This'n'That; June Twenty-Ninth #2; Cooler Heads

In The Wake Of The obama Tax Law Approval
    Now is not the time to go off half-cocked.  The cooler heads in the Republican party must prevail.  Let "Clown Prince" obama 'spike-the-ball' all he wants.  Let "Clown Prince" obama take all the 'victory laps' he wants.   While said "Clown" is concentrating on his narcissistic image among the various peoples of the United States, the Republicans can take that free time to formulate a specific plan to combat the obama Tax Law.

    Governor Romney needs to realize that the recent actions of the Supreme Court were not about 'healthcare' in any shape, form or manner.  As evidenced in the tax increase of $11,000 to $14,000 on the average family-of-four by 2016, wealth re-distribution has been the primary, the only objective of the Bilderberg Group--obama's chief political benefactors.
    The Republican hierarchy in the House will bode well to co-ordinate with the Romney Campaign to formulate a platform and a cohesive message, going forward.  No longer will the blanket statement of 'repeal-and-replace' be an effective message going on to election day, a mere 130 days from today!
Some suggestions the Romney Campaign Team might consider:

1.  Rather than wait until the last few days running up to the Republican National Convention to name a running-mate, complete the vetting process on the top contenders and choose one to immediately go 'on-the-stump.'  This would give the Republican campaign the advantage of having two to spread the message, one of them NOT being joe biden, who necessarily talks around the-foot-in-his-mouth!
2.  Formulate specifics on each plank in the Republican Presidential Campaign platform.  The time for 'blanket statements' is over; the American voter needs--and wants--to hear specifics that will positively change his or her life going forward beyond a Republican win in November.
3.  Campaign NOT on a faulty, socialist national healthcare law, but on the upcoming massive individual tax increase--the likes of which has never before seen on earth!!
4.  The campaign would bode well to review both "Ronaldus-Magnus" presidential campaigns, concentrating on Mr Reagan's 49-state (in obama's mind: a 56-state) landslide.  The Romney Presidential Campaign is practically a mirror-image of the Reagan first campaign; Governor Reagan was campaigning against an incompetent, inept peanut farmer in Jimmuh Cahtah, while Governor Romney is campaigning against an incompetent, inept street agitator in "Clown Prince" obama!!
5.  The Supreme Court approval of the obama Tax Law will re-energize the "Tea Party" Movement with even more power and energy than said movement demonstrated in the months running up to the successful 2010 mid-term elections!  This faithful, conservative, well-focused group is there for the Romney campaign to re-energize, re-direct and put toward a successful campaign and election.

Just a few suggestions!  I'm sure greater-minds than I can come up with even more, even greater suggestions!!
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Verdammte Arschloch!?!
Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; June Twenty-Ninth #1; Enjoy That?!?

obama RAPES All Americans!!
    Yesterday "The Supremes" released their ruling on owe-bamaKare.  Rather than striking down the 'mandate' provision, "The Supremes" deemed that the 'mandate' provision is a tax and therefore constitutional because the Congress has the legal and legitimate power to levy taxes.  This new tax IS THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE on the planet; on any peoples; of any economic strata; in any era!!

    Chief Justice John Roberts--long characterized as a moderate, if not conservative in his legal and political thinking--threw a monkey-wrench in the works when he sided with the communists in declaring the constitutionality of the obama Tax Law.  The 5 to 4 vote certainly didn't give the new tax law wide-ranging support, but.... hey, it only takes one to win!  What many may not realize that while "The Supremes" defended the Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3),  they've opened a whole new 'can-of-worms' in declaring that the mandate is actually a tax.
    Had the mandate been determined to fall under the Commerce Clause, it would have been ruled unconstitutional as an interference in the several states' right to determine their various intrastate commerce actions.  Now that the mandate has been determined to be a tax, a dangerous precedent has been set; a 'slippery-slope' if you will.

    The most visible, broad-based national tax is the Revenue Act of 1913.  In part, the proposed legislation required an amendment to the Constitution (the 16th Amendment) for the income tax to become law. In upholding the owe-bamaKare Tax Law, "The Supremes" set the precedent that any tax can be instituted at any time, for any reason, on any subject, WITHOUT another Constitutional Amendment, like:
As of June 28, 2012, with the implementation of the obama Tax Law,

1. Every household having less than the maximum number of solar panels installed on their property, a 15% obama solar tax will be assessed on all household income, or

2. Every household must have a energy-producing windmill installed on their property or a 15% obama wind tax will be assessed on all household income, or
3. Every household that cannot prove ownership of at least one Chevy Volt will have a 15% obama Motors tax assessed on all household income, or
4. Every household containing more than the national average of 2.2 children, will have a 15% obama excess population tax assessed on all household income, et al.

    One might presume--in Item #4--that a family would not be forced to kill their excess children under the obama Tax Law, although "Clown Prince" obama does admire and appreciate China's policies relating to their population.

    One must consider all the ramifications of the constitutionality of the obama Tax Law.

1.  The obama Tax Law is all about wealth re-distribution; very little about actual health care.

2.  The unemployment rate will necessarily soar far above the current 11+%.

3.  The GDP will diminish as company expenses rise with the various taxes and penalties associated with the obama Tax Law are instituted.

4.  With 'The Fed' printing money as fast as the presses allow, the country most probably will descend into the obama Depression, much deeper, much longer than the Roosevelt Depression of the 1930s and '40s.

Yes Joe (biden) I agree:  "This is a big fuckin' deal!!"
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Verdammte Arschloch!?!
Til Nex'Time....
http://www.fubowear.com/
http://www.fredstates.com/

This'n'That; June Twenty-Fifth #3; Arizona v. owe-bama

As Usual, owe-bama Loses!
    With respect to Arizona's immigration enforcement law (1070),"The Supremes" issued their edict from-on-high:
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-ONE
Sheriff Joe Arpaio-ONE
Conservatism-ONE
"Tea Party" Movement-ONE
owe-bama-ZERO
The Bilderberg Group-ZERO
George Soros-ZERO
Saul Alinsky-ZERO
Socio-fascism-ZERO
"Occupy" Movement-ZERO
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Verdammte Arschloch!?!
Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; March Twenty-Eighth #2; SCOTUS, Day #2

Kagan non-Recusal May Not Be Important
    Justices Alito, Kennedy and Scalia as well as Chief Justice John Roberts verbally handed Solicitor General Verrilli his-ass-on-a-silver-platter during today's arguments on owe-bamaKare.  Even the ever-socialist Justice Ginsburg got into the act.... on the respondents' (conservative) side of the argument.
    Justice Scalia (URL below: pg 3, ln 10) was the first to verbally 'step-up-to-the-plate.  Justice Scalia asked the 'General' if the problems he posed, weren't addressed directly by the federal government.
    Justice Kennedy (pg 3, ln 25) asked if commerce can be created in order to regulate it.
    Justice Scalia ( pg 5, ln 9) asked about 'self purchasing.'  He then commented that the failure to purchase a product in a particular market would subject one to regulation.
    Chief Justice Roberts (pg 5, ln 25) compared owe-bamaKare with emergency services, i.e., police, fire, ambulance, road-side service, et al.  The 'consumer' never knows when he will require emergency services or health care, or if he ever will, thus a market already exists.  Chief Justice Roberts also suggested that the government might mandate cell phone ownership, to facilitate calls to 9-1-1.
    Justice Alito (pg 7, ln 12) brought up the possible necessity for burial insurance which completely baffled 'General' Verrilli.  Judging by the text, 'General' Verrilli stumbled over his tongue for several minutes during his exchange with the justice.
    Justice Alito (pg 9, ln 23) may have discovered as the true intent of owe-bamaKare, I quote the justice:
"....isn't it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the servies they are going to consume?  It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else."
    Justice Ginsburg (pg 10, ln 20) got into the act with this quote:
"If you're going to have insurance, this is how insurance works."
    The testimony before the Court continued for a total of 109 pages; over 2 hours, 2 minutes.  I thought it might be dry and legalistic, but actually enjoyed reading the transcript of Day #1.  The give-and-take between the justices and 'General' Verrilli looked--to me--to be very embarrassing for the 'General.'  Later today I intend to read the respondents' arguments.
Til Nex'Time....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/obamacare-at-the-supreme-court-day-two-rapid-reactions/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

This'n'That; March Twenty-Eighth #1;owe-bamaKare-SCOTUS

Day #1 owe-bamaKare Arguments Before SCOTUS
    Monday--March 26th--was Day #1 of the Regime's Solicitor General arguing possible merits of owe-bamaKare before the Supreme Court.  The first day's proceedings involved:
Robert Long, ( *URL below; page 3) court appointed for the Amicus Curiae (friend of the Court),
Donald Verrilli, Jr., (page 30) Solicitor General, on behalf of the Petitioners,
Gregory Katsas, (page 56) on behalf of the Respondents,
Robert Long, (page 73) rebuttal for the Amicus Curiae.
    Mr Long argued the assessment and collection of the section 5000A penalties and how the "Anti-Injunction Act (1867)" applies to the legality of said assessments and collections.  Chief Justice Roberts, the Associate Justices and Mr Long had a lengthy 'go-around' concerning possible applications of the Anti-Injunction Act (1867); what's a procedural rule; what's a jurisdictional rule as well as why a monetary item might be an assessment or a penalty but not a tax. 
    'General' Verrilli intially argues that the penalties assessed in owe-bamaKare are not a tax.  Justice Alito intimated that 'General' Verrilli would be back on Day #2 to argue that the penalties assessed are taxes.  Confused?!?  So am I!  'General' Verrilli also referenced various cases inwhich the constitutionality of said assessment, whether they were penalties or taxes.  Justice Scalia took an occasion to scold 'General' Verrilli: 
"Don't do that again (referencing Davis v. Passman).  Because I think that goes too far.  I don't think that's restraining the collection of a tax.  It's restraining the payment of a tax.  You don't want to let that bone go, do you?"
In later stages several associate justices 'ganged-up on' 'General' Verrilli and cornered him concerning welfareRATs and their use of emergency rooms for 'no-cost' health care rather than using health insurance or Medicare.  'General' Verrilli had problems justifying that while owe-bamaKare will raise revenues, the penalties are not some form of taxation. 
    Mr Katsas--at the start of his segment--delved into the conservative side of jursidictional determination.  He used 'Gonzalez v. Thaler' to buttress his argument... much to Justice Sotomayor's consternation.  Justice Brayer made two salient points: 'language is relevant' and '....taxes are the life's blood of government.' 
Justice Sotomayor--in trying to firm up the government's position--suggested that 'it (the owe-bamaKare statute) is jurisdictional except when the Solicitor General waives it.'  In my mind, that seems to put "all the eggs in the government basket!"
Chief Justice Roberts spent time--also in a 'government support' role--trying to convince Mr Katsas that owe-bamaKare mandated insurance purchases, penalties and/or taxes are a 'command.' the Chief Justice is of the opinion that if the commoner does not follow the 'command,' nothing will happen as a consequence.  Mr Katsas argued that:
"....there is a difference between what the law requires and what enforcement consequences happen to you.  This statute (owe-bamaKare) was very deliberately written to separate mandate from penalty in several different ways...."
  The discussion--on exceptions to the mandate; exceptions to the penalties; who is-who isn't--between the Chief Justice, the several Associate Justices and Mr Katsas went on for several pages, and on, and on....
This is the first time I've ever read the text of an on-going Supreme Court case, let alone one as important as the topic-at-hand!  I found it quite informative, in an argumentative way.  I suggest that everyone read the transcripts of the entire 'owe-bamaKare' arguments, no matter which side you come down on.
The long, drawn-out, interrupted arguments are quite tedious to read.  Maybe the audio version--URL also listed below--would be easier to follow.  Due to hearing problems, I haven't tried that yet.
Til Nex'Time....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/26/obamacare-at-the-supreme-court-day-one-rapid-reactions/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday
* http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf
(Davis v. Passman) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/228/
(Gonzalez v. Thaler) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-895/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Injunction_Act_(1867)