Fischer: America No Longer Exists

Fischer: America No Longer Exists July 4, 2012

You just knew that Bryan Fischer would offer one of the more hyperbolic and absurd reactions to the Supreme Court’s health care mandate ruling. That’s his schtick, to take the usual right wing outrage and turn it up to 11. But mostly he just sputtered:

Ladies and gentlemen, today the Grim Reaper has visited the United States. Unless this Supreme Court decision from today is repealed, unless it is overturned, unless it is repealed, America no longer exists as a constitutional republic and Chief Justice John Roberts will do down in history as the man who shredded the Constitution beyond recognition. His ruling today is unconscionable, it’s inexcusable for somebody who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States to issue a ruling like John Roberts issued today.

This is bad behavior. All five of the judges that participated in this ruling could be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office. This is a gross dereliction of duty on their part.

I mean, John Roberts, ladies and gentlemen, this is embarrassing. John Roberts today participated and wrote legal gobbledygook, it is legal gibberish, it is irrational, it makes absolutely no sense. Not only is it unconstitutional, it’s not even rational what he wrote in his opinion that is going to take away the freedom of million and million and million of Americans. It actually makes you wonder if something has gone wrong with his brain. He’s not thinking clearly, he’s not writing clearly.

The main ruling is just garbage, I mean it is legal garbage, ladies and gentlemen. That’s the most polite term I can use to describe what John Roberts has written. It is legal garbage. It belongs in a landfill somewhere where it can be left to rot and decompose and decay in peace. That’s how bad it is.

httpv://youtu.be/ON7aTAqZrcc

"Trump’s Wall! So it won’t be a complete waste."

Prosecutors Reveal Epstein Used Fake Passport ..."
"That would be insulting goldfish ..."

Scalise: We Always Treated Obama with ..."
"He lied to his lawyers? Because... lying is what liars do? c.f., Trump."

Prosecutors Reveal Epstein Used Fake Passport ..."
"Does the American public have the collective memory of a goldfish?"

Scalise: We Always Treated Obama with ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Thomas

    He could have said this about ‘Citizens United’ and it would have been more apt.

    Hyperbolic, but apt.

  • iangould

    So I guess you guys no longer have to worry about god removing his protection from america since there’s no longer any america to protect.

    So how many of these “America is Dead” types do you think skipped the usual July 4th celebrations in favor of a day of mourning, fasting and prayer?

  • Childermass

    Of course all five voting in the majority could be impeached. Heck, all 9 can be impeached any time Congress wants to.

    All it takes is the will and the votes. These don’t exist, so this is just empty rhetoric.

  • Larry

    …unless it is overturned…

    I don’t think Fischer quite understands the concept of the US court system.

  • God didn’t remove his hand of protection. He just moved it a little to the left.

  • Hey, does that mean Canada can have a bunch of America’s stuff? Like say some nukes? And Los Angeles?

  • matty1

    Where will the new Mexico/Canada border be, or is the former United States going to be left as a no mans land full of secular Muslim zombies?

  • Randomfactor

    Fischer can be damned glad there’s no impeachment process for preachers. Although “gobbledegook” seems to be a job requirement for them.

  • iangould

    So did anyone in the US ever propose simply offering a standard tax deduction of $2-3,000 for the cost of medical insurance?

  • garnetstar

    Yes, America *is* dead.

    Because my freedom to lose my health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, or exceeding a lifetime cap, has been destroyed.

    I’m looking into armed rebellion.

  • Ian Gould:

    “So did anyone in the US ever propose simply offering a standard tax deduction of $2-3,000 for the cost of medical insurance?”

    Company provided health insurance isn’t counted as income for tax purposes, so it is essentially 100% deductible. Self-pay insured can deduct health insurance based on a formula that doesn’t reach full deductibility.

  • John Hinkle

    All five of the judges that participated in this ruling could be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office.

    Sounds like the corrupt sheriff in a bad western: … and after he’s arrested, he’ll be given a fair trial, found guilty, and then hung from the neck until dead. May god have mercy on his soul.

  • Michael Heath

    At least Mr. Fischer didn’t claim it was an activist ruling.

  • bahrfeldt

    @9- Prior to Saint Reagan’s destruction of many income tax deductions for middle and working class taxpayers, an individual could deduct a portion of his or her medical insurance premiums as an itemized deduction exempt from the “co-pay” of 3% of income. Ronnie raised the floor from 3% to 7.5% of income, eliminated the exemption for insurance and eliminated the deductibility of non-prescription medication (among other deductions).

  • Shorter Fisher: “I wanna take my toys and go home!”

  • Sorry, Fischer.

    Can we have the top tier of the former U.S., then? And maybe the middle? And California? Mexico can have the South.

  • puppygod

    Dibs on Hawaii!

  • ArtK

    For those of you Canadians trying to claim Los Angeles (and all of California), just hold on a second. We here in LA have some cultural ties with Mexico and the cost of living is significantly lower there.

    Of course, there are rampant social problems in Mexico, and Canada has hockey and a better health system than in the former-US.

    Ok, where do I sign up, eh?

  • oranje

    Wait, crap, does that mean I should be at work right now?

  • hunter

    So you suppose Canada will figure all the teabaggers threatening to move there now that the US has gone socialist are enough, and it doesn’t really need Detroit?

  • Where can hyperbole go from here?

  • Michael Heath

    bahrfeldt writes:

    Prior to Saint Reagan’s destruction of many income tax deductions for middle and working class taxpayers . . .

    Cite requested. My source shows that the difference in effective tax rates on the lowest three quintiles was effectively flat or slightly down when comparing 1981 & ’82 to 1989. Cite:

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

    In addition it should be noted that presidents don’t get to unilaterally set tax rates and fiscal policies which impact effective tax rates, that the attendant Congresses have a say in both tax and fiscal policies.

  • If only we could find a way to turn vitriol and hyperbole into an alternate energy source. If we did that, the right in this country would ensure we would be energy independent overnight.

  • bahrfeldt

    Michael Heath @ 22

    Itemized tax deductions are not the same as marginal tax rates.

    Reagan, whether or not as the personal initiator or puppet for his handlers, pushed for and got, among other things, the complete elimination of the income tax deduction for sales tax paid (an allowance plus exras such as when you purchased a car), for personal interest paid (car loans, credit card interest) and non-prescription drugs purchased. He raised the deductible on total medical expenses paid from 3% of income to 7.5%. He raised the deductible on miscellaneous deductions (tax preparation fees, uniforms, job seeking and job related expenses and more) from 0% to 2%. He eliminated unreimbursed employee business travel and travel between jobs as deductions in arriving at “AGI” (without having to itemize) transferring them to miscellaneous, subject to the deductible. He also eliminate his own, nonitemized charity deduction. Any more I’d have to look up, I won’t.

    As on of his handlers (Meese or Schultz? I could be wrong) commented in 1988, Reagan “reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. I knew no one in the 70% bracket, I knew many in the 28.

    Citations? Any pompously misnamed “Deficit Reduction”, “Tax Equity”, “Budget Reconciliation” “Fiscal Responsibility” or “Tax Reform” Act from 1981- 1986. They controlled the republican votes and had more than enough democrats to get what they wanted.

  • Michael Heath

    bahrfeldt responds to my critique @ 22 of his post @ 14:

    Itemized tax deductions are not the same as marginal tax rates.

    I suggest you re-read my post and my cite far more carefully and then try again. My cite and the rates I quoted were not marginal rates, but instead effective rates broke-out by income group. I even used the term “effective” twice in my short post and used the term ‘marginal’, oh um . . ., zero times. And how many times did my cite use the term, “marginal”? Um . . ., also zero.

    If you don’t understand what an effective rate is, the cite I provided explains. You’ll need to understand such prior to defending your original criticism of President Reagan.

    Given this was a weapons-grade whoosh on your part, I’m curious. Why did you defectively conflate marginal rates which I never referenced with effective rates? Do you not understand the difference, or do your eyes glaze over to the point of major reading comprehension failure when someone calls out your arguments when your attacking a favorite liberal boogeyman? Perhaps a third explanation? If it’s the second you are not alone, we have plenty of people in this forum who act just like Palinites do to the mention of evolution whenever Ronald Reagan’s name is raised or they conjure up an unforced pejorative as you do here.

  • bahrfeldt

    Michael Heath- your are correct. You did not mention marginal tax rates. Effective tax rates are not the same as marginal tax rates. My original comment did not mention either marginal or effective tax rates. Your critique of my original comment mentioned effective tax rates. Itemized deductions and deductions used to arrive at adjusted gross income are not the same as either effective or marginal tax rates.

    My original comment was that prior to Reagan an individual (or couple) who itemized deductions was entitled to a deduction for part of health insurance premiums paid regardless of income, but the administration, in addition to pushing through other draconian deduction cuts, had the law changed to not allow any deduction for any medical expenses unless the reduced number of deductible medical expenses exceeded 7.5% of Adjusted Gross Income My second comment noted a few of the other deductions reduced or eliminated by that administration. Pointing out some of the changes to the federal tax laws does not require a defense. I note that you did not dispute that these deductions were cut and eliminated.

    And your critique? Apples and oranges. That a secondary source that you say you trust, provides an analysis that you say you believe, telling you that based on their analysis the effective (presumably only federal income) tax rate was little changed for the “lowest” 60% of taxpayers during the period in question. Just a pity if these “lowest” did not significantly share in the lowering of effective tax rates for the “highest” quintile at that time, right?

    Frankly, my “weapons-grade whoosh” in a comment was confusing Brando with Burton, but that’s another, and in my view more interesting story. Your idea of “weapons-grade” here seems to be a pea-shooter.

  • Michael Heath

    bahrfeldt digs his hole ever deeper:

    My original comment was that prior to Reagan an individual (or couple) who itemized deductions was entitled to a deduction for part of health insurance premiums paid regardless of income, but the administration, in addition to pushing through other draconian deduction cuts, had the law changed to not allow any deduction for any medical expenses unless the reduced number of deductible medical expenses exceeded 7.5% of Adjusted Gross Income

    If this were true than effective tax rates would have skyrocketed; “skyrocketed” because you claim the cuts were “draconian”. But as I proved in my very first post, they didn’t skyrocket for any income quintile but instead remained stable or dropped.

    The Reagan tax cuts, Kemp-Roth actually, were meant to combat bracket creep given inflation was skyrocketing, and more so on consumption items than wages. So people’s effective tax rates were going up as they climbed into higher marginal tax brackets given some wage inflation, but unfortunately realized less discretionary income in spite of those pay hikes because the price of consumption goods had rose even faster than their pay, especially when considering their being in higher tax brackets.

    But even if this were not true, we’d see significant hikes in effective rates in my cited report if President Reagan and a Democratic-majority Congress was able to pass “draconian deduction cuts”. But again, we saw no such hikes in liability, because people’s tax liabilities actually stayed stable or went down, the opposite of what you assert here. I’m guessing you like your narrative and are sticking with it, especially since it provides you an apparently false avenue to hate on ‘St. Ronnie’, who I know as President Reagan.

    bahrfeldt, how many people were paying for their own health insurance back then? The reason I ask was that I had my own at 18 merely by being employed at a non-union retail store, which was not unusual but instead typical. Even when I worked part-time while going to college I was able to get a job with health insurance, again in retail though represented by the UFCW. I know that’s not possible now, but back then it was a cheap spiff for employers to provide for their employees.

    So perhaps your claim is true, I never challenged it nor do I concede you’re right, but if you are correct the effect was so trivial for the population the effective rate didn’t budge or moved in the opposite direction – hardly “draconian”. A drop and an accomplishment where I doubt you’ll be praising Mr. Reagan’s successes in spite of the fact he and the attendent Democratic-majority Congresses’ fiscal policies both killed stagflation and brought the economy roaring back, where “roaring” is not hyperbole. In fact we’ve yet to once again reach the level of GDP growth we did in the Reagan years, no thanks of course to President G.W. Bush and the post-Gingrich Republicans in Congress.