-
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pressuring our Representatives and Senators to vote on repealing ObamaCare yet this session is not to get ObamaCare repealed before the November elections, because we know that the Senate and President Obama would not permit that.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
-
http://www.cagw.org/assets/images/ccagw_logo.gif
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yckwp...layer_embedded
“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
http://linksterdiversions.files.word...pg?w=450&h=241
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.
.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-co.../obamacare.jpg
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…“
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...Healthcare.png
“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
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-conten...-screencap.jpg
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
http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpres...hn_roberts.jpg
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
-
Poll: Employers insuring fewer employees
http://cdn.ph.upi.com/sv/upi/UPI-596...-employees.jpg
Health care reform supporters cheer after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a majority of President Obama's health care reform bill, outside of the Supreme Court on June 28, 2012 in Washington, D.C. UPI/Kevin Dietsch
License photo
Published: July 5, 2012 at 6:16 PM
WASHINGTON, July 5 (UPI) -- The percentage of U.S. adults ages 26-64 with health insurance dropped from 56.7 percent in 2011 to 55.9 percent in June, a survey indicates.
The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index surveyed 87,521 U.S. adults April 1 to June 30 and found the percentage of 18- to 25-year-olds with employer-based insurance had increased.
The slight uptick from 2011 to 2012 in employer-based insurance among 18- to 25-year-olds came as the provision of the Affordable Care Act allowed them to stay on their parents' plans until age 26 went into effect.
The percentage of all U.S. adults with employer-based health insurance was 44.2 percent in the second quarter of 2012, a percentage that has been decreasing since the recession began in 2008.
Government-based health insurance -- Medicare, Medicaid and military/veterans' benefits -- was at 25.7 percent in the second quarter of 2012 -- much higher than it had been in 2008 or 2009, Gallup said.
The survey has a margin of error of 1 percentage point.
Read more: Poll: Employers insuring fewer employees - UPI.com
Read more: Poll: Employers insuring fewer employees - UPI.com
Poll: Employers insuring fewer employees - UPI.com
Well isn't that the plan to begin with, to get corporations out from under giving healthcare to their employees??? After all they got rid of the pensions didn't they...my opinion of course
-
12 Incredible Quotes About ObamaCare
Bert Atkinson Jr. July 2, 2012 5:16 pm
http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/u.../07/image.jpeg
#1 Donald Trump
Let me get this straight . . .
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t! Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese , and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!!
‘What the hell could possibly go wrong?’
#2 Senior Wall Street Journal Economics Writer Stephen Moore during an interview with Fox and Friends….
“Again, whatever you want to call it Alisyn, fines, taxes, penalties, but three quarters of those costs will fall on the backs of families who make less than $120,00 a year, so it’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class families.”
#3 Dr. Elaina George of the Project 21 African-American Conservative Leadership Network
“Because of the mandate, Americans will be forced to pay for a system that will increase costs for patients, remove health care decisions from both the doctor and the patient and lead to rationing. It changes health care as we know it into a system based on one-size-fits-all, cost-controlled and conveyor belt socialized medicine”
#4 The incomparable Charlie Daniels
“The United States of America took a giant step toward a totalitarian socialist government when the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare, allowing the individual mandate for the government to force American citizens to buy health insurance whether they want to or not.”
#5 Ron Paul
“This is patently obvious: the power to ‘regulate’ commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way. The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state — a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.”
#6 U.S. Representative Todd Akin
“Today America is threatened with a stage three cancer of socialism, and Obamacare is exhibit 1. There are many of us here who have been fighting this for three years and we don’t really want the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the post office introduced in our healthcare and we are not going to rest until every single line of this bill is repealed.”
#7 The Health Ranger Mike Adams
“But even if Obama is replaced in the White House, the damage has already been done. With its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has set a precedent of government control over private paychecks, and that precedent has fundamentally crushed economic freedom in America and opened the door to limitless taxes for everything imaginable. King George III couldn’t have done it better.”
#8 Documentary Filmmaker Michael Moore
“You better get on the train or watch your party implode – that’s my words of advice to the Republican Party”
#9 The communications director of the Tenth Amendment Center Mike Maharrey
“The states simply need to follow Thomas Jefferson’s prescription and nullify the entire act. They should just refuse to implement this monstrosity. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has already indicated he will refuse, and other states should follow his lead.”
#10 Becky Ayers
I’ve never bought medical insurance. The only time a policy has covered me was when it came incidental to a job. The Lord has blessed me with disgustingly good health; then, too, when I was 18, my mother died of a brain tumor that had escaped diagnosis for six yearsdespite excruciating headaches and other symptoms a professor of nursing later described as “classic.” If I were bleeding and unconscious, I might wind up in the clutches of the medical establishment, but never of my own volition.
Pages: 1 2
12 Incredible Quotes About ObamaCare
Bert Atkinson Jr. July 2, 2012 5:16 pm
So I deeply and personally resent Roberts’s little parlor-trick of a word-game. Forcing me to buy medical insurance is unconstitutional if we call it a “fine” but perfectly OK if it’s a “tax.”
#11 Byron Maduska in the Leavenworth Times….
“A new survey of Doctors has been released. The results are bleak.
If Obamacare is fully implemented, 83 percent will consider leaving the practice of medicine. Sixty-one percent say it’s an affront to their ethics. Eighty-five percent say it destroys the doctor-patient relationship. Sixty-five percent say governmental involvement is the cause of the problems in medical care now. Seventy-two percent say the insurance mandate won’t result in improved access to medical care. Seventy-four percent say they’ll stop accepting Medicare patients, or leave Medicare altogether. Seventy percent say reducing governmental involvement would be the single best fix for healthcare in this country. The negatives of Obamacare went on and on in the results of the survey.”
#12 Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
“This decision goes against the very principle that America has a federal government of limited powers; a principle that the Founding Fathers clearly wrote into the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was meant to restrict the power of government precisely for the purpose of protecting your liberty and mine from the overreaching hand of the federal government. This unprecedented decision says that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy private goods or face fines – a power it has never had in American history, and a power King George III and Parliament didn’t have over us when we were mere subjects of Great Britain. Since the federal government itself could never articulate to the court a constitutional limit to this power, Congress has gained an unlimited power to force citizens to buy anything.”
So what do you think Obamacare is going to do to the healthcare system in America?
(H/T The American Dream)
In the words of a commenter below, let’s all see that these comments are SHARED and SHARED and SHARED…
12 Incredible Quotes About ObamaCare - Independent Journal Review
-
Health Care Reform Will Not Be Televised
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR6s3EBsjOs&feature=player_embedded
Small Group Now Leads Closed-Door Reform Negotiations
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Three months before he was elected president, Barack Obama vowed not only to reform health care but also to pass the legislation in an unprecedented way.
"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table," he said at an appearance in Chester, Va., repeating an assertion he made many times. He said the discussions would be "televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies."
But now, as a Senate vote on health-care legislation nears, those negotiations are occurring in a setting that is anything but revolutionary in Washington: Three senators are working on the bill behind closed doors.
Continue reading here
Small Group Now Leads Closed-Door Reform Negotiations
With the passage of the the 'Affordable Care Act' and its
'constitutionality' being upheld by the Supreme Court jesters, the
nation is as divided as it has ever been.
Divided why?
Because most people don't even know what's in it.
Why don't they know what's in it?
Because the promise to conduct the negotiations openly and on
television was broken...
Video:
Obama Watch: Health Care Reform Will Not Be Televised
Goodman Green
- Brasscheck
P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.
That's how we grow. Thanks.
-
The ‘Jedi Mind Trick’ of the Obamacare Tax
Tuesday, July 10, 2012 | Subscribe to Video Updates
When the ‘individual mandate is a tax’ concept is presented to some Democrats, they just don’t find it acceptable. So they try to use the Jedi mind trick. They simply repeat ‘it is not a tax’ on various news shows, possibly hoping it will enter the minds of viewers and the host will repeat it back convinced that the tax does not exist.
via ConservativeVideos.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FO3wNt07d7s
The
-
Obamacare Update: 'It Is Now Being Enforced & The Horror Is Unfolding' -- Michael Connelly - Constitutional Lawyer
Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:02
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/gal.../555/64/64.jpg
http://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/...image00110.jpg
The first article I wrote and posted on this blog was in August 2009 and it was titled “The Truth About the Health Care Bills.” It was based on my reading of the original 1100 pages of H.R. 3299 that was the first of the proposed bills. Based on what I read in that bill and other proposals I made a number of predictions about what would happen if the bill passed. I was immediately viscously attacked by those on the left who believe freedom of speech is only allowed if you agree with them.
I received death threats, was called every name in the book, and people claimed that I was lying about being an attorney and a Constitutional Law Instructor. The group “Media Matters” funded by George Soros went berserk as did some other left wing so called “fact check” groups that never really disputed the facts I presented, but challenged my opinions.
In any case, the law that finally passed was 2700 pages long and in most respects is worse than the original. It is now being enforced and the horror is unfolding. I have therefore reposted by original article below and made comments in bold black to illustrate how, unfortunately, most of the things I predicted are now reality.
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE BILLS
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved,(Various panels made up of bureaucrats appointed by the Obama administration will decide health care expenditures under Medicare, and decide what patients will receive specific types of care. They will also choose the doctors and hospitals that can be used by each patient. This is a direct interference with the doctor patient relationship and is clearly rationing.)free health care for illegal immigrants, (millions of dollars have been appropriated to set up clinics in certain states to provide free medical treatment for immigrants. However, employees of the clinics are prohibited from asking patients about their legal status.) free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.(Doctors and nurses are not yet being forced to perform abortions, but religious institutions are being forced to finance free contraception, and abortion inducing morning after pills, despite the fact that this violates their religious beliefs and is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. The next step will certainly be mandating that Catholic hospitals and others provide full abortion services.)
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. (Although the so called “public option” was removed from the final version of the health care bill it is still alive and well in the minds of most proponents of the legislation. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the mainstream news media all assured Americans that under Obamacare health care costs and insurance premiums would decline. The exact opposite is true. Health care costs continue to rise and so do insurance premiums. Small businesses can’t afford to provide insurance for their employees and the employees can’t afford it on their own. In addition, insurance companies are being forced to provide benefits that will ultimately force many of them to price themselves out of business.) All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. (Under the provisions of Obamacare some 138 new Federal agencies or committees have been established to make many of the decisions on your health care that were previously made by you and your physician. The most heinous of the provisions in the law in this area places a tax on artificial limbs including those being provided to elderly veterans, and our troops that have wounded fighting for our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Veterans Administration will not pay the tax so these heroes and their families will have to pick up the tab. The same is not true for illegal aliens. They can get them at taxpayer expense.)
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. (Ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the individual mandate portion of the law passed by Congress was not constitutionally permissible under either the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution. However, using some bizarre reasoning five Justices found it Constitutional under the taxing power of Congress. They ignored the Constitutional requirement that all tax laws must originate in the House of Representatives, while the final version of Obamacare originated in the Senate. The bottom line is that Congress passed a piece of legislation without reading it and it gave Obama and the Executive Branch the power to make over 4,000 decisions on every aspect of health care without any Congressional approval or oversight.)
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration to of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. (This is all in the process of being implemented under the rules and regulations being adopted as a result of the law.) All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law. (When this original article was written the penalty for not complying with the original mandate was styled as a tax. Then to quell some of the overwhelming opposition to the proposed law, it became a penalty or a fine. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that it is in fact a tax. I personally don’t care what it is called, or what the five Justices on the Supreme Court say, it is still unconstitutional.)
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. (The only victory in the Obamacare court challenge for those who support the Constitution came when the Court ruled that the federal government could not compel the states to put millions of people on the Medicaid rolls without any way to finance it. This was a victory for the 10th Amendment, but what about we the people and our rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments? Apparently those don’t exist any longer.)
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. (This paragraph is self explanatory and I stand by it.)
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
And another to the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Transcript Text
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
mrobertc@hotmail.com
Home - Connelly
Home
Before It's News
-
IRS has no legal basis to collect Affordable Care Act tax - It's all an act!
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Many Americans right now are reeling in disgust over the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. But according to a recent report by My Way News, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which will allegedly be tasked with enforcing the new health insurance mandate in the form of a "tax" for non-compliance, does not actually have the authority or legal standing to collect penalties from individuals who choose to "opt-out" of the mandate.
As many NaturalNews readers already know, most Americans will be required under the Affordable Care Act to purchase health insurance, as well as show proof, beginning in 2014, that they purchased health insurance in accordance with the mandate. Those who decide not to purchase health insurance will be charged a penalty, also known as a "tax" according to Chief Justice John Roberts (Natural health news), which is to be collected by the IRS.
But apparently the IRS does not have the legal authority to force anyone to pay this tax, regardless of whether or not they choose to purchase health insurance. According to the law, the IRS will not be permitted to freeze the bank accounts of taxpayers who choose not to purchase health insurance, nor will the agency be allowed to garnish wages. The IRS also does not have the authority to levy interest charges on those who choose not to pay the penalties.
The only thing the IRS is permitted to do under the new law is withhold tax refunds from those that are due them, and that do not purchase health insurance. Since the majority of tax filers every year are owed refunds, the IRS hopes the threat of not receiving one will be enough to convince the American public to comply with the federal government's forced health care system.
If this does not work, the IRS is likely to simply send out threatening letters in a desperate attempt to scare people into paying the tax. According to Elizabeth Maresca, a former IRS trial attorney who now supervises the Tax & Consumer Litigation Clinic at Fordham University's Law School, most people end up paying whatever is demanded of them by the IRS when it comes in the form of a scary letter.
The fact that the IRS lacks any legal authority to collect an Affordable Care Act tax needs to be spread far and wide so that the American people know their rights. When it comes time to "pay the piper," taxpayers need to know that, legally, they have the option to refuse both mandatory health insurance and the penalties associated with non-compliance.
Sources for this article include:
My Way News - The tax man cometh to police you on health care
Reason.com
Learn more: IRS has no legal basis to collect Affordable Care Act tax - It's all an act!
-
Who's sorry about the Roberts ruling now?
August 21, 2012 | 8:00 pm
121Comments
Any year now, Democrats may start to ask themselves if it might have been better had John Roberts not changed his mind. If they would be better off with Obamacare out of its and our misery, a bone of contention now safely buried, and not as a bone in their throats.
For one thing, they still have the issue upon them -- the historic triumph they don't dare mention but which Republicans happily do.
Second, were Obamacare no longer the law, we might be seeing an uptick in hiring right now. Instead, that will be deferred until after November (and then possibly only if Romney's elected), and unemployment is rising in 44 states. Unemployment rising in 44 states is not what you want when just ten or so states will decide the election and unemployment has been 8 percent or higher for 41 months.
Third, had Roberts done otherwise, they might still have the issue of Medicare, which at this point they do not. When Paul Ryan was chosen to run with Mitt Romney, liberals planned to rip him to pieces over plans to trim Medicare. Somehow, they forgot that their own health care plan did much the same thing, covering 30 million new clients by draining millions from providers of Medicare. Although these cuts will not directly lead Medicare clients to pay more or lose coverage, they will end with many doctors and hospitals refusing to treat them at all.
This move on Medicare, which began as a shield for Ryan to fend off attacks on his program, turned into a sword, as it started to drag Obamacare into the argument. As Josh Kraushaar noted in National Journal, "by having a conversation about Medicare, it allows them to bring up President Barack Obama's unpopular health care law as well." Bill Kristol thinks D-Day was Aug. 14, when it suddenly dawned on the people in Boston they could link their defense of Ryan's proposals to the public disgust with the president's plan. "Obamacare's unpopularity blunts Obama's attacks on Romney-Ryan Medicare plans," said a Miami Herald headline only days later. A Rasmussen Reports poll found that by a 54 percent to 42 percent split, seniors in Florida found Obamacare more frightening than the Ryan proposals. (The split among all ages was 48 percent to 41 percent.)
The National Republican Campaign Committee polled 28 battleground states on both Ryan's plan and the Democrats' message against it, and found Ryan winning by ten points on aggregate. As Kraushaar put it, "Obama's health care law is even more unpopular than his record on the economy."
And the Republicans found a way to bring that into the argument, too. The health care reform plan, with its massive menu of regulations and tax hikes, has long been seen by everyone except Obama and his fanatical followers as an anchor dragging the down the "recoveries" that haven't been happening. It seems that then public is onto this, too. "Rather than being seen as a diversion from talking about the economy, 43 percent believe repeal [of the bill] would help the economy," says Scott Rasmussen. "Just 27 percent think it would hurt. That's one of the reasons most voters consistently support repeal. It's not a choice between repealing the health care law and focusing on the economy. They're part of the same plan."
So Medicare, which is part of the looming entitlement crisis, is now feeding Romney's plans to fix the economy. For linking the two, Romney can thank Obama's health care reform plan, given to an ungrateful nation and rescued by the Supreme Court just in time to ruin its author.
Who's thanking John Roberts now?
Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/whos-s...0#.UDaAF6BSTnd