When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.

Now *that's* a lot of butt-hurt right there..

When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.

Do it, pussies.

You'll be put down like dogs again.

WTF is this shiat?

TEA Party+Mississippi= superderp

As I was reading that ridiculous statement I was hoping that it was just the ramblings of some lone lunatic ranting his displeasure on his personal blog. Nope, a message from the leader of the Mississippi Tea Party.

Which means he's probably the most level-headed and competent of the lot. That's a scary thought right there.

This is a grade of derp not yet recognized by the governing body that recognizes such things.

Also, and this goes for partisans of all stripes, anyone who uses the word "junta" to describe the American government is not to be taken seriously.

sigdiamond2000: This is a grade of derp not yet recognized by the governing body that recognizes such things.

Also, and this goes for partisans of all stripes, anyone who uses the word "junta" to describe the American government is not to be taken seriously.

"Junta" is a Spanish word.

Is this guy an illegal alien? Why isn't he using English words like a Real American?

What they're really afraid of is that delusional people will be able to get medical care now, and their numbers will shrink to insignificance.

Selected excerpts:

-"the shadow of darkness is now fallen upon them"
-"dictatorial junta"
-"banana republic"
-"gang of criminals"
-"subvert legitimate government"
-"valid legitimate government"
-"resistance to invasion"
-"on our country"
-"criminal invaders"

We get it, you're racist.

Do the people of the world recognize that the shadow of darkness is now fallen upon them as well and that there remains no defender of their feeble freedoms?

Yes, we recognize that you and like-minded nuts are making good progress at infiltrating our society and taking over our government.

Those "occupiers" now controlling the three federal branches of government have joined together in rejecting all Constitutional restraint and in doing so they have severely violated their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Together they now stand as blatant usurpers of power and have reduced our constitutional republic, along with all of its freedoms, to nothing more than a dictatorial junta. Becoming a banana republic is next.

Ooh.

I love their shirts.

Its amazing in all of this that these guys fail to recognize that Roberts effectively put actual limits on the Commerce Clause, which is a huge restriction on the expansion of federal powers. Tea partiers should be happy about that.

Does anyone have a link to a well reasoned opposition to the Obamacare legislation? I'd be interested in knowing if there's anything more to their position than "OMG the US is like OVER man!".

I'm genuinely curious. Is this a state's rights issue for them or what?

That was not what I expected at all. The spelling, grammar and punctuation were fine and it wasn't in all caps.

unyon: Its amazing in all of this that these guys fail to recognize that Roberts effectively put actual limits on the Commerce Clause, which is a huge restriction on the expansion of federal powers. Tea partiers should be happy about that.

That would require more effort than simply being told to be outraged that Fartbama socialized America.

Hyperbole much?

Remember, kiddies -- This is the right-wing's response to what, less than 4 years ago, were Republican proposals to reform healthcare.

They're threatening insurrection because MORE PEOPLE CAN SEE A DOCTOR NOW.

This is not a sign of "vigorous political debate". This is a sign of widespread, socially transmitted paranoid delusion.

miss diminutive: Does anyone have a link to a well reasoned opposition to the Obamacare legislation? I'd be interested in knowing if there's anything more to their position than "OMG the US is like OVER man!".

I'm genuinely curious. Is this a state's rights issue for them or what?

[psst...the black dude suggested it, so it's bad. When the white dude did it in Massachusetts a few years ago, it was good. It's really not any more complex than that]

miss diminutive: As I was reading that ridiculous statement I was hoping that it was just the ramblings of some lone lunatic ranting his displeasure on his personal blog. Nope, a message from the leader of the Mississippi Tea Party.

You say that like you expected those to be mutually exclusive things. On the contrary, they go hand-in-hand.

dahmers love zombie: Remember, kiddies -- This is the right-wing's response to what, less than 4 years ago, were Republican proposals to reform healthcare.

They're threatening insurrection because MORE PEOPLE CAN SEE A DOCTOR NOW.

This is not a sign of "vigorous political debate". This is a sign of widespread, socially transmitted paranoid delusion.

I believe both Romney and Gingrich lauded the concept of the individual mandate as the epitome of conservative principles of personal responsibility.

miss diminutive: Does anyone have a link to a well reasoned opposition to the Obamacare legislation?

I've not heard one from the Right, except for the standard unsubstantiated "it will cost money and therefore jobs" line.

Now, on the Left, there has been discussion that the ACA does not go far enough to create a Public Option. Interestingly, I get the sense that Robert's reliance on the Tax Provision preempts any attempt to create such a plan under the Commerce Clause.

My favorite part: "May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge..."

Does he mean Scalia?

Also, falling on their faces must hurt. Do people even think about what they say anymore?

unyon: Its amazing in all of this that these guys fail to recognize that Roberts effectively put actual limits on the Commerce Clause, which is a huge restriction on the expansion of federal powers. Tea partiers should be happy about that.

Not really. There have been several laws justified under the commerce clause struck down. It IS the rational used for the Civil Rights act of 1964, so I an see why they hate it so much.

dahmers love zombie: miss diminutive: Does anyone have a link to a well reasoned opposition to the Obamacare legislation? I'd be interested in knowing if there's anything more to their position than "OMG the US is like OVER man!".

I'm genuinely curious. Is this a state's rights issue for them or what?

[psst...the black dude suggested it, so it's bad. When the white dude did it in Massachusetts a few years ago, it was good. It's really not any more complex than that]

And here I was was hoping that there was something more to it. Thanks for being entirely predictable in your hypocrisy, Republicans.

MrBallou: My favorite part: "May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge..."

Does he mean Scalia?

Also, falling on their faces must hurt. Do people even think about what they say anymore?

Hmm. Sounds familiar...

dahmers love zombie: Remember, kiddies -- This is the right-wing's response to what, less than 4 years ago, were Republican proposals to reform healthcare.

They're threatening insurrection because MORE PEOPLE CAN SEE A DOCTOR NOW.

This is not a sign of "vigorous political debate". This is a sign of widespread, socially transmitted paranoid delusion.

Beware the Charge of the Hoveround Brigade. The minute Medicare sends them new batteries they will STRIKE!

Well, that was...interesting and informative.

When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law.

so is he ranting about the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Patriot Act or Obamacare? I really wanna know where all this concern goes when RIAA and the MPAA start stripping away the 1st amendment from US citizens, or when the TSA gate rapes people at random. i'm sorry GOP but you DO NOT get to play the 'outraged at the loss of freedoms' card. STFU and find another complaint.

miss diminutive: Does anyone have a link to a well reasoned opposition to the Obamacare legislation? I'd be interested in knowing if there's anything more to their position than "OMG the US is like OVER man!".

I'm genuinely curious. Is this a state's rights issue for them or what?

I too would like to know if there's any non-hysterical non-dogmatic reason for opposing Obamacare. All I see from the rabid right is outlandish claims that it's the end of civilisation as we know it. Why is giving health care to the poor considered 'treasonous'?
I'm writing this from England where I get the treatment I need whether I can afford it or not. And it's generally very good treatment. I owe my life several times over to the prompt and professional interventions of our NHS. I'm minded to include this short essay by someone called Phil Zuckerman.
"White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.
Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

"May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge..."



Too late. The heavenly judge beat you to it.

Weaver95: When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law.

so is he ranting about the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Patriot Act or Obamacare? I really wanna know where all this concern goes when RIAA and the MPAA start stripping away the 1st amendment from US citizens, or when the TSA gate rapes people at random. i'm sorry GOP but you DO NOT get to play the 'outraged at the loss of freedoms' card. STFU and find another complaint.

He's talking about the ZOG and the NWO. Duh!

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Beware the Charge of the Hoveround Brigade. The minute Medicare sends them new batteries they will STRIKE!

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: miss diminutive: Does anyone have a link to a well reasoned opposition to the Obamacare legislation?

I've not heard one from the Right, except for the standard unsubstantiated "it will cost money and therefore jobs" line.

Now, on the Left, there has been discussion that the ACA does not go far enough to create a Public Option. Interestingly, I get the sense that Robert's reliance on the Tax Provision preempts any attempt to create such a plan under the Commerce Clause.

Robert's decision was a beautiful one for the conservatives. This was what they were asking for, at least until Obama said he wanted it. It seems like they hoodwinked the President into pushing for their legislation. And he labelled it a tax, which means that can be used against Obama for the next four months. So not only do they get what they wanted, they now have more ammunition in the upcoming election.

timujin: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: miss diminutive: Does anyone have a link to a well reasoned opposition to the Obamacare legislation?

I've not heard one from the Right, except for the standard unsubstantiated "it will cost money and therefore jobs" line.

Now, on the Left, there has been discussion that the ACA does not go far enough to create a Public Option. Interestingly, I get the sense that Robert's reliance on the Tax Provision preempts any attempt to create such a plan under the Commerce Clause.

Robert's decision was a beautiful one for the conservatives. This was what they were asking for, at least until Obama said he wanted it. It seems like they hoodwinked the President into pushing for their legislation. And he labelled it a tax, which means that can be used against Obama for the next four months. So not only do they get what they wanted, they now have more ammunition in the upcoming election.

Agreed. It's somewhat bizarre to have my very liberal friends champion ACA...

I guess half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

miss diminutive: Does anyone have a link to a well reasoned opposition to the Obamacare legislation? I'd be interested in knowing if there's anything more to their position than "OMG the US is like OVER man!".

I'm genuinely curious. Is this a state's rights issue for them or what?

Would be hysterical if it was, because the Roberts ruling reaffirmed states' rights, too. His opinion on the Medicaid expansion of the law stated that the federal government cannot impose conditions on funding so draconian that the states have no legitimate option but to comply -- and that the threat of gutting state budgets an average of 10% for failure to accept the new provisions is sufficiently coercive. He literally likened it to holding a gun to the heads of the states.

Also reaffirming states' rights: "In the typical [i.e.: non-coercive] case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting 'the simple expedient of not yielding' to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 482 (1923). The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it."

Have no doubt: the majority opinion was written by a right-winger looking through right-wing-tinted glasses, regardless of what the Tard Brigade want to believe.

Lucky LaRue: When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.

Now *that's* a lot of butt-hurt right there..

I consented...

miss diminutive: Which means he's probably the most level-headed and competent of the lot. That's a scary thought right there.

In the Tea-Party your place in the pecking order is determined by the level of derp you spew. Higher == better.

marcpen: They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do

But the Lord helps those who help themselves and private charity and furthermore

Oh man... That's hilarious.

These morons are going to work themselves up into quite the tizzy between now and November.

pretty much what you'd expect


I didn't see the N-word mentioned anywhere in TFA; am I missing it?

Yes, please "patriotically resist" the "invasion". I'm sure a bunch of guys would be happy to shoot you to death.

MS Teatard: HURR DERR Taxes!

Me: Aren't you guys the party of personal responsibility? You don't get taxed unless you don't pay for coverage. Also, the costs are already on you to pay for those who are irresponsible and run to the ER room w/o insurance. You just don't like the word tax, do you?

MS Teatard: Grover Norquist say tax bad. SMASH TAX!

on to of this imagine if fartbama wins in Nov.

These are some of the reasons I've heard for opposing the ACA from talking to friends who sit on the right:

1. Increased access to healthcare for those that can't afford it will actually diminish access healthcare for all since there will be a huge increase in patient load without an attendant increase in available physicians;

2. It will decrease access to quality health care for all because medicine will no longer be a hugely profitable business for doctors and thus fewer of the best and brightest will go into medicine;

3. Without an individual mandate, the "no preemption for preexisting conditions" portion of the law will allow healthy people to not pay for healthcare until they need it thus subverting and corrupting the entire concept of shared risk pools;

4. It's unconstitutional/a state's right issue/illegal/etc.;

5. (From a "physician")[1] - he feels that being "forced to treat" poor patients without due compensation (the same compensation he would get from a rich patient or an insured patient) is the government forcing him to "give his labor" and thus indentured servitude/slavery.

These are the most sane/reasonable (in the sense that they were offered without vitrol) answers to that question I've heard.


[1] He's a chiropractor who insists on referring to himself as a physician. Strictly speaking, from the Greek root, he IS, if you consider a back-cracker a "healer." However, he's one of those nutty types who considers himself equal with a MD/DO and can treat ANY disease or disorder. [rolls eyes]

"May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge, repent of our sins, and humbly cry out to Him for mercy on our country."

11. Thou shalt have no insurance mandate

And, yet, they just can't understand why so many people simply mock and insult them instead of taking them seriously and treating things like this as a legitimate and thoughtful critique of law....

When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.



Again?

A truly histrionic day in American History.

Truth hurts!

Suck it establishment wonks!

Aarontology: When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.

Do it, pussies.

You'll be put down like dogs again.

Fark no. Let 'em go, fence them off, and put ICE agents at all the state border crossings. They can go back to what they were the last time they pulled this crap.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Any brown people in Mississippi would be granted asylum in the US.

fark the south in general, and Mississippi in particular.