Another Motivation for the Tea Party

There have been numerous theories concerning the motivation for Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to excuse the Obamacare insurance mandate penalty as a TAX, and allow Obamacare to continue its job of destroying personal freedom and the U.S. economy.

Here’s a theory that Pharmer has not heard yet, and it seems fairly plausible. Supreme Court watchers suspected from the way the decisions were written, that Roberts had originally opposed the insurance mandate, and that he changed his mind.

Pharmer suspects that Roberts was influenced by old establishment Republicans seeking to galvanize the Tea Partiers behind Romney.

This judicial precedent has inflicted widespread damage.

What should be the response? Conservatives will probably have to choose Romney in order to get rid of Obama. That’s an emergency.

The Tea Party should stay very active in removing crusty old establishment Republicans from their government posts at the National, State and Local levels in all subsequent primary elections. Pharmer intends to assist in this continuing effort.

7/2 Update:  CBS claims to have sources ‘revealing’ that John Roberts changed his opinion one month prior to announcing the Supreme court decision.  There is a claim that Justice Kennedy tried hard to bring him back into line with the conservative judges.

Of significant mention is the treatment by many that Roberts’  insistence that the commerce clause does not justify the insurance mandate is significant in the decision.   In actuality, Roberts opinion on this is a Dictum, and, as such,  it has no value as judicial precedent.  Roberts provided exactly zero judicial  protection against the further encroachment of government on our liberties.

The self flagellators  wish to hang on Roberts’ words that the Court has no job to protect the people from their bad choices of governmental representatives.  (Perhaps he desired to have George W Bush, who appointed him, classified as a bad choice.)

Roberts must  bear  personal responsibility for his own  bad decision,  and  Tea Partiers  hope to place it on the ash heap of history.

It Almost Worked On Clarence Thomas, So They’ll Try It On Herman Cain

Exclusive: Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior – Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman and Anna Palmer and Kenneth P. Vogel – POLITICO.com.

It almost worked to get rid of  Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for Supreme Court.

Herman Cain predicted it: Lefties are going to try it again on him,  not having been able to find evidence of actual unsavory behavior.

They dug up a couple of women who claimed that words or gestures of Herman Cain made them feel uncomfortable and accused him of sexual harassment.

It appears that Herman Cain was not capable of gross sexual imposition, unwanted advances, rape, a Kennedy/waitress/Dodd sandwich, impregnating his mistress while the spouse was being treated for cancer, driving his girlfriend off of a bridge and drowning her, paying for an abortion for his mistress, etc.

This  is too wimpy.  Cain is not disgusting enough to be president!!

The current RNC is likely to  go along with the Dems on this, because they need Romney to be their candidate.  That way they can maintain their current position in Washington DC.  They’ve been bent over so long, it would hurt to straighten up.

5/15/11 Washington Examininer: Cain saw it coming–

“But wouldn’t liberals and Democrats still find a racially-based way to attack Cain?  They certainly found a way to attack Clarence Thomas, the black, conservative Supreme Court justice.”

“They’re going to come after me more viciously than they would a white candidate,” Cain responded.  “You’re right.  Clarence Thomas.  And so, to use Clarence Thomas as an example, I’m ready for the same high-tech lynching that he went through — for the good of this country.”  Cain smiled broadly.  “I’m ready for the same high-tech lynching.”

Update from Washington Examiner: The gesture that got Herman Cain in trouble with an employee is described in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, to be aired at a future date.
“She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying — and I was standing close to her — and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, ‘My wife comes up to my chin.'” At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. “And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable,” Cain said, “something that was in the sexual harassment charge.”
Van Susteren asked whether the woman compla
ined at the time. “I can’t recall any comment that she made, positive or negative.”