Affiliate Marketing Secrets

partly because I didn’t see anything in McCain and much less in Palin. I listened carefully to all debates, promises and speeches. I saw a lot of differences in candidates and particularly liked Obamas assurance of open government. ••• •••He promised total transparency and Healthcare debate would be on CSPAN. ••• ••••He said there would be no individual mandate forcing the purchase of healthcare.
••• •••He promised no tax on anyone earning less than $250,00.
••• •••I think keeping people locked up indefinitely without a trial is wrong and believed Obama when he pledged to close guantanamo within a year. ••• •••I’d argue with anyone saying Obama didn’t take over a troubled ecconomy. I thought he was up to the challenge.
••• •••In January 2009 whe Obama took office I was a proud worker in a coal mine. I worked the same job position and company for 36 years. Now due to Obama’s love of environment over jobs I’m a 57 year old unemployed worker. New regulations closed down my job site. I now get a small weekly unemployment check and when it runs out I’ll simply drop out of the employment market helping the employment rate. I don’t have skills for mos jobs and don’t want a security position or to be a greeter at Wal-Mart.
•••. •••Healthcare was passed in secret without members of the House being allowed to read it. ••• ••••There is an individual mandate••• •••ObamaCare was ruled constitutional by Supreme Court of the United States of America because it’s a tax. Obama’s attorneys argued to the Justices it was a tax but he now says its not a tax. As a tax it mostly impacts those earning less than $50,000 annually. $50,000 is certainly and substancialy less than $250,000.••• ••• As a miner I was well paid. Maybe over paid but I did my job with pride and was proud. My income was sufficient to allow a nice house and cars. •••. ••• Now I face a very real possibility of loosing my home. I’ve had the home 22 years and raised two children in it. Why vote Obama?

I have developed a distaste for the Supreme Court and the system that is established in the Constitution. I believe that it is the duty of each Justice to analyze constitutional facts and legislative fact and make a determination as to whether or not laws align with constitutional FACT. I believe that the Supreme Court acts independent of the constitution, without regard for what is morally and constitutionally right. My first problem is in reference to the “majority rules” idea. Let me set forth a scenario. Me and a man in Tokyo are observing a white wall. We are both healthy, understand the English language (Americanized) and have a basic understanding of the United States Constitution. If we ONLY analyze the factual characteristics of this wall we will ALWAYS come to the same conclusions. We will both agree that the wall is white. Any other healthy man that understands Americanized English and the Constitution will agree. Because what is true (fact) will not vary from person to person, or place to place (assuming there are no cultural or language barriers). Assume the Supreme Court of the United States had analyzed the facts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All nine Justices should come to the same conclusion, correct? If they are only analyzing facts and they all understand both legislative piece that they are analyzing and the constitution, shouldn’t they all come to one conclusion? They should! Why is it that 4 Justices came to one conclusion while 5 justices came to an opposite conclusion? Are they not to analyze facts? I believe it is flawed and shame on the founding fathers for allowing such a flaw.
Second problem. Why are Justices allowed to be affiliated with political parties? How can the American populous expect a fair and unbiased judgment of an individual has been affiliated with a political party, or advocated for a law as a member, or former member of a political party? I believe that Justice Kagan and perhaps Justice Sotomayor should not have been allowed to vote on this law, correct?