United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: DOCTORS ORDERS, Judge compares Obamacare to reason for Revolution
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=258221
Published: Feb 1, 2011
Author: Bob Unruh
Post Date: 2011-02-01 15:58:05 by Mad Dog
Keywords: Vinson, slaps down, obammascommiecare
Views: 20294
Comments: 43
&pageId'Difficult to imagine' Founders forcing people 'to buy tea' Read more: Judge compares Obamacare to reason for Revolution The federal judge who today ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional said he couldn't imagine that the Founders of America would have rebelled over a tea tax only to set up a government requiring people to buy tea. "If it [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting – as was done in the Act – that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature and substantially affects interstate commerce,' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted," wrote Judge Roger Vinson in his decision declaring the more than 2,000 pages of legislation unconstitutional. Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal "It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place," he said. A multitude of organizations whose leaders have been fighting the nationalization under Obama of one-sixth of the nation's economy – the health care complex – agreed. "We … feel vindicated by Judge Vinson's ruling that the Obamacare mandate – which forces Americans to buy health insurance – is unconstitutional," said a statement from Concerned Women for America. "We urge Congress to go forward with repealing the law and all its unsavory elements: the unconstitutional mandate, the higher taxes, and the abortion coverage which almost killed the bill in Congress last year." (Story continues below) Vinson concluded that the requirement that all Americans buy the health insurance specified by the government isn't within Congress' power, and since that is instrumental to the rest of the law, the entire package must collapse. His is the fourth district court opinion on the subject. Two found the plan constitutional and now two have declared it unconstitutional. The status ultimately is expected to be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida case, in the U.S. District court in Pensacola, was the most high-profile, however, because it was brought by 26 states and others. "Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. … I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate … Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void," he said. There also are about a dozen states with legislation pending that would outlaw Obamacare within their borders. At the Institute for Policy Innovation, officials said, "state legislators should yell 'Stop,' and set Obamacare implementation efforts aside until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue." Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the ruling backs up the earlier verdict in a Virginia case, and it's important because of the Constitution. "Many of us opposed Obamacare in part because of our oath to the Constitution," he said. "Any member who has reservations should now be empowered to vote with those of us who will cut off all funding to Obamacare starting with the continuing resolution." He said his legislation plan would treat Obamacare "as if such act had not been enacted." Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver, who already is preparing to argue a similar case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said, "Congress does not have unlimited authority to regulate private actions. If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to act, then Congress cannot act. No one wants the federal government or a pencil-pushing bureaucrat in Washington policing private medical decisions. No one wants IRS agents to become the health insurance police. The threat to liberty posed by the health-care bill goes beyond health care." The American Center for Law and Justice also is arguing cases against Obamacare, and chief counsel Jay Sekulow said the decision is "both sensible and sound." "By declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional, the court rejects the unprecedented power grab by the federal government. But the Florida decision goes further – striking down the entire health care law as unconstitutional," he said. "The fact is that forcing Americans to purchase health care not only undermines individual liberty, but violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and as this court correctly determined, renders the entire law void. We're very encouraged by this ruling and will continue to represent members of Congress in preparing an amicus brief supporting Florida's challenge of Obamacare – at the next level – at the appellate court." If the government appeals, as is expected, it would go to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the decision was what most of the states and a majority of the American people already knew. "The federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don’t," he said. "This health care law remains a major source of uncertainty for small businesses, which is why all parties involved should request that this case be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court for a swift and fair resolution. Of course, the easiest way to protect the American people from this job- destroying health care law is to repeal it so we can start over with common-sense reforms that lower costs and protect jobs without unconstitutional mandates, new taxes, and costly penalties. The House has passed legislation to do just that, and I hope Senate Democratic leaders will bring up the measure for an up-or-down vote," he said. Clint Bolick, the litigation director for the Goldwater Institute, said the result was a "triumph." The judge said the case wasn't about the problems with health care today, but "about our federalist system." The judge said, "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be 'difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power' and we would have a Constitution in name only. "Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended." He concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court has defined the Commerce Clause to require "activity." "I am required to interpret this law as the Supreme Court presently defines it. Only the Supreme Court can redefine it or expand it further – a point implicitly made by one of the defendants' own cited authorities," he said. Obamacare already has been repealed in the U.S. House, where the vote was 245-189, which included three Democrats backing repeal. While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised to prevent the issue from coming up for discussion, Republicans say they will work on getting the Senate, which has a slight Democrat majority, to discuss the issue. In Texas, the state legislation rejecting the takeover plan is being led by Rep. Leo Berman, R- Tyler. The measure would not only nullify the federal requirements but would include penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for anyone guilty of the "felony" of attempting "to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation" of Obamacare. The bill says the federal act: (1) is invalid in this state; (2) is not recognized by this state; (3) is specifically rejected by this state; and (4) is null and void and of no effect in this state. It provides that "a person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States in violation of this chapter."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Mad Dog (#0)
Do people really not understand that the "Boston Tea Party" was a protest against a corporate tax cut?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
This piece is nuts, the tea party was prompted by taxation without representation in Colonial America. Whoever wrote this piece must of learned American history from the back of their cereal box while eating breakfast in the morning.
You really are an uneducated idiot, a fool or a liar. The original "tea party" was an act DIRECTLY against a NEW TAX on TEA imposed by a government across the sea which the Colonialists felt did not represent or LISTEN to them. You libTURDS REALLY NEED to TRY to change the subject don't you? WHY do you libTURD filth LOVE TYRANNY? YOU are siding with King George the III against the American people.
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
No, it was a targeted tax cut on British East India tea that made other brands of tea more expensive since they paid a higher tax. That's right the Boston Tea Party was anger over a Tax Cut.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
LOL! You gibbering faggot idiot, he's listed right there as who wrote it, Bob Unruh. We are not really interested in where YOU learned American history fool. Btw fool, "The federal judge who today ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional said he couldn't imagine that the Founders of America would have rebelled over a tea tax only to set up a government requiring people to buy tea." "If it [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting – as was done in the Act – that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature and substantially affects interstate commerce,' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted," wrote Judge Roger Vinson in his decision declaring the more than 2,000 pages of legislation unconstitutional." "It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place," he said." I'll take Judge Vinson's knowledge of American History over YOURS any day you gibbering libTURD faggot. Could you maybe try reading the article before making such a fool out of yourself again weasel gurl?
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
LOL! I'm supposed to argue with you, when it makes no substantive difference to Judge Vinson's statements and ruling? Where you repeat what he has said? LOL! You libTURDS are truely weak and foul creeps. Yeah, I know, that's OLD news. LOL! "The federal judge who today ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional said he couldn't imagine that the Founders of America would have rebelled over a tea tax only to set up a government requiring people to buy tea." "If it [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting – as was done in the Act – that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature and substantially affects interstate commerce,' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted," wrote Judge Roger Vinson in his decision declaring the more than 2,000 pages of legislation unconstitutional." "It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place," he said."
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
It is important to understand that the Tea Act actually placed no new tax on tea. Instead it simply gave a tax break to the East India Tea company. With the existing tax still on the books from the Townshend Duties, East India Tea company was loosing money because its legitimately imported tea could not compete with the tea being illegally smuggled by the colonial merchants. Obviously the British government preferred to help the struggling East India Co. than to see colonial smugglers profiting and using their newly gained financial power to sponsor anti-British protests. The new measure was also supposed to win the minds of tea consumers in America by driving down the market price of tea. But in the situation already aggrevated by the previous heavy-handed tax measures, this obvious economic benefit was overlooked by the population and the new law was regarded at “Taxation without representation”. "Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
"If it [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting – as was done in the Act – that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature and substantially affects interstate commerce,' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted," wrote Judge Roger Vinson in his decision declaring the more than 2,000 pages of legislation unconstitutional." "It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place," he said." "The federal judge who today ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional said he couldn't imagine that the Founders of America would have rebelled over a tea tax only to set up a government requiring people to buy tea." "If it [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting – as was done in the Act – that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature and substantially affects interstate commerce,' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted," wrote Judge Roger Vinson in his decision declaring the more than 2,000 pages of legislation unconstitutional." "It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place," he said."
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=17123
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=17123
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
I saw that, and recognize the lead in, catch eye phrase of the piece was a pander to people who don't understand American history well, thus is very fair game for criticism. Very likely those who don't know the Taxation without representation issue will read the piece in a fast read and not see the rest of the piece contradicts the opening statement, and will go on still believing that was the reason for the Boston Tea Party, as the whole focus is to attack the new health care law, not educate them about American history.
Please provide the basis for your question. WHAT "corporate tax cut" are you referring to? Please provide applicable documentation, to support your allegation. And no, I won't hold my breath, waiting for you to find something which does not exist. You talk out your ass, and have NO idea about the history of this country. Instead, you push the latest liberal talking-points, propaganda platitudes.
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke -- We always like cool X-rays, right? Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
--
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Page 75 of 78 (5) Injunction The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary. CONCLUSION The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11 Page 75 of 78 Page 76 of 78 Constitutional role of the federal government. For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here. 30 Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” As Judge Luttig wrote for an en banc Fourth Circuit in 30 On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do. Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that "if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” See Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html. In fact, he pointed to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts --- which was imposed under the state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have --- and opined that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before. See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10 (quoting Senator Obama as saying: "In some cases, there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can't afford [health insurance], so now they're worse off than they were . . . They don't have health insurance, and they're paying a fine . . .”). Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11 Page 76 of 78 Page 77 of 78 striking down the “Violence Against Women Act” (before the case was appealed and the Supreme Court did the same): No less for judges than for politicians is the temptation to affirm any statute so decorously titled. We live in a time when the lines between law and politics have been purposefully blurred to serve the ends of the latter. And, when we, as courts, have not participated in this most perniciously machiavellian of enterprises ourselves, we have acquiesced in it by others, allowing opinions of law to be dismissed as but pronouncements of personal agreement or disagreement. The judicial decision making contemplated by the Constitution, however, unlike at least the politics of the moment, emphatically is not a function of labels. If it were, the Supreme Court assuredly would not have struck down the “Gun-Free School Zones Act,” the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” the “Civil Rights Act of 1871,” or the “Civil Rights Act of 1875.” And if it ever becomes such, we will have ceased to be a society of law, and all the codification of freedom in the world will be to little avail. Brzonkala, supra, 169 F.3d at 889. In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that. For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11 Page 77 of 78 Page 78 of 78 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2011. /s/ Roger Vinson ROGER VINSON Senior United States District Judge Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11 Page 78 of 78
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Very nice spam M. Doggie Dawg. And your point is...?
LOL! It is no surprise that a lying hypocrite coward libTURD such as YOU considers the text of the federal court's INJUNCTION and finding that the ENTIRE LAW is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL of obammycare to be "spam". You are an insipid fool. I know, I KNOW. OLD news. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Thank God for Reagan.
Actually, a poster at The People's Forum posted the entire thing and I read it. My point is you are spamming it in to but it in my face for some strange reason involving taunt, as usual. No doubt it is in response to my comments on the tactics the author of that piece in how he wrote it. As I did not comment on the injunction itself and read it in it's entirety elsewhere, you have no purpose to spam this in except to try to bait. ;-)
Good luck. This has been pointed out ad infinitum since Santelli made his unfortunate comment on CNBC three years ago. If they haven't gotten it yet, they won't. The Boston Tea Party was organized by a Masonic Chapter the membership of which was notorious black marketeers in all sorts of items INCLUDING tea. The most HILARIOUS aspect of the reality of the Boston Tea Party is that the change to the Townsend Act was negotiated by Benjamin Franklin. One "colony" didn't know what the other was doing.
The Tea Party was not what galvanized anti-British resentment into rebellion it was the collective punishment of Boston by means of a blockade. If the British were not so greedy they would have eaten the loss and gone on with it and the incident would have been forgotten. Hell, even allowing some representation in London by the colonies would have done it. I have always felt the Revolutionary War was a war fought for no good reason (the freedom and liberty stuff was added in later to give a reason for the war being fought when it became too late to turn back). But then I remember my history and back nations went to war for very little cause like the war of Jenkin's ear.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
did any of you guys catch the proposal by SD Rep. Hal Wick who introduced a bill requiring all state residents to buy a gun? he missed the fact that George Washington signed the Militia Act of 1792 which said in effect, an individual mandate to own a gun. Wick said he thought the act was unconstitutional. Amazing, isn't it?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
AMEN.
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
LOL! I posted the entire decision HERE fool. It's not "spam" fool. As I have told you, repeatedly, fool, repitition is the 2 x 4 which gets the ass' attention. YOU and the rest of the libTURD herd are the asses. I just keep putting the literal TRUTH into your face while you libTURD tools TRY to claim LIES about it. I put it in your face because you TRY to avoid it to ignore it you libTURD whore. Now you cry that I'm picking on you? "Civility" was the DNC's talking point a couple of weeks ago tool. TRY to keep up tool.
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Spamming is a tactic people like you use when they want to disrupt the follow of a thread and to harass others. Nobody needed the decision at that point in the thread. And you sure weren't trying to be informative for my edification. Spamming is a favorite tactic of yours'. One I don't worry about as it just further shows how incompetent a communicator you are.
LOL! weasel gurl you are one funny supercilious libTURD FOOL! "Spam" is an entirely different thing than what you TRY to claim it is you insipid ignorant little cunt. It's just the objective TRUTH, it's just the FACTS, with which I just keep slapping you libTURD filth's lies down with. Now go whine about it being "spam", and then tell me how you don't really care ... LOL! YOU are one weak assed little hypocrite libTURD bitch. My "communication" skills are just fine weasel gurl, you just don't like the objective TRUTH which I am communicating. The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge. That means weasel gurl that THERE IS NO SUCH "LAW" as "obammy care" in effect in ANY way right NOW. NO feral gooberment action on this is possible until a higher court sets aside this decision. It's ALL about changing the subject with you slimy libTURD cunts, when it's news that you libTURDS don't like, isn't it corn flake boy? You have to be a LYING, HYPOCRITICAL, COWARD to be a libTURD don't you weasel gurl? LMAO! Btw asshole you TRYING to pose as anybody's "superior", in any way, is classic absurd HUMOR. But it illustrates exactly the pathology that describes all of you gibbering libTURD cunts. LMAO!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Well, well, M. Doggie Dawg, how's my favorite pound puppie? That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage. I scan such screeds in seconds and move on from them as they have zero content. In any event, how are the Northern lights this year? I miss going up in the winter, but I'll be up this summer with a motorcycle tooling around. I'll let you know when I'm coming to spend most of that time just traveling about. I'd be much interested to see if you are this garbled up live and in color. ;-D
LOL! the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." "The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." "Spang!" X Ring!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." LOL! the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." "The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." "Spang!" X Ring!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Yes M. Doggie Dog. you've binged twice, what do you want?
the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." LOL! the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." "The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." "Spang!" X Ring!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Yes, I see you can spam. But what do you what? Spamming is kindergarden stuff. Your parrot act means nothing to me.
the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." LOL! the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." "The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." I don't blame a libTURD whore such as you for not wanting to talk about how your messiah "king" obammy is currently in contempt of TWO FEDERAL Court orders, one in this matter AND the other being their ban on ALL offshore drilling. Because the simple truth is, ""The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." "IF you want to piss a conservative off tell a LIE, if you want to piss a libTURD off tell the TRUTH."
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Spambo, what up?
the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." LOL! the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." "The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." I don't blame a libTURD whore such as you for not wanting to talk about how your messiah "king" obammy is currently in contempt of TWO FEDERAL Court orders, one in this matter AND the other being their ban on ALL offshore drilling. Because the simple truth is, "The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." "IF you want to piss a conservative off tell a LIE, if you want to piss a libTURD off tell the TRUTH."
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
-- One tin soldier
the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." LOL! the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." "The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." I don't blame a libTURD whore such as you for not wanting to talk about how your messiah "king" obammy is currently in contempt of TWO FEDERAL Court orders, one in this matter AND the other being their ban on ALL offshore drilling. Because the simple truth is,"The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." "IF you want to piss a conservative off tell a LIE, if you want to piss a libTURD off tell the TRUTH."
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Knew you'd like that, Spambo.
LOL! the messiah "king" obammy, his whores and tools such as weasel gurl; "That's an awful lot of meaningless verbiage." "The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." I don't blame a libTURD whore such as you for not wanting to talk about how your messiah "king" obammy is currently in contempt of TWO FEDERAL Court orders, one in this matter AND the other being their ban on ALL offshore drilling. Because the simple truth is,"The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge." "IF you want to piss a conservative off tell a LIE, if you want to piss a libTURD off tell the TRUTH."
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
What up, pound puppy?
Comments (42 - 43) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFounders forcing people 'to buy tea'
#2. To: go65, Mad Dog (#1)
'Difficult to imagine' Founders forcing people 'to buy tea' Read more: Judge compares Obamacare to reason for Revolution
#3. To: go65 (#1)
#4. To: Mad Dog, go65 (#3)
The original "tea party" was an act DIRECTLY against a NEW TAX on TEA imposed by a government across the sea which the Colonialists felt did not represent or LISTEN to them.
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
#6. To: Godwinson (#4)
#7. To: Mad Dog, go65 (#6)
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/tea-act.html
#8. To: Godwinson (#7)
"The federal judge who today ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional said he couldn't imagine that the Founders of America would have rebelled over a tea tax only to set up a government requiring people to buy tea."
#9. To: go65 (#1)
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
#11. To: Mad Dog (#5)
#12. To: go65 (#1)
Do people really not understand that the "Boston Tea Party" was a protest against a corporate tax cut?
Here's one of our own American Socialist,
"godwinson," resident socialist goober.
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#14. To: Mad Dog (#13)
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=17123
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
#17. To: Mad Dog (#16)
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
#19. To: Mad Dog (#18)
#20. To: Mad Dog (#18)
#21. To: Godwinson (#7)
(Edited)
#22. To: war (#21)
(Edited)
The most HILARIOUS aspect of the reality of the Boston Tea Party is that the change to the Townsend Act was negotiated by Benjamin Franklin. One "colony" didn't know what the other was doing.
#23. To: war, godwinson (#21)
Good luck. This has been pointed out ad infinitum since Santelli made his unfortunate comment on CNBC three years ago. If they haven't gotten it yet, they won't.
"Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance," Wick said.
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;
#24. To: A K A Stone (#19)
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#20)
#26. To: Mad Dog (#25)
"It's not "spam" fool."
#27. To: Ferret Mike (#26)
It's not spam FOOL.
#28. To: Mad Dog (#27)
#29. To: Ferret Mike (#28)
"The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge."
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#28)
"The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge."
#31. To: Mad Dog (#30)
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
"The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge."
#33. To: Mad Dog (#32)
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#33)
"The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge."
#35. To: Mad Dog (#34)
#36. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
(Edited)
"The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge."
#37. To: Mad Dog (#36)
#38. To: Ferret Mike (#37)
"The TRUTH is is that the obammy "health care" bill has been struck down as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal judge."
#39. To: Mad Dog (#38)
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#39)
#41. To: Mad Dog (#40)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]