Posted on 06/30/2012 6:41:29 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Top DNC staffers gloat over Obamacare, taunt GOP ‘bitches,’ ‘mother******s’
Posted at 10:59 am on June 28, 2012 by Twitchy Staff
Patrick Gaspard @patrickgaspard
"it's constitutional. Bitches."
One week before the ruling from John 'Benedict Arnold' Roberts - 'cry baby' Boehner said:
Boehner: "There will be no spiking of the ball if ObamaCare is overturned"
posted at 5:51 pm on June 21, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
Yep. I'm glad that Boehner is looking out for us.
Just more from the GOP wine and cheese GOP leader of Congress.
Barf.
“Law is for the court, Sambo. Justice is for the alley.”
Keep in mind that is was John Roberts and not Samuel Alito that voted to uphold ObamaCare.
I believe 17,000 new IRS agents were hired to do just this.
An old school ashy communist:
Patrick Gaspard, ACORN, and Obama
National Review ^ | September 28, 2009 | Stanley Kurtz
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:40:15 AM by kingattax
With the revelation that White House Director of Political Affairs, Patrick Gaspard, has close ties to Bertha Lewis and to ACORN, Matthew Vadum and Erick Erickson appear to be onto something significant.
While the Gaspard matter needs further investigation before we form any hard conclusions, it certainly seems to confirm that President Obama’s ties to a whole series of ACORN-controlled organizations are neither minor nor by any means long-past. In fact, making use of what Erickson and Vadum have discovered about Gaspard, we can trace these links still further.
There’s been a good deal of attention to ACORN of late, and deservedly so. Yet for all the fuss, what is arguably the most important Obama-Acorn tie of all has gotten short shrift. During the 2008 election, Obama’s close links to the far-left New Party were revealed and explored (although not by the mainstream press).
Yet many seem to have forgotten that the New Party, particularly in Chicago, was dominated by ACORN (and by an ACORN-controlled SEIU union local).
During the campaign, I detailed Obama’s New Party ties in two pieces, “Something New Here,” and “Life of the New Party.” Important evidence of Obama’s pursuit of the New Party endorsement can also be found in the September-October 1995 issue of “New Ground,” newsletter of the Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Obama’s New Party ties matter because they show that his links to ACORN went far beyond shared on-the-ground organizing, legal representation, training, or even funding (although all of those ties existed and were important). By running for office with the New Party, Obama was effectively indicating that he shared ACORN’s radical political goals.
So it’s of interest that in late 1995, just as Obama was seeking New Party endorsement in Chicago, Patrick Gaspard was working as a New Party organizer in New Jersey. (This was reported in “Jersey Man Hopes to Create Third Political Party,” NPR, “Morning Edition, “ September 28, 1995).
Then, in the July 2, 2001 issue of “The Nation,” Gaspard and Bertha Lewis jointly published a reply to a June 4 Nation article by Doug Ireland which had been critical of the New York’s Working Families Party (a successor to the New Party, led by New Party co-founder Dan Cantor, and largely controlled by ACORN and the SEIU).
In the course of their letter, Gaspard and Lewis describe their extensive joint involvement in Working Families Party activities. The letter is signed: “Bertha Lewis, ACORN, WFP; Patrick Gaspard, SEIU State Council, WFP.”
This does seem to confirm and extend the new evidence of a close political tie between Patrick Gaspard and ACORN’s Bertha Lewis.
No doubt, some will dismiss the newly revealed connections between the Obama administration, Patrick Gaspard, Bertha Lewis, and ACORN as “guilt by association.” Yet it seems to me that the evidence points to something more significant than that.
We are talking about a persistent and shared political-ideological alliance between President Obama and the complex of community, labor, and party organizations controlled by ACORN. (See especially “Life of the New Party” for more on New Party ideology.)
Again, the Gaspard issue is new and needs further investigation and consideration. Yet preliminary indications are that the Gaspard-ACORN-Bertha Lewis-New Party-WFP-SEIU ties are significant, and tell us something disturbing about the political ideology and intentions of President Obama.
In particular, the connection between Gaspard, Lewis, the New Party, and the Working Families Party ought to draw our attention back to what may ultimately be the most important Obama-ACORN tie of all, his time with Chicago’s New Party.
Bad example; Roe v Wade is still considered valid and therefore 'good law'.
The GOP did nothing when they had control of the executive and legislative branches, not even a token "bring up the issue for a vote." Therefore I can only conclude that the Republican Party, as a party, does not have any intention of redressing that injustice.
Further, the anointing of Romney, a socialist, proves to me that they are not serious about any of their stated planks regarding taxes, responsible government, responsible spending, less market meddling, etc.
Sorry, I cannot accept that.
If the GOP wants to float Romney, a socialist, as the standard bearer for "the right" then I cannot support them at all.
I'm done with "vote for me because the other guy's worse," I'm done with choosing the "lesser of two evils."
If the GOP wants my vote, then they'd better start acting on their stated party-planks: repeal abortion, less tax (via reform), government responsibility, fiscal responsibility, etc. (I firmly believe that Romney will make no effort towards these, but only effort against them.)
What a fag!
No, it is a good example. The people have come around, and as that continues people will be elected to reflect that and as that happens justices will be appointed. We are very close now.
My intent was to say, like abortion, we shall see if this ruling stays that way too. I do not believe either of them will.
...and niether of them ever were, or ecver will be “good” law. They are defacto law, but they are bad and either we will come to our senses and judge than that way and correct them...or sooner or later a higher authority shall.
Very much agreed.
You won’t see me taking that vote even if the odds are 20 to 1.
It is not constitutional! It is wrong and everybody knows it. This ruling will lead to a proposition whereupon the law will be undone. Then we will see how much you smurk.
Well, there we have it. Obama says move on you B yah itchs
White House says health care debate is over: Fee for uninsured is a penalty, not a tax
Published July 01, 2012
FoxNews.com
The White House insisted Sunday the consequence for Americans not having health insurance is a penalty fee, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is a tax, and said the debate on the Affordable Care Act should finally end.
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on “Fox News Sunday” that “when the Supreme Court rules” the country “has a final decision” and that the presidential campaigns should focus on the economy and jobs.
“What we need to do is go forward with the implementation” of the law, Lew said.
The Dems are running scared. They know that if this must be a tax (and all similar coercive efforts), then the second they collect one penny of it it will be subject to being struck down as outside Congress’ taxing authority.
The fight has only just begun.
November is coming.
B@st@rd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.