue to activate the Tea Party movement, and this means that the November elections will be a national referendum on repealing ObamaCare.

We need to act now in preparation for repealing ObamaCare in 2013. One thing we can begin doing now is to urge our Representatives and Senators to introduce and pass legislation yet in this session of Congress to repeal ObamaCare period, not replace it. In fact, House Republicans have already announced they'll vote again on repealing ObamaCare on July 11. However, we already know that the chances for a vote in the Senate this session are virtually nil.

The idea about pressuring our Representatives and Senators to vote on repealing ObamaCare yet this session is not to get ObamaCare repealed before the November elections, because we know that the Senate and President Obama would not permit that. Instead, the idea is to get as many Representatives and Senators as possible on record regarding the repeal of ObamaCare before the November elections and for them to feel the heat of constituent pressure for repeal, the better to use ObamaCare as an election issue.

Contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to vote for full repeal of ObamaCare now. Please Enable Cookies to Use This Site This will help set the stage for a national referendum on ObamaCare in the November elections for President and Congress.

The Rasmusssen poll for June 23-24, 2012 shows 54% of likely voters favor repeal of ObamaCare and 39% oppose repeal, so we have numbers on our side.

Thanks.

Your Friends at The John Birch Society

For Immediate Release
June 28, 2012

Contact: Leslie K. Paige 202-467-5334
Luke Gelber 202-467-5318


SCOTUS Ruling on Obamacare is Devastating to Taxpayers

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) President Tom Schatz issued the following statement in response to the United States Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare based on the individual mandate’s classification as a tax is a distressing blow to taxpayers. The ruling undermines President Obama’s 2009 assertion that his health care law was ‘not a tax’ and makes it clear that he tried to deceive the American people in order to get the bill passed by Congress. Now, Obamacare represents the single largest tax increase on young people in the nation’s history. When it takes full effect, the Internal Revenue Service will have immense new power and authority to persecute and prosecute a whole new group of taxpayers.

“Since its creation following the release of President Reagan’s Grace Commission report in 1984, CCAGW has advocated health care reform that would augment consumer choice and create a more competitive market. As a result, CCAGW has opposed Obamacare from the beginning. Bullying consumers into signing up for underfunded, anti-competitive health insurance is a recipe for disaster.

“The Democrats in Congress joined President Obama in this massive enlargement of the size and scope of the federal government against the will of the people. The Supreme Court ruling underscores the need for the country to have a House, Senate, and President who will agree to overturn the law and replace it with commonsense reform that will lower costs, allow patients to choose their own doctor, and protect access to essential care.

“If the law takes full effect, it will devastate small businesses and destroy any chance for a sustainable economic recovery. It will add trillions of dollars to the national debt and push the country toward bankruptcy even faster than current projections. Any individual who believes that this decision must be overturned must do everything possible to undo the damage that has been done, especially at the ballot box on November 6.”

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.


SCOTUS Ruling on Obamacare is Devastating to Taxpayers

Why Employers Will Dump Health Insurance
Posted on June 28, 2012 by Conservative Byte
Print Friendly

I’m blue in the face saying this, too. So for those of you who have heard it and understand it, please indulge me. If you’re a small business, if you are a corporation, a major corporation… Let me put it a different way. If you are an employee of a small business or big company, and you have your health insurance via your employment. The president went out there today and said (paraphrased), “Nothing’s changed. You get to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you get to keep it.”

No, and here’s why.

What was upheld today was the concept that you must buy health insurance or pay a fine for it, just not under the Commerce Clause. And the way that was arrived at was a tax on behavior. If you refuse to buy, there is a tax. Now, as the law is written, the tax for not buying health insurance is much cheaper than the cost of a policy. So if you work for a business, large or small, that wants to save money — and which business alive today doesn’t because the economy? If that business has an opportunity for the next year or two, maybe three…

Continue Reading on Home - Rush Limbaugh - The Rush Limbaugh Show ...

Why Employers Will Dump Health Insurance - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Why Employers Will Dump Health Insurance | Conservative Byte



Of course the fine is cheaper for them this is the game plan they had all along to protect the large companies and get them out from under employee healthcare, after all didn't they do that already with the pension plans..two of the biggest expenditures in a large company healthcare and pensions





Why Employers Will Dump Health Insurance | Conservative Byte

Americans! Prepare To Be Microchipped By March 2013 With Obamacare! The 'Mark Of The Beast' Has Arrived Upon American Shores!
Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:37




“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” ~ Revelation 13:16-18



RFID Microchip


Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, states on his website:

“Buried deep within the over 1,000 pages of the massive US Health Care Bill (PDF) in a “non-discussed” section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521— National Medical Device Registry, and which states its purpose as…….. He quotes that part of the law and then goes on to say: “In “real world speak”, according to this report, this new law, when fully implemented, provides the framework for making the United States the first Nation in the World to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country”.
Read more @
Hidden Obamacare Secret: “RFID Chip Implants” Mandatory for All by March 23, 2013 « Linkster Diversions

Feel free to read the entire bill yourself @ waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/...CA09001xml.pdf


SEC. 2521. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY.
12 (a) REGISTRY.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 519 of the Federal
14 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) is
15 amended—
16 (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub-
17 section (h); and
18 (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the
19 following:
20 ‘‘National Medical Device Registry
21 ‘‘(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national med-
22 ical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the
23 ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and
24 outcomes data on each device that—
25 ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:TEMPAAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:P11NHITRICOMMAAHCA09_001.XML
f:VHLC7140971409.140.xml (444390|2)1002
1 ‘‘(B) is—
2 ‘‘(i) a class III device; or
3 ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable,
4 life-supporting, or life-sustaining


2 more videos at link below


Before It's News

Obamacare, the Great Swindle

Monday, July 02, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)



(NaturalNews) Now that Obamacare has been ruled a tax by the U.S. Supreme Court, reality is starting to sink in for all those who emotionally supported it. Promoted as a way to provide either free health care or low-cost health care to the masses, the sobering reality is that under Obamacare, health insurance prices keep rising, not falling. That's no surprise, of course, since the Obamacare legislation was practically written by the health insurance companies, and they sure didn't put their weight behind a sweeping new law that would earn them less profit.

In an era when the so-called "99%" are sick and tired of being exploited by the one percent who control everything, they just handed their medical futures over to precisely the one percent who skillfully monopolize the conventional health care system!

Obamacare is, at every level, a huge victory for the one percent.

A costly new tax on the middle class
By the year 2016, the Obamacare "penalty" tax will reach roughly $2,000 per year for a two-person household. According to Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, 75% of the financial burden of Obamacare's new taxes will fall onto Americans making less than $120,000 a year (WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year | Conservative News, Views & Books...). The great Middle Class, in other words, will bear this new tax more than anyone else.

In effect, what has really happened here is a great swindle: Obama got the middle class to support his legislation by promising it was NOT a tax, and by promising it would LOWER health insurance costs. In reality, however, it RAISES health insurance costs, it IS a tax, and the majority of that tax burden falls squarely on the very same middle-class voters who put Obama into office under false pretenses. That's a swindle, by any definition.

Not surprisingly, this realization doesn't sit well with many middle class taxpayers. While the original emotional appeal of Obamacare was nicely packaged and seductively marketed to the masses, the sobering, post-honeymoon reality slaps us all in the face like a wet fish: Smack! This thing is another huge tax increase on the working class! And on top of that, it gives the IRS scary new powers to pry into our private finances. How did you all think compliance with Obamacare was going to be enforced, anyway? It's going to empower the IRS with even more agents!

Government monopoly for Big Pharma
Even worse than the trillions in new taxes and the IRS spy grid that's now being set up to monitor compliance with Obamacare, there's also the sobering fact that Obamacare never even attempted to give consumers a free choice in their health care providers. There's no coverage of naturopathic medicine, herbal medicine, acupuncture or nutritional therapies. The entire law is written around -- and for -- Big Pharma and the conventional "sick care" industry that's best described as a "medical racket."

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't even have a chance to opt out of this corrupt, failed system of patented chemical medications and overpriced surgical procedures. Now, we are forced to hand over our hard-earned money to the very same medical system that we already know is responsible for killing over 750,000 Americans a year. It's called "iatrogenic death," and it means death by health care.

So not only are we being chemically abused and medically enslaved in America, we are now financially forced to pay for the privilege of being raked over the coals by the medical establishment. It makes you wonder... where is the "care" in Obamacare?

But wait, there's more! From this position of being coerced by the government to pay for a system of medicine you don't even want, it's not much of a leap to being coerced to undergo medical procedures you don't want, either.

How Obamacare will lead to mandatory vaccinations for everyone
Forced vaccinations -- for adults! -- are on the way, friends. And here's why: Once everybody is "in the system" of mandatory health care, we will begin to hear arguments like this:

"Anyone who refuses to get vaccinated against influenza is thereby at risk of being an influenza carrier and infecting other people, thus increasing health care costs for us all. To save money, government must force everyone to get vaccinated!"

It's a false argument, of course, but it will be used to literally line people up at courthouses (with the threat of arrest and jail time) and force them all to be vaccinated against their will.

The same false logic can be used to force people to undergo chemotherapy, take AIDS drugs, undergo coronary bypass surgery or be subjected to almost any medical procedure deemed "necessary" by the government. In the realm of mental health and psychiatry, this opens up a Pandora's Box of exploitation of patients for the purpose of raking in record profits for the criminally-operated psychiatric drug industry.

Such is the inevitable abuse of monopolistic market practices enforced by a corrupt government that serves the interests of its corporate masters: Once the sick care industry has this monopoly and can force everyone to participate, they will exploit that advantage to its fullest profiteering capacity.

Remember: It is the dream of every corporation to dominate the world. Obamacare just gave Big Pharma and the other sick care giants huge monopolistic cheats to pursue precisely that goal.

Sober up, America
In a time when consumers are increasingly demanding transparency, free choice and the ability to shop around for competitive bargains, Obamacare codifies secrecy, mandatory compliance and monopolistic practices.

Maybe it's time to sober up and take an honest look at what Obamacare really is instead of what Obama promised it would be. People bought into the dream, but what they actually received was a monumental swindle.


Stay informed! FREE subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter
Get breaking health news + a LIFETIME 7% discount on everything at the NaturalNews Store

Learn more: Obamacare, the Great Swindle

Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You...
Henry Blodget | Jul. 2, 2012, 7:35 AM | 34,410 | 113



obama supreme court


Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.

Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.

But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.

The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.

As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:

The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.

But here's some more good news for those folks:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:

Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites

And, of course, Obamacare isn't free. So, whether you pay the penalty or not, you're going to have to pay a lot of other taxes to pay for it.

Here they are :

Here Are The New Obamacare Taxes - Business Insider


Read more: How Much Is The Obamacare Penalty Tax? - Business Insider




But wait did we forget all the exemption's obummer gave out prior to all this bullcrap????? No one is mentioning those again are they, stayed tuned when I re dig them all up I will bring them back here for you all to ponder on!!!!

Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You...
Henry Blodget | Jul. 2, 2012, 7:35 AM | 34,410 | 113



Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.

Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.

But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.

The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.

As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:

The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.

But here's some more good news for those folks:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:

Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites

And, of course, Obamacare isn't free. So, whether you pay the penalty or not, you're going to have to pay a lot of other taxes to pay for it.

Here they are :

Here Are The New Obamacare Taxes - Business Insider


Read more: How Much Is The Obamacare Penalty Tax? - Business Insider




But wait did we forget all the exemption's obummer gave out prior to all this bullcrap????? No one is mentioning those again are they, stayed tuned when I re dig them all up I will bring them back here for you all to ponder on!!!!


Obamacare waivers. Did you make the updated list?
By
Larry Gilbert
– May 14, 2011Posted in: barack obama, democrats, Fresh Juice, Health Care Reform, Republican Party



Welcome to the many readers who have discovered this story from 13-1/2 months ago over the past couple of days. Please be sure to read the comments, especially the first one, which give some important context to (and introduce skepticism about aspects of) our contributor’s story. A reminder to the 1% of you who might be in a position to pay that “tax penalty” on mandated premiums: the law contains provisions saying that you can’t be punished if you can’t pay. Not your normal kind of “tax,” huh? — G.A.D. 6/29/2012.

.




While killing Osama bin Laden consumed the airwaves and print media for the past two weeks, and while we are now focused on the federal budget and our debt ceiling, the media has not addressed Obamacare waivers.
Over the past month 221 new Obamacare waivers were granted bringing the total of one year waivers to 1,372 groups that currently list over three million enrollees exempt from Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act.. There are seven categories that are broken out as follows:
39 Health Insurance Issuers covering 873,326 enrollees
457 Health reimbursement arrangements covering 116,379 enrollees
528 Self insured employers with 445,527 enrollees
315 Multi employer plans with 969,789 enrollees
27 Non Taft-Hartley union Plans covering 582,582 enrollees
4 State mandated covering 96,314 enrollees
2 Association Plans covering 11,776 enrollees
Some examples from each group added since March 1, 2011 are as follows:
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 919 7048
Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund 51,679
Carpenters Distr. Council of K.C. Welfare Fund 20,898
United Food & Comml Workers Local 1529 10,459
SEIU Health Care IL 5,897
CWA Local 1182 Security Benefits Fund 7,158
Robinsdale Area Schools 2,108
City of Rochestor HRA 7,650
Dr. DAWG/RMI 2
Philips Ace Hardware Inc 7
S.F. Honda 33
Vanguard Truck Centers 3
Monterey Mushrooms Inc 2,428
Lexus of Austin 98
Truline Trucking 966
Public Employees Local 71 Trust Fund 413
Giumarra Vinyards Corp. 1,693
REI 1,180
Local 444 Sanitation Officers Assn 2,538
N.Y. State Nurses welfare Plan 19,518
ASE/AFSCME Local 52 774
In reviewing the federal data there were no waivers granted since last Oct to “Assoc. Plans” and no new additions on “State Mandated” plans since Feb 18th.
Notice that I intentionally selected firms from two participants to over 50,000.
The following links contain the entire listing for your verification.
Annual Limits Policy: Protecting Consumers, Maintaining Options, and Building a Bridge to 2014 | cciio.cms.gov
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files...a_05132011.pdf


Obamacare waivers. Did you make the updated list? | Orange Juice


Business
How Many Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers Is In…

Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:32pm by Becket Adams Becket Adams


Since the passage of the “Affordable Care Act,” it has been some cause for concern — scandal even — that several businesses have been granted waivers excusing them from participation in the federal program.

And now we have a final number of how many businesses are exempt from “Obamacare.”

Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said Friday.

And the Final Number of Obamacare Waivers is...“One for you, and one for you, and one for you…“



“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” writes Sam Baker of The Hill.

Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on these waivers as an opportunity to advance the argument that the healthcare law is “unworkable.”

So how does the HHS justify granting the waivers? The department argues that the waivers show the law provides “flexibility.”

But who gets to choose when the law is “flexible”?

“All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.”

When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse about 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, HHS said.
Click Here

However, what’s slightly unsettling is the fact that the majority of the waivers were handed out to labor unions.

“Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation,” writes Paul Conner of the Daily Caller. “By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.”

Because of the backlash over the waivers, HHS announced last summer that it would stop accepting applications for one-year waivers and would simply grant or deny waivers all the way through the end of 2013, according to The Hill.

The total of 1,231 includes all of the waiver requests HHS granted — companies that only applied for a three-year waiver, companies that got a one-year waiver and an extension, and companies that received a one-year waiver but did not ask for an extension.

A total of 96 waiver requests were denied by HHS. Why the healthcare law couldn’t be “flexible” for those 96 requests is anyone’s guess.

“The final total is actually lower than the last monthly update. Earlier in the process, HHS had been granting waivers to a type of plan that it later decided should be completely exempt from the restrictions on annual limits,” Baker writes. “HHS had granted waivers to almost 500 of those plans before exempting them altogether.”

(h/t Weasel Zippers)


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-...waivers-is-in/



Final did some say "final" now come on with these crooked politicians, judges you know the whole crew of loons nothing is final

Montana’s Governor Sweitzer blasts Supreme Court for overturning Corrupt Practices Act
By Muriel Kane
Sunday, July 1, 2012 19:07 EDT


Topics: corrupt practices act ♦ Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer ♦ supreme court

In an uproarious appearance Sunday on MSNBC’s Up with Chris Hayes, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer had nothing good to say about the Supreme Court decision that overturned his state’s hundred year old Corrupt Practices Act.

The act had been upheld by the Montana courts on the grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision left the door open for limiting corporate political expenditures if they appeared likely to corrupt the democratic process. The past Monday, however, the Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Montana had not proven that it deserved to be considered as a special situation.

Sweitzer, who was obviously furious at the decision but tempered his anger with humor, began by telling Hayes that the law went back to the days when the two so-called “Montana copper kings” were among the richest men on the planet.

“They owned everying,” he explained. “They owned the mines, they owned the newspapers, they bought the legislature outright. In fact, when we first sent a U.S. senator to Washington, D.C. [before there was popular election of senators], William A. Clark, one of the two copper kings, he advertised in his newspapers that he would pay $10,000 cash money to any Montana legislator who would vote to send him to Washington, D.C. to the U.S. Senate.”

Schweitzer went on to describe how Clark’s henchmen handed envelopes containing $10,000 to every Montana legislator as they left the legislative chamber — but when he arrived in Washington, even the notoriously corrupt U.S. Senate refused to seat him. “Now, they’d all bribed their way into the United States Senate,” Schweizer hilariously remarked, “but with smaller sums of money, and it was dark, and it was given to their girlfriend instead.”

Finally, in 1912, the citizens of Montana passed a referendum to keep corporate money out of politics and create what Schweitzer called a “pure democracy,” with a part-time legislature composed of ordinary citizens.

“We had a system that actually worked,” Schweitzer went on, as Hayes chortled in the background. “And the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., a place where nothing works, they told us, ‘No, we don’t like your system. We think you ought to go to the corrupt system that we’re using in Washington, D.C.’”

Schweitzer concluded by saying that even the copper kings “were pikers compared to what we’re doing now.” He pointed out that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal for U.S. corporations to bribe politicians in other countries, but insisted this is only because “we have a monopoly on bribery in this country. If you’re going to bribe a politician and you’re an American company or an American individual, you’ve got to give it to American politicians. You can’t give it to a foreigner.”

This video is from MSNBC, July 1, 2012.

view the video here:

Montana’s Governor Sweitzer blasts Supreme Court for overturning Corrupt Practices Act | The Raw Story

Chief Justice Roberts, Economic Fascist
Monday, July 02, 2012 10:39




Gary North / LewRockwell.com

On July 2, 1776, Congress voted for the Declaration of Independence. Most of the members signed it on July 4, although more signed over the next month.

The problem was this: a declaration of independence from King George III (and from Parliament, which was really the source of bureaucratic meddling and taxation of a staggering 1% of GDP), was that it led within six years to massive debt, hyperinflation, and increased taxation. After 1788, it led to more of the same. It has finally led to Nanci Pelosi's ideological agent on the bench, John Roberts.

In upholding Obamacare, which is in fact Pelosicare, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He indulged in some lawyer-like deception, as lawyers are paid to do. The law specifically says that the mandatory payment for not buying insurance is a penalty, not a tax. He determined that this penalty would be unconstitutional if it were a penalty (commerce clause), so, lo and behold, it's a tax!

This is all nonsense, of course. The government has regulated lots of things under the commerce clause, telling people what they must do, can do, and cannot do. If the Supreme Court gives any regulation a thumbs-up, the regulation continues. No single case is going to reverse the federal bureaucracy from pursuing its agenda under the commerce clause.

One man's opinion on what the commerce clause means is merely his opinion. This opinion does not bind the federal bureaucracy or any future Court decision. It just gave Roberts a way to justify his theory of the legality of unlimited federal taxation, now to be collected as fines for not buying health insurance.

He argued that the government can now force residents and citizens of the United States to buy health care insurance that they do not want, or else face a government-imposed fine for not buying it. He called this a tax. The majority five accepted this.

To the extent that his opinion has established a precedent, Roberts has at long last legalized open economic fascism to America. Of course, it has been alive and well ever since the New Deal, and really since the First Bank of the United States (1791 to 1811). But now it has been placed under the judicial umbrella of a Supreme Court decision.

Economic fascism is the doctrine that there is a government-business alliance that makes the nation wealthy or strong militarily. This idea has never had a judicial basis before. Now it does.

A tax in America prior to last week was a payment by the citizen or legal entity to an agency of civil government. Not so in the new, improved American fascism, as articulated by Chief Justice Roberts. In fascism, a compulsory payment to a private, profit-seeking entity is considered a tax. You can pay it to an insurance company, or you can pay a fine to the federal government. Take your pick. They are both taxes.

CENTRAL BANKING

The first fascist agency in post-Constitution history was the First Bank of the United States. It went out of existence in 1811. The Second Bank of the United States created a replacement: 1816 to 1836.

In the historic case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall announced that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." He got the phrase from the attorneys who argued the case. It was not original with him. Conservatives love to quote that phrase. Conservatives are blind. Marshall used this doctrine to keep Maryland from levying a tax on a private entity: the Second Bank of the United States. In striking down this state tax, Marshall established the legality of economic fascism in America: the government-business alliance.

Maryland correctly argued that Congress did not have the right to delegate sovereignty to a private agency. This was the judicial heart of the matter. But Daniel Webster, who was the Bank's legal counsel, argued that Congress did have this right. Marshall sided with Webster.

The argument of Maryland is never discussed in the textbooks. This is one of those crucial facts in history that has gone down Orwell's memory hole. Marshall's creation of tax immunity for the Bank established the central legal principle of central banking. This is the cornerstone of the Federal Reserve System. It is sacrosanct. This is why any reference to Maryland's case against the Bank is not discussed. The textbooks discuss Marshall's principle as if the Bank's position as a private agency under the government's legal umbrella were somehow constitutional. It is constitutional only because Marshall steadfastly refused even to reply to the central argument of the state of Maryland.

Wikipedia provides the textbook version of the significance of this case.



This fundamental case established the following two principles:



The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.

State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.



Marshall's verbal smokescreen worked. In fact, the decision established this principle above all: A privately owned central bank that is functionally independent of Congress possesses the legal characteristic of federal sovereignty, and is therefore immune from regulation by any lower jurisdiction.

This is never discussed. This is why it is so difficult to find the text of the opposing attorneys. Before the Internet, is was almost impossible. We never saw an extract from Maryland's argument. We never saw even a summary: the issue of delegated sovereignty to a private entity.

I have provided extracts from Maryland's presentation here.

That decision handed over the nation to private central planners. The central bank has the power over the central institution of the free market: money. Marshall gave America economic fascism at the center of the economy: money. Jackson and Congress removed it. He let the Second Bank's charter lapse in 1836. (Note: the following year, 1837, was the only year in U.S. history in which the U.S. government had no debt.)

Woodrow Wilson reimposed the system, under which we live.

Marshall's opinion stuck.

ROBERTS' OPINION

If Roberts' opinion sticks, the national fascist state has its marching orders.

The central government in Washington now has the power to compel Americans to pay private companies for services they do not want, on penalty of a fine. But this fine is now called a tax.

I have read a conservative's whitewash of this monstrous decision. The writer says this was a ruling of great cunning. It was, indeed. This is one more example of terminally naive conservatives who dream that the American fascist state can be reversed on a legal technicality. Not now. Not if Roberts' argument sticks.

Roberts has enunciated as a principle of law the fundamental principle of the fascist economy: there is a legitimate government-business alliance, established by law, which places government over the private, profit-seeking business, and the business in return is granted some of the immunities possessed by the state. It means that a business can make you an offer you can't refuse. This principle is now the law of the land.

Americans must now pay insurance companies their pound of flesh or else pay a fine to the federal government. This fine is called a tax by Roberts.

Watch premiums rise!

ECONOMIC FASCISM: INDIRECT AND DIRECT

In 1819, the attorney for the state of Maryland argued against the chartering of a profit-seeking central bank is the name of the power to tax or in the name of the commerce clause. His words seem prophetic. He asked the right questions. John Marshall rejected the obvious answer: "no." He said "yes." He upheld the Second Bank of the United States. We would be wise to understand the issues raised by the losers.



But we contend, that the government of the United States must confine themselves, in the collection and expenditure of revenue, to the means which are specifically enumerated in the constitution, or such auxiliary means as are naturally connected with the specific means.



But what natural connection is there between the collection of taxes, and the incorporation of a company of bankers? Can it possibly be said, that because congress is invested with the power of raising and supporting armies, that it may give a charter of monopoly to a trading corporation, as a bounty for enlisting men? Or that, under its more analogous power of regulating commerce, it may establish an East or a West India company, with the exclusive privilege of trading with those parts of the world? Can it establish a corporation of farmers of the revenue, or burden the internal industry of the states with vexatious monopolies of their staple productions?

Justice Roberts also said "yes" – not on the commerce clause, but on taxes. The power to tax is the power to destroy. It is also the power to force Americans to pay for insurance they do not want to fund high-risk participants in the program.

In 1819, American economic fascism was indirect and limited to central banking: a prohibition against a state tax on a privately owned, federally chartered agency. This indirectly subsidized a private corporation. Under Roberts' economic fascism, Americans will be taxed by the government unless they do business with privately owned agencies. This indirectly subsidizes private insurance agencies.

CONCLUSION

Economically, nothing has changed. It's the same old system. What makes this new variant new is that it is judicially protected under the taxation clause rather than the commerce clause.

It's like dog turds or cat turds. Take your pick.

July 2, 2012

Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit Gary North -- Specific Answers. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

lewrockwell.com/north/north1162.html

Copyright © 2012 Gary North

Fair Use Notice: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are makingsuch material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any suchcopyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest inreceiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that gobeyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Before It's News

Categorized | News
John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate

Posted on 28 June 2012 by William Grigg

In a ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court — the same entity that acknowledged in 1819 that the “power to tax is the power to destroy” –has ruled that the federal government can use the taxing power to compel its subjects to participate in a government-run corporatist health care system.

During a 2009 interview with the obsequious George Stephanopolos, President Obama said that he “absolutely reject[s] the notion” that the federal health care mandate is a tax increase. This morning, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by nominal conservative Chief Justice Roberts, rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause permits an individual health care mandate; however, the Court also claimed that it could impose such a directive by means of a direct un-apportioned tax (which is not authorized by the Constitution – see Article I section 2, clause 3 — and thus is expressly forbidden by it, as if that mattered anymore).

“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” wrote Roberts, deploying the tactical disingenuousness such people always display whenever they ratify a federal power grab. This feigned humility was used to cloak an unambiguous lie: The measure Roberts describes is a direct un-apportioned tax, which, as we’ve seen, is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

In the opinion he wrote on behalf of the four dissenting justices, Antonin Scalia described the Obamacare individual mandate, and the powers arrogated by Washington to enforce it, as a “blatant violation of the constitutional structure,” irrespective of the conceptual framework used to justify it.

Scalia pointed out that with respect to the constitutional power “to tax and spend for the general welfare,” the High Court “has long since expanded that beyond … taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers” to the point that it now effectively manages practically every aspect of the lives of U.S. citizens – and has absorbed all of the powers and functions once reserved to the states. The gravamen of this case, Scalia insists, is not whether the mandate can be justified on grounds other than the Commerce Clause, but whether there are any identifiable limits on the exercise of federal power:

What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to com*pel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

The Obamacare statute “exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in deny*ing non-consenting States all Medicaid funding,” Scalia concludes. “These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.”

Roberts’ ruling is applied Leninism – a pragmatic way of justifying the government’s intention to exercise “power without limit, resting directly on force.” Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time – an irreplaceable and finite quantity – in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright.

In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts has placed the High Court’s imprimatur on the proposition that the regime ruling us can steal our lives incrementally in order to force each of us to participate in a health care program that will regulate every aspect of the lives that remain – and either kill or imprison those of us who refuse to participate.

Read the ruling here.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf



Constitutional Traitor John Roberts Approves Obamacare Tax MandateREPUBLIC MAGAZINE | THE VOICE OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT