Obama Admits He Was Lying
Jun 21, 2010 Political
Obama, through actions by his regime, has admitted that he was lying but exactly when he lied is a matter of how things are interpreted. Obama either lied when he was campaigning or he lied when he was ramming the health care bill through and the regime is making the case that Obama actually lied BOTH times (which is what I believe).
First some background. During the campaign Barack Obama said he would not increase taxes on the middle class. Those making below a certain amount of money (the exact amount is really unknown because it changed regularly but it is anywhere from $120,000 to $250,000 per year) would not see their taxes increased. That is the first important item to know, Obama promised not to increase taxes (not one dime) on the middle class.
The second thing to know is that during the health care debate Obama vehemently defended the individual mandate and said that any fine levied against those who did not buy insurance was not a tax. Obama was even very condescending to George Stephanopoulos of ABC when George brought up the issue and said it was a tax. Obama chastened him about looking up a word in the dictionary and proclaimed that the individual mandate was absolutely not a tax regardless of what Stephanopoulos or anyone else said.
By God, Barack Obama has decreed it is not a tax now just shut up about it George and move on.
So the health care bill passes and Obama signs it into law and almost immediately a number of lawsuits are filed questioning the Constitutionality of the mandate. The arguments have been made on this point and I will not rehash them here except to say that many scholars believe that Congress overstepped its bounds by claiming it could regulate a person who engaged in NO commerce under the commerce clause.
Evidently, the Obama regime thinks there is something to this argument, which if successful would derail the legislation and the bogus claims of low costs and deficit reduction. The regime is trying to have the case against the health care law dismissed. Now this is nothing unusual because parties try to do that all the time. If it works they do not have to defend the issue but in this case I cannot imagine a judge throwing it out because of the magnitude of the issue.
In any event, the fact that the regime is trying to get it dismissed is not unusual but the grounds they are using for the dismissal are.
The regime is arguing that the law does not allow for suits regarding the assessment or collection of TAXES.
Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven’t presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government’s ability to collect taxes.
The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a “tax” or “penalty,” because either way, it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner” by the Internal Revenue Service. [all emphasis mine] The American Spectator
Uh oh. Looks like there is trouble right here in River City my friends. The Obama regime is now saying that the fine for failing to buy insurance is a TAX even though the almighty Barack Obama scolded George Stephanopoulos and flat out told him that this was not a tax.
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama said it was not a tax when he wanted it to pass and he is saying that it is a tax now that it needs to withstand judicial scrutiny. Obama either lied to get it passed or he is lying to keep it out of court. Obama knew that calling it a tax would make members of Congress uneasy in an election year and he now knows that unless he calls it a tax it will have a tough time withstanding the court challenge. He is a liar and he will say or do anything to get what he wants.
Remember, if it is such a good thing they would not need to lie about the costs and they would not need to lie about how it is funded. All of the lies and manipulations clearly show this is a bad piece of legislation.
This is the kind of dishonest person Obama is and the kind of dishonesty that he expects when he is playing politics as usual, another thing he promised he would not do and, as it turns out, another broken promise.
There is one other unusual thing going on here. If Obama succeeds in portraying this as a tax and the court rules in his favor then he will have broken a huge campaign promise. Keep in mind that this mandate will affect the middle class the most. The poor will receive subsidies but the middle class will be forced to buy insurance more than any other and that means Obama will have imposed a huge tax increase on them. If he wins the argument that this is a tax then he will be admitting that he raised taxes on the middle class, something he said he would not do. Or as the cited article puts it:
Put another way, the administration is now arguing in federal court that Obama signed a massive middle-class tax increase, in violation of his campaign pledge.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Obama’s own words about this not being a tax were used against his regime and the court ruled that Obama said it was not a tax so he can’t call it one now? Wouldn’t it be even more bizarre if he lost that argument, lost the case and still had to answer to the public as to why he deceived them by saying it was not a tax and then argued that it was?
Obama is a liar and a thief. He will steal money from those who make it and give it to those who do not. He leads the party of parasites (tolerant ones at that) and he is more than willing to continue to suck the life-blood out of our country in order to fulfill his dream of making it a Socialist nation.
How much more do people need to see to understand that Obama is a hack, an inexperienced man-child, a person who is automatically the least experienced of any person in a room he enters and that he is more interested in playing golf, partying, spending tax dollars on his parties, and working to bang through a Socialist agenda?
How much more do you people need to see that this guy is an inexperienced poser who can’t lead?
This incident should awaken you. He will say and do anything to get what he wants.
How is that hope and change working for you now?
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: hack, health care, lies, Obama, political games, tax increases
Obama Looks For Quick Confirmation
May 28, 2009 Political
Now that Obama has selected the anti gun, empathetic, racist Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court he is asking the Senate to make quick work of her confirmation. There is no doubt in my mind she will be confirmed because the Republicans do not have the numbers to stop her. She will only be stopped if there is a major issue or she stumbles. This means that Republicans need to be diligent and take a long hard look at her and her record. They need to do this slowly and deliberately. Obama wants it done quickly before more negatives pop up. We need to take our time and dig as deep as we can.
This judge does not belong on the Supreme Court. Justice is supposed to be blind but she has already admitted that she uses her life experiences to guide her. She does not interpret the Constitution and apply the law, she allows her emotion to dictate her decisions. It is also true that she believes that policy is made in the court which means she lacks an understanding of our system of governance or she does not care about it.
I have demonstrated that she does not understand the Constitution by showing that her view of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that is indisputable. Only people who lack intelligence or wish to rewrite history or enact a personal agenda see it otherwise.
Sotomayor is also a racist. People have been accused of taking her comment out of context but I have read the entire quote. It is racist. The assertion is that she will understand the downtrodden before the court because of her background and because she is a person of color. Does this mean that she could not get decisions right if the dispute involved privileged white men? I mean, if she had been on the court in 2000 would she have to recuse herself from Gore v Bush because she did not live their lives and could not understand their issues?
Or is it more accurate to say that justice is supposed to be blind and that it does not matter what color, nationality, sex, or ethnicity a judge is, the law should be applied equally across the spectrum and that the only experience required to get it right is a thorough understanding of the Constitution? Her comment was racist and those who deny it are the same ones who see racism when a noose is hung at a house on Halloween or when someone says that welfare recipients should get off their lazy butts and get a job. The immediate assumption is that the speaker was talking about minorities. I would ask; who is the racist, the one who made the statement or the one who made the assumption?
Sotomayor seems to think that because she is a Latina with a humble beginning that her experiences will allow her to make better decisions and to get it right more often than some white guy who did not live her life. So did her life experiences lead her to mess up Ricci v. DeStefano? Did she have such a loathing for white people that she decided that they did not deserve the same protection against discrimination as a minority group would? Is there any doubt that if this had been reversed and the blacks were suing that she would have sided with them?
This is the heart of the issue. The law was ignored in Ricci and several very serious Constitutional issue were ignored. Evidently, her life issues did not allow her to get it right and the Supreme Court will likely overturn her decision in the case.
That should not be surprising since 60% of her cases that have gone before the Supreme Court have been overturned. This is but one more indication that she does not understand the law or the Constitution and it puts a big dent in her assertion that she would get it right more often than some white guy. 60% of the time she was wrong and this is just in cases that went to the SCOTUS. How many of her lower court decisions have been overturned?
Sotomayor does not belong on any bench much less the Supreme Court. Republicans need to aggressively push her and dig up all the things that she has done that run counter to the way good law is practiced. She might end up being confirmed but the detailed analysis will demonstrate what Obama is and what he is doing to this country.
We also need to target Democrat Senators from red states who have a fairly conservative base. Make sure the gun issues are well played and ensure the gun owners know. Tell these Senators they will be in danger of losing if they support this person who does not understand our rights.
As for you liberals who are whining that she was attacked from the start, Ted Kennedy attacked Bork within 45 minutes of his selection by Reagan and what Kennedy said was not very nice. Democrats have been nasty and played lots of games with nominees of Republican presidents. Now it is time to ensure this nominee is asked tough questions and that she is asked to explain law and her statements.
Let’s see if she can do it like John Roberts, without notes.
But be careful how you discuss her because the White House is warning to watch what you say about her. Gibbs, the Obama butt boy, said that people who are criticizing her intelligence probably did not graduate number 2 in their classes. I don’t question her intelligence but being smart does not mean she knows the law or is not an activist. There are really smart people who passed law school and they are terrible lawyers.
The National Black Republican Association is not happy with the pick either.
Ann Coulter has a great article up.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: activist judge, constitution, hack, law, lies, Obama, sotomayor