First, the cultural reference:
Now, the pathetic truth. It’s anything but a tax:
The state and federal health insurance exchanges are using all manner of humor and happy talk to sell the Affordable Care Act’s products. But the one part of the new system that they are not quick to trumpet is the financial penalty that Americans will face if they fail to buy insurance.
On state exchange websites, mention of the penalty is typically tucked away under “frequently asked questions,” if it appears at all. Television and print ads usually skip the issue, and operators of exchange telephone banks are instructed to discuss it only if asked. The federal website, now infamous for its glitches, mentions the penalty but also calls it a fee, or an Individual Shared Responsibility Payment. …
State exchange operators say that they are not trying to hide the penalty, but that their market research has taught them that, at least in the initial phase, consumers will be more receptive to soothing messages and appeals to their sense of collective responsibility than to threats of punishment.
To be fair, the regime has been clear from the beginning they reject the notion of the individual mandate as a tax—even if that’s the only way to interpret it as Constitutional (bitches):
The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. But if it is a tax, blame Mitt Romney, spokesman Jay Carney suggested.
“It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?”
Roberts wrote that the law “makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income.”
Many of us on the right wondered how Roberts could so prostrate himself before Obama to misrepresent the law as he did. Any American, left or right, should quiver in fear at such logic. What, then, could the government not do, Mr. Chief Justice? Especially a government that immediately rejected your narrow rationale in order to interpret the law as please them?
Many have wondered, but few have spoken:
Many of us have asked ourselves why Roberts switched his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and did so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.
In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident.
Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.
This would explain the children’s origin from a “Latin American country”, so as to circumvent Irish law.
Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws — entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland.
The NY Times began poking into Roberts’ personal life when George Bush nominated him in 2005. How likely, if this story is true, that they would have shared their insights, or at least their suspicions, with the Obama occupied White House? How hard would it be for a regime that used the NSA, the FEC, and the IRS to its political ends to unearth this information on its own? And how likely that a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court would self-corrupt legal philosophy so save his family and his reputation?
I leave it to each of you to answer that to your own satisfaction. I became aware of this story only about ten days ago, but it’s been out there for a while. I (even I) might not have believed it several months ago. But after the revelations of recent months, I find it the most plausible of explanations.
As Aggie was first to observe, we’ve been a banana republic for quite some time now.