Replies

It will be interesting to see if John Roberts opinion that the ACA was Constitutional because it was a tax will now get another look by conservatives. I was very disappointed by the Roberts ruling, but Obama essentially painted himself into a corner. He probably colluded with Reid and Pelosi to disguise the tax, denounced Roberts ruling that it really was not a tax but welcomed his opinion.

I wonder if Issa or if Judicial Watch will demand White House visitor logs for Gruber. If we can place Gruber in the White House repeatedly with Obama, Obama's defense gets thinner and thinner. If Gruber is telling the truth that Obama personally was in the deception, he is completely finished as a political power in Washington. Looks like Sir Walter Scott is proved right again "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"

Roberts is as big a crook as Gruber. Photos of Roberts about to enter the Vatican Bank on Malta tells a lot about this man. Along with all of these hijinks The English/USA lexicon now has a new word- ‘gruberism’ meaning to make up a lie and cover such with high sounding language from highly educated(not necessarily honest)college professors.

It will be interesting to see if John Roberts opinion that the ACA was Constitutional because it was a tax will now get another look by conservatives. I was very disappointed by the Roberts ruling, but Obama essentially painted himself into a corner. He probably colluded with Reid and Pelosi to disguise the tax, denounced Roberts ruling that it really was not a tax but welcomed his opinion.

What Roberts pointed out was that contrary to popular opinion, the income tax is not applicable to everybody, and in fact has fairly strict legal requirements. And that within those requirements there is a second way of adding to that income tax based on performance, which was already part of the tax code, and had been in use for some time.

What Obamacare did was position itself inside that second way of adding to the income tax through performance (i.e. buying Obamacare). So Roberts pointed all of that out, and then showed that for people who owe the income tax, such a performance-based addition was already legal.

Since everyone presumes that everyone owes the income tax, everyone screamed at Roberts as being unconstitutional. But Roberts was pointing out - as the Chief Justice, no less - that everyone is not liable for the income tax.

That is what made the ruling so astounding. That's why he polarized the court - both sides wanted him to address Obamacare, but he had the balls to actually rule on the actual law that Obamacare relies on - namely, the income tax. And he warned against its misuse, and showed where the limitations in the applicability of the income tax could be found in Title 26.

In other words, he laid freedom on the American table, and Americans kicked it over and cursed him.

Nevertheless, his ruling is just common sense. Ask yourself, since Obamacare is so huge, why doesn't it have it's own Title in the US Code? Why isn't it, for example, "Title 99 Obamacare"? Answer: Because it needs the income tax. And why would it need that? Because it CAN'T apply to a free people and the income tax doesn't. That's what Roberts pointed out. He just said, "Hey, IF you've already lost your freedom by having to pay the income tax, then - and ONLY then - is Obamacare legal, because you don't have any right to your money under the income tax laws anyway."

People didn't want to hear that.

So, they didn't hear it.