Although I have no regard for George Soros, it always tickles me to hear him say Nahtzi Pelosi. Nazi, George? I think you nailed it.
Sarah avoids the question ...as usual!
Sarah Palin Conspiracy Theory
To the Roberts court and the extreme leftest in the Democratic party this is for you:
" The limitations on government power included in our constitution are not inconveniences which must be rationalized away to face the modern world. They are essential guard against the unabated excesses of government which inadvertently work against the people. By understanding the value of our constitution. And selecting leaders who share the same reverence for the wisdom of it's tenants. We can restored Americas position as a beacon of freedom and liberty in the world." Thomas Jefferson
Isn't it amazing how cool and composed Gov. Palin has been--since the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare?
She intuitively knew when John Roberts passed the awful bill as a tax--the democrats would be portrayed as the big government, tax and spend liberals they are...and as a result, Obama is now exposed for lying (again) to the American people. Better yet: They have to explain why they are now implementing the largest tax in history...on the middle class.
Sarah showed much more foresight than Rush, Levin, Ingraham and the rest, because she knows this is the beginning of the end for Obama.
And she's the idiot.
I believe things were set in motion when she resigned as governor. Of course that is only anecdotal and optimistic but your observation is not. Her manner may deceive but her focus and confidence is that of a player who knows where the puck is going.
Do you remember when she was first asked who she thought would make a good VP choice a few weeks ago. She did the Palin shuffle "Oh, Gosh there are so many millions of qualified Americans who could fill that position, but if I were choosing, I would look at Col. Allen West." She did two things: She diluted the conventional candidate pool (Pawlenty, Daniels, etc) by suggesting that many Americans are qualified for VP, and she escaped endorsing the conventional candidate pool by naming only one man that was not on the short list.
In this interview, Hannity tried to force her to list a few names of from the Republican fish barrell and took Allen West's name off the list. She blew Sean away by naming Levin and Sowell! You could hear Sean laugh out loud. He supposedly loves Levin, but thinks he would never have a chance at VP because he has been too vocal about his opinions, and as much as he loves Thomas Sowell, Sean makes fun of his appearance (his glasses, "you haven't changed a bit) every time Sowell comes on his show.
From Palin's perspective, however, Levin and Sowell were ideological supporters of Reagan through and through.
I think Sarah is announcing her cabinet one piece at a time, and I for one am glad to discover it!
She's being too kind. Look, nows not the time for nicey nicey talk. If we don't win the Presidency the Senate and retain the House, then USA will become the United Social States of America.
Understand that when Pelosi uses the term "American People" she is referring to the .99% of her fellow dingbats that vote for tools like her.
Oh and where is Tina Fey these days? I see plenty of Sarah and none of Tina. What's up with that? Oh I know, why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing.
Yep. God created all women equal. Then some became Marines. And one became a Dhimiratz/RHINO destroyer named Sarah. Hot damn.
Unless you absolutely hate America there is no such thing as the 1% and the 99%. There are 300 million plus individual Americans who are adult enough to make their own decisions and need no "dingbat" central planners to tell them what to buy and who to curtsy to.
I love the real Sarah because she is not part of the collectivist mindset that wills to pound America into stone age.
The 99ers are a joke. With that said, it is possible for massive corporations to subvert free markets and confiscate the wealth of a country using government as their tool. In so doing, liberty must eventually be erradicated on all levels. Liberty is the one thing that would allow a population to force a change in this crony capitalist system, and keep fascism at bay.
Wow you must be new here. That's an interesting moniker you have. You familiar with the word "sarcasm"?
I'm glad Sarah is much more gracious than me, because I would have used terms that would require heavy bleeping, if it had have been me commenting on Pelosi.
As usual Palin states the obvious that most people left unsaid. Anyone who says Pelosi is not mentally challenged has a single digit IQ. Saying Pelosi is a "dingbat" is actually giving San Fran Nan more credit that she deserves.
He posted it multiple times sDee.
Yes, Roberts says the Commerce Clause doesn't go that far... but he doesn't say that in the Majority opinion. He says so speaking only for himself. So its dicta; i.e., not binding precedent.
More importantly, what he DID say in the majority opinion is precedent, and will cause massive damage to efforts to put limits on the federal government, much as Wickard v Fillburn did 70 years ago. All government mandates are now legal, so long as they are enforced by a penalty (which now = "tax"). and he held this right *after* ruling the mandate was not a "tax." It is a tax and it isn't. Brilliant eh? Only a Harvard man could dig a hole this deep.
YOu have to go back at least as far as Roe to find an opinion so badly reasoned and with so much potential to do harm to limited government...and maybe all the way back to Wickard.
PS--the author of the cited article compares Roberts to John Marshall. That is not a complement. Marshall is the guy who invented judicial supremacy out of whole cloth.
This penalty is being used in China right now to enforce the one child policy. If a couple conceives a second child without the permission of the state, (and it survives to delivery) the Chinese government charges them a fee (a head tax) equivalent to what the state has determined to be the added burden to society. That fee today is near $15,000; an amount nearly impossible for any Chinese villager to afford.
You are correct. The flood gates of government tyranny have opened for future legislators.
Have more than 2 children---pay fee for all the healthcare they will consume (head tax)
Homeschool you kids-----pay fee for all welfare they will consume because they will be stupid
These ideas can only be enforced if society imposes a 'shared value' on itself as China has been able to do by indoctrinating their population.
This is why Obama wants to control the 'consensus' in Science, and maintain control of the media propaganda machine.
OK. I've been reading a few like that - most follows the same reasoning. I've spent 5 years looking for silver linings in our government which serves only to educate me of its even deeper corruption. The Supreme Court no exception - just look at the two committed anti-Constitutionalist subversives we just appointed.
One thing I have followed in those years is the Court's complete refusal to consider, in my opinion, a dangerous and clear cut case: Obama's and McCain's ineligibility. The Court including Roberts knows this yet rejects all arguments based on standing - essentially tossing out Article 2 Section 1 and leaving the office of President open to anyone not born on US soil (McCain) or to US-citizen arents (Obama).
I mention this because that violation of the Constitution, like the mandate, should never have had to gone to the Court. We, the people and our representatives should never have let it happen. It is our fault. Our ignorance of the law and belief of media propaganda, and, our trust in absolutely corrupt politicians who we ourselves elected. It, like Obamacare, SHOULD NOT EVEN BE at the feet of the Supreme Court.
I took the comparison to Marshall not as a compliment but that maybe ROberts, liek Marshall, l stepped outside the bounds for a reason. So where I am on this today is .......... the situation at Marbury was nothing - our nation is in great and grave danger. There is literally an enemy within. The SUPREME COURT CANNOT SAVE US. Only we can save the Republic by un-electing those who operate above the law and are creating this unconstitutional legislation.
I think of it this way: Imagine the citizens of New York had managed to elect a majority council of organized crime who then passed a law giving themselves access to the citizens' bank accounts. The Supreme Court of NY could rule on the legitimacy of the law, but even if they over turned it, the criminals would remain in power, grow bigger and pass more laws and executive orders. The NY Court could not remove them, only the citizens of NYC could remove them.
Had Roberts thrown out the law, all of the same criminal politicians and all of the same voter ignorance and apathy that put them there, would remain. And now, there is no time left. Perhaps Roberts knows, as many of us do that this is our very last chance.
This is an extraordinary and unprecedented time in American history. We've a Marxist in the White House and a Congress that operates above the law. Roberts may just have taken an unprecedented step to give us, the people, that one final chance. My sights remain set but I am keeping an open mind on this one - no where on the horizon is a cavalry coming. It is up to us.
Your term says it all, "no where on the horizon is a cavalry coming". In a way Roberts has made Obama and Romney inconsequential by making the presidential election a referendum on Obamacare. Although he may have set some precedent on the Commerce Clause, he is allowing the American electorate the opportunity to decide if the monumental transformation of our economy caused by Obamacare will be allowed to exist. Obama and his administration are definitely corrupt enough to force Obamacare down the throats of the American people whether we like it or not. As you state, "we have failed because we let them". Roberts may have, whether intentional or not, given the "citizens-the first and last line of defense" a second change at redemption.
Very good post, sDee! You are so right we know that Barack Obama would have just issued another executive order and now, we the people, can issue our own executive order by voting these corrupt bastards out of office which will last longer than any executive order. While I still think Roberts should resign and most definitely went outside of his responsibilities by not just simply applying the Constitution to this horrific law this is a view of the Supreme court that was there but one that I never saw before. I mean two cases in one week, the Arizona immigration debacle and Obama care, are just proof that we cannot even rely on appointed supposedly strict Constitutional constructionist to apply the Constitution. And now with this precedence future courts will use this to their advantage by applying this ruling to cases that come before the court. So while this may have been a move by Roberts to force the people to be the final check voting out these politicians Roberts has still set precedence. You are correct indeed, it is now up to us!
Do you believe that all branches of government are perpetually evenly split by coincidence? I believe that this is too much of a coincidence. If a perpectually evenly split supreme court with one swing vote who defects when necessary is just how it always works out, then that, to me, is amazing. The same goes for the house and senate. The tide only shifts slightly back and forth without there ever being any real opposition.
This is not a natural result of the voter's actions.
I agree. I am disgusted and fed up living with our liberty and the fate of the greatest nation in history in the hands of one vote in a 5-4 court. Sick of it!
Let's get on with this and have it out once and for all . No more shades of gray. No more "reaching across the aisle". Instead of pleading behind the robes of the Court, let's reject these fair weather "conservatives" and take the fight to our enemy.
Good comment. But consider. The Constitution was written precisely because the founders knew that the political branches would fail, and produce oppressive results from time to time.
When Roberts said (paraphrasing) my job is not to protect the peeps from the consequences of their bad political choices, he missed the boat. Protecting the people from the their bad political choices is exactly what the Constitution does.
And enforcing the Constitutional limits is exactly what the judiciary has claimed as its function since Marbury. There are certain choices the people acting through the Prez and Congress may not make. If Roberts isn't willing to enforce the limits, he should find a new line of work.
After vacillating for a while between thinking this ruling was the end of the USA as constituted, and pondering whether there really is a silver lining, I re-read the dissent, written by Justice Kennedy.
It is a blistering, no holds barred indictment of the decision and the CJ himself. Never seen anything like it, even comparing it to EPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting
Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S., at 99.
This Court must not impose risks unintended by Congress or produce legislation Congress may have lacked the support to enact. For those reasons, the unconstitutionality of both the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid Expansion requires the invalidation of the Affordable Care Act’s other provisions.
* * *
The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a
requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.
The Court’s disposition, as invented and atextual as it is, (Holy sh*t!!) does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism
concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union.
Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their
citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.
The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of
constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it
undermines state sovereignty.
The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this
truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.
You descrive a scenario in which there is no judicial check on congress or the executive branch. This means that one branch of government, who is not elected but appointed by the executive and congress, is corrupted. One corrupt branch effectually disolves our republic, and especially when it is the one who's sole purpose is to protect the structure of it which limits the others.
We have no more federal limitations other than public opinion that might force the three branches to find another way to kill us.
I still will weigh strongly the quite real possibility that even if ObamaCare was thrown out, it would not have reversed our trajectory.
Can we really know level of subversion, external influence and corruption within the Court itself? Do we know what was playing out? Can we assume that Kennedy would have voted as he did had Roberts played his hand differently?
My favorite patriot. I would love to vote for a Palin/West ticket
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man-brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
Gov. Palin....you are AWESOME!!! She brought out an excellent point for Romney to hammer in to those who are too busy noticing the tingle up their leg for Odumbo. What about those exemptions for big labor? If they are exempt until 2018, then that means there are even fewer of us paying for this monstrousity! If it is such a great thing for the country, Dingbat Pelosi, then why are the ones who fought so fiercely for it, exempt? I pose that question to every fool liberal I know, just to watch the stupid stare and stammer response!
Sarah was spectacular as always !! Thanks for providing the entire video. Her opinions are so appreciated !!
I understand Gov Palin's reason for not running for the Republican Presidential Nomination, due to the massive costs, but more so the probability of of losing, but that should never have been a factor where her country is in need of a true Reagan Conservative as the GOP nominee.
Even if she did not win, she would have shown the American public how better, different, and conservative she is compared to Mitt Romney, and should have gave the conservative Republican voters a clear option to choose from during the Primaries, especially in the debate formats.. Thus, her country's calling should have taken precedent over her personal fears.
It's truly a shame, as we are not going to be that much better off with Romney, than we are with Obama, although yes any movement to the right is better than no movement. and just like Gov Palin stated on the show what the Nation needs is someone at the helm to be a strong willed reformer, but Romney as a Mass progressive Republicrat RINO who created and implemented Romneycare, the precursor of Obamacare which he refused to refute but says he will repeal Obamacare, as all of his Republican Romney-ites loyalists believe, whom actually buy his hypocrisy BS, will unfortunately be just a manager of the status quo decline, instead of a determined strong willed Reagan constitutional conservative reformer.
I hope he proves me wrong, but like with John Roberts, don't bet on it..
I believe it was very smart of Gov.Palin to bypass this election cycle as she would have had very little support to move her agenda forward, as it stands Gov.Palin has this cycle the midterms and the runup to the presidency in 16 to recruit the troops she'll need to advance her agenda to save America. PS so there's no misunderstanding i can't stand Romney.
Let's look at someone who did not give to fear and pressure, as well as put his Country, Freedom and Liberty, Democracy, and the US Constitution before himself.
In 1976, then Gov Reagan was told in a letter by prominent GOP politicians at the time, to back down from challenging then President Ford. Reagan told them all to go to hell. Reagan stood firm for what he believed in, and mauled President Ford in advocating conservative values and principles over progressive GOP establishment liberal policies of expanded govt., appeasement and compromised capitulation, via collusion with the opposite party members at the RNC Convention in 1976.
This set up Ronald Reagan as forte 1980 Presidential election campaign thank goodness. What would have happened to this country if not for Ronald Reagan's determined conviction in the face of fear and pressure of appeasement to the left or the right liberal progressive entities.
Thus, it is always easy to say, I am just biding my time and waiting out the negativity and hostility for the perfect political environment time, instead of facing the enemies of Freedom and Liberty and Democracy head on.
No, I cannot have respect for someone who is not willing to fight in the first place, let alone retreat in the second place, as excuse are just that, excuses.
Can you imagine if George Washington thought like that. I respect Gov Palin as a conservative, but as a retired US Military person, and a history major, I see little affect to her excuse strategy of - "I'll wait til the political winds of weather is a little calmer"