Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)


    1 of 2
    By: Devvy
    July 10, 2012

    After Roberts toxic decision, the Internet and talk radio burned up the atmosphere and blogs non stop for days. Analysis came from all directions. Particularly disappointing was the spin by "conservatives":

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

    "Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases. Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded. And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner. Brilliant."

    I'm not down on John Roberts

    "Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue.....Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don't really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach."
    How utterly stupid and foolish.

    The biggest disappointment for me came from Virginia's Attorney General:
    Ken Cuccinelli, on second thought, likes Supreme Court health-care decision

    “They preserved our first principles protections, our individual liberty protections. They advanced state sovereignty, strangely enough, while keeping the law. That was not one of the combinations that were even in our top five. That permutation was one that we didn't spend a lot of time thinking was a likely outcome. But here we are. That's the one we've got. “They've turned this whole thing into a spending and regulation question with this ruling. The individual liberty pieces were preserved and states got strengthened here in the constitutional structure under this ruling.”

    Pray tell how we are supposed to enjoy individual liberty with that decision? The power to tax is the power to destroy. Roberts just handed the gangsters in the U.S. Congress the power to tax us into poverty for not doing something they demand we do.

    While there have been dozens of very good analysis about that decision, I believe Van Irion, an attorney with the Liberty Legal Foundation hit it on point perfectly:
    Unconstitutional Obamacare Ruling – Playing Politics with the Constitution

    "...Despite his protestations to the contrary, his ruling that the individual mandate is a tax and not a penalty ignores explicit statements from Congress, disregards decades of precedent on this subject, turns judicial restraint on its head, and opens a new floodgate for federal abuses. So, I immediately asked myself why he did what he did. Within a day the answer became apparent: Justice Roberts set aside the Constitution to play politics.

    "Immediately after the ruling was made public I began hearing conservatives pushing the idea that Justice Roberts’ ruling was a stroke of genius. The idea is that leaving Obamacare in place will ensure Obama’s defeat in the upcoming election.

    "I agree that Thursday's ruling may help Romney and hurt Obama. Polls unambiguously show that Obamacare is very unpopular. Even among liberals the popularity of Obamacare has been trending down since its passage. The longer Obamacare is in place the more we will learn about this horrible law, and the less popular it will become.

    More importantly, elections turn on which party's base turns out to vote. In political circles it is a well-known fact that voters turn out when their leader is under attack by the opposing party. I was recently told by a Republican Senator that Congress would never attempt to impeach Obama before the November election, regardless of what crimes Obama may commit, because any such attempt would bring out the Obama voter base.....

    "I'm convinced that Justice Roberts’ appalling disregard of the Constitution was motivated by his desire to ensure Obama’s defeat in November. This would explain his surprising agreement with Kagan, Sotomayor, Bryer, and Ginsberg. It explains his disregard of well-established precedent on the tax and spend clause. It explains what is otherwise a completely unsupportable ruling.

    "If I'm right about Justice Roberts’ motives he should be impeached (at the very least) for violating his oath of office. It does not matter whether we agree that Obama must be defeated. It does not matter that Thursday's ruling may get Romney elected. Supreme Court Justices should never play politics with the Constitution.

    "Justice Roberts’ statement that “It is not our (the Supreme Court's) job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” is shocking in the extreme. This is EXACTLY the job of the Supreme Court! Our Constitution protects individuals from a tyrannical majority. Political choices of the majority can NEVER violate the God-given rights of even one person. The Constitution was written to protect THIS principle.

    Now the Chief Justice has told us that it is not the Court's job to protect the people from the political choices of the majority. Anyone tempted to justify Justice Roberts’ ruling by claiming that it was a brilliant political move has completely missed the point of our entire system of government.

    "Our Constitution is the only thing protecting individual citizens against a tyrannical government. It is the only thing that can prevent our government from falling into absolute despotism. In order to function the Constitution must be enforced by a Supreme Court that does not bend to political whims. Constitutional limits on authority must be absolute, or they are not limitations at all. Justice Roberts sacrificed the Constitution to political considerations. This is unforgivable."

    One does have to wonder what game Roberts was playing:

    John Roberts: Bribery or blackmail?

    "...His name is Chief Justice John Roberts, the high-court jurist who wrote perhaps the most dishonest majority decision in the history of the nation, upholding Obamacare as a constitutional tax. But then again, it was revealed on the streets of the capital just a few days ago that Roberts not only wrote the majority decision, but before he miraculously switched sides and voted with the leftist wing of the Supreme Court – socialist Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor – he had also written what ultimately became the minority opinion signed by conservative justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy."

    Republicans have been using the decision to push to the point of ad nauseum -- Elect Mitt!!! And, what does their golden boy have to say about the decision?

    'It's a Tax and It's Constitutional;' Romneycare Was a 'Penalty,' And It's Constitutional, Too

    "Romney said both Obamacare and Romneycare should now be considered constitutional. "The Supreme Court has the final word, and their final word is that Obamacare is a tax. So it's a tax. They decided it was constitutional, so it's a tax and it's constitutional. That's the final word. That's what it is," Romney said."

    Any remedies?

    There's all kinds of political posturing going on from career GOP politicians in the Outlaw Congress. There will be a symbolic vote this week by the House. Unfortunately, the unlawfully seated Senate is not going to vote to repeal it and even if they did, the impostor in the White House will never sign it. All just another circus. Since Soetoro/Obama was ineligible to run for president in 2008, he never had the legal authority to sign the 2700 page bill into law in the first place.

    Joel Skousen who writes the excellent World Affairs Brief weekly newsletter has good news:

    "Brett M. Decker of the Washington Times has the story. “Sunshine State Gov. Rick Scott is leading the charge [along with Senator Jim DeMint from SC, to not implement the law]. He told The Washington Times over the weekend, ‘Florida will not implement Obamacare.’ Palmetto State Gov. Nikki Haley [SC] is standing firm as well. ‘We're not going to shove more South Carolinians into a broken system,’ her office said of the health care law's planned Medicaid extension to those over the poverty line, according to the Nation magazine. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who heroically took on Badger State labor unions and won, says the November election is central for repeal. ‘I am hopeful that political changes in Washington D.C. later this year ultimately will end the implementation of this law at the federal level,’ he said. Until then, the cheesehead governor isn't taking action to implement any of the law.

    “Republicans control 32 governorships. At least 24 of these state leaders have announced they will not implement Mr. Obama's and Chief Justice Roberts' Affordable Care Act or are on the fence about what parts of it to implement and what to ignore. The list of those saying in clear language that they will refuse to implement Obamacare in their states includes Ohio's John Kasich, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Kansan Sam Brownback, Georgia's Nathan Deal and Alaska's Sean Parnell. Those who are pushing back against certain parts or are supporting legislative repeal are New Jersey's Chris Christie, Arizona's Jan Brewer, Mississippi's Phil Bryant, Tennessee's Bill Haslam, Alabama's Robert Bentley, Idaho's Butch Otter, Iowa's Terry Branstad, Texan Rick Perry, Virginia's Bob McDonnell, Utah's Gary Herbert, Wyoming's Matt Mead, Nevada's Brian Sandoval, Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett and Maine's Paul LePage. These states represent over 117 million Americans. This overwhelming show of defiance to a federal dictate sets up a states' rights war not seen in decades."

    Joel also had this....tidbit:

    "Somewhere along the way, Roberts was convinced to switch sides. Not only that, he crafted his shift by reinterpreting the law, against its specific wording as a penalty, and changed it to a tax. This way he could still uphold his original commitment to interpret the mandate as unconstitutional and yet allow the ACA to pass constitutional muster. That’s a sign of a man looking for an excuse, any excuse, under pressure. I have often claimed that no one is allowed to get on the Supreme Court in recent years without being controlled by some form of blackmail.

    "Speculation is circulating about what could be the controlling factors relative to Judge Roberts. The foremost claims center on whether or not the Chief Justice is gay. The judge has had a long-standing and favorable association with the gay community and has done a lot of pro-bono work for gays. All of this is circumstantial and not proof. There are photographs circulated with him out with the “boys” but neither are those conclusive.

    "He married a high profile woman lawyer when he was 41, neither of which seemed interested in marriage. One legal commentator suspects that Justice Roberts, like many before and after him, has an arranged marriage. “Many who look to reach a high public level must show they are ‘normal’ to the American people. Few if any men get appointed that are single (or openly gay). Some people use the old money marries money and some use the picture perfect family as the poster.

    "I can’t say whether or not Roberts is gay but it is telling that he was not only rushed through the confirmation process, but that he was made chief justice despite being new on the bench. That was very strange and hints strongly that the powerful forces that control our government knew Roberts was someone they could use at crucial moments such as these. He came through for them in a big way this time but at least he will never be trusted by conservatives again." (My note: His two children are adopted.)

    Oklahoma State Rep. to Propose ObamaCare Nullification Bill

    I believe we will see more states finally use nullification and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House - see Part II

    Click here for part -----> 1, 2,


    1- Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of 21 of the new taxes that Americans will be paying as a result of Obamacare
    2- The "Taxing Clause", Five Lawless Judges and Obamacare
    3- 2700 pages based on a lie
    4- The seduction of a chief justice
    5- ObamaCare law raise concerns of massive government expansion
    6- Adoption Records

    Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

    Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

    E-mail is:

    Devvy Kidd -- Obamacare: Nullification, equal protection and important court cases, Part 1
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 07-09-2012 at 10:03 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)

    1 of 2

    By: Devvy
    July 10, 2012

    Some are saying 'Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House'

    "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may now be invalid because the Supreme Court ruled that it relies on a tax for implementation.

    "According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase - not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives.

    "Consequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is unconstitutional on a different criteria than the ones considered by the Supreme Court in this latest landmark decision. By calling the individual mandate unconstitutional but allowing the law as a federal program to be funded by new taxes, Justice Roberts essentially nullified the law."

    Followed up by this commentary from Rocky Montana: "To give strength to the argument below: It is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to create or rewrite law; it is charged with one, and only one, enormous responsibility which is to interpret and decide whether laws and cases coming before it are constitutional or not, period. The Obamacare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Mandate was wisely "interpreted" and struck down as unconstitutional by five out of nine Supreme Court judges (a majority), including Chief Justice John Roberts.

    "Obamacare was not written as a Tax Law (under the broadly interpreted taxing-powers - Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution); it was written as a Mandate Law (under the Commerce Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution). The Obamacare Law has zero language in it that speaks to a tax upon the people. Don't be hoodwinked America; neither Chief Justice John Roberts (nor any other judge) can magically wave their hand and rewrite Obamacare and ordain "it survives as a tax" like some grand wizard. Obamacare does not survive as a tax because it was not written as a tax! (Again, the Supremes DO NOT have the constitutional authority to create or rewrite law.)

    "Under the recent Supreme Court interpretation and decision, if Obamacare is ever to become law, as stated below, the law must be rewritten as a tax and be reintroduced in the House of Representatives for an up or down vote, and if passed must go to the Senate for an up or down vote, and if passed must be signed into law by the President. Anything less than this course of action is unconstitutional and, therefore, unlawful and illegal."

    We shall see.

    My dear friend and constitutional attorney for over 35 years, Larry Becraft penned this:

    "There is a constitutional problem regarding Obamacare that nobody has mentioned: it violates principles of equal protection. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains an equal protection component, and thus equal protection principles apply to the feds. See Bolling v Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954); and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224 (1995).

    "The alleged need for Obamacare to take over the whole medical system in this country was based on the failure of a segment of American society to have medical insurance.

    Apparently, those who don't have medical insurance adversely impact the medical industry and the delivery of medical services. However, it must be noted that those with medical insurance did not cause this problem. For purposes of argument only, let's presume that the insured American public constitutes 80% of the populace, while the uninsured comprise 20% of the populace.

    "When a legislative body is attempting to address a social problem, whether great or small, it cannot impose duties on those who are not a part of or the cause of the problem without violating equal protection principles. For example, drunk drivers do constitute a hazard on the roads. But to address the problem caused by drunk drivers, a legislative body could not adopt of law affecting 100% of the driving public, inclusive of people who are not causing the problem, because to do so would violate equal protection.

    "Principles of equal protection are concerned with legislative classifications. If a legislature detects a problem and adopts of law that affects only a segment of those causing the problem, the legislature has created an “underinclusive” class. If it adopts of law that affects a far broader class than those causing the problem, it has created an “overinclusive” class. See Alvarez v. Chavez, 118 N.M. 732, 886 P.2d 461 (1994)(license restriction for bondsmen was overinclusive); Beach Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm., 965 F.2d 1103, 1105 (D.C.Cir. 1992)(distinction in Cable Act between “external, quasi-private” and “wholly private” cable systems was “overinclusive * * * in that this burden does not serve the Act's purpose”); Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64, 69 (Fla. 1990)(“Equal protection analysis requires that classifications be neither too narrow nor too broad to achieve the desired end.

    "Such underinclusive or overinclusive classifications fail to meet even the minimal standards of the rational basis test”); French v. Amalgamated Local Union 376, 203 Conn. 624, 526 A.2d 861 (1987)(ban on residential picketing except for unions was overinclusive); Treants Enterprises, Inc. v. Onslow County, 83 N.C. App. 345, 350 S.E.2d 365 (1986); District of Columbia v. E.M., 467 A.2d 457, 466 (D.C.App.1983) (welfare statute of limitations was void because classes were both “underinclusive and overinclusive”); Isakson v. Rickey, 550 P.2d 359 (Alaska 1976)(using the rational basis test, the Court determined that a commercial fisherman limitation was unconstitutional because the act’s classifications were both overbroad and underinclusive); Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 214, 95 S.Ct. 2268 (1975)(“the legislative classification is strikingly underinclusive”); Laakonen v. Eighth Judicial District Court for County of Clark, 91 Nev. 506, 538 P.2d 574 (1975)(guest statute violated equal protection); Sturrup v. Mahan, 261 Ind. 463, 305 N.E.2d 877, 881 (1974)(“This is precisely where the rules sweep too broadly, they create an over-inclusive class”); Boraas v. Village of Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806, 815 fn. 8 (2nd Cir. 1973)(“grossly overinclusive or underinclusive classifications should not be readily tolerated”); Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal.3d 855, 506 P.2d 212, 227 (1973)(California guest statute was overinclusive, had many exceptions and it “‘imposes a burden upon a wider range of individuals than are included in the class of those tainted with the mischief at which the law aims’”); and Patton v. State of North Carolina, 381 F.2d 636, 643 (4th Cir. 1967).

    "Why does Obamacare violate equal protection? Those who have insurance will have their medical services and treatments curtailed and controlled, even though they are not a part of the problem, which is caused by the uninsured. Encompassing 100% of the public to address a problem created by 20% of the public creates an overinclusive class, which violates equal protection. But then again, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid already solved the problem caused by the uninsured by taxing them in an amount that approximates insurance premiums. "Obamacare is not only unconstitutional, it is insanely so."

    We know that obscene 2700 page bill will restrict access to treatment. Liberty Counsel did a point by point breakdown: Obama Administration's Health Care Plan - HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives:

    Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16 - Your health care will be rationed!

    Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - There will be a government committee deciding what treatments and benefits you get.

    Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

    • Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens.

    Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID health care card will be issued!

    Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

    Sec. 164, Pg. 65 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations (ACORN).

    Now, if you go to this document - H.R. 3200 introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, you can take the sections cited above to verify what they say is true.

    Please note that document is 1,017 pages. You can bet 99% of the outlaws in the U.S. Congress didn't read it. Oh, and who wrote the bill? Michael Moore Celebrates Obamacare Law Written by Insurance Companies

    Next we head on over to this official document at "Read the Law. Here we provide two ways for you to read the text of the Affordable Care Act." You'll notice the section numbers are different from H.R.3200 and it's 2490 pages. (Some three hundred pages were only given to Congress at the last minute.). Why? One of our veterans who has a real way with the pen, wrote this [in part] to Rep. Cliff Sterns:

    "The Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare was a split the baby decision. The court was right on the Commerce Clause and Medicaid mandate but the taxing authority was an abomination. Like most everything Congress does, Obamacare and many other programs are outside what Article 1, Section 8 authorizes. Most troubling is the fact the media ignores the criminal acts perpetrated by Senate Majority Leader Reid who in this case, violated the Constitutions Origination clause. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 clearly states, “All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

    "Legislative history shows that on September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced H.R. 3590, titled the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 modifying the first-time homebuyers’ credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and John Boehner was the minority leader when this bill passed on October 8, 2009 by a 416-0 vote. This bill went to the Senate where Majority Leader Harry Reid gutted H.R. 3590, deleted all the contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with what became the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" of November 19, 2009.

    "House members including the Speaker, Senators, and Chief Justice Roberts know the only thing about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originating in the House of Representatives is the bill number, H.R. 3590. Justice Roberts disregarded the bill's legislative history ignoring the Origination Clause. He refused to explain how the Senate's ruse circumvented the Framers' clear intent in the Origination Clause. His decision legalized Senate Majority Leader Reid's criminal behavior. This decision allows future but equally corrupt majority leaders to replicate this fraud if this law stands.

    "The reason Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 dictates taxes originate in the House. It is the legislative body most accountable to the people. Written thusly it forces house members to weigh the necessity of taxes against the price representatives must pay at their next election, which is never more than two years away. Congress knew what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax.[2]

    This decision represents imposition of a tax by judicial fiat, which inverts the constitutional scheme, placing the power to tax in the hands of a branch of government least accountable to the people." Roy G. Callahan, US Navy (Ret.)

    That Affordable Care Act I referenced above is H.R. 3590. You can see by the overview that mess will cost trillions. Most of the unconstitutional provisions do not kick in until 2014, but the impostor president's lackeys have already been stealing the fruits of your labor to set that monstrous new bureaucracy into motion. On page 10 you'll see the National Health Care Workforce. There are more work force training and grants than sand on a beach. Cha-ching. Page 14 gives you the Revenue Provisions and Sec. 9015: Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.

    And people wonder why health care costs have skyrocketed? The parasites at DHS are busy writing 13,000 new regulations for that "law".

    A nightmare beyond description:

    1- CHART: This Is How Much Obamacare Penalties Will Cost You

    Chart shows Obamacare's bewildering complexity (scroll down below text)

    Obamacare in 5 pictures

    That law that isn't a law (signed by a usurper) contains dozens of commissions and panels on treatment, withholding treatment, medicines and more. The only problem is the U.S. Congress has NO authority under Art.

    1, Sec. 8 to legislate any of it:

    Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925): "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government."

    Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 598, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926): “It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”

    Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925): "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government".

    Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Linder).

    United States v. Anthony et al
    ., 15 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.Cal. 1936) (June 23 1936) - Nos. 12069-12072. United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division

    "I am referring to these facts in order to indicate that we must bear in mind the purpose of the act — that the act is a borderline statute which must be interpreted in such a manner as to bring it within the constitutional power. And if we depart from it and interpret it either as attempting to regulate the disposition and sale of narcotics or attempting the regulation of medicine, we extend the act to the realm which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said the federal government cannot enter, under the penalty of unconstitutionality.

    "The Linder Case (Linder v. United States [1925] 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 449, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R. 229) is very important. We all seem to agree, whether we read it alike or not, that it determines this case, so far as the law is concerned. I wish to refer to it for the present only for the purpose of pointing out that the moment we assume that this act regulates the sale within the state of narcotics and that it aims to regulate the practice of medicine, we must hold it unconstitutional.

    "In the Linder Case, Mr. Justice McReynolds, speaking for the court, made this observation: "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government."

    For all the doctors and other health care practitioners out there: join together and find competent legal counsel. If I were a doctor, I would refuse to have anything to do with Obamacare because as the courts above have said: legislating medical practice is beyond the power of the federal government. "Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease."

    If I were a doctor, I would tell Kathleen Sebelius and her unconstitutional Department of Health and Human Services: See you in court. That goes for Catholic hospitals and doctors.

    The rebellion began June 28, 2012. I hope some enterprising person out there prints tee shirts (on the back so people can read it behind you at the post office, grocery store or bank) which says:


    We will not comply

    The rebellion has begun

    Under that a picture of John Roberts (shoulders up) and the U.S. Constitution with a lit match underneath.
    I'll buy some -- as long as they are made in the USA. There are plenty of companies that sell blank tee shirts made in THIS country, not communist China. Someone could make some money and keep Americans employed. Sounds like a grand idea to me!

    This battle has just begun. While the states are doing the right thing with refusing to comply, their citizens are still at risk from the dragoons at the IRS. Many more court battles to come with an important one by the Liberty Legal Foundation: "Liberty Legal Foundation intends to use its existing Obamacare Class Action lawsuit to bring Obamacare to the Supreme Court again. Because we have already begun our lawsuit we are well-positioned to reach the Supreme Court quickly. With a little providence we will reach the Court just when Justice Roberts has begun to regret last week's mistake."

    Click here for part -----> 1, 2,


    1- Obamacare Is An Unconstitutional Direct Tax
    2- Model legislation for states to nullify
    3- According To An MD - Part 1 Of Obama Care Was Already Passed Last February
    4- Supreme Errors
    5- ObamaCare: "Suddenly, Everyone Wants Out."

    Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

    Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

    E-mail is:
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 07-09-2012 at 09:59 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts