February 13, 2014

Obama's New Unilateral Law: Making Businesses Sign a Loyalty Oath
— Ace

When Gabe heard about this yesterday -- the Treasury's new claimed rule that businesses must sign a statement swearing they are not cutting their staff (or avoiding increasing their staff) in order to avoid Obamacare's disincentives for expanding your staff (that is, different Obamacare's strictures kick in at 50 or 100 employees) -- he had a simple question:


I suppose that's a quaint question now, isn't it? Gabe seems a naif for even asking it. We all now understand that Obama feels that any law he feels should be a law is a law, whether Congress has gone through the bother of passing a law or not.

Ed Morrissey discusses it himself, and also links Andy McCarthy discussing it.

Let's just cut the chase. Obama wants businesses to swear to this, under penalty of perjury, because he would like to use these statements -- whether true or false -- to argue that Obamacare is not causing reductions in hiring.

Note he has created a powerful coercive force to get businesses to lie on these things. A businessman, being asked by the Treasury to swear he's not reducing staff to avoid Obamacare, understands exactly what Treasury wants: Treasury wants him to claim this. If the businessman claims this, even if falsely, Treasury will leave him alone.

If a businessman decides to to tell the truth and say, "Why, actually, I am reducing staff to avoid Obamacare, as is my right," he can expect that Treasury will take an interest in him. An auditing interest.

It is thus in businessman's interest to perjure themselves, and Treasury would like them to perjure themselves.

The bad faith of this action is demonstrated by the fact that Treasury doesn't even ask a straight question about it. (Which they would also have no power to ask, by the way.) A straight question would be, "Have you refrained from making new hires, or have you cut staff, due to the incentives and disincentives of Obamacare?" Such a question would be more likely to lead to truthful answers (though any businessman with a grain of savviness would still understand what Treasury wants him to say, and adjust his answer accordingly).

But at least that formulation isn't so plainly constructed to force one answer, the answer that is politically helpful to Obama.

In addition, if Treasury merely wants to know the truth, they can employ a method more likely to produce candid answers: send out a survey form to 10,000 business owners, making answers voluntarily, and creating a special means of response that safeguards each respondent's identity, so they can feel comfortable speaking a truth that the IRS (while under Obama's control) might not like.

But they do not want a truthful answer. They want a specific answer, truthful or not.

Obama, using the power of the IRS, is thus now compelling private citizens to commit perjury in order to use those deliberately-elicited perjurious statements as part of his political campaign. He doesn't care if these Loyalty Oaths are true; but he does want the paperwork on record so he can point to it.

To get back to Gabe's question: What legal basis does the Treasury have for this? Demanding that a citizen or business sign a statement, on penalty of perjury, is a serious thing. Businessmen are under a great many laws already; Congress has passed these laws, however. They are constitutional laws (or, for those who object that they're nevertheless unconstitutional, at least they have the surface appearance of being constitutional, as they were passed by Congress and then signed into law by a President, as the Constitution requires).

What basis does the executive have for creating new laws? If Treasury can make people swear to this, can they also make people swear to not taking advantage of tax loopholes and preferences to reduce their tax burden?

For example: Can a Republican President direct Treasury to make businessmen swear that they are investing in tax breaks favored by liberals (such as green energy) out of actual support for those boondoggles, as opposed to simply wanting the big tax break for them?

This is lawless, and this is scary. And it just keeps on happening, day after day.

At some point the Supreme Court must step in and save our democracy. Whether or not Obamacare was "constitutional" as written, it is now unconstitutional as interpreted by President Obama. Obama is interpreting not as an actual law, with firm dates, specified strictures and duties, but as an illegal Enabling Act that simply transfers, unconstitutionally, the power of Congress to legislate to the Executive.

Even when Congress actually intends to do this, the Supreme Court has knocked down overbroad delegations of power to the Executive-- the Constitution requires Congress to pass laws, and the President to enforce them, and even a willing Congress cannot pass its power to the Executive. The Constitution forbids it.

Now Congress can pass some rule-making power and discretion to the Executive. However, there are limitations on that power:

In the 1989 case Mistretta v. United States,[6] the Court stated that:

Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.

Where can Obama point to in the tax codes or in Obamacare to say Congress has delineated this general policy, or named which Agency should execute it, or... even mentioned it at all?

In this situation, Congress is not even willing to transfer its constitutional power to the Executive. The Executive is simply asserting that it did, or at least, that this is what is "required" to save Obamacare.

A lawsuit must be lodged to declare Obamacare an unconstitutional delegation of lawmaking power to the executive, as interpreted and actually enforced by Obama.

Facially, Obamacare looks like a normal law. But in actual practice, it is, as Charles C.W. Cooke called it, an illegal, unconstitutional enabling act.

Poaching: If Obama is presuming to poach Congressional power, why doesn't the House of Representatives poach back?

Let the House pass a bill stating that no business has to comply with this, as it is unconstitutional.

Let them say further that their statement of intent on this matter shall be a perfect defense to all prosecutions or attempts of the executive to enforce the clause.

And let the House start doing more than that: Let the House pass a bill that in its opinion Obamacare is simply no longer the law of the land.

Now, Obama will object: One House of Congress has no right or authority to do this.

Oh?

Lot of that going 'round, huh?

Posted by: Ace at 09:41 AM | Comments (458)
Post contains 1196 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Oneth?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 09:42 AM (0HooB)

2 Got the others.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 09:42 AM (ndIek)

3 The others have been summoned.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 09:43 AM (0HooB)

4 This is not going to end well.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 09:43 AM (fk1A8)

5 Fascism all the way down.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 13, 2014 09:43 AM (DrWcr)

6 And the Left still screeches about how companies helped the NAZIs.

Right here we see the coercive and corrosive power of the state compelling actions that are none of the business of the state.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 09:44 AM (+lpuZ)

7 We all live in a yellow fascist state,
A yellow fascist state,
A yellow fascist state.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 13, 2014 09:44 AM (XUKZU)

8 Has anyone smacked John Roberts in the face yet?

Posted by: ejo at February 13, 2014 09:45 AM (GXvSO)

9
Let's get this straight.  I am the statutory authority!

Posted by: Bronco Bama at February 13, 2014 09:45 AM (nQjHM)

10 Vee have vays ov making dem talk.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 13, 2014 09:45 AM (R5UOB)

11 I'm sure one of our betters will be along shortly to explain why the courts have no business getting involved.

Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2014 09:45 AM (Aif/5)

12 So what if you say you *did* fire your people because of Obamacare?

Then what?

Didn't perjurer yourself so...

what?

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 09:45 AM (x3YFz)

13 I read more than one pundit call it "Directive 10-289" yesterday.

http://conservapedia.com/Directive_10-289

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 09:45 AM (ZKzrr)

14

Szign  ze papers, old man!

 

-- Cheech and Chong bit

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 09:45 AM (BAS5M)

15 At some point the Supreme Court must step in and save our democracy.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know but doesn't there have to be a case before them, brought by someone with standing, in order for that to happen?  What are the rules here?

Posted by: pep at February 13, 2014 09:45 AM (6TB1Z)

16 America voted for this.

Twice.

And they're not going to change their minds until sig %  of us are broke, in jail, or dead.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 09:46 AM (cxs6V)

17 So if a mutlinational corporation was to lay off people expressly because of Obamacare - and said so - what jurisdiction would the Admin have on a corp not based in the USA?

Posted by: Bigby's Helping Hands at February 13, 2014 09:46 AM (3ZtZW)

18 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 09:46 AM (PYAXX)

19 Dear Leaders admin. will probably be administering a loyalty oath to every American citizen before he leaves office.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 13, 2014 09:46 AM (XyM/Y)

20 7 As soon as the Chi-Comms call the debt, you may be very close

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 13, 2014 09:46 AM (R5UOB)

21 TFG.  Saving and/or creating jobs like a boss!

Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (Kkt/i)

22 How about we sign a pledge that we laid off workers because Bush Is Evil?

Posted by: t-bird at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (FcR7P)

23 It is thus in businessman's interest to perjure themselves, and Treasury would like them to perjure themselves. I recall reading a line in a fairly famous book about how the Government doesn't want well understood laws, because they can't control an innocent populous...

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (PYAXX)

24 Er... "populace."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (PYAXX)

25

"an illegal Enabling Act that simply transfers, unconstitutionally, the power of Congress to legislate to the Executive."

 

At some point, you've passed enough laws....

Posted by: King Barky I at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (DErq5)

26 Although as I think about it, Directive 10-289 says you can't quit your job, and the whole point of Obamacare is quitting your job.  So hrm.

(http://is.gd/gbG572)

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (ZKzrr)

27

>>>>doesn't there have to be a case before them, brought by someone with standing, in order for that to happen?

 

Yes

Posted by: Bigby's Helping Hands at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (3ZtZW)

28 "At some point the Supreme Court must step in and save our democracy."

Now who's the naif?

Posted by: Randall Hoven at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (xr36x)

29 Actually, it's better than that. They are only exempted from the mandate if they did not intentionally reduce head count. Obama only waives the law for those who swear they did not reduce head count. If you do not so swear, then the law applies to you.

It is a tax on displeasing Obama.

Posted by: Jerome at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (QGTBZ)

30 A lawsuit must be lodged to declare Obamacare an unconstitutional delegation of lawmaking power to the executive, as interpreted and actually enforced by Obama. Good luck finding anyone with the beginning of a pimple of a testicle in DC to do this.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (0HooB)

31 Yeah, but when Bush used Executive Orders and acted unilaterally it was bad.

Posted by: Your Average Lib at February 13, 2014 09:47 AM (FHNkr)

32 Я права!


Posted by: Бараком Обамой at February 13, 2014 09:48 AM (n0DEs)

33 Once the evil Big Insurance guys have filled out the signed paperwork though, think about what a small step it is to turn on them.

"The evil Big Insurance is committing perjury willy-hilly, let's help them out of this problem the same way we helped the Student Loan programs."

That is: They nationalized them. And the people that -most- need to resist the nationalization will have given the government signatures that they don't want to go directly to jail for.

It's just an acceleration of "Make everything a crime so we can punish those we want to" problem.

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2014 09:48 AM (9ynpo)

34 Didn't perjurer yourself so... what? Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 01:45 PM ____________________________ Then let the proctology BEGIN!

Posted by: Alphabet Soup from HELL at February 13, 2014 09:48 AM (8GKDa)

35 I AM THE LAW!

Posted by: Judge Barakakan at February 13, 2014 09:48 AM (Aif/5)

36 28 "At some point the Supreme Court must step in and save our democracy."

Now who's the naif?

Posted by: Randall Hoven at February 13, 2014 01:47 PM (xr36x)

Yeah, the founders left that difficult task to the people (looks around).

We're fkd

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (x3YFz)

37 I'm sure one of our betters will be along shortly to explain why the courts have no business getting involved.

They should, but I'm not optimistic that they will.

The courts (including SCOTUS) have traditionally been reluctant to involve themselves in these sort of disputes between the Legislative and Executive branches.

I think it likely they'll (again) punt, effectively saying "you guys duke it out on your own".

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (SY2Kh)

38 This is amazing, even for those of us from third world basketcases, as Mark Steyn affectionately calls them.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (r+7wo)

39 I invoke the Lois Lerner defense.  Next question?

Posted by: Ted Cruz lite at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (0N9lD)

40
I AM ... THE LAW!

Posted by: Judge Obama at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (VrNoa)

41 If you do not so swear, then the law applies to you. Fuck! I sweared. I'm exempt.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (ndIek)

42 Turning the screws.

Posted by: real joe at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (xXhgd)

43 Maybe an argument can be made that a loyalty oath is a violation of the 1st Amend.

Posted by: Iasonas at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (FHNkr)

44 He made them a deal they couldn't refuse.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (XUKZU)

45 What statutory authority? I'm convinced its in the ACA, and the Treasury is just activating it for this situation.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (zfY+H)

46 "But they do not want a truthful answer. They want a specific answer, truthful or not."

Or they want businesses to self-identify for enhanced alphabet soup agency scrutiny, or political reeducation, as it were.

Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 09:49 AM (Kkt/i)

47

"What statutory authority?"

 

It is a non-good sign of what we've become inured to that that question shocked me.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (1xUj/)

48 Standing? Nope no one in the country has it. FYNQ

Posted by: SCOTUS at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (hFL/3)

49 Yeah, but BOW WOW at Mooch's dre... er... ten ... er ... practice tarp.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (R5UOB)

50 The SC is already compromised because Roberts adopted a few Irish kids. The SC will not do anything about this.

Posted by: Titanium at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (oDFTq)

51 I keep reading that no one has standing to sue Obama for his lawlessness.  Is there a precedent for the Supremes stepping into a separation of power issue absent a case brought before them?

Posted by: Muad'dib at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (sjdRT)

52 Say, we've just been informed that Mike Bloomberg is helping to bankroll Joe Scarborough's return to politics. We knew there was a reason we liked this Scarborough fellow so much. Huzzah!

Posted by: The GOPe Elite at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (7ObY1)

53 Delegation doctrine.   We must speak it.


This is lawless, and this is scary. And it just keeps on happening, day after day.


Yup.

A system of checks and balances works only when each of the parties in that system accepts that it must.  When one party doesn't, the whole house of card collapses.


History informs us how that story ends.


Posted by: alexthechick - oh great SMOD can you wait til curling's done at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (Gk3SS)

54
   Very small quibble with the post, Ace.

   We are (last I checked) a Constitutionally represented Republic.

    That aside, You just keep getting better and better.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (SAMxH)

55 My initial reaction was that this is a political question but I seem to recall the S. Ct. taking a more active role in the separation and delegation of powers by the Constitution. We'll see.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (P1WNR)

56 41 If you do not so swear, then the law applies to you.


Fuck! I sweared. I'm exempt.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 01:49 PM (ndIek)

The law doesn't apply to the president, so why the fuck would I think it applies to me (rhetorical)?

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (x3YFz)

57 At some point the Supreme Court must step in and save our democracy. Whether or not Obamacare was "constitutional" as written, it is now unconstitutional as interpreted by President Obama. Obama is interpreting not as an actual law, with firm dates, specified strictures and duties, but as an illegal Enabling Act that simply transfers, unconstitutionally, the power of Congress to legislate to the Executive. I like the sentiment, but the Supreme Court is in love with process. The process is reactive not proactive. They will not "step in". Congress, the Military, or the People are the only ones who might possibly "step in".

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 09:50 AM (9PrpA)

58 Business owners, damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm not sure what type of totalitarian government this falls under. We can argue fascist, communist, etc. But what we have is an evil king/dictator who wants to destroy the goose which lays the golden eggs.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 09:51 AM (HVff2)

59 Let the House pass a bill that deems Obamacare null and void. Then declare the President's veto power non-applicable. Something about pens and phones. Boehner has those, but alas, no testicles. Mostly because he's a Quisling collaborator.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 09:51 AM (olDqf)

60 49 Yeah, but BOW WOW at Mooch's dre... er... ten ... er ... practice tarp. It looked like a zeppelin with all but the rear part deflated.

Posted by: The GOPe Elite at February 13, 2014 09:51 AM (7ObY1)

61 They force the businesses to lie. Then, they sweep them with lie detector tests to destroy them.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette: Countdown to V-Day... at February 13, 2014 09:51 AM (IXrOn)

62

When are they simply go to come around and offer to tattoo this on the back of your neck?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 13, 2014 09:51 AM (R5UOB)

63


>>>The courts (including SCOTUS) have traditionally been reluctant to involve themselves in these sort of disputes between the Legislative and Executive branches.

 

What dispute? Executive is claiming powers of the Legislative, Legislative is laying down.

Posted by: Bigby's Helping Hands at February 13, 2014 09:52 AM (3ZtZW)

64 Go Galt.

Let it burn.

Apply marshmallows.

Posted by: Methos at February 13, 2014 09:52 AM (hO9ad)

65 They could easily pass a resolution stating that the implementation of ObamaCare certainly betrays the law as written and the 'will of Congress' as intended when it passed, which is the usual crutch used to justify bureaucrats creating law out of whole cloth. And it's still a way to blame it on the Democrats.

Posted by: --- at February 13, 2014 09:52 AM (MMC8r)

66 They truly are out of control. This will end badly because there is little recourse left.

Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at February 13, 2014 09:52 AM (5npD/)

67 Not the hill to die on!

Posted by: RWC at February 13, 2014 09:52 AM (J2J7+)

68 OmertaCare. They don't care if you lose your job or your insurance, but it will be illegal for companies to tell the truth. The media protects the LIVs from the truth and they can't take a chance that the employers will breach that wall. I blame Bush.

Posted by: Miss Scarlett at February 13, 2014 09:53 AM (uDAyD)

69 Was wondering when you would get to this topic. Pretty Nazi like, isn't it?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 09:53 AM (bb5+k)

70 Maybe an argument can be made that a loyalty oath is a violation of the 1st Amend. Ixshnay on the loyalty oathshay. If they know what's good for them. Or all those people who swore to defend the Constitution for all enemies, foreign AND domestic, just might.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 09:53 AM (ndIek)

71 Will ye not swear to the Act of Succession?

Posted by: Thomas Cromwell at February 13, 2014 09:53 AM (nnkXw)

72 If Obama is presuming to poach Congressional power, why doesn't the House of Representatives poach back?

Let the House pass a bill stating that no business has to comply with this, as it is unconstitutional.

And let the House start doing more than that: Let the House pass a bill that in its opinion Obamacare is simply no longer the law of the land.



Boehner's nervous system flatlined when you wrote this.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 13, 2014 09:54 AM (c3zQp)

73 And they're not going to change their minds until sig % of us are broke, in jail, or dead. Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 13, 2014 01:46 PM (cxs6V) Which means our alternative is to do it to them first.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 09:54 AM (bb5+k)

74 So, if the companies are shedding employees or hours because of DisasterCare, can they opt not to lie? Or is the new reality that adverse consequences from DisasterCare are unpossible?

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 13, 2014 09:54 AM (r+7wo)

75

So if a mutlinational corporation was to lay off people expressly because of Obamacare - and said so - what jurisdiction would the Admin have on a corp not based in the USA?

 

They all have US legal entities.  Volkswagen AG will have a Volkswagon North America, Inc., or similar.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 13, 2014 09:54 AM (1xUj/)

76
我是法律!

Posted by: 贝拉克・奥巴马 Mao at February 13, 2014 09:54 AM (n0DEs)

77 Step one: Force employers to swear that they did not fire employees due to Obamacare. Step two: Ex employees sue company saying that they were fired because of Obamacare. Step three: Fascism

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2014 09:54 AM (hFL/3)

78 Nudge Nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more.

Posted by: Cass Sunstein at February 13, 2014 09:55 AM (vbK1S)

79 We are (last I checked) a Constitutionally represented Republic. Check again!

Posted by: HRH Barry at February 13, 2014 09:55 AM (FcR7P)

80 This is clearly lawless actions.  But....

He can do anything he wants as long as congress allows it. A real congress would have already impeached him and sent it to the assholes in the Senate and watched it die.,  Then made hay with it and his lawless actions.


They could use it to brand the entire Democrat Party ax a criminal organizational suitable for prosecution under RICO.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 13, 2014 09:55 AM (T2V/1)

81 Do the businessmen who comply with this mandate get to wear stars?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 09:55 AM (0HooB)

82 I wonder if we could get him to certify and sign a loyalty oath on any of his school transcripts? I'd settle for just his Kindergarten records at this point.  I'm pretty sure even they would disqualify him as President.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at February 13, 2014 09:55 AM (ndlFj)

83 81 Do the businessmen who comply with this mandate get to wear stars?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 13, 2014 01:55 PM (0HooB)

The ones who don't get to wear stars too - yellow, six-pointed ones.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 13, 2014 09:56 AM (DrWcr)

84 In his own words, 2008: FLASHBACK: Obama Says “He Intends To Reverse” George W. Bush’s Use of Executive Orders To “Bring More And More Power Into The Executive Branch”… “I take the Constitution very seriously, the biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.” http://tinyurl.com/ntdw6mf f**king liar

Posted by: artisanal 'ette: Countdown to V-Day... at February 13, 2014 09:56 AM (IXrOn)

85 Well Mr O'Spades, he has the authority due to the 'I Won' clause under the Majesty Subsection that Geraldo talked about.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at February 13, 2014 09:56 AM (9Bdcz)

86 What's the penalty for telling the truth?

Posted by: t-bird at February 13, 2014 09:56 AM (FcR7P)

87 "On what statutory authority Treasury is relying for the certification requirement?" -------------------------------- Bwahahahahaha

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at February 13, 2014 09:56 AM (aDwsi)

88 Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2014 01:54 PM (hFL/3) Step 1: Burn it down. Step 2: Scatter the stones. Step 3: Salt the earth where it stood. Can anyone please give me a realistic scenario under which our Constitutional freedoms are restored, and our Government returns to its Constitution roots *other* than my solution? Pretty please?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 09:57 AM (PYAXX)

89 The Declaration of Independence is not an historical document, people, it is a call to arms.

Sic semper tyrannis (in the ass with a flaming aircraft carrier).

Posted by: Sharkman at February 13, 2014 09:57 AM (TM1p8)

90 32 Я права! Posted by: Бараком Обамой at February 13, 2014 01:48 PM (n0DEs) Do you know how the Russians dealt with communism in their everyday lives? They lied. They lied constantly and about everything. Lying (and theft) is a basic characteristic of socialism.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 09:57 AM (bb5+k)

91 76 我是法律! Posted by: 贝拉克・奥巴马 Mao at February 13, 2014 01:54 PM (n0DEs) *Constitutional* law professor.

Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (E8IHS)

92 Just saw this on Facebook, a real non satirical comment by a leftst:
"Yea but his executive use of power is to better American family's not to start wars!"
And there you have it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (zfY+H)

93 86 What's the penalty for telling the truth? Posted by: t-bird at February 13, 2014 01:56 PM ------------------------------------------------------- You rang?

Posted by: IRS OSHA EPA et al at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (8GKDa)

94 At some point the Supreme Court must step in and save our democracy. Nice that you think that, Ace.

Posted by: AnthonyB at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (eqRqW)

95 Step 1: Burn it down. Step 2: Scatter the stones. Step 3: Salt the earth where it stood. Can anyone please give me a realistic scenario under which our Constitutional freedoms are restored, and our Government returns to its Constitution roots *other* than my solution? Pretty please? Texas seceedes.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (ndIek)

96 I bet Ted Cruz is behind this, somehow.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (4+AaH)

97 We're living in medieval times. Businesses must swear an oath that the emperor's new clothes are finely tailored. Trade winds are blowing all the warm air deep into a mysterious part of the ocean. The tax collector cannot be corrupt when it only does the King's bidding.

Fuck all these guys.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (+lsX1)

98 "On what statutory authority Treasury is relying for the certification requirement?" --------------------- We held a referendum on that in November of 2012, and the question was settled.

Posted by: Barky at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (aDwsi)

99 Can anyone please give me a realistic scenario under which our Constitutional freedoms are restored, and our Government returns to its Constitution roots *other* than my solution? Pretty please? Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 01:57 PM (PYAXX) We could perhaps start with Republicans growing a pair and then work from there. Oh, I see what you mean.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (r+7wo)

100 If you really believe a Federal Court... one appointed by Presidents, and approved by the Senate... ie staffed by the Federal Government... To limit the Power of the Federal Government? I gots a bridge to sell ya...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (84gbM)

101

Was wondering when you would get to this topic. 

 

He did hit this the other day.  It's killing me to refrain from recycling my jokes from then.

Posted by: Franz Kafka at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (1xUj/)

102 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 01:57 PM (PYAXX) I'm kinda like Monty of Doom Fame. No, not really. I try, I really do. But, I do not see things getting better before the feces hits the fan.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 09:58 AM (HVff2)

103 And like " The Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade " in Catch 22 , Obama will prevent "enemies" from signing the oath , proving their disloyalty.

I look forward to a future Major____de Coverley walking into the fray and demanding "Gimme eat."

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 09:59 AM (5ikDv)

104 This will affect enough businesses that they can passively resist by ignoring this and publicly stating their reasons for letting people go. In newspapers.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2014 09:59 AM (zfY+H)

105 Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 01:58 PM (ndIek) So... "Help us Greg Abbott, you're our only hope?"

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 09:59 AM (PYAXX)

106 71 'Will ye not swear to the Act of Succession?" Everyone who stood on principle in that little affair had their head removed. The perjurer Richard Rich died old and wealthy. Not exactly a great moral story.

Posted by: jwest at February 13, 2014 09:59 AM (u2a4R)

107 If you do not so swear, then the law applies to you.

We swearsies, we swaersies, on, on, ...

On the Precious!

Posted by: *gollum* *gollum* at February 13, 2014 09:59 AM (hO9ad)

108 http://youtu.be/Wps8Ndx-QqA

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 09:59 AM (+lpuZ)

109 Newb mistake; read the thread instead of the comments...

Posted by: AnthonyB at February 13, 2014 10:00 AM (eqRqW)

110 "On what statutory authority Treasury is relying for the certification requirement?" Section I-1.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 10:00 AM (0HooB)

111 Allen it would be via Consititutional Convention - and one that goes much better than is likely. the other scenario I see is a non-catastrophic (or possibly just sudden "thud" type of thing) failure of the FedGov apparatus. Collapse of the FedGov. Could be slow or could be fast. That sounds worse than it is, considering we have 50 states with functional (well, mostly) governments of their own. Hopefully the burning would be kept to a minimum. And eventually most of the states would form a coalition again based on our founding principles . . . maybe?

Posted by: Black Orchid at February 13, 2014 10:00 AM (pS66t)

112 Maybe the affected companies could  hire  Joe  Isuzu to run some TV/radio spots and "swear" that their actions had nothing to do with ObamaCare.  Nothing at all!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 10:00 AM (BAS5M)

113 Wow - how could have possibly predicted the IRS would play political games enforcing Obamacare?

Posted by: SavEcig at February 13, 2014 10:00 AM (zWaPh)

114
Here.  Have some 2 day old caviar.

Posted by: Papa Doc Obama at February 13, 2014 10:00 AM (n0DEs)

115 I have a copy of the Loyalty Oath that my g-g-g-grandfather swore to George IV. Shortly after, he came here.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 13, 2014 10:00 AM (aDwsi)

116 Fleck of light:

@volokhcom 14m

[Eugene Volokh] Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun: So holdsÂ… http://goo.gl/fb/2Gluv


Don't bother reading link; impenetrable gobbledygook law barf.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 10:01 AM (cxs6V)

117 So... "Help us Greg Abbott, you're our only hope?" Rednecks Up! To the Rio & Red. Repel ALL borders!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 10:01 AM (ndIek)

118 "If Obama is presuming to poach Congressional power, why doesn't the House of Representatives poach back?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one buddy. Oh, you're serious. Have you met us?

Posted by: House Republicans at February 13, 2014 10:01 AM (r5Qcm)

119 I think we can ask anyone who has ever been pursued by the IRS for any reason.... You are guilty no matter how much evidence that you have that you are innocent and it's going to cost you dearly to prove your innocence.  And if the IRS can't nail you, they've got lots of friends in their fellow Alphabet Soup agencies - there is no such thing as absolute compliance with any law.... or loyalty oath.

Posted by: 2nd Amendment Mother at February 13, 2014 10:01 AM (L4CWX)

120

And let the House start doing more than that: Let the House pass a bill that in its opinion Obamacare is simply no longer the law of the land.

Now, Obama will object: One House of Congress has no right or authority to do this.

Oh?

Lot of that going 'round, huh?

Posted by: Ace at 01:41 PM Yes. It is about time to revolt against the tyranny. Nothing to lose anymore by those in office who actually object to Obama's tyranny. Unless they are naive enough to think that by rebelling against the oppression they won't be "liked" by their opponents. They never were, nor will be. This has become more than winning or losing an election, for me at least.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 10:02 AM (YEQ2h)

121 So... "Help us Greg Abbott, you're our only hope?" Rednecks Up! To the Rio & Red. Repel ALL borders! Crap. *boarders!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 10:02 AM (ndIek)

122 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 01:57 PM (PYAXX) Sadly, no.

Posted by: RWC at February 13, 2014 10:02 AM (J2J7+)

123 They force the businesses to lie. Then, they sweep them with lie detector tests to destroy them. Posted by: artisanal 'ette: Countdown to V-Day... at February 13, 2014 01:51 PM (IXrOn) I think it was George Orwell who pointed out that having a bewildering array of laws helps those in power because they can always find a way to prosecute you should they wish to do so.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 10:02 AM (bb5+k)

124 "Yea but his executive use of power is to better American family's not to start wars!"

Life's awesome when your parents get handouts from the state instead of having to work.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/invisible-child/

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 10:02 AM (ZKzrr)

125 Allen it would be via Consititutional Convention - and one that goes much better than is likely. I said "realistic." I don't think the people of 2/3 of the States will wake up in time to call an ArtV convention. the other scenario I see is a non-catastrophic (or possibly just sudden "thud" type of thing) failure of the FedGov apparatus. Collapse of the FedGov. Could be slow or could be fast. The thing is (and I've been giving this some thought for a book I'm writing), I just can't see a realistic way for that to happen BEFORE the burning starts. At least, not enough before that we can put out the fires in time.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:02 AM (PYAXX)

126 Hey I wasn't saying there wouldn't be burning. there already is

Posted by: Black Orchid at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (pS66t)

127 will I need to swear to the government that my going out of business or filing for bankruptcy had nothing to do with obamacare?

Posted by: Mallfly at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (bJm7W)

128 "Yea but his executive use of power is to better American family's not to start wars!" And there you have it. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2014 01:58 PM (zfY+H) Yep.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (v3O05)

129 Link in sig about why Texas would be perfectly peachy as an independent nation again...and why Obama will never let it happen without a honest to god war.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (hFL/3)

130 I'm watching the republic crumble around me. This sickens me to no end. At what point do we say enough is enough? When all conservative have to go "tolerance training camps"?

Posted by: Cashin at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (TYEu4)

131 Why couldn't this loyalty oath requirement be expanded to every department of the government? Say the EPA for example? These new environmental regulations aren't causing you to cut jobs are they? Here, sign this.  Or the labor Department? These new labor regulations aren't causing you to fire people are they? Here, sign this.

It's utter bullshit.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (P1WNR)

132 Ever read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer ? The similarities are uncanny.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (VXk4i)

133 Posted by: Vic at February 13, 2014 01:55 PM (T2V/1) Due to the Continuing Resolution, and the Debt Ceiling being suspended.. Congress has no power of the Purse. It takes YEARS for anything to get through to the Supreme Court... and they ONLY hear cases, they wish to hear. Impeachment according to all in Washington, Repubs and Dems, is off the table as even a possibility to be discussed. Obama has gotten away with Weaponizing the IRS, OSHA, FBI... to use against his political opponents. Obama has Waged Illegal War in Libya, and is arming people we have declared War Against in Syria. Obama has instituted Policies that Spy on every American... and our allies... He has won at every turn.... why does anyone think he will stop now?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (84gbM)

134 Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 02:02 PM (ndIek) I thought the original way was just fine. "Nope, this bit on this side is *ours.* No, you can't come in."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (PYAXX)

135 "Let the House pass a bill stating that no business has to comply with this, as it is unconstitutional."

They should.

Posted by: Jay at February 13, 2014 10:04 AM (tMH+M)

136 also the lies that Soviets had to tell . . . those were incredibly soul-crushing. Those ARE incredibly soul-crushing. do you think John Roberts still has his soul intact? How does Antonin stand being around him at this point? and if he does, is he somehow in the same amoral boat due to "past transgressions"?

Posted by: Black Orchid at February 13, 2014 10:05 AM (pS66t)

137 Can anyone please give me a realistic scenario under which our Constitutional freedoms are restored, and our Government returns to its Constitution roots *other* than my solution?

Pretty please?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 01:57 PM (PYAXX)

Article Five of the United States Constitution is about the closest to a realistic scenario as I can conceive.  Certainly seems more realistic than expecting our opposition party to take up the mantle.



Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 10:05 AM (Kkt/i)

138 "I think it was George Orwell who pointed out that having a bewildering array of laws helps those in power because they can always find a way to prosecute you should they wish to do so. "
That's how China retains power without needing a constant police state. Nobody can do anything without breaking a law, giving them constant ability to arrest anyone they want at any time.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 13, 2014 10:05 AM (zfY+H)

139 The problem in restoring the republic and the rule of a just and stable law is that we are trying to act in a legal and law-abiding way while the other side will lie, cheat, subvert and ultimately resort to violence to gain and maintain power. Also, they're in power and control the culture and media. Sadly, the only recourse is blood.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:05 AM (olDqf)

140 From the link at 13: Its eight points were an attempt to freeze the collapsing economy of the United States at then-current levels. Instead of doing that, it accelerated the decline, strengthened the case of John Galt and his friends, and hastened the ultimate collapse of economy and government. Maybe the Cloward-Piven Effect of this isn't a bug, but a feature.

Posted by: Delurk Ergo Sum at February 13, 2014 10:06 AM (i76hW)

141
So this is how those societies became to be ruled under the iron fist.

Slowly, then all at once.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2014 10:06 AM (n0DEs)

142 Obama wants businesses to swear to this, Swear to me!

Posted by: Bat Obama, the "Dark" Knight at February 13, 2014 10:06 AM (+YACC)

143

>>>Ever read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer ? The similarities are uncanny.

 

You know what would be chilling? If Obama had read it.

Posted by: Bigby's Helping Hands at February 13, 2014 10:06 AM (3ZtZW)

144 Link in sig about why Texas would be perfectly peachy as an independent nation again... and why Obama will never let it happen without a honest to god war. Challenge accepted.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 10:07 AM (ndIek)

145 I think it was George Orwell who pointed out that having a bewildering array of laws helps those in power because they can always find a way to prosecute you should they wish to do so. And Frank Zappa wrote the soundtrack to it as Joe's Garage, wherein everything was illegal. Rush pointed out yesterday that if you're born into a society where you must seek permission to do anything, you're born a slave. And this is the norm for most of the world.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 10:07 AM (0HooB)

146 He did hit this the other day. It's killing me to refrain from recycling my jokes from then. Posted by: Franz Kafka at February 13, 2014 01:58 PM (1xUj/) I was on that thread. A lot of ominous talk going on over there.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 10:07 AM (bb5+k)

147 You know what would be chilling? If Obama had read it. I'm pretty sure he did. And then thought, "Well, I could do better."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:07 AM (PYAXX)

148 132 Ever read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer ? The similarities are uncanny. Posted by: ScoggDog at February 13, 2014 02:04 PM (VXk4i) Except we're all Jooz now. The Sunstein's, Axelrod's, Krugman's, Streisand's notwithstanding...

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:07 AM (olDqf)

149 132 Ever read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer ? The similarities are uncanny.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 13, 2014 02:04 PM (VXk4i)

Except the part where we're not the 3d Reich.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:07 AM (x3YFz)

150 132 Ever read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer ? The similarities are uncanny. Posted by: ScoggDog at February 13, 2014 02:04 PM (VXk4i) See also: Dr. Zhivago. "A New Germany" episode of World at War. etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (v3O05)

151 You know what would be chilling? If Obama had read it.

Posted by: Bigby's Helping Hands at February 13, 2014 02:06 PM (3ZtZW) Nah. More like "Mein Kampf".

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (YEQ2h)

152 Chief Justice Roberts, like probably most chief justices, wanted to leave his mark on the court.  That mark for most chief justices has been a singular pivotal, historic case.

I believe he saw obamacare as a gift that fell from heaven into his lap and he leapt at it. 

He deserves as much credit for obamacare as SCOAMT himself, imo.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (BZAd3)

153 One other possibility would be for someone to file a writ of mandamus to force him on court order to faithfully implement the laws of the land as he swore an oath to.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (T2V/1)

154 147 You know what would be chilling? If Obama had read it.

I'm pretty sure he did. And then thought, "Well, I could do better."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:07 PM (PYAXX)

I question the presumption that he's literate.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (x3YFz)

155 Whats next? Bonfires of books? Destruction of subversive art? Banning subversive music? Bar codes on the wrist and GPS chips for everyone?

Posted by: Angel with a sword at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (hpgw1)

156 Poaching: If Obama is presuming to poach Congressional power, why doesn't the House of Representatives poach back?

Because then my friends in the media will say I'm a power mad extremist who is only fighting The Smartest Man Ever to Walk the Earth because he's black

Besides, I've got all sorts of awesome strategies plotted, just ask a few or my toadies who comment here

Posted by: John Boehner at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (aTXUx)

157 If Obama is presuming to poach Congressional power, why doesn't the House of Representatives poach back? Because the person that's supposed to be in charge of that body is a pussy. No other explanation needed.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (jVaLp)

158 All youse guyz making me go Russian...

Young Maiden's Song from Alexander Nevsky lamenting all the Russians who died defending the Rodina from the Teutonic Knights.

http://youtu.be/kodZCKeIaxc

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:08 AM (+lpuZ)

159
Here's a great kicker, since muzzies are exempt from obamacare just say you are a muzzie and you can run your business as you want.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2014 10:09 AM (n0DEs)

160 Other than the Civil War era, has there been a time where the Congress has seriously accused the Presidency of capital-T  Tyranny?

Posted by: Bigby's Helping Hands at February 13, 2014 10:09 AM (3ZtZW)

161 This is pretty Soviet stuff here. And I don't get it, why is it against a rule or a law or whatever to cut staff to avoid penalties of #404care? I guess it's supposed to be self-evident. Of course, pointing out Obama's lawlessness will only drive moderates from the GOP. You know how Reagan created the Reagan-democrats and his coalition, by working hard to avoid criticizing liberals, that's how. And it's stuff like this that made Cucenelli lose his election. signed, xxoo GOP brain trust

Posted by: oejay44cday at February 13, 2014 10:09 AM (IRZSU)

162 BTW, a writ of mandamus can go straight to the Supremes

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 13, 2014 10:09 AM (T2V/1)

163 I question the presumption that he's literate. Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:08 PM (x3YFz) He has to be. He reads the Teleprompter for his lines every day, right?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:09 AM (PYAXX)

164 They could delay or extend or, you know, ignore signing such statements until after the elections. Follow Dear Leader.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette: Countdown to V-Day... at February 13, 2014 10:09 AM (IXrOn)

165 Just got this email from BarackObama.com Friend -- Did you know that more than three million people have already signed up for health insurance plans through the new marketplace? That's incredible -- and it's getting better every day. Here's the thing: This year's open enrollment closes for everyone on March 31st. As we make plans to keep spreading the word about getting covered, we want to hear from you again on what you're hearing out there. Fill out our quick health care survey, and let us know. Over the next two months, OFA volunteers will be working overtime in their communities to make sure everyone who wants to get covered has the facts they need to make the choice that's right for them. By taking a minute to fill out our health care survey today, you'll be helping to make sure this important work is as focused and helpful as possible. Thanks for your feedback: Yeah. There's no way I'm taking that survey. Fool me once....

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2014 10:09 AM (DmNpO)

166 Our Republic was set up so that the House, separately of the Senate, defund the Executive Branch rather than submit to tyranny. That's now off the table. Barack Obama didn't take that off the table. Our Republic was set up so that the House could impeach a President rather than submit to tyranny. That's now off the table. Barack Obama didn't take that off the table. The problem is bigger than Barack Obama. "86 What's the penalty for telling the truth? Posted by: t-bird at February 13, 2014 01:56 PM (FcR7P) " They don't get to qualify for the exemption, and have to buy the super expensive plan. Which is the beauty of the scheme. Legally they're to be stuck with a fat bill, no exceptions. Obama is illegally offering them a way out, if they do something extralegal for his press office. If they sue over the extralegal nature of the exemption/delay, the court would probably just order the whole exemption/delay to be illegal.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 13, 2014 10:09 AM (5xmd7)

167 Texas has the size, the population, the natural resources, enormous ranches (where's the beef, Occupied Amerika?), and one of the most important ports in the US (Houston.) But I believe a few more states would need to join in. Louisiana (for control of the mouth of the Mississippi) and Kansas/Nebraska/Oklahoma (farms/ranches) for starters.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (7ObY1)

168 Ace, if it hasn't been mentioned above, it's really the House's job to impeach and pass that onto the Senate. Yes it would be nice if he SCOTUS stepped in, but it is the job of Congress to defend their turf. But as we all know that would be suicide. Because racism. And there is no one in the GOP that can bypass the media and convince the public (who is too stupid/malinformed about America) of what is right. Bottom line. We are fucked. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (TyCa2)

169 *SNIFF*.........*SNIFF*.........smoke?

Posted by: maddogg at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (xWW96)

170 He deserves as much credit for obamacare as SCOAMT himself, imo. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 02:08 PM (BZAd3) Agreed.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (v3O05)

171 Working with our Democrat partners Reaching across the aisle unpossibly difficult don't have the votes conserving our ammo nation of immigrants bipartisan solution not the hill to die on minority party shuttup Tea Party extremists jobs Americans won't do wait til November...

We're Number Two!
We're Number Two!
We're Number Two!

Posted by: Iron John Boehner and Mitch "The Rock" McConnell [/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (5ikDv)

172 AllenG, he reads but does not comprehend. 

Corpseman

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (+lpuZ)

173 152 Chief Justice Roberts, like probably most chief justices, wanted to leave his mark on the court. That mark for most chief justices has been a singular pivotal, historic case. I believe he saw obamacare as a gift that fell from heaven into his lap and he leapt at it. He deserves as much credit for obamacare as SCOAMT himself, imo. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 02:08 PM (BZAd3) He could have NOT changed his vote and gone down as the greatest justice since Joseph Story. Instead he went down on SCOAMF and will go down as the worst justice since Hugo Black.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (olDqf)

174 Link in sig about why Texas would be perfectly peachy as an independent nation again...

and why Obama will never let it happen without a honest to god war.

Then I hope to God someone in Texas has a plan to deploy nukes immediately upon secession.

Posted by: Methos at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (hO9ad)

175

Posted by: tangonine

 

 

This is silly, but it just hit me a couple of days ago that you're Tango 9 and not tan-jo-neen. 

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (1xUj/)

176 I got it too, ndh. No fucking way I'm responding to that!

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (hFL/3)

177 Bit of good news. Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina signed S.308 into law today, February 11th. The reform restores the rights of armed Americans to eat in the same restaurants as the rest of the population. South Carolina is one of the last states to restore this right.

Posted by: RWC at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (J2J7+)

178
Barry: If you like your totalitarian state you can keep it

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 13, 2014 10:10 AM (1Jaio)

179 I hereby swear my imminent death is completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act and should not reflect in any way upon Barack Obama.

Posted by: dying person at February 13, 2014 10:11 AM (pMGkg)

180

Bigby, their tactics are much too National Socialist to believe anything but.

 

Strong Civilian Force, Domestic Surveillance, Alliances with some Big Businesses, Weaponized Agencies ...

 

Can't wait for the parades and mandatory youth camps.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 13, 2014 10:11 AM (VXk4i)

181 I question the presumption that he's literate.

And Hitler didn't hate Germany.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 10:11 AM (ZKzrr)

182

>>>Whats next? Bonfires of books? Destruction of subversive art? Banning subversive music? Bar codes on the wrist and GPS chips for everyone?

 

If he thought it would freak out the flyover unpeople, yes.

 

He really is that petty. Nothing to do with grand ideas or anything.

Posted by: Bigby's Helping Hands at February 13, 2014 10:11 AM (3ZtZW)

183 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMYNfQlf1H8

Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 10:11 AM (Kkt/i)

184 Just go limp.
Ya, I laid people off because I could not afford to pay the cost of health care.  What are you going to do about it? Put me out of business? Ok, fine. Turn out the lights, locks the doors I'm moving to Texas.

Posted by: Slouching Toward Epiphony at February 13, 2014 10:11 AM (KC6I2)

185 Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 02:07 PM (olDqf) Wow, you can call me Jacob Misanthropicstein, nice ring.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 10:11 AM (HVff2)

186 That Alex D. Tokeville. One helluva corpse, manÂ…

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:12 AM (olDqf)

187 "Except the part where we're not the 3d Reich. Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:07 PM (x3YFz) " Yeah we're Weimar. Hitler was not the first chancellor to govern by emergency decree. Hitler was the first chancellor ELECTED to govern by emergency decree.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 13, 2014 10:12 AM (5xmd7)

188 Young Maiden's Song from Alexander Nevsky lamenting all the Russians who died defending the Rodina from the Teutonic Knights. http://youtu.be/kodZCKeIaxc Nice, Anna Puma! Huge Prokofiev fan here. The Nevsky is one of my favorites.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 10:12 AM (7ObY1)

189 As a note.

In my entire life I've never seen so many people hinting at open insurrection and civil war as today. 

I used to hold a TS/SCI.

Guess that's off the table now.

fk.
me.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:12 AM (x3YFz)

190 But I believe a few more states would need to join in. If TX seceded, I think OK, LA, & AR would follow very quickly. Which would get us just about everything we'd need.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:12 AM (PYAXX)

191 Checks and balances are gone. The House has no authority to object, due to the tremendous political pressure that is enabled by massive media bias. The senate is run as a fiefdom by Harry Reid, and no Democratic Senator will vote outside the voting block for fear of retribution (and the fact that many of them are just plain criminals and/or stupid). The Supreme Court refuses to step into what it has historically considered a political issue between Congress and the Executive branch. Lower courts are useless to the small businesses affected, due to the high cost of litigation verses the low cost of simply bending over and accepting that they are to become the vassals of the state. The power of the press is muted by its bias when it comes to the press that most people listen too. The Democrats have created a monster. Whether its the monster they wanted all along is an open question. But it is becoming a monster that will kill the country as we know it.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 13, 2014 10:12 AM (qZr+9)

192 When did the word, "legal," ever stop this czar? I do wonder what will be the tipping point when even Democrats realize there is still a Constitution!

Soon I expect we will be like Cuba and forbidden to sell our cars. Someday my lucky future grandchild will be a proud owner of his granny's 2001 Camry with very little miles on her gold chassis (which is what my husband told his parents about me when we got engaged!). And we will have socialized medicine just like these peoples of Cuba!

Speaking of socialized medicine: one son was skiing last week in Canada. Had a case of norovirus explosion (he then skyped his progression, which made for a great weekend for all). He went to see doctor at clinic, who was shocked out of her mind that he took an anti-emetic (from a year old rx, cause we travel with a pharmacy), reserved, in Canada, for dying cancer patients! Anyway, she ordered blood work and stool sample. Lab girl told son not to bother with poo as the results would take TWO WEEKS. I am assuming you will either be dead or better by then. Welcome to a glimpse of the future! For the record, in USA a culture of blood, urine, poo, or Baroque's mole, takes 48 hours. In 24 hours a preliminary report goes to ordering doctor, now via computers and/or fax. Soon, with Obamacare, maybe Western Union or Morse Code!

In reality, from my great personal journey with salmonella, which was during the Florida anthrax scare and labs were overloaded and behind, with most food poisonings you eventually recover or die, as salmonella can become typhus aka typhoid fever like my great-grandma died from! I found this out as I lay dying and reading Internet days later, and stupid doc called me and put me on cipro (and I felt much better in 8 hours). He said "I did not look as sick as I should with salmonella as I was not puking." I did pass completely out the night before, but that was not enough for him!

This concludes my food poisoning bulletin for socialized medicine report as I have a hair appt. Do pencil me in when we march on DC. Thanks! xoxo

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Duchess of Something at February 13, 2014 10:12 AM (baL2B)

193 I made businesses an offer they can't refuse

I brought along Assistant Treasury Secretary Luca Brasi who held a gun to their heads and told them that in 10 seconds either their signature or their brains would be on the form

Posted by: Barry Corleone at February 13, 2014 10:13 AM (aTXUx)

194 185 Wow, you can call me Jacob Misanthropicstein, nice ring. Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 13, 2014 02:11 PM (HVff2) Or Moishe MisanthropicowitzÂ…

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:13 AM (olDqf)

195 One thing I've become convinced of is that I am living in an "end of an era" time. It's uncomfortable for me right now, but I'm getting some stirrings of resolve. Eh, maybe it's just me that feels this way.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 10:13 AM (YEQ2h)

196
Barry: I am deeply offended that anyone would compare my regime to the Nazis. Commies on the other hand are a real compliment

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (1Jaio)

197 If TX seceded, I think OK, LA, & AR would follow very quickly.

Which would get us just about everything we'd need.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:12 PM (PYAXX)

 

 

 

 

I think that too, plus maybe some others.

Posted by: maddogg at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (xWW96)

198 That's how China retains power without needing a constant police state. Nobody can do anything without breaking a law, giving them constant ability to arrest anyone they want at any time. China isn't afraid to display naked force when they choose to. When a town revolts because of famine or whatever, the Military blocks all entrances to the town, freezes all communication, then either waits them out or sends in troops.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (9PrpA)

199 139 The problem in restoring the republic and the rule of a just and stable law is that we are trying to act in a legal and law-abiding way while the other side will lie, cheat, subvert and ultimately resort to violence to gain and maintain power. Also, they're in power and control the culture and media. Sadly, the only recourse is blood. Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 02:05 PM (olDqf) I agree with you that we are hamstrung by our own ethics, but I'm not certain that blood is the only recourse. I suggest financial disengagement with Liberal States. When there is little economic reasons to deal with them, then it will be easier to move towards social disengagement as well. Hopefully the loss of economic activity with the more conservative states will wreak enough havoc on their finances that they will wake up to their folly.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (bb5+k)

200 I agree, Blue State. Rebel. Ideally we could bring along most of the inland western states and the Dakotas for good measure and an extra kick in the gut on jobs.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (hFL/3)

201
  As I see it, we MUST keep trying to resolve this by the procedures extant.

   But that oath I and so many of you here swore has no expiration date.

    
 

Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (SAMxH)

202 If a businessman decides to to tell the truth and say, "Why, actually, I am reducing staff to avoid Obamacare, as is my right," he can expect that Treasury will take an interest in him. An auditing interest.
============
He will, however, have standing to challenge the law if one single company is granted the exemption.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (VjL9S)

203 195 One thing I've become convinced of is that I am living in an "end of an era" time. It's uncomfortable for me right now, but I'm getting some stirrings of resolve. Eh, maybe it's just me that feels this way.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 02:13 PM (YEQ2h)

Same.  The only thing I can guarantee is that whatever comes, you won't be prepared for it.  None of us will.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (x3YFz)

204 Hey anyone else here up for crossing the Delaware?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:14 AM (nzKvP)

205 197 If TX seceded, I think OK, LA, AR would follow very quickly. Which would get us just about everything we'd need.Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:12 PM (PYAXX) I think that too, plus maybe some others. Would be cool to get Alaska on board too, for the ginormous natural resources.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 10:15 AM (7ObY1)

206 BlueStateRebel got a bit interested in Nevsky and Sergei Eisenstein because of Tom Clancy and Red Storm Rising.

But all this feckless wonder is doing is shoving me right into a Russian mood.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:15 AM (+lpuZ)

207 But that oath I and so many of you here swore has no expiration date.



Posted by: irongrampa at February 13, 2014 02:14 PM (SAMxH)

No, it does not.  Boots on.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:15 AM (x3YFz)

208 I feel sorry for Indiana. they're just poorly located. Good people. PA - nah we suck. hopefully no one nukes us from texas tho! jeez it's bad enough up here

Posted by: Black Orchid at February 13, 2014 10:15 AM (pS66t)

209 I can see it now, the President declaring the right of Prima Nocte, and Gabe sending out a tweet, "What is the legal authority for that?"

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2014 10:15 AM (4+AaH)

210 The Democrats have created a monster. Whether its the monster they wanted all along is an open question. But it is becoming a monster that will kill the country as we know it.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 13, 2014 02:12 PM (qZr+9)




Doctor Obamastein: It's alive!!! It's alive!!!!

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 13, 2014 10:15 AM (1Jaio)

211 Or what?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 13, 2014 10:15 AM (6bMeY)

212 Instead he went down on SCOAMF and will go down as the worst justice since Hugo Black.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 02:10 PM (olDqf)


He was effectively one of the authors of the law because in making his decision he relied on language that wasn't even in the law.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 10:15 AM (BZAd3)

213 199 Hopefully the loss of economic activity with the more conservative states will wreak enough havoc on their finances that they will wake up to their folly. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 02:14 PM (bb5+k) Problem is the Federal Leviathan is way too powerful. You need full secession and I don't foresee that happening.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:16 AM (olDqf)

214 BTW, a writ of mandamus can go straight to the Supremes It's amazing that with all the lawyers in the House, no one has mentioned that little tidbit of legal information.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 13, 2014 10:16 AM (0HooB)

215 Which is the beauty of the scheme. Legally they're to be stuck with a fat bill, no exceptions. Obama is illegally offering them a way out, if they do something extralegal for his press office. If they sue over the extralegal nature of the exemption/delay, the court would probably just order the whole exemption/delay to be illegal.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 13, 2014 02:09 PM (5xmd7)


It's also the attempt to side step standing.  How can you claim to suffer a particularized harm if you are being exempted?


The only out I can see is an equal protection case.   If I don't lie, then I am punished.  Of course, the punt by the court would be well show me the affidavits by the CEO of a company that admits that company committed perjury.  Like anyone would do that.  



Posted by: alexthechick - oh great SMOD can you wait til curling's done at February 13, 2014 10:16 AM (Gk3SS)

216 187 Hitler was not elected.

Posted by: AnthonyB at February 13, 2014 10:16 AM (eqRqW)

217

And if they refuse to sign?  Well, depends.  I'm in a pretty good mood today because Reggie made me squeal last night.

Posted by: Barry Oh!bama at February 13, 2014 10:16 AM (wAQA5)

218 How can they enforce this? I would refuse to sign it either way. There is no incentive for a small business to sign it or refuse to.

Posted by: Liberty Lover at February 13, 2014 10:16 AM (YYS3R)

219 212 He was effectively one of the authors of the law because in making his decision he relied on language that wasn't even in the law. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 02:15 PM (BZAd3) Legislating from the bench, as we say. But it's a living and breathing document, according to the left. Fuck.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:16 AM (olDqf)

220 186 That Alex D. Tokeville. One helluva corpse, manÂ… Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 02:12 PM (olDqf) Only thing that hindered him was his asthma. Carrying a breathalizer around all the time was a PIA.

Posted by: RWC at February 13, 2014 10:17 AM (J2J7+)

221 Texas has the size, the population, the natural resources, enormous ranches (where's the beef, Occupied Amerika?), and one of the most important ports in the US (Houston.) F-i-l's cows just had 3 calfs since Saturday.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 10:17 AM (ndIek)

222 The USSC, as ace knows, never "steps in" without a case or controversy brought by someone with standing over a justiciable issue and not in the form of an advisory opinion. Translation: yes, we're f'ed.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 10:17 AM (sOtz/)

223 I question the presumption that he's literate. Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:08 PM (x3YFz) I concur. Since he admits he can't do math past a seventh grade level, I suspect his reading ability is likewise incompetent.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 10:17 AM (bb5+k)

224 He was effectively one of the authors of the law because in making his decision he relied on language that wasn't even in the law. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 02:15 PM (BZAd3) Excellent point!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 10:17 AM (7ObY1)

225 It's amazing that with all the lawyers in the House, no one has mentioned that little tidbit of legal information.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 13, 2014 02:16 PM (0HooB)

lawyer != smart.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:17 AM (x3YFz)

226 I think that too, plus maybe some others. IIRC, the Confederate States seceded in a couple of waves. I think the same would happen if TX seceded. Your first wave would be those 4 (AR, LA, OK, TX). The second wave would take some more time, but I think you'd get MS, MO (maybe... they've gone weird), SC, NC, and then possibly up through the center of the country (NE, SD, ND, etc)

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:17 AM (PYAXX)

227 216 187 Hitler was not elected. Posted by: AnthonyB at February 13, 2014 02:16 PM (eqRqW) Umm, yeah, he was. In 1933. After that, he declared himself Fuhrer and leader.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:17 AM (olDqf)

228 This is going to backfire badly for Obama, I really see zero upside politically for him to push this.  Whatever soundbyte he could possibly get out of this will be dwarfed by the backlash from business owners and groups.

If the Courts allow his to do this, will a Republican president be able to demand that all business owners sign an oath under penalty of perjury than none of their employees or contract workers are illegal aliens?

Posted by: McAdams at February 13, 2014 10:18 AM (jP/IR)

229 In Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments", he describes a method for taking the country back that makes a lot of sense - a constitutional convention.  I wish this would catch some wind.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 10:18 AM (BZAd3)

230 Washington was a loyal British officer in the French and Indian Wars.  All those who signed that Declaration were subjects of the Crown.  But 'when in the course of human events' they stood up and threw off the yoke of an oppressive and unresponsive government.  Even if it cost them their wealth, their families, or their lives.

"Better to die standing than live on your knees."

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:18 AM (+lpuZ)

231 I got it too, ndh. No fucking way I'm responding to that! *** Good call. I did open it up to see the questions: How well would you say you understand Obamacare? I understand it very well I have a good understanding of it I don't understand it very well I don't understand it at all Do you currently have health insurance? Yes No Do you intend to purchase insurance through the new health insurance marketplace? I already have health insurance that I purchased through the marketplace I already have health insurance through my employer I already have health insurance but plan to browse the marketplace to compare prices I don't have health insurance and plan to purchase insurance through the new marketplace I don't have health insurance and plan to browse the marketplace to compare prices I don't have health insurance and don't plan to purchase insurance through the new marketplace When did you learn that the enrollment period for getting health insurance in the marketplace ends on March 31st? A long time ago Since enrollment started in October Since the State of the Union speech Just now What questions are you hearing about the new marketplace or other parts of Obamacare from your friends and family?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2014 10:18 AM (DmNpO)

232 We could perhaps start with Republicans growing a pair and then work from there.

The issue with this is that although R's have a 'party platform', they don't have a vision of Utopia that they're -aiming- at.

Progressives are aiming at Utopia. The standard Utopia that's dumb beyond words as far as 'How does it -work-?'. It's not even Socialism or Communisim, but LaLaLand. No one works, everyone has enough food, and everyone even thinks the same things in perfect harmony.

Whenever "we" say: "That's dumb and broken, how about we go back to -this-?", the press is able to latch onto that one word "Back" and bring up every single sin in history as if that's the key point of our aiming 'back'. "Oh the 50's were good" -> "You want women chained in the kitchen!" Or whatever.

There's not much of the status quo that I'd like to -Conserve-. But there are a whole lot of historically sane and well-tested ideas I'd like to reimplement!

But we have to paint the vision as progress, not "Returning to Reagan!" The core Tea Party idea is a sliver of the right idea: massive taxation reforms and spending cuts.

But it doesn't follow through with the rest of the vision. Lots of -Rs-, not just the most liberal fringe, but rather solid R's do see government as chunks of the solution because a -low- government 'solution' to the problem has never been properly expressed.

There's an agency whose rules, regulations, and output are involved in more transactions than the EPA. We rarely hear about them, and I frankly haven't heard of a single changed rule since back when the speed limit was 55. There's probably 1/1000th of the people, and you can't compare any of: political clout, cronyism, regulations, budget, or politicization of the agencies on the same scale.

I'm talking about NIST. You make the rules -very- simple "This is a pound, dammit." and you let people follow all of the other existing laws as far as possible. You don't need special lawyer-heavy rulebooks or specialized legal teams packed with environmentalists. You let "theft" and "false advertising/misrepresentation" and the perfectly ordinary court system deal.

And... I can't recall the last 'shorting' case of any sort.

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2014 10:18 AM (9ynpo)

233 Ok, so what does anyone do?

are we waiting for the supremes?

are we waiting for the Republicans and Dms to say wait this is too far? Stop now?


so the employers have standing ? will they be brought to the attention of irs, nsa, epa, atf, osha?

the employee?

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2014 10:18 AM (nqBYe)

234 Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:14 PM (x3YFz) History repeats itself. Historians repeat each other. Philip Guedalla Sadly, those of us who have read history, can see what is coming... as those in charge make the same mistakes as leaders of the past...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 10:19 AM (84gbM)

235 But that oath I and so many of you here swore has no expiration date. Yup to defend the CONSTITUTION. To the ramparts!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:19 AM (nzKvP)

236 Adolph was elected in a fractured electorate.  Then President Paul von Hindenburg had to go and die, leaving Adolph, as Chancellor, with the keys to government.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:19 AM (+lpuZ)

237 If a line item veto is unconstitutional then Obama nullifying and changing law constantly without congressional approval damn sure should be.

Posted by: Buzzion at February 13, 2014 10:19 AM (MQVvG)

238 229 In Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments", he describes a method for taking the country back that makes a lot of sense - a constitutional convention. I wish this would catch some wind.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 02:18 PM (BZAd3)

Aye.

This is the way to go.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:19 AM (x3YFz)

239 I'd like to see some Civil Disobedience from corporate leaders.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at February 13, 2014 10:20 AM (rv3EA)

240 Thunder snow?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 13, 2014 10:20 AM (6bMeY)

241 atlas shrugged, we see it as a cautionary tale, they see as an instruction manual.

Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 13, 2014 10:20 AM (Jsiw/)

242 IIRC, the Confederate States seceded in a couple of waves. I think the same would happen if TX seceded. Your first wave would be those 4 (AR, LA, OK, TX). The second wave would take some more time, but I think you'd get MS, MO (maybe... they've gone weird), SC, NC, and then possibly up through the center of the country (NE, SD, ND, etc) I'd like to think GA, AL, & MS would be chomping at the bit for some payback.....

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 10:20 AM (ndIek)

243 227 216 187 Hitler was not elected.
Posted by: AnthonyB at February 13, 2014 02:16 PM (eqRqW)


Umm, yeah, he was. In 1933. After that, he declared himself Fuhrer and leader.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 02:17 PM (olDqf)Yeah. Well, that- is something that worries me. If not this stooge, then the next stooge that the 52% elects. Like I said upthread, it feels to me like I'm living in the end of an era. And - secession may be the only recourse left, with all that would entail.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 10:20 AM (YEQ2h)

244 He was effectively one of the authors of the law because in making his decision he relied on language that wasn't even in the law. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 02:15 PM (BZAd3) Except the law he co-authored in June '12 has been altered unilaterally and illegally by SCOAMF 18 times since then. It's effectively a different law altogether. So Roberts is a traitor AND a sucker.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:20 AM (olDqf)

245 Yeah we're Weimar. Hitler was not the first chancellor to govern by emergency decree. Hitler was the first chancellor ELECTED to govern by emergency decree. Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 13, 2014 02:12 PM (5xmd7) There are some real scary parallels there. Buisnesses jumping on the crazy train, etc....

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:20 AM (v3O05)

246 239 I'd like to see some Civil Disobedience from corporate leaders. +++++ I agree.

Posted by: Liberty Lover at February 13, 2014 10:21 AM (YYS3R)

247 IIRC, the Confederate States seceded in a couple of waves. I think the same would happen if TX seceded. Your first wave would be those 4 (AR, LA, OK, TX). The second wave would take some more time, but I think you'd get MS, MO (maybe... they've gone weird), SC, NC, and then possibly up through the center of the country (NE, SD, ND, etc) It's like we're sharing a brain. NC might be too far gone, but SC is definitely doable. I actually have a map at home with all the various possibilities marked out with different colored highlighters. Yeah, I think about this stuff a LOT. Ports, resources, defensibility, etc. etc. And Allen, what about all the military bases in the New Republic? You know that Occupied Amerika would want to keep them. That's a big issue to ponder.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 10:21 AM (7ObY1)

248

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:17 PM (PYAXX) \

Alabama?

Posted by: maddogg at February 13, 2014 10:21 AM (xWW96)

249 Yup to defend the CONSTITUTION. To the ramparts!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:19 PM (nzKvP)

That part about "the officers appointed over me and the president of the united states..."

Well.  Since I view him as a traitor, his orders unlawful, then.  We're good.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:21 AM (x3YFz)

250 227 JJ, check your history. Hitler was not elected, and the NSDP never won a majority in any election. I did this for a living once....

Posted by: AnthonyB at February 13, 2014 10:21 AM (eqRqW)

251 White House press secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday brushed off a critical editorial in the Washington Post, and insisted hat the president’s latest unilateral rewrite of the Obamacare law is merely “common sense.” Well to me it is "common sense" to throw obama's ass out of the White House. Hey how'dya like them apples?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:22 AM (nzKvP)

252 I'd like to think GA, AL, & MS would be chomping at the bit for some payback..... AL probably. MS probably. I'm not so sure about GA, though. I know plenty of Georgians are conservative- but I'm not so sure about Georgia as a State.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:22 AM (PYAXX)

253 238 229 In Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments", he describes a method for taking the country back that makes a lot of sense - a constitutional convention. I wish this would catch some wind. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 02:18 PM (BZAd3) Aye. This is the way to go. Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:19 PM (x3YFz) It's not a constitutional convention. It's a convention of the states in order to amend the constitution. Not just semantics, since a constitutional convention is via congress. And we're trying to go around them. G-d bless the memory of George Mason for Article V.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:22 AM (olDqf)

254 239 I'd like to see some Civil Disobedience from corporate leaders.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at February 13, 2014 02:20 PM (rv3EA)Our 21st century Krupps and Farbens are too happy.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 10:22 AM (YEQ2h)

255

We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House

Posted by: John McCain at February 13, 2014 10:23 AM (Q6pxP)

256 Atlanta queers the whole state.  The blob that is Atlanta would probably form a Union state called North Georgia.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:23 AM (+lpuZ)

257 236 Anna, not true. Common misconception, but not factual.

Posted by: AnthonyB at February 13, 2014 10:23 AM (eqRqW)

258 Remember,  Obama was living overseas when Schoolhouse Rock aired I'm Just a Bill.  So cut the constitutional scholar some slack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag


Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 10:23 AM (MNq6o)

259 This ties directly to what Megan McArdle is talking about in her column today.  Certify that your hiring and firings don't have anything to do with Obamacare, and those people have no standing to contend the law in a Court.

Posted by: CausticConservative at February 13, 2014 10:23 AM (gT3jF)

260 214 BTW, a writ of mandamus can go straight to the Supremes It's amazing that with all the lawyers in the House, no one has mentioned that little tidbit of legal information. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 13, 2014 02:16 PM (0HooB) But it is only heard by the Supremes immediately, if they choose to sign off on that Writ.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 10:23 AM (84gbM)

261 Obama is two moves ahead of you on this Ace.

One, Holder's DOJ and Lerner's IRS will indeed target these businesses, charging them with perjury, as part of a publicity campaign to "defend jobs."  This may seem crazy to you, but it makes perfect sense to NYT subscribers.

Two, the House has no executive ability, so nothing they do or pass will matter.  Short of defunding DOJ their proclamations are powerless.

Posted by: TallDave at February 13, 2014 10:23 AM (/s1LA)

262 And Allen, what about all the military bases in the New Republic? You know that Occupied Amerika would want to keep them. Texas has a bunch, plus a bunch of nuclear launch sites (God, I hope it doesn't come to that). Yes, one of the first things that would have to happen is that those resources would have to be secured. On the up-side, there are several assembly plants (for a variety of military hardware) in the States in question.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:24 AM (PYAXX)

263 Thanks, flounder, for the link in the previous post. Have posted Monty's original and Ace's follow up on the value of work for ongoing reflection.

Ooops, now I need to figure out how to delete all this.I heard suspicious static noises on my phone a minute ago.

Oh well, when they come for me, they will likely be coming for everyone on AoS. And Ace, Monty, LauraW and all the other cobs will already be heading for Room 101.

We will meet in the place where there is no darkness, comrades.

Posted by: RM at February 13, 2014 10:24 AM (HWE+X)

264 So Roberts is a traitor AND a sucker. As they say, you can't con an honest man! and I'm sorry, I meant the Article V type of convention, not a CC it's honestly a hope at this point! otherwise it's just entropy and fracturing

Posted by: Black Orchid at February 13, 2014 10:24 AM (pS66t)

265 That part about "the officers appointed over me and the president of the united states..." Well. Since I view him as a traitor, his orders unlawful, then. We're good. Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:21 PM (x3YFz) Well as an Officer I: All commissioned officers in the United States military must make the following oath of office when they are appointed in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy or U.S. Marine Corps: “I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.” So you Enlisted, you have got to trust me to make the correct decision.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:25 AM (nzKvP)

266 And Allen, what about all the military bases in the New Republic? You know that Occupied Amerika would want to keep them. That's a big issue to ponder. Posession is 9/10's. And they ARE on our land.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 10:25 AM (ndIek)

267 G-d bless the memory of George Mason for Article V.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 02:22 PM (olDqf)


Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 13, 2014 10:25 AM (BZAd3)

268 236 Adolph was elected in a fractured electorate. Then President Paul von Hindenburg had to go and die, leaving Adolph, as Chancellor, with the keys to government. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 02:19 PM (+lpuZ) He was basically given power, just as his popularity was waning. Yeah. Think about that for a minute.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:25 AM (v3O05)

269

So it was just a big ol happenstance, a coincidence, that the Jugeared Douche  hired 15000 agents for his ideas and plans.

No forethought at all eh.

Sure. Sure, I believe it, just a coincidence.

The media tells me what to think.

Don't think.


Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Christies at February 13, 2014 10:25 AM (fEmAd)

270 wouldn't a constitutional amendment further the threat faster?
those same dems or population 52%  that got this guy elected would also involve themselves in this task?
or am i thinking of something else.?

sorry tired and sleepless.  but real question

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2014 10:25 AM (nqBYe)

271 One, Holder's DOJ and Lerner's IRS will indeed target these businesses, charging them with perjury, as part of a publicity campaign to "defend jobs." This may seem crazy to you, but it makes perfect sense to NYT subscribers.

Two, the House has no executive ability, so nothing they do or pass will matter. Short of defunding DOJ their proclamations are powerless.

Posted by: TallDave at February 13, 2014 02:23 PM (/s1LA)

in order to charge someone with perjury, they have had to have lied under oath.

we're done here, yes?

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:25 AM (x3YFz)

272 Lock-Mart is still building F-16s in TX.  But the supply chain is so distributed through the various states that production might not last long.  Bush's old unit has traded in their F-16s however.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:26 AM (+lpuZ)

273 We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them...you create a nation of lawbreakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden. - Dr. Floyd Ferris

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2014 10:26 AM (4+AaH)

274 CARSON: There comes a time when people with values simply have to stand up. Think about Nazi, Germany. Most of those people did not believe in what Hitler was doing. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly. CARSON: But did they speak up? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. CARSON: Did they stand up for what they believed? They did not. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Very few. CARSON: And you saw what happened. And if you believe that the same thing can't happen again, you are very wrong.

Posted by: RWC at February 13, 2014 10:26 AM (J2J7+)

275 wait article 5 convention. not the same thing.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2014 10:26 AM (nqBYe)

276 >On the up-side, there are several assembly plants (for a variety of military hardware) in the States in question.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:24 PM (PYAXX)<



You'd want MO for sure because of this exact reason.  Lotta aerospace  assembly there.

Posted by: Muad'dib at February 13, 2014 10:26 AM (sjdRT)

277 Great post, Ace!
 I wish the House would use your idea.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2014 10:26 AM (POpqt)

278 Is this the hill, y'all? Time to start burning up phones again? I am sure most of Congress is snowed in during this wave of the polar vortex, so maybe not worth it til Monday?


 I think on Monday I am going to start harassing my reps about this. Thanks, Ace.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Duchess of Something at February 13, 2014 10:26 AM (baL2B)

279 charging them with perjury, as part of a publicity campaign to "defend jobs."

Posted by: TallDave


Why would a business perjure themselves?  They can tell the truth and... then what?  Where is it a crime to lay off someone in order to avoid more government regulation?  Show me the law.  Not the whim.

Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (MNq6o)

280 charging them with perjury, as part of a publicity campaign to "defend jobs."

Posted by: TallDave


Why would a business perjure themselves?  They can tell the truth and... then what?  Where is it a crime to lay off someone in order to avoid more government regulation?  Show me the law.  Not the whim.

Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (MNq6o)

281 charging them with perjury, as part of a publicity campaign to "defend jobs."

Posted by: TallDave


Why would a business perjure themselves?  They can tell the truth and... then what?  Where is it a crime to lay off someone in order to avoid more government regulation?  Show me the law.  Not the whim.

Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (MNq6o)

282

Texas has the size, the population, the natural resources, enormous ranches (where's the beef, Occupied Amerika?), and one of the most important ports in the US (Houston.)

 

But I believe a few more states would need to join in.

 

Louisiana (for control of the mouth of the Mississippi) and Kansas/Nebraska/Oklahoma (farms/ranches) for starters.

 

 

We also have the   dreadnought USS Texas (BB-35), the Blue Ghost   aircraft carrier Lexington (CV-16), the fleet sub USS Cavella (SS-244), and the destroyer escort USS Stewart (DE-23 . 

 

Another Texas Navy!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (BAS5M)

283

Texas has the size, the population, the natural resources, enormous ranches (where's the beef, Occupied Amerika?), and one of the most important ports in the US (Houston.)

 

But I believe a few more states would need to join in.

 

Louisiana (for control of the mouth of the Mississippi) and Kansas/Nebraska/Oklahoma (farms/ranches) for starters.

 

 

We also have the   dreadnought USS Texas (BB-35), the Blue Ghost   aircraft carrier Lexington (CV-16), the fleet sub USS Cavella (SS-244), and the destroyer escort USS Stewart (DE-23 . 

 

Another Texas Navy!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (BAS5M)

284

Texas has the size, the population, the natural resources, enormous ranches (where's the beef, Occupied Amerika?), and one of the most important ports in the US (Houston.)

 

But I believe a few more states would need to join in.

 

Louisiana (for control of the mouth of the Mississippi) and Kansas/Nebraska/Oklahoma (farms/ranches) for starters.

 

 

We also have the   dreadnought USS Texas (BB-35), the Blue Ghost   aircraft carrier Lexington (CV-16), the fleet sub USS Cavella (SS-244), and the destroyer escort USS Stewart (DE-23 . 

 

Another Texas Navy!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (BAS5M)

285 Don't answer the question.

Posted by: alinsky at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (hhcYS)

286 Don't answer the question.

Posted by: alinsky at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (hhcYS)

287 Don't answer the question.

Posted by: alinsky at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (hhcYS)

288 By the way "Polls" do indicate that 74% do not like obama going around the Constitution and Congress. We should play this up big time in 2014

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (nzKvP)

289 By the way "Polls" do indicate that 74% do not like obama going around the Constitution and Congress. We should play this up big time in 2014

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (nzKvP)

290 By the way "Polls" do indicate that 74% do not like obama going around the Constitution and Congress. We should play this up big time in 2014

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (nzKvP)

291 Umm, yeah, he was. In 1933. After that, he declared himself Fuhrer and leader. Kind of. Germany has Parliamentary elections. The Nazis garnered 33% of the 1932 vote. There were months of negotiations and the German President appointed Hitler Chancellor of Germany in 1933. There are lots of arguments about the Nazis getting so powerful so quickly, having less than 5% of the vote a decade previously. There was a lot of arm-twisting and low-level violence to get there. Either way, the sentiment that Hitler was appointed within the system properly is mostly true.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (9PrpA)

292 Umm, yeah, he was. In 1933. After that, he declared himself Fuhrer and leader. Kind of. Germany has Parliamentary elections. The Nazis garnered 33% of the 1932 vote. There were months of negotiations and the German President appointed Hitler Chancellor of Germany in 1933. There are lots of arguments about the Nazis getting so powerful so quickly, having less than 5% of the vote a decade previously. There was a lot of arm-twisting and low-level violence to get there. Either way, the sentiment that Hitler was appointed within the system properly is mostly true.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (9PrpA)

293 Umm, yeah, he was. In 1933. After that, he declared himself Fuhrer and leader. Kind of. Germany has Parliamentary elections. The Nazis garnered 33% of the 1932 vote. There were months of negotiations and the German President appointed Hitler Chancellor of Germany in 1933. There are lots of arguments about the Nazis getting so powerful so quickly, having less than 5% of the vote a decade previously. There was a lot of arm-twisting and low-level violence to get there. Either way, the sentiment that Hitler was appointed within the system properly is mostly true.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (9PrpA)

294 Texas has a bunch, plus a bunch of nuclear launch sites (God, I hope it doesn't come to that). Yes, one of the first things that would have to happen is that those resources would have to be secured. On the up-side, there are several assembly plants (for a variety of military hardware) in the States in question. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:24 PM (PYAXX) Agreed. I MIGHT be willing to let Occupied Amerika keep a couple of non-nuclear sites near the New Republic's border (on our side) in return for access to the ports of LA and Seattle, or access to the highways leading to them and no interference. Access to goods from the Pacific Rim is one of the stumbling blocks to a center-of-the-country New Republic. Houston gives us access on the other side, so that's not so much of an issue. (I'm in the import/export biz, so this aspect is kind of my specialty.)

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (7ObY1)

295 Texas has a bunch, plus a bunch of nuclear launch sites (God, I hope it doesn't come to that). Yes, one of the first things that would have to happen is that those resources would have to be secured. On the up-side, there are several assembly plants (for a variety of military hardware) in the States in question. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:24 PM (PYAXX) Agreed. I MIGHT be willing to let Occupied Amerika keep a couple of non-nuclear sites near the New Republic's border (on our side) in return for access to the ports of LA and Seattle, or access to the highways leading to them and no interference. Access to goods from the Pacific Rim is one of the stumbling blocks to a center-of-the-country New Republic. Houston gives us access on the other side, so that's not so much of an issue. (I'm in the import/export biz, so this aspect is kind of my specialty.)

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (7ObY1)

296 Texas has a bunch, plus a bunch of nuclear launch sites (God, I hope it doesn't come to that). Yes, one of the first things that would have to happen is that those resources would have to be secured. On the up-side, there are several assembly plants (for a variety of military hardware) in the States in question. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:24 PM (PYAXX) Agreed. I MIGHT be willing to let Occupied Amerika keep a couple of non-nuclear sites near the New Republic's border (on our side) in return for access to the ports of LA and Seattle, or access to the highways leading to them and no interference. Access to goods from the Pacific Rim is one of the stumbling blocks to a center-of-the-country New Republic. Houston gives us access on the other side, so that's not so much of an issue. (I'm in the import/export biz, so this aspect is kind of my specialty.)

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (7ObY1)

297 This action by Obama strikes me as analogous to the Alhambra Decree, the precursor to the Spanish Inquisition. Jews were given the choice between expulsion or conversion, and many made a pro-forma conversion to Christianity. These newly-converted Christians were investigated by the Inquisition, tortured, and executed for trying to comply with the new law. Maybe the IRS doesn't care if businesses lie on these sworn statements. But that's today -- tomorrow they may all be thrown in jail if it becomes politically expedient to do so. Or, better yet, use the accusation of perjury to justify investigating their business decisions to see if they're adequately socially responsible, use the threat of prosecution to blackmail them into making political contributions, issue statements supporting Democrat policies, influence their business decisions, etc.

Posted by: Socratease at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (SZUi2)

298 This action by Obama strikes me as analogous to the Alhambra Decree, the precursor to the Spanish Inquisition. Jews were given the choice between expulsion or conversion, and many made a pro-forma conversion to Christianity. These newly-converted Christians were investigated by the Inquisition, tortured, and executed for trying to comply with the new law. Maybe the IRS doesn't care if businesses lie on these sworn statements. But that's today -- tomorrow they may all be thrown in jail if it becomes politically expedient to do so. Or, better yet, use the accusation of perjury to justify investigating their business decisions to see if they're adequately socially responsible, use the threat of prosecution to blackmail them into making political contributions, issue statements supporting Democrat policies, influence their business decisions, etc.

Posted by: Socratease at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (SZUi2)

299 This action by Obama strikes me as analogous to the Alhambra Decree, the precursor to the Spanish Inquisition. Jews were given the choice between expulsion or conversion, and many made a pro-forma conversion to Christianity. These newly-converted Christians were investigated by the Inquisition, tortured, and executed for trying to comply with the new law. Maybe the IRS doesn't care if businesses lie on these sworn statements. But that's today -- tomorrow they may all be thrown in jail if it becomes politically expedient to do so. Or, better yet, use the accusation of perjury to justify investigating their business decisions to see if they're adequately socially responsible, use the threat of prosecution to blackmail them into making political contributions, issue statements supporting Democrat policies, influence their business decisions, etc.

Posted by: Socratease at February 13, 2014 10:27 AM (SZUi2)

300 Worry when this Administration changes Officer and Enlisted oaths so they have to swear fealty to the President and not the Constitution.

That is when you start shooting the zampolits.  Or sooner?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (+lpuZ)

301 Worry when this Administration changes Officer and Enlisted oaths so they have to swear fealty to the President and not the Constitution.

That is when you start shooting the zampolits.  Or sooner?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (+lpuZ)

302 Worry when this Administration changes Officer and Enlisted oaths so they have to swear fealty to the President and not the Constitution.

That is when you start shooting the zampolits.  Or sooner?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (+lpuZ)

303 Lol@Enabling Act. Genius analogies

Posted by: Jeff at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (vd6Gd)

304 Lol@Enabling Act. Genius analogies

Posted by: Jeff at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (vd6Gd)

305 Lol@Enabling Act. Genius analogies

Posted by: Jeff at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (vd6Gd)

306 The federal government CAN'T let Texas (or any state) go. Once states know they can get out, it will be "Everybody for the exits!"

Posted by: irright at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (8GKDa)

307 The federal government CAN'T let Texas (or any state) go. Once states know they can get out, it will be "Everybody for the exits!"

Posted by: irright at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (8GKDa)

308 The federal government CAN'T let Texas (or any state) go. Once states know they can get out, it will be "Everybody for the exits!"

Posted by: irright at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (8GKDa)

309 They can tell the truth and... then what? And then continuous harassment from the Feds- IRS, OSHA, EPA, etc. Constant audits and inspections. ICE showing up every few months to shut you down for a day while they "sweep for illegal aliens," and so forth.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (PYAXX)

310 They can tell the truth and... then what? And then continuous harassment from the Feds- IRS, OSHA, EPA, etc. Constant audits and inspections. ICE showing up every few months to shut you down for a day while they "sweep for illegal aliens," and so forth.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (PYAXX)

311 They can tell the truth and... then what? And then continuous harassment from the Feds- IRS, OSHA, EPA, etc. Constant audits and inspections. ICE showing up every few months to shut you down for a day while they "sweep for illegal aliens," and so forth.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (PYAXX)

312 Let's review

- civilian force as well funded as military
- loyalty oaths
- over-ruling the legislature
- targeting of rival groups
- cooption / coersion of major industries and industry leaders
- cult of personality


Nothing in history to see hear... move along... 

Posted by: Heinrich Himmler at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (Q6pxP)

313 Let's review

- civilian force as well funded as military
- loyalty oaths
- over-ruling the legislature
- targeting of rival groups
- cooption / coersion of major industries and industry leaders
- cult of personality


Nothing in history to see hear... move along... 

Posted by: Heinrich Himmler at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (Q6pxP)

314 Let's review

- civilian force as well funded as military
- loyalty oaths
- over-ruling the legislature
- targeting of rival groups
- cooption / coersion of major industries and industry leaders
- cult of personality


Nothing in history to see hear... move along... 

Posted by: Heinrich Himmler at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (Q6pxP)

315 Worry when this Administration changes Officer and Enlisted oaths so they have to swear fealty to the President and not the Constitution. That is when you start shooting the zampolits. Or sooner? Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 02:28 PM (+lpuZ) I can assure you I and many Officers I know would NOT take that oath

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (nzKvP)

316 Worry when this Administration changes Officer and Enlisted oaths so they have to swear fealty to the President and not the Constitution. That is when you start shooting the zampolits. Or sooner? Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 02:28 PM (+lpuZ) I can assure you I and many Officers I know would NOT take that oath

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (nzKvP)

317 Worry when this Administration changes Officer and Enlisted oaths so they have to swear fealty to the President and not the Constitution. That is when you start shooting the zampolits. Or sooner? Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 02:28 PM (+lpuZ) I can assure you I and many Officers I know would NOT take that oath

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (nzKvP)

318 i guess i have to go back and read all comments to find clarity.

hope someone already clarified options

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (nqBYe)

319 i guess i have to go back and read all comments to find clarity.

hope someone already clarified options

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (nqBYe)

320 i guess i have to go back and read all comments to find clarity.

hope someone already clarified options

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2014 10:28 AM (nqBYe)

321

Businesses should certify that:  

 

" No  reduction in employment or employee  hours were  a result of attempting to avoid the mandate.   The reduction in employment and employee hours were  based on the White House's suggestion that freeing up time for people is a positive move"

Posted by: polynikes at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (m2CN7)

322

Businesses should certify that:  

 

" No  reduction in employment or employee  hours were  a result of attempting to avoid the mandate.   The reduction in employment and employee hours were  based on the White House's suggestion that freeing up time for people is a positive move"

Posted by: polynikes at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (m2CN7)

323

Businesses should certify that:  

 

" No  reduction in employment or employee  hours were  a result of attempting to avoid the mandate.   The reduction in employment and employee hours were  based on the White House's suggestion that freeing up time for people is a positive move"

Posted by: polynikes at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (m2CN7)

324 You want MO because the 509th and their B-2s are there.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (+lpuZ)

325 You want MO because the 509th and their B-2s are there.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (+lpuZ)

326 You want MO because the 509th and their B-2s are there.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (+lpuZ)

327 What, you no like-a da fascism? Better buy a piano. You're going to need it.

Posted by: Benito Mussolini III at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (7ynIk)

328 What, you no like-a da fascism? Better buy a piano. You're going to need it.

Posted by: Benito Mussolini III at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (7ynIk)

329 What, you no like-a da fascism? Better buy a piano. You're going to need it.

Posted by: Benito Mussolini III at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (7ynIk)

330 We also have the dreadnought USS Texas (BB-35), the Blue Ghost aircraft carrier Lexington (CV-16), the fleet sub USS Cavella (SS-244), and the destroyer escort USS Stewart (DE-23. Another Texas Navy! Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 02:27 PM (BAS5M) Heh......bring back the battleships!

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (v3O05)

331 We also have the dreadnought USS Texas (BB-35), the Blue Ghost aircraft carrier Lexington (CV-16), the fleet sub USS Cavella (SS-244), and the destroyer escort USS Stewart (DE-23. Another Texas Navy! Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 02:27 PM (BAS5M) Heh......bring back the battleships!

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (v3O05)

332 We also have the dreadnought USS Texas (BB-35), the Blue Ghost aircraft carrier Lexington (CV-16), the fleet sub USS Cavella (SS-244), and the destroyer escort USS Stewart (DE-23. Another Texas Navy! Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 02:27 PM (BAS5M) Heh......bring back the battleships!

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (v3O05)

333 Damn. Twitter is atwitter again. I expect a 9th Circuit/2nd amendment post soon.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (DmNpO)

334 Damn. Twitter is atwitter again. I expect a 9th Circuit/2nd amendment post soon.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (DmNpO)

335 Damn. Twitter is atwitter again. I expect a 9th Circuit/2nd amendment post soon.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2014 10:29 AM (DmNpO)

336 Thunder snow ice and rain.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 13, 2014 10:30 AM (6bMeY)

337 You wingnuts going on about the "law" . It's so cute.

Posted by: drill_thrawl at February 13, 2014 10:30 AM (rdiUQ)

338 How many divisions does a writ of mandamus have?

Posted by: Barky I at February 13, 2014 10:30 AM (sOtz/)

339 So could companies simply take the fifth and refuse to answer?

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 13, 2014 10:30 AM (SO2Q8)

340 Gun thread coming up.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 10:31 AM (cxs6V)

341 The other thing about this is that it should be top of the fold headlines in massive script.  I can't find one news agency covering this, not even Fox.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 13, 2014 10:31 AM (T2V/1)

342 And Allen, what about all the military bases in the New Republic? You know that Occupied Amerika would want to keep them. That's a big issue to ponder. Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 02:21 PM (7ObY1) Which is the EXACT situation that caused Ft. Sumter to be fired on....

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 10:31 AM (84gbM)

343 To the extent the conservative movement becomes weirdo libertarian carping on how Obama is a tyrant, even on NatSec issues the GOP used to be solid on, what normal non paranoiac should take it seriously? thankfully the weirdosphere online doesn't represent all of how it actually exists.

Posted by: Jeff at February 13, 2014 10:31 AM (vd6Gd)

344 It's not a constitutional convention. It's a convention of the states in order to amend the constitution. Not just semantics, since a constitutional convention is via congress. And we're trying to go around them.

If congress and the president don't care about obeying the limits on them in the Constitution, and the courts don't want to get involved, what difference do Constituional amendments make?

Posted by: Methos at February 13, 2014 10:31 AM (hO9ad)

345 obama is now a king. And everything he's done and is doing tells me that he's not leaving in Jan 2017.

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 10:31 AM (0imCr)

346 294 You want MO because the 509th and their B-2s are there. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 02:29 PM (+lpuZ) Southern Illinois will gladly throw in our vast amounts of coal. We fucking HATE Chicago and succession from the Springfield Mafia is actually very popular down here.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:32 AM (v3O05)

347


No one on the planet is as conservative as John Boner. And Paul Ryan, even more conservative.

It's like two massive balls, and they are swinging. Total conservatives.

They will stop all this.


Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Christies at February 13, 2014 10:32 AM (fEmAd)

348 This ties directly to what Megan McArdle is talking about in her column today. Certify that your hiring and firings don't have anything to do with Obamacare, and those people have no standing to contend the law in a Court. Posted by: CausticConservative at February 13, 2014 02:23 PM (gT3jF) so devious you can see the lawyers minds in this

Posted by: artisanal 'ette: Countdown to V-Day... at February 13, 2014 10:32 AM (IXrOn)

349 Any business that takes any one of these waivers or delays is idiotic and deserves to be ground underfoot.  It's a fucking trap, and if the dollars mean more than selling your proverbial soul, I have no sympathy for them.

The only sane course of action is to adhere to the letter of the law, then proclaim loudly why the business is doing so.

Posted by: grognard at February 13, 2014 10:32 AM (/29Nl)

350 Gun thread coming up. *** hell yeah. This one's a doozy.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2014 10:33 AM (DmNpO)

351 Have we gone back to the 1860's yet? in b4 the Civil War talk!

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 10:33 AM (0imCr)

352 So you Enlisted, you have got to trust me to make the correct decision.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:25 PM (nzKvP)

lol.  My wife is a retired mustang captain.  We were both NCOs when we met.  I'll take the "trust me" part with a grain of salt (you understand).  I served under exactly 4 good officers.  Lt Gen Gary Voellger (he won't mind me using his name), 1 light bird, 1 major, 1 captain.

My oath:

"I (name) do solemnly swear  that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:34 AM (x3YFz)

353
Any president can be a tyrant if no impeachment possibility.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2014 10:34 AM (n0DEs)

354 283: Not arguing this: Either way, the sentiment that Hitler was appointed within the system properly is mostly true. However; he was not elected Chancellor and the NSDP never won a majority. Your 33% sounds about right; I'd have to check that one. Point is that the politicians thought they could control Hitler one he was appointed; they were wrong.

Posted by: AnthonyB at February 13, 2014 10:34 AM (eqRqW)

355 Nice discussion of this ("The Chicago Way") over at samizdata.net. http://www.samizdata.net/2014/02/the-chicago-way/

Posted by: m at February 13, 2014 10:34 AM (omrQI)

356

A lawsuit must be lodged to declare Obamacare an unconstitutional delegation of lawmaking power to the executive, as interpreted and actually enforced by Obama.

Facially, Obamacare looks like a normal law. But in actual practice, it is, as Charles C.W. Cooke called it, an illegal, unconstitutional enabling act.

Poaching: If Obama is presuming to poach Congressional power, why doesn't the House of Representatives poach back?

Let the House pass a bill stating that no business has to comply with this, as it is unconstitutional.


so only congress has standing?

because of  poaching on their territory?

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2014 10:34 AM (nqBYe)

357 119 Truly a sign of the apocalypse. The lefts pet court just cunt punted them. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public,” washingtonpost.com reports. “ 9th circuit. In my head I'm picturing obama's reaction. Smiling I am.

Posted by: traye at February 13, 2014 10:34 AM (Xu3uO)

358 Thunder snow ice and rain. Bring The Rain.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 10:34 AM (ndIek)

359 never fkn mind.

Posted by: willow at February 13, 2014 10:34 AM (nqBYe)

360 WTF?

Since when is it illegal to fire people because of Obamacare?

Lets say I answer "Yes, IRS, damn f#$ing straight I fired ten people because Obamacare made keeping them on too expensive", then what?


Posted by: looking closely at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (TZsWx)

361 279 charging them with perjury, as part of a publicity campaign to "defend jobs." Posted by: TallDave Why would a business perjure themselves? They can tell the truth and... then what? Where is it a crime to lay off someone in order to avoid more government regulation? Show me the law. Not the whim. Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 02:27 PM (MNq6o) Well they want them to perjure themselves so if they ever choose to tell the truth they can go after them for perjury. And I think this attempt by Obama is pretty much a do this or you can expect to get the tea party treatment from the irs.

Posted by: Buzzion at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (MQVvG)

362 This is SO NOT FUCKING THE GOVTS' BUSINESS.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl 14 days (2wks) until spring training at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (u8GsB)

363 Earflapped, fascist clown- Pen and a phone and he kills all commerce...

Posted by: Zombie Cher (well, the other one) at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (QLbhS)

364 Either way, the sentiment that Hitler was appointed within the system properly is mostly true.

The key piece is at the time it was pushed as at least mostly legitimate. Even if we can look back and say "Duh, they glossed over this quorum requirement etc."

It was definitely Banana Republic rules, but it mostly doesn't matter if the press is completely suborned.

Which just highlights another similarity.

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (9ynpo)

365

>>>In Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments", he describes a method for taking the country back that makes a lot of sense - a constitutional convention. I wish this would catch some wind.

 

Mark is an incredibly intelligent man who, through his acid wit, cows a lot of people who would in good conscience disagree with him. I, for one, think he is mistaken to press for a con con and that his view of the process - while on paper true - would swiftly run away from any sane person's control. IOW, its a pollyanna dream.

Posted by: Bigby's Helping Hands at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (3ZtZW)

366 I can assure you I and many Officers I know would NOT take that oath Which plays into their hands. They dismiss the guys that won't take that oath, and promote the conscience-less men who will. You get violent yes-men to serve in those roles, and the proud history and honor of the military is torn down like an obsolete Las Vegas hotel.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (9PrpA)

367 I would think this is also designed to stop businesses from ever talking about this internally on threat of being audited and having to produce emails, memos, meeting notes that confirm that they did in fact consider or actually go ahead with letting go and/or reducing work hours in response to Obamacare.
You've checked our signing statement but our audit turned up info to the contrary, so we're charging you with false reporting.


Posted by: Lizzy at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (POpqt)

368 It's not just the loyalty oath, it is the anti-free speech oath! You certify, under oath and threat of penalty for perjury, that you won't speak badly about the law. They could conceivably subpoena Gallop to find out which employers answer survey questions like, "have your reduced the hours or number of employees hired due to the PPCA," in the affirmative. After checking that list against the oaths they could begin prosecution. You will never see another CEO on Fox or FBN telling the truth about the law!

Posted by: LifeTrek at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (BLjub)

369 Which Roman Emperor used an oath to the gods of Rome to ferret out the Christians?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (+lpuZ)

370 And what happens if you don't sign. . .then what?

Posted by: looking closely at February 13, 2014 10:35 AM (TZsWx)

371

Willow, you want a clear picture?

http://tinyurl.com/ax4jmws

Posted by: maddogg at February 13, 2014 10:36 AM (xWW96)

372

This is walking up to the edge of being a classic Catch-22:

 

1. Answer the question truthfully that you've reduced employees to avoid the Obamacare "tax," and, voila... prepare for your audit.

 

2. Answer the question untruthfully, but your records neverthless show that you have a suspicious number of employees year-over-year, say 53 last year and 47 this year, and, voila... prepare for your audit and likely a DOJ perjury investigation.

 

Does anyone trust this administration's IRS or DOJ not to exercise their... ahem... discretion in a discriminatory manner to target unfavored companies?

Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 13, 2014 10:36 AM (qHCyt)

373 oh you're only back to the 1940's??

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 10:36 AM (0imCr)

374 Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:34 PM (x3YFz) I am pretty sure those under me like and respect me because I have found that caring more about their careers than mine works out the best for both us and the Navy and also gets me brought coffee more often.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:36 AM (nzKvP)

375 The house can't fight back against the poaching because defense!!!

Posted by: Your Betters at February 13, 2014 10:36 AM (Aif/5)

376 Willow just posted? I smell a new thread coming soon.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2014 10:36 AM (4+AaH)

377 @305 dumbass What do you call a fuhr... leader who makes rulings which expressly contradict statutory and constitutional law?

Posted by: Barky I at February 13, 2014 10:36 AM (sOtz/)

378 Nothing to see here folks.We have nothing to fear from Barack Obama.Move along.

Posted by: steevy at February 13, 2014 10:36 AM (zqvg6)

379 Agreed, it starts becoming a society and economy of political loyalists versus merit.

Posted by: Draki at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (L8r/r)

380 its just instance 1,896 that if bush would have done it... and item 1,453 on the next declaration of independence...

Posted by: sound awake at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (pk/NG)

381 Which plays into their hands. They dismiss the guys that won't take that oath, and promote the conscience-less men who will. You get violent yes-men to serve in those roles, and the proud history and honor of the military is torn down like an obsolete Las Vegas hotel. Posted by: bonhomme at February 13, 2014 02:35 PM (9PrpA) The Pentagon and Flag Officers aside, the Officer's Corps is still pretty conservative as a whole

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (nzKvP)

382 The exact timeline of how Hitler became Fuhrer is not that important. What is important that there are a hell of a lot of scary parallels to today and Weimar. THAT fact I am in total agreement with all of you.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (olDqf)

383 Doh. Off tyrant sock.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (sOtz/)

384 At some point the Supreme Court must step in and save our democracy. Speaking of quaint, assuming someone can get standing, how do you propose the SCOTUS enforce their rulings?

Posted by: Barackenaten I at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (rCOda)

385 The Businesses would be signing the release of a great, future NY Times headline. Businesses Shed to Reap More Profits By not saying "obamacare," they are simply mean, greedy capitalist pigs.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette: Countdown to V-Day... at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (IXrOn)

386 331 Domitian?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (XyM/Y)

387 he's not leaving in Jan 2017.

Posted by: Soothsayer says,

I think he's leaving.  He leaves every chance he gets to go on vacation and play golf.  He hates the job because he's discovered that people actually tell you to do things.  He thought it would be 100% the other way around.  He didn't know it's an actual job that involves work because he's a child.  He wants to be 100% leisure because he thinks he earned it by winning an election.

Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (MNq6o)

388 “The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public,” washingtonpost.com reports. “ 9th circuit. o .O

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (v3O05)

389 2.66GB of Civ IV downloaded.  Come on, I need to smash things...

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:37 AM (+lpuZ)

390 Queen to queen's level 3.

Posted by: Scotty Obama at February 13, 2014 10:38 AM (TKFmG)

391 Barky isn't following the Constitution *now*.  Why would any sane person think he'd follow any amendments to come out of an Article V?

Posted by: grognard at February 13, 2014 10:38 AM (/29Nl)

392 310 This ties directly to what Megan McArdle is talking about in her column today. Certify that your hiring and firings don't have anything to do with Obamacare, and those people have no standing to contend the law in a Court.
Posted by: CausticConservative at February 13, 2014 02:23 PM (gT3jF)


As soon as the DOJ acts to punish one of those businesses they should have standing.  But that doesn't mean that all the judges will recognize it.


Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.


Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.



Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.



All of those would be met after the DOJ acts


Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 13, 2014 10:38 AM (T2V/1)

393 From Ace: "Let's just cut the chase. Obama wants businesses to swear to this, under penalty of perjury, because he would like to use these statements -- whether true or false -- to argue that Obamacare is not causing reductions in hiring." I think there is another reason. It is to shut those companies up right now about discussing the negative effects of O-care. If they are quoted today mentioning how this hurts their business and they may have to let folks go, and then tomorrow sign the loyalty oath, well, that creates a problem for them. Don't forget, the elections are coming up. If Obama can tamp down the talk of how his policy is screwing America, his candidates have a much better chance come November.

Posted by: Pigilito at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (AW99N)

394 Two, the House has no executive ability, so nothing they do or pass will matter. Short of defunding DOJ their proclamations are powerless. Posted by: TallDave at February 13, 2014 02:23 PM --------------------------------------------- I think Ace is saying this would help give some courage to the people and businesses to stand up to this bullshit by refusing to cooperate and it will also help to start delegitimizing Obamacare in the minds of the public.

Posted by: irright at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (pMGkg)

395 He was basically given power, just as his popularity was waning. Yeah. Think about that for a minute. Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 02:25 PM (v3O05) And there's quite a bit of evidence to indicate he was on DRUGS starting somewhere around 1933. Anyone noticed how Stoned Obama was in that interview the other day?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (bb5+k)

396 Don't think of it as a "loyalty oath" Think of it as a commitment to care!

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars™ [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (HsTG8)

397 Which plays into their hands. They dismiss the guys that won't take that oath, and promote the conscience-less men who will. No prob. Those that are left are the enemy by default. Makes trigger pulling that much easier.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (ndIek)

398 125 Allen it would be via Consititutional Convention - and one that goes much better than is likely. I said "realistic." I don't think the people of 2/3 of the States will wake up in time to call an ArtV convention. the other scenario I see is a non-catastrophic (or possibly just sudden "thud" type of thing) failure of the FedGov apparatus. Collapse of the FedGov. Could be slow or could be fast. The thing is (and I've been giving this some thought for a book I'm writing), I just can't see a realistic way for that to happen BEFORE the burning starts. At least, not enough before that we can put out the fires in time. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 13, 2014 02:02 Without burning there is no Phoenix. A state convention has the same hurtle to over come as any amendment. There are enough blue states to stop any amendment that would be helpful. IIHO or not so humble it has about as much a chance of restoring states power as a snowball in hell. The progressives are their own worst enemy, walking around with matches and open cans of gasoline.,

Posted by: Bob from table9 at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (jsa6I)

399 I am pretty sure those under me like and respect me because I have found that caring more about their careers than mine works out the best for both us and the Navy and also gets me brought coffee more often.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:36 PM (nzKvP)

I wasn't insulting you.  You don't know me, I don't know you.  That's all.  No more or less.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (x3YFz)

400 FenelonSpoke, I can't remember.  But he required this oath to be taken by all soldiers in the Roman legions. 

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (+lpuZ)

401 Banana boat?
Meet "republic...."

Posted by: backhoe at February 13, 2014 10:39 AM (ULH4o)

402 Niiiiiice. A quick leap back to the Roman Empire era! Well done.

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 10:40 AM (0imCr)

403 I wasn't insulting you. You don't know me, I don't know you. That's all. No more or less. Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 02:39 PM (x3YFz) I know. I was just talking.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 10:40 AM (nzKvP)

404 Speaking of quaint, assuming someone can get standing, how do you propose the SCOTUS enforce their rulings? Posted by: Barackenaten I at February 13, 2014 02:37 PM (rCOda) Is the Obama admin still in contempt of court over not drilling in the Gulf??? Have not ever heard of a resolution to that...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 10:40 AM (84gbM)

405 Southern Illinois will gladly throw in our vast amounts of coal. We fucking HATE Chicago and succession from the Springfield Mafia is actually very popular down here.

Any chance y'all would take refugees from cook county?

Posted by: Methos is hopelessly stuck in cook county at February 13, 2014 10:41 AM (hO9ad)

406 new one

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 13, 2014 10:41 AM (T2V/1)

407
Anyone noticed how Stoned Obama was in that interview the other day?



Talking about the Costas interview?  Because his eyes were quite droopy and glazed in that interview.

Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2014 10:41 AM (Aif/5)

408 It's also the attempt to side step standing. How can you claim to suffer a particularized harm if you are being exempted?

The only out I can see is an equal protection case. If I don't lie, then I am punished. Of course, the punt by the court would be well show me the affidavits by the CEO of a company that admits that company committed perjury. Like anyone would do that.

Posted by: alexthechick - oh great SMOD can you wait til curling's done at February 13, 2014 02:16 PM (Gk3SS)

Said the other day that this seems worthy of a 5th Am. challenge similar in strategy to this case.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2247766/posts

Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 10:42 AM (Kkt/i)

409 349 he's not leaving in Jan 2017. Posted by: Soothsayer says, I think he's leaving. He leaves every chance he gets to go on vacation and play golf. He hates the job because he's discovered that people actually tell you to do things. He thought it would be 100% the other way around. He didn't know it's an actual job that involves work because he's a child. He wants to be 100% leisure because he thinks he earned it by winning an election. Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 02:37 PM (MNq6o) For someone who hates his job and tries to get away every chance he can, he sure has done a hell of a lot these past 5 years. All of it utterly destructive. But a lot.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 13, 2014 10:42 AM (olDqf)

410 - 322 WTF? Since when is it illegal to fire people because of Obamacare? ------------------------------------------ It's not. It's also not illegal to be a conservative and start a non-profit.

Posted by: irright at February 13, 2014 10:42 AM (8GKDa)

411 Its damn obvious the administration knows ACA is a disaster cluster F. First it gets illegal delay after delay. It has now evolved to the point you can't say it causes unemployment when it does.

Posted by: Bob from table9 at February 13, 2014 10:43 AM (jsa6I)

412 Don't sign the oath.

Take the fifth.

Tell them you did lay off employees because of Obamacare.

It's all the same because they can not do shit.  "But the IRS will audit you!"  They were going to do that anyway.  What they are doing is compiling an enemies list.  But owning a business would get you on their enemies list anyway.

The whole perjury threat is just Obamascare.  Fuck them and their whims.

Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 10:44 AM (MNq6o)

413 Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 02:36 PM (nzKvP)

I often engage in good natures O vs E with my friend here: 

http://gruntsandco.com/welcome-gruntsandco/#

He's an Army major and former west point instructor, platoon CC.  He's good people.  I'd pull security for him.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:44 AM (x3YFz)

414 Business must be harnessed to a greater good the name of redistributive justice.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at February 13, 2014 10:44 AM (vBud5)

415 In an April 2013 ruling, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Feldman's ruling. It said that although the government had violated the spirit of his order, its actions did not technically violate it. The companies then sought high court review. And then the Supremes refused to hear the case... And THIS is the court you think will preserve our Rights?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 10:44 AM (84gbM)

416 methos: move to wisconsin like i did last year, its the united states up here... up here you buy your ar-15 at walmart...you walk in with your $ you walk out a half hour later with it just like God (and the founders) intended...

Posted by: sound awake at February 13, 2014 10:45 AM (pk/NG)

417 288 The federal government CAN'T let Texas (or any state) go. Once states know they can get out, it will be "Everybody for the exits!" Posted by: irright at February 13, 2014 02:28 PM (8GKDa) I actually regard Washington and Colorado's foray into pot independence as establishing in principle, the concept of disconnecting from Federal Control. If the Feds tolerate these states not obeying Federal law, then the path is clear. We simply incrementalize the same behavior as applied to other Federal laws until all ability to rein us in is dissipated. In a weird way, legalizing drugs by state authority may eventually produce a larger sort of freedom.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 10:46 AM (bb5+k)

418 If I don't lie, then I
am punished.


How?  I really want to know.

Posted by: Dang at February 13, 2014 10:46 AM (MNq6o)

419 82 I wonder if we could get him to certify and sign a loyalty oath on any of his school transcripts? I'd settle for just his Kindergarten records at this point. I'm pretty sure even they would disqualify him as President. Posted by: dfbaskwill at February 13, 2014 01:55 PM (ndlFj) I submit that there are no transcripts, at least no college transcripts.

Posted by: baldilocks at February 13, 2014 10:47 AM (36Rjy)

420 So, can we start ignoring laws WE don't like, either? I mean, Obamacare is a tax, right? And President Narcissus isn't enforcing it equally. So doesn't that set a very unpleasant precedent the Dems really, really shouldn't want? And yeah, loyalty oaths. Every damn one of them should take the Fifth, and cite serial liar and unindicted felon Lerner as their inspiration.

Posted by: acethepug at February 13, 2014 10:49 AM (80gbp)

421

Meanwhile, on-topic: (I know, I know...unusual for here, right?) There is, of course, a very, very simple answer that Mr. Businessman should, in fact, make to this "chust szign ze papersz" demand.

DO.NOT.SIGN....period, full stop. Run a line through the signature line area - to signify that "no, I didn't forget to sign, etc." - and otherwise leave that part blank. Send in the form.

If the Treasury filberts insist that "there must be a signature" - write in "Mickey Mouse", or "Donald Duck", or some such, in your choice: a nice, round, full-flowing script, a jaggedy, tough-on-the-eyes block-letterish dealie, or a totally-impossible-to-decipher, tight little scrawl. In any event, provably not Mr. Businessman's own John Hancock (or Jack Cockhand, whichever you prefer). Then, fire that sucker right back at 'em.

End Of Story.

They can't, after all, take 'em all to court - and a court (appropriately prodded by the A.C.L.U., etc.) would undoubtedly rule against 'em if they did. Might take a couple of years or ten, but...

Just refuse to sign. Let 'em steep in their own juices.

Remember, always: Despite what they'd like you to believe, they work for us - NOT the other way 'round.

Posted by: J.S.Bridges at February 13, 2014 10:50 AM (9mWut)

422 I knew a bunch of cool Officers in my little corner of the Army. Lots of Norwich guys who recognized the accent and immediately wanted to talk Red Sox, one Major who would literally do my job for me when I was his Driver, an LTC that went out of his way to keep unit indiscretions "Company Grade" or below. Even road-tripped to the Olympics with a 2Lt when I was a private. Also knew some real dangerous assholes among the Officers, but not many.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 13, 2014 10:50 AM (ZshNr)

423 "A so-called Open Working Group of the U.N. General Assembly is now currently hammering out specifics of the proposals that will be presented at the summit this upcoming September as a series of Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, successors to the U.N.’s much-touted but unevenly successful Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, which expire in 2015. Despite the fact that their headline feature is likely to be the pledge to end all forms of “extreme poverty” around the globe by 2030, the agenda that Podesta and the rest of the high-level panel have urged the U.N. and its member states to produce is far more than a conventional anti-poverty plan. While even the broad outlines they sketched are still in the formative stages of being turned into more concrete negotiating proposals, the process surrounding the eventual fulfillment of the SDGs, would undoubtedly require trillions of dollars of public and private spending on poverty and the environment, a radical reorganization of economic production and consumption, especially in rich countries, and more drastic efforts in the expensive war on climate change. And now, having helped to frame the SDGs, Podesta may have a key role in setting the stage to accomplish them. The main reason being that how nations meet the collective goals laid out in the SDGs, as the high-level panel underlines in its report, will be left up to each individual nation. Meaning, among other things, that many of the objectives that make up the SDGs –or, at least, the conditions for their fulfillment--will be part of the regulatory agenda he is now helping to carry out. Among other things, climate change—and especially the push to meet and even exceed ambitious targets on the suppression of carbon emissions –is said to be a cardinal focus of his job as a kind of super-coordinator of regulatory efforts to achieve Obama Administration goals—even though climate change got hardly a mention in the President’s State of the Union speech last month. (A report last month by the Administration to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, indicated that the U.S. is a long way from meeting even its current target of a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels in U.S. carbon emissions, but fully intends to keep pushing to meet them.) Nonetheless , as the U.N. high-level panel’s report points out, suppressing carbon emissions involves a cascading series of other activities, many of them already high on the agenda of Obama Administration agencies. “The Panel is convinced that national and local governments, businesses and individuals must transform the way they generate and consume energy, travel and transport goods, use water and grow food,” it says among other things—pointing toward just one portion of an inter-related agenda covering a sprawling array of topics. Another such area is attacking inequality, a theme that President Obama has increasingly struck as an objective for 2014. Among other things, the panel notes, “many countries are using public social protection programs and social and environmental regulations to bring down high levels of domestic inequality by improving the lives of the worst-off, while also transforming their economies.” The report also strongly recommends that private businesses be harnessed to the new development effort, willingly if possible, but even if not so eager to do so. “We embrace the positive contribution to sustainable development that business must make,” the report says. “But this contribution must include a willingness, on the part of all large corporations as well as governments, to report on their social and environmental impact, in addition to releasing financial accounts.” It then suggests a mandatory policy of “comply or explain” for all companies worth more than $100 million, along with “sustainability certification” that will make it “easier for civil society and shareholders to become watchdogs, holding firms accountable for adhering industry standards and worker safety issues, and being ready to disinvest if they do not.”" Complete story over at Fox

Posted by: Daybrother at February 13, 2014 10:50 AM (mIn5v)

424 that's the ticket,

Posted by: Corolianus Snow at February 13, 2014 10:51 AM (Jsiw/)

425 Posted by: D-Lamp at February 13, 2014 02:46 PM (bb5+k) The Feds will simply enforce the laws that target their enemies, see: IRS, EPA. The reason they don't enforce pot laws is that they favor their constituencies. Same thing with gay marriage.

Posted by: Barackenaten I at February 13, 2014 10:51 AM (rCOda)

426 Off musty old mummified sock

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 13, 2014 10:52 AM (rCOda)

427 Or Declus: The persecution under Decius was the first universal and organized persecution of Christians, and it would have lasting significance for the Christian church. In January of 250, Decius issued an edict requiring all citizens to sacrifice to the emperor in the presence of a Roman official and obtain a certificate (libellus) proving they had done so. Forty-four of these libelli have survived. One surviving example reads: Libellus, Egypt, 250 AD To those appointed to see the sacrifices: From Aurelia Charis of the Egyptian village of Theadelphia. I have always continued to sacrifice and show reverence to the gods, and now, in your presence, I have poured a libation and sacrificed and eaten some of the sacrificial meat. I request you to certify this for me below. {21} This method of persecution created a crisis of conscience for many Christians, as a certificate could be obtained without actually sacrificing by bribing Roman officials. It was clear that Christians should not sacrifice to a false god, but whether it was acceptable to save one's life by buying a certificate was a bit more of a gray area. Many Christians chose to defy the edict outright, refusing to buy a certificate, and were arrested or executed. Among those martyred under Decius were the bishops of Rome, Jerusalem and Antioch.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 13, 2014 10:52 AM (XyM/Y)

428 Sorry for such a long cut and paste. I didn't realize how lengthy it was.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 13, 2014 10:52 AM (mIn5v)

429 The report also strongly recommends that private businesses be harnessed to the new development effort, willingly if possible, but even if not so eager to do so. 

Posted by: Daybrother at February 13, 2014 02:50 PM (mIn5v)

I strongly recommend that the UN (insert here).


Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:52 AM (x3YFz)

430 I find myself, after learning of each new atrocity committed against our nation by this regime, stating "Well, this is the last straw!" , but with each new revelation, I just keep moving that red line, which seems to be popular these days. But to have anyone in this administration threaten anyone "under penalty of perjury" is ludicrous, and at the height of hypocrisy, when so many of them have blatantly lied under oath in testifying before Congress with no repercussions. During the "Dark Ages" I have taken Ace's advice and have read extensively on the Revolutionary War and the causes of it, and have memorized the Declaration of Independence and I don't know what those clowns are doing in Washington, but it isn't what the founding fathers envisioned. Now I am learning Latin - don't know what the future holds for our country, but now just hope that my husband and I can continue to work and provide for our family.

Posted by: txag at February 13, 2014 10:53 AM (lCatF)

431 389 -From Religionfacts.com

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 13, 2014 10:54 AM (XyM/Y)

432 382 So, can we start ignoring laws WE don't like, either? I mean, Obamacare is a tax, right? And President Narcissus isn't enforcing it equally. So doesn't that set a very unpleasant precedent the Dems really, really shouldn't want?

And yeah, loyalty oaths. Every damn one of them should take the Fifth, and cite serial liar and unindicted felon Lerner as their inspiration.

Posted by: acethepug at February 13, 2014 02:49 PM (80gbp)

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I'm taking it.  The Executive branch doesn't obey laws so... wild west, kids.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 10:54 AM (x3YFz)

433 Give everybody eat!

Posted by: Major —— de Coverley at February 13, 2014 10:55 AM (wqTAg)

434 And Allen, what about all the military bases in the New Republic? You know that Occupied Amerika would want to keep them.

That's a big issue to ponder.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 02:21 PM (7ObY1)


Not too worried about that.  Most of the base for Occupied Amerika exists in highly concentrate and easily identified areas (e.g., the larger cities).  I think it was Bob Owens that pointed out how easy it would be to affect those areas by focusing on the infrastructure serving those areas.

As for south wanting some payback, there are many areas of the north and west that are tired of being ruled by nannystatists of the metro areas that feel similar sentiment. 

I think existing state lines would be somewhat useless to a post- era.  You'd need to think about areas like N. CA that would likely break from the historical state boundaries.

Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 10:55 AM (Kkt/i)

435 Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 13, 2014 02:21 PM (7ObY1)

Not too worried about that. Most of the base for Occupied Amerika exists in highly concentrate and easily identified areas (e.g., the larger cities). I think it was Bob Owens that pointed out how easy it would be to affect those areas by focusing on the infrastructure serving those areas.As for south wanting some payback, there are many areas of the north and west that are tired of being ruled by nannystatists of the metro areas that feel similar sentiment.
I think existing state lines would be somewhat useless to a post- era. You'd need to think about areas like N. CA that would likely break from the historical state boundaries.

Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 02:55 PM (Kkt/i)

The top dudes (SEALs, 75th, 160th, etc) won't fire on citizens.

Governors would take quick control of the states.

It's DHS/TSA you have to worry about.  But they're for the most part wannabes.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 11:01 AM (x3YFz)

436 Maybe someone could take a tip from the IRS head and write on their tax form "I am taking the 5th on this matter." Of course, the downside to this is that YOU WILL BE AUDITED === FOREVER!!

Posted by: TimothyJ at February 13, 2014 11:02 AM (ep2io)

437 Bluestate, having Houston would be almost worthless, or any port along the Gulf. The Feds would still control the Navy and it would be very easy to blockade the Gulf. Like you, I've thought about this a lot lately.

Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at February 13, 2014 11:05 AM (5npD/)

438 I hope that if anyone reads that actual UN paraphrased report they will realize that these are the ideas that Podesta and his cohorts are trying to put into place under his new role as "environmental advisor" at the White House. The point is not that the UN would like to continue to grow into a wonderful supreme authoritarian Walt Disney like central Earth government but that Podesta and much of the current administration truly are working hard to develop a form of government never seen on the Earth before. One that should never ever exist. This is really their mindset and a whole lot of them are in power right now in DC.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 13, 2014 11:12 AM (mIn5v)

439

Supporters of Obama's executive actions characterize his usurpation of executive power as laudable because it is being used to help people. The above is proof that he is not.

If Obama wished to use executive power exclusively to help people, he would not use it to eliminate the ability to identify when something harms people. People are losing their jobs because of Obamacare. They are being harmed. Obama has now silenced the voices who would say so. In effect, he has used executive power to harm. He has used executive power to silence opposition to harm, to speak freely in an effort to stop and reverse harm, thus attempting to guarantee the continuation and expansion of harm.

This is a sinister act. Congress must stop this.

Posted by: The Liberty Dude at February 13, 2014 11:17 AM (iAWQF)

440 Hey! A post about 401Care at post 401!

Posted by: The Liberty Dude at February 13, 2014 11:18 AM (iAWQF)

441 i don't see a problem here

Posted by: Benito Mussolini at February 13, 2014 11:21 AM (yrk2K)

442 It's not. It's also not illegal to be a conservative and start a non-profit.

Posted by: irright at February 13, 2014 02:42 PM (8GKDa)


Not. Yet.

Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 11:32 AM (Kkt/i)

443 What and ignorant fool Obama is.  Businesses will now resort to more temp workers to avoid the threshold.  Then what?  If the STOMF had ever held a real job or run a business he would know things like this.

Of course we will hear Dems howl about the evil businesses trying to get around the law and temp workers will be included in the headcount. And his ignorant, foolish base will marvel once again at his wisdom and compassion even as businesses start closing up shop.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 13, 2014 11:36 AM (Vv4Go)

444 We can't act. The Obama Reign is almost in the third trimester.

Posted by: Chief Justice John Roberts at February 13, 2014 11:39 AM (OPzNA)

445 The top dudes (SEALs, 75th, 160th, etc) won't fire on citizens.

Governors would take quick control of the states.

It's DHS/TSA you have to worry about. But they're for the most part wannabes.

Posted by: tangonine at February 13, 2014 03:01 PM (x3YFz)


Not suggesting firing on citizens. Infrastructure.

If we're talking secession, Governors cannot control areas from which they derive little/no support. If they're focused on on their political base (because of infrastructure failures, lawlessness, etc.), they have less time/resources to strike out.

It's probably more than just DHS/TSA, but I'd expect a healthy mix of statists/freemen in any of those org's to make it interesting.

Posted by: flounder at February 13, 2014 11:40 AM (Kkt/i)

446 whoa just woke up guess i'll be applying for a Hawaii C/C license today Hawaii is a state where you also have to show the county sherriff good cause

Posted by: navycopjoe at February 13, 2014 11:43 AM (At8tV)

447 whoops wrong thread

Posted by: navycopjoe at February 13, 2014 11:44 AM (At8tV)

448 Emperor Palpatine seizes the power of the Senate, everyone applauds. Its amazes, George Lucas was shooting at Nixon and GWB, but turns out, Barack Obama is the actual guy going way beyond executive, and separation of powers. In fact. Obama makes Nixon look like a lamb.

Posted by: Rodney C. Johnson at February 13, 2014 11:58 AM (nL5y5)

449 damn, Ace, leave some smart pills and brawno for the rest of us... "poaching" idea is money we need some of our gov reps to start using legal guerrilla tactics like this one but they won't because, pussies

Posted by: nice at February 13, 2014 11:59 AM (ttPi6)

450 Alternate Headline: Broken clock displays correct time.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 13, 2014 12:02 PM (/o+xv)

451 Actually, that's 404Care isn't it. Oops.

Posted by: The Liberty Dude at February 13, 2014 12:18 PM (iAWQF)

452

I'm so glad to see this being talked about...because it's major, imo.

 

This is exactly like the Hostage Films that terrorists make their captives do.

 

Barky is holding a gun to Businesses...and forcing them to make propaganda statements for him to use, to prop up his lies.

Posted by: wheatie at February 13, 2014 01:22 PM (eCZwh)

453 Welcome to Fascism. The great (and not so great) corporations are in service to the all knowing, all seeing, and all wise government. This is different than communism, were corporate entities are wholly owned and operated by the state, and different than corporatism, were the state is in service to the great corporations.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 13, 2014 01:33 PM (1hM1d)

454 "A businessman, being asked by the Treasury to swear he's not reducing staff to avoid Obamacare, understands exactly what Treasury wants: Treasury wants him to claim this. If the businessman claims this, even if falsely, Treasury will leave him alone."

I doubt that someone who made a false claim would feel safe that he would be left alone. Certainly if the businessman runs afoul of the government for some other reason, they will seek to prosecute him for submitting a false statement to the government. If, say, Hobby Lobby or Fox News submitted a false statement along these lines, somebody at those companies could spend some time in federal prison.

Posted by: Joshua at February 13, 2014 01:55 PM (oCZ4e)

455 guess i'll be applying for a Hawaii C/C license today

Hawaii is a state where you also have to show the county sherriff good cause

And by "good cause", you mean "a crate of SPAM slipped under the table".

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 13, 2014 01:57 PM (SY2Kh)

456 I think it's perfectly reasonable for CEOs to give up their first male son for a violation of anything Obama says is bad. Maybe they should make THAT the law?

Posted by: Gulag Guy at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (7v8o1)

457
Let's just cut to the chase; by this edict he controls the company.


Posted by: CO at February 13, 2014 06:18 PM (TiOn5)

458 I take the fifth!

Posted by: burt at February 14, 2014 11:26 AM (1+kJ5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
345kb generated in CPU 0.1857, elapsed 0.356 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.294 seconds, 586 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 17789
  • Files: 221
  • Bytes: 452.6M
  • CPU Time: 21:24
  • Queries: 510774

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0