Monday, March 22, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
16,500 jobs created! YES!!!!!
Has it always been your dream to breathe down people's necks, forcing them to do your will?
If the answer to that is yes, then go ahead and apply to the Internal Revenue Service.
This is what Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had to say about it this morning on the Chris Baker show on KTLK-FM.
"When we didn't think that this (Obamacare) could get any worse, it IS worse. What we're finding out now with this new job-killing government takeover of healthcare is that the IRS is the enforcement mechanism for this new healthcare plan. The IRS agents will be breathing down the necks of 300 million Americans. Their task will be to verify that all of us have acceptable-to-government health care coverage. They won't just be verifying once a year, they verify every month that all 300 million Americans have "acceptable" healthcare coverage which means that they have to hire 16,500 new IRS auditors, agents, other employees. They'll have the power to confiscate our tax refunds, there will be increased audits, and also they'll have the power to fine us up to 2% of our income, or $2,250, whichever is greater, if we fail to prove to government satisfaction, that we've purchased "minimum essential coverage".
So the IRS is going to have access to Americans' financial records every month.
Notice that I said the IRS will have access to Americans' financial records. Congresswoman Bachmann continues by saying that there are going to be people that WON'T have to pay these fines and penalties. They are.... "illegal aliens and people serving behind bars." (I don't think she meant bartenders, either.) Those people are "specifically enumerated as being exempt from having to pay taxes or fines. "
People will be in this country ILLEGALLY, which technically makes them criminals. Harsh, maybe, but true. If THEY decide not to pay, then they don't have to pay the fines. Betcha they'll still be showing up at the emergency room for treatment for their cold symptoms.
Apparently the IRS will be getting the information about who's paying for coverage and who's not from employers. If people are getting paid cash, under the table, then it's a safe bet that they usually don't pay taxes anyway.
Get this, too. The IRS will now have the power to reveal OUR CONFIDENTIAL TAX INFORMATION to the Department of Health and Human Services.
We know in our court system, that if we are accused of a crime, we are innocent until proven guilty. Per the IRS rules, citizens are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent. It's been that way with the IRS for years.
What does the IRS have to do with healthcare? Really? NOTHING. The agents will say "oh I'm just doing my job".
I'm declaring shenanigans on this, right now.
If the answer to that is yes, then go ahead and apply to the Internal Revenue Service.
This is what Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had to say about it this morning on the Chris Baker show on KTLK-FM.
"When we didn't think that this (Obamacare) could get any worse, it IS worse. What we're finding out now with this new job-killing government takeover of healthcare is that the IRS is the enforcement mechanism for this new healthcare plan. The IRS agents will be breathing down the necks of 300 million Americans. Their task will be to verify that all of us have acceptable-to-government health care coverage. They won't just be verifying once a year, they verify every month that all 300 million Americans have "acceptable" healthcare coverage which means that they have to hire 16,500 new IRS auditors, agents, other employees. They'll have the power to confiscate our tax refunds, there will be increased audits, and also they'll have the power to fine us up to 2% of our income, or $2,250, whichever is greater, if we fail to prove to government satisfaction, that we've purchased "minimum essential coverage".
So the IRS is going to have access to Americans' financial records every month.
Notice that I said the IRS will have access to Americans' financial records. Congresswoman Bachmann continues by saying that there are going to be people that WON'T have to pay these fines and penalties. They are.... "illegal aliens and people serving behind bars." (I don't think she meant bartenders, either.) Those people are "specifically enumerated as being exempt from having to pay taxes or fines. "
People will be in this country ILLEGALLY, which technically makes them criminals. Harsh, maybe, but true. If THEY decide not to pay, then they don't have to pay the fines. Betcha they'll still be showing up at the emergency room for treatment for their cold symptoms.
Apparently the IRS will be getting the information about who's paying for coverage and who's not from employers. If people are getting paid cash, under the table, then it's a safe bet that they usually don't pay taxes anyway.
Get this, too. The IRS will now have the power to reveal OUR CONFIDENTIAL TAX INFORMATION to the Department of Health and Human Services.
We know in our court system, that if we are accused of a crime, we are innocent until proven guilty. Per the IRS rules, citizens are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent. It's been that way with the IRS for years.
What does the IRS have to do with healthcare? Really? NOTHING. The agents will say "oh I'm just doing my job".
I'm declaring shenanigans on this, right now.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
I figured it out!
I finally get it! After all this time it finally makes sense!
The money for the tax increases that are going to happen if Obamacare passes (or is just deemed in, who cares about procedure anyway... Obama said that we don't care about it) will come from states 51-58! Boy I feel sorry for the people who live in states 51-58. You're really gonna have to pay. I mean, since none of us living in the 50 states that we all thought we had (well that's what we get for thinking) are going to have to pay for this, then it's GOTTA come from 51-58!
He said it himself. He had been to 57 states, with one more to go.
The money for the tax increases that are going to happen if Obamacare passes (or is just deemed in, who cares about procedure anyway... Obama said that we don't care about it) will come from states 51-58! Boy I feel sorry for the people who live in states 51-58. You're really gonna have to pay. I mean, since none of us living in the 50 states that we all thought we had (well that's what we get for thinking) are going to have to pay for this, then it's GOTTA come from 51-58!
He said it himself. He had been to 57 states, with one more to go.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Bullying and corruption!
I have been trying all morning to get hold of Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. What a coward. He got strongarmed into a "yes" vote on Obamacare. I told my husband this morning that if we still lived in Ohio, we would have to move. (Now we live where our Senators are blatantly liberal and have proven that they don't care what the people think. Doesn't matter to them whether or not they are reelected. Yeah, yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out.)
But THIS one takes the cake.
Now the government is going to turn California's water back on, in exchange for votes?
I cannot believe the corruption. I've seen it before though. Didn't Saddam Hussein withhold
clean water from the Kurds, in order to ensure their submission?
I love this country, but I don't love what she is becoming.
But THIS one takes the cake.
Now the government is going to turn California's water back on, in exchange for votes?
I cannot believe the corruption. I've seen it before though. Didn't Saddam Hussein withhold
clean water from the Kurds, in order to ensure their submission?
I love this country, but I don't love what she is becoming.
Friday, March 12, 2010
A deeper question
Well, it looks like the "Slaughter Solution" is toast. Good. It SHOULD be. I haven't heard of much that's more unconstitutional than that piece of garbage. Sure, let's go ahead and pretend that we passed the Senate healthcare bill, and put it on the President's desk to sign. Then we'll work out the problems with it later.
Yep. I'm betting that if that had happened, there would never have been any changes made.
Just in case you're wondering, like I did, exactly HOW that great idea named the Slaughter Solution is unconstitutional, here it is. Article 1, Section 7.
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;"
So every bill has to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Strike one, Representative Slaughter.
"If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
That's two-thirds. Not a simple majority. Strike two, Senator Reid.
"But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
So all votes are counted, and recorded, so each Senator or Congressman (or Congresswoman - go Michele Bachmann!!!) will be ON RECORD as to which way his vote went. Strike three, Speaker Pelosi, you're out on this one!
But, you know, there is an even deeper question than whether the Senate Majority Leader, or the Speaker of the House, or Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York intended to violate the Constitution of our country. This is directly from Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This particular oath was taken on January 20, 2009, and again on January 21, 2009.
I think that especially since it was taken twice, it would be even that much more important. Since the President didn't come out and speak against the Slaughter Solution, I think he may have been planning to sign the bill into law when it got to his desk. That's unconstitutional, Mr. President, and you SWORE to preserve, protect, and defend the very Constitution that's being threatened.
Yep. I'm betting that if that had happened, there would never have been any changes made.
Just in case you're wondering, like I did, exactly HOW that great idea named the Slaughter Solution is unconstitutional, here it is. Article 1, Section 7.
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;"
So every bill has to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Strike one, Representative Slaughter.
"If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
That's two-thirds. Not a simple majority. Strike two, Senator Reid.
"But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
So all votes are counted, and recorded, so each Senator or Congressman (or Congresswoman - go Michele Bachmann!!!) will be ON RECORD as to which way his vote went. Strike three, Speaker Pelosi, you're out on this one!
But, you know, there is an even deeper question than whether the Senate Majority Leader, or the Speaker of the House, or Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York intended to violate the Constitution of our country. This is directly from Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This particular oath was taken on January 20, 2009, and again on January 21, 2009.
I think that especially since it was taken twice, it would be even that much more important. Since the President didn't come out and speak against the Slaughter Solution, I think he may have been planning to sign the bill into law when it got to his desk. That's unconstitutional, Mr. President, and you SWORE to preserve, protect, and defend the very Constitution that's being threatened.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
ACORN... again...
A few months ago, I couldn't turn on the news (Fox News, it IS real news!) without hearing about the ACORN scandal. I don't hear much about it anymore. I guess they finally wised up and stopped having their people advise hookers and pimps on how to evade their taxes.
But today.. oh it's my lucky day.
I'll give you a minute to read the story. Meet you right back here.
Are you SCREAMING??? WHAT THE HECK KIND OF NONSENSE IS THAT???
This is what bugs me the most:
"The judge, however, wrote that it was "unmistakable that Congress determined ACORN's guilt before defunding it." She said Congress is entitled to investigate ACORN but cannot "rely on the negative results of a congressional or executive report as a rationale to impose a broad, punitive funding ban on a specific, named organization."
So, Judge, what you're saying, is.. it's okay for Congress to investigate ACORN but if they find that ACORN is guilty of, let's see... promoting tax evasion at the very least, they shouldn't use the results of their investigation to decide that funding should be cut off.
That's just like saying that the police have the ability to investigate a crime, but when they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of that crime, the court shouldn't use that proof to decide an appropriate punishment.
Shame on you, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon.
But today.. oh it's my lucky day.
I'll give you a minute to read the story. Meet you right back here.
Are you SCREAMING??? WHAT THE HECK KIND OF NONSENSE IS THAT???
This is what bugs me the most:
"The judge, however, wrote that it was "unmistakable that Congress determined ACORN's guilt before defunding it." She said Congress is entitled to investigate ACORN but cannot "rely on the negative results of a congressional or executive report as a rationale to impose a broad, punitive funding ban on a specific, named organization."
So, Judge, what you're saying, is.. it's okay for Congress to investigate ACORN but if they find that ACORN is guilty of, let's see... promoting tax evasion at the very least, they shouldn't use the results of their investigation to decide that funding should be cut off.
That's just like saying that the police have the ability to investigate a crime, but when they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of that crime, the court shouldn't use that proof to decide an appropriate punishment.
Shame on you, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)