ell, on the face of what we saw on March 24, 2017 US House Speaker Paul Ryan [R-WI] was a little too ambitious to satisfy his own whims to replace Obamacare by not replacing it. Ryan chose to use the guerilla warfare tactics used so adroitly by Obama Chief-of-Staff (and now Chicago mayor) Rahm Emanuel, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2009-10 to create an unconstitutional, socialist healthcare system which would indenture the American people to an increasingly Islamosocialist government which, for the last decade, has been chipping away the Christian bedrock of America and surreptitiously erasing our Christian values. Most Americans, worried about declining jobs, declining incomes and standards of living, with increasing consumer prices and rising healthcare costs, failed to notice just how serious the declining moral values and the undermining of Christian values in America.

While the financial quagmire which has been collapsing the American economy since 2009 was caused by the Barack Obama debt factory (which created more outstanding debt in eight years than the other 43 presidents combined generated since 1787). Yet, until the conservative media which infrequently reported those staggering, hard-to-believe statistics talked about them in real terms, most Americans were struggling to make both their house payments (or rent) and their monthly Obamacare premiums, believed what was driving them into the poor house was the healthcare crisis in America, with rising healthcare costs, now consuming as much, if not more, of their total net income than their living expenses, was largely responsible for the financial quagmire which was collapsing the quality of life of working class Americans.

During the 2016 Presidential Campaign, the impending collapse of Obamacare had become a major campaign issue as some of the largest healthcare insurers in the exchanges like Aetna, Humana and United Healthcare were losing so much money they were forced to drop out of the healthcare system in many States. On Aug. 16. 2016, some two months before the election, Aetna—the 4th largest health insurer in America, and one of the top Obamacare participators—announced that it was pulling out of 11 of the 15 States in which it offered Obamacare policies. On May 10, 2017 Aetna confirmed that it would not longer participate in Obamacare in 2018. Aetna's loses in those 11 States totaled $480 million.

Humana, the 5th largest health insurer, which now works on a county-by-county Obamacare basis, is pulling out of over 11,000 counties in the States where they participate in exchanges. And UnitedHealthcare Group, the largest healthcare provider in the country, will participate in Obamacare in only three States this year.

Obamacare was collapsing from its own weight because when the Democrats did the math in 2010, they knew the Affordable Care Act was going to run out of money before the 2012 Election because there were more subsidized enrollees in the plan than healthy ones and the math simply didn't add up. For Obama to get elected, the Left knew he had to convince the American people that Obamacare was a success.

That's why, protecting their political butts, the Democrats added a crony-capitalism reimbursement provision into the program to cover the losses of the insurers until such time as the Obama bureaucrats were able to convert Obamacare into a single-payer system sometime—they thought—during Obama's second term. The crony-capitalism provision was included not out of benevolence, but because they knew, in 2012, when Obama would need every vote to get re-elected, there wouldn't be enough healthy people in the exchanges to offset the insurers' losses. Without millions of healthy subscribers enrolling in the plan, Obamacare would going to crash and burn because the insurers in the exchanges could not afford to insure existing the subscribers without doubling or tripling the premiums being paid by the subsidized subscribers—or finding a way to force the healthy to enroll in the exchanges.

Instead of paying the tax or penalty which Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to call a tax a fine since only the House of Representatives can levy taxes, Roberts assumed for himself the legislative right to "amend" Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi 's Obamacare by calling their "fine" a tax because Roberts is not part of the Legislative Branch. Under the Originality Clause, the high court should have found the penalty assessed to those who refused to subscribe to Obamacare unconstitutional. Roberts could not amend the language. The best he could legally do was send the legislation back to the now Republican controlled House and Senate to be fixed. And, we know what would have happened to Obamacare had the Supreme Court done that.

More than 11 million Americans were covered by Obamacare in early 2013. Almost 85% of them received subsidies which were supposed to be paid by the young healthy subscribers who weren't supposed to get catastrophically or chronically ill for another twenty to thirty years; or by maturing subscribers facing mid-life medical emergencies—who also qualified for subsidies—once again, paid for by healthy subscribers who decided to pay the "fines" (i.e., tax) rather than subscribe to an over-priced healthcare system that forced single males to pay for maternity care and abortions even though single insured men don't get pregnant and don't need abortions.

When the Obama Congress was piece-mealing the Affordable Care Act by cutting deals with one another by exempting their States or congressional districts from parts of Obamacare, Obama officials were bribing insurance companies to pool profits and risks and by allowing the Obama Health & Human Services Department to use general taxpayer funds to cover any losses the insurers experienced from poor risk assessment. Bureaucrats in the Obama Administration were assuming a right reserved only to the House of Representatives—specifically designating the disbursement of public funds by the Executive Branch to the insurance carriers theoretically managing the exchanges. And, since Obamacare did not originate in the House of Representatives, there has never been any constitutionally-authorized disbursement of expenditures to reimburse any of the insurers with taxpayer dollars. (But, we'll cover that directly.)

Sen. Ted Cruz [R-TX] tried to filibuster an end to Obamacare on Sept. 24, 2013 with a 21 hour speech that included Dr. Suess' Green Eggs and Ham almost a year after Barack Obama successfully stole the 2012 election from Mitt Romney with 36,302,741 illegal alien or deceased people votes—and slightly over 6 million stolen votes which the Democrats early voted. Those votes belonged to legally registered Republicans who always voted on Election Day, Democrats, when Gov. Terry McAuliffe [D-VA] was head of the DNC, somehow got their hands on the RNC voting database and used that list to early vote Republicans in toss-up States. Unlike Sen. Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL] didn't quote Dr. Suess or try to shut down the government. Rubio, who should be recognized for his feat, started Obamacare on its death spiral by quietly and pretty much unnoticed inserting a clause in the 2015 Omnibus Budget Bill (in 2014) which prevented the Obama Dept. of Human & Human Services from using taxpayer money to fund failing insurers.

Once the 2016 Budget Bill was signed into law by Obama (who was apparently none the wiser about the Rubio Amendment), Rubio was quoted by the Washington Post saying, "While the Obama Administration can still administer the risk-corridor program for one year, they won't be able to use taxpayer funds to bail out insurance companies." As the 2016 Presidential Campaign gained steam, the race, initially, looked like it might be Ted Cruz's race to lose. Rubio never seemed to raise into the top tier, but once his budget provision kicked in Obamacare began screeching to a halt.

In 2016, insurers lost $2.9 billion more than expected on Obamacare. Thanks to Sen. Rubio, insurers who paid $362 million into the programs discovered they had a $2.5 billion shortfall. The DHHS, which the insurers thought would pick up the tab for the shortfall, discovered the checks from the DHHS totaled only 13¢ on the dollar; with none of it coming from the pockets of the taxpayers. One insurer, Health Republic of Oregon, who had billed DHHS for its shortfalls of $7.9 million, received a reimbursement check for less than 1/7th of the requested amount. It closed its doors. As did Moda Health in Washington State and California. It was followed by WinHealth, Wyoming's second largest health insurer in Cheyenne, Wyoming closed its doors last year. And most shocking announcement came from United Healthcare. the largest insurer in the nation, which in 2015 said it might pull out of all of the Obamacare exchanges in 2016. They delayed their departure until 2017, dropping out of all be three States and, then, in early May announced they would drop out of all Obamacare exchanges in 2018 followed, a couple days later, by Aetna making a similar announcement. Humana is expected to follow.

Thanks to Rubio’s budget bill provision, the Obama Administration was allowed to pay only 13¢ of every dollar insurers requested. Without the taxpayer bailouts. more than half of the Obamacare insurance cooperatives created under the law have failed. One, Health Republic of Oregon, was expecting a $7.9 million bailout from the government. Instead, thanks to Rubio, it got only $995,000—and not a penny of it from the taxpayers. The Oregon co-op announced in October it was closing its doors. Soon, two other insurers—WinHealth Partners in Wyoming and Moda Health in Washington state—pulled out of the exchanges as well..

In a front page op-ed piece last year, the New York Times noted: "For all the Republican talk about dismantling the Affordable Care Act, one Republican presidential hopeful actually did something toward achieving that goal.” The Times added that Rubio's provision had "...tangled up the Obama Administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of...Obama’s signature health law." The liberal political tabloid in Washington, DC, The Hill, called Rubio's sleight of hand "...the biggest blow in the GOP’s five-year war against Obamacare."

Blue Cross CEO Scott Serota warned Congressional Democrats last fall that Rubio's provision would result in massive price hikes so severe that many insurers in the exchanges would be forced into bankruptcy. Rubio replied that if it takes a taxpayer bailout of big insurers with monopolies to save Obamacare, then it should be obvious to everyone that Obamacare will always be unsustainable regardless what the government does and how it takes our money from our pockets and spends it. Government healthcare, whether through exchanges or as a single payer program, won't work. Ever.

Why? Because we live in a world of absolutes—conservatives have absolute mistrust of arbitrary government and progressives absolutely mistrust those who exercise free will and liberty in the public sector. To the progressive left, liberty is a psychological form of functional dyspepsia—going through life suffering from anxiety caused by a sense of economic inequality with one's peers. What you have, I'm entitled to. What I have is mine. In other words, I have a right to never be satisfied with my lot, but you don't—even when the politicians are taking your money and giving it to me.

Too bad neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a real grasp on what's causing the collapse of Obamacare—especially House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Elizabeth Warren [D-MA] who believed Obamacare was working flawlessly until Donald Trump, a man with absolutely no political experience, won the White House. Today, without offering proof other than spurious claims from the far left Manhattan Institute, Warren insisted that she quoted "fact-checked" data by the Left that trying to repeal Obamacare is causing thousands of elderly and chronically-ill patients to die.

While Congresswoman Maxine Waters [D-CA] claimed that the healthcare exchanges were going broke, she insisted people were dying specifically because the Republicans don't know how to manage Medicaid. She cited, as fact, that more people died in 2016 than in 2014 or 2015—because the Republicans won the White House.

The problem with the statistics is that they were spun from Budget Office wholecloth by Waters, Warren and the rest of the minority far Left who clearly see that Obamacare is in a death spiral because of Rubio's budget bill poison pill, which constitutionally denied Obama's DHHS the right to dip into the empty pockets of the taxpayers—who were already forced to pay back-breaking premiums and rising co-pays and deductibles to cover losses engineered by bureaucrats who believe money is just paper and that the middle class had enough money to finance the healthcare of the poor.

On top of that, the insurers, who were losing money hand over fist because of bureaucratic mismanagement, began demanding they be reimbursed by threatening to drop out of every unprofitable exchange in the country. That's what private enterprise does. The fact that such an action would permanently collapse Obamacare was viewed by the insurers as a good thing.

Obama promised to compensate them. But, when the DHHS began sending out checks, they were worth about 13¢ on the dollar. The insurers began to squeeze the Democrats by pulling out of every unprofitable exchange in the country during the election campaign ...with thousands of American families, who had been told if they liked their doctors they could keep them, discovering they couldn't even keep their insurance which, in many cases, cost more than their mortgages..

If anyone helped GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump win the Election of 2016, it wasn't the Russians. It was Hillary Clinton's high crimes and misdemeanors, uncovered by hackers tapping into her illegal government email server and releasing scores of work related and Clinton Foundation documents to Wikileaks. The Clinton-engineered Russian fable, like the Valerie Jarrett-Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton Mohammad Video fable were DNC-whoppers used to suggest to voters that the Trump people and his billionaire friends in Russia were making up stories in the last minutes of the 2016 Campaign to cause Clinton to lose the election. Clinton lost the 2016 election the minute, in 2011, when she said, "What difference, at this time, does it make?" The American people, it seems, understood the difference—and they do have long memories after all.

So does the health insurance industry. This time, the medical care providers wanted to see the reimbursements promised them actually written into House Speaker Paul Ryan's American Healthcare Act [AHCA] (which Ryan promotes as Trumpcare because he doesn't want his name on it).

Just between you and me and the lamp post, the best healthcare plan that exists is the one your employer offers (because its the best option you're going to get), or the one we buy for ourselves—whoops, wait a minute. That's what we had before Obama stuck his nose to our affairs. Wait one more minute. No where in the Constitution did the Founding Fathers give government parental rights over the People. Whoops...wait just one more minute. Who pays for the healthcare for the deadbeats or the impoverished who lack the money to pay their own medical bills? Who pays your bills? You do. If you choose not to provide for your own insurance, whose fault is that? Your's. It's not my responsibility to insure you, nor pay your medical bills. Nor is it your responsibility to pay mine. We're all our own keepers. You get sick, or I get sick, or we have an accident and ultimately end up at a local hospital's emergency room is on our own dime. The problem is, the "we" discussed here is usually those who believe that since we didn't ask to be born, its someone else's dime that needs to pay our bill. And, ultimately, when you don't pay the bill for your own medical treatment, we, the public, collectively pay it through higher medical service costs.

In the government's single payer system (which the left and leftwing Republicans will soon proffer in Congress as the only solution to healthcare) every man, woman and child, will be obligated to be covered. This, the left will argue, is the only way to keep Humpdumptycare from falling off the wall and breaking into smithereens.

There's another way. A much less expensive way to cover everyone with me not being obligated to pay for you, nor you being obligated to pay for me. If you don't want to be insured, you are not obligated to enroll in either a single payer plan or a joining a government-funded exchange. If you choose not to join an exchange, you don't pay a premium to anyone, nor do I have to subsidize your healthcare. The moment you get in an accident, suffer a heart attack, get a chronic or catastrophic illness, under this program, you would be fully, albeit temporarily, covered.

The coverage, under Medicare, would utilize a hypothetical IRS Form 1098 MHC (Medicare Hospital Care through the Dept. of Health & Human Services which supervises Medicare). Prescriptions would be covered under a Form 1098 MPC (Prescription Coverage). This program would cover every natural born or naturalized American, but would not cover illegal aliens nor legal aliens without valid, verifiable social security numbers, who would not be eligible for benefits since there is no verified social security number associated with that name..

(People need to understand that the social or political rights of non-citizens are not covered by the US Constitution. They are protected by the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—stemming from the British Bill of Rights of 1689 which was incorporated into the UN Convention on Human Rights. The Constitution of the United States provides singular rights to American citizens. No where within that document do you find the universal rights inscribed in the UN documents.)

This program would offer non-insured patients minimal.rate reductions, but nothing like those available under paid Medicare insurance programs. Medicare would bill the patient for expenses incurred, with duplicate billing submitted to the IRS which would bear the responsibility for collecting the debt.

Thus, no legal resident in the United States would be denied healthcare or prescription drug coverage under this DHHS program—but they would be obligated to pay their bill since the collector would be the IRS. Non-citizens who claim residency status but do not pay the cost of their hospital or prescription drug care would be subject to immediate and permanent deportation. (The only exceptions to these rules would entail the treating of the feeble-aged and indigent )

Doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and other medical care facilities who who provide the care for those without insurance (and the indigent) would find a new line added to their Tax Form. That line would be inserted just before the line denoting that organization's total taxable income. The caregiver will total all medical costs incurred by the uninsured or indigent patient for care or prescriptions. Those totals (with all documentation submitted to the IRS) then become the receivables of the Internal Revenue Service, and fully deducted from the taxes of the caregiver, who at year's end, would absorb zero cost for the needed medical care, and billed as an immediately payable debt to the consumer who received the services, by the IRS The lesson learned the hard way by the "gimme crowd?" Nothing is free. Get a job. Earn a living, and don't expect someone else to support you. And, the lesson to the politician? Nothing is free. Get a real job. Earn a real living, and don't expect the taxpayers to support you.

We have now solved the problem of how to provide healthcare to every American who the politicians believe didn't have it, or wanted it but couldn't afford it. And, in doing so, we've pretty much eliminated the need for government-controled healthcare of any type—from single payer to insurance exchanges: both of which doubled, tripled or quadrupled the cost of insurance, and pretty much forced the American people into the poor house while draining a lifetime of providing security for their families which few people currently possess.

But we still haven't solved the problem of how to get rid of Obamacare because we haven't yet figured out how to get rid of House Speaker Paul Ryan who doesn't know how, or has no inclination to get rid of the subsidies in Obamacare. I'm not referring to premium subsidies for low income subscribers or chronically-ill, habitually poor-health risks in a health market devoid of healthy subscribers. I'm referring to the insurance companies who cut a deal with the Democrats in 2010 who agreed to cover all risks in exchange for certain financial incentives and guarantees which would assure that Obamacare was a "win-win" for the government—and its friends in the health insurance industry. As noted, that didn't happen.

What did happen was that after spending six years talking about how they were going to repeal Obamacare when the Republicans regained control of the White House (while keeping control of both Houses of Congress), billionaire real estate tycoon Donald Trump not only won the 2016 presidential election and became the 45th President of the United States, he upset the entire political spectrum and disemboweled the Democratic Party. Trump joined forces with the House Speaker, whose plans for creating a healthcare system were not much different than those of Obama Chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, Sen. Harry Reid [D-NV] and then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]. Obama's political dimwits, in secret, constructed what would become Obamacare instead of using proper congressional protocol by assembling the 12 congressional committees needed to create a stable, functional healthcare system.

Knowing how screwed up it was, I wonder, when Speaker Ryan began to deconstruct Obamacare in order to create a new healthcare plan, why didn't he revert back to using 12-congressional committees to write the legislation that would become Ryan's American Healthcare Act?

Did Ryan and his willing-to-compromise Republican cohorts think they could find accord with a healthcare plan that would be anathemic to everyone—if, like the Democrats in 2010, no one would be allowed to read the American Healthcare Act until it was signed into law?. We've all seen only too well how that worked for the self-insured, self-employed middle class, and how it worked for the company-insured working class and the uninsured Mickey-D class, struggling to survive when health insurance costs more than doubled the rent or the family mortgages of the American people. .The only winners would be the rich whose executive healthcare plans cover everything and leave nothing behind for the insured to worry about. And, of course, the healthcare providers who are smart enough this time around, not to participate in the exchanges until the healthcare law included, in writing, subsidies for the insurance companies.

The Left, like the almost empowered Right (because they still ask, "Mother may I," when they are the majority), knows that Obamacare or Ryancare or Trumpcare, or whatever else you want to call it, won't work if the new law does not wholly and completely obliterate Obamacare before a completely new, constitutional law—which Obamacare is not—replaces it. The party now controlling Congress can't create a new healthcare system by simply masking Obamacare with a binary twin, and pretending the original parasitic twin somehow no longer exists. Obamacare never was the cure. It has always been part of the the disease. The reason for that is that politicians, unlike doctors, never search for cures. Politicians always search for compromise.

The Democrats have a very serious problem with Obamacare. They have no clear plan since the Affordable Care Act began its death spiral months before the 2016 Election, and is shedding both the insurers and those insured.

Yet, the Democrats continue to pretend, as the originator of the government healthcare system, they are the professionals in the healthcare arena and the Republicans are the amateurs. Sadly, they continue to successfully bluff their opponents on the Right. And, while the Democratic leadership continues to say that if the conservatives are willing to surrender the lead to the Left, they will help solve the problems which they continue to insist were largely caused by Republicans. The Democrats under Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer continued to lay out vague steps and even more vague goals which Schumer noted weren't really the Left's "...exact specific plan,” adding that they only signaled "...the direction we want to go...[not how we plan to get there]." But its obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains who thought it through. With Obamacare twisting in the wind like a hanged man on a noose, the left had no options except those which won't sell in conservative America—a Hillary Clinton Canadian single payer healthcare system.

The compromise that the Democrats and Republicans will likely find in the next few months or more will not be the cure—it will be the curse because Obamacare will be replaced with something far worse. You see, the Affordable Care Act, like Canada's single payer system, and every other single-payer government healthcare system in the world was never about curing people. Its always been about ending the lives of the elderly by rationing healthcare to those on Social Security.

A single payer healthcare system like Canada's, which the Left wanted all along but couldn't enact because a fractured population would never deliberately congeal behind single payer dyspepsia. In their minds, the only thing worse than Obamacare was a healthcare system mandated for everyone, but paid for only by the eroding middle class (under the guise of selling it to the working class as a program paid for by the rich).

House Speaker Paul Ryan and the center-left GOP proffered the American Healthcare Act as a replacement for Obamacare—but with a twist. Buried in the American Healthcare Act was a binary parasitic twin to provide subsidized coverage for those who needed support, and non-subsidized coverage for the middle class. When the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the American Healthcare Act together with its parasitic twin would cost the taxpayers about twice the cost of the Affordable Care Act there was a loud "Whoaa!" followed by silence. It would have been an appropriate time for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to utter her famous 2010 Obamacare phrase: "We need to hurry up and vote on this bill so we can find out what's in it."

That was the day that anti-Obamacare conservatives learned that, had they voted on March 24, they would have ended up with a replacement healthcare system with a parasitic twin which the Senate would have enacted in the blink of an eye. The Republican sponsored American Healthcare Act would have been the first GOP sponsored law vetoed by President Trump. And, the first piece of legislation enacted and vetoed by Republicans with Democrats fighting to enact it over their veto.

It's a safe bet that had Speaker Ryan gotten his healthcare vote on March 24, word that the American Healthcare Act contained a binary parasitic twin would have garnered enough Democratic votes to pass it in both the House and Senate. Perhaps Speaker Ryan who, as Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012, thought if he saved Obamacare he would be construed by the leftwing media as the top GOP primary challenger to Trump in 2020. Perhaps that's what Ryan was secretly counting on.

But, I think the Left is counting on something completely different. I think the Left, if they don't table the American Healthcare Act and let it dry rot in Chuck Schumer's bottom desk drawer for eternity, will attempt to convert it into a single payer healthcare system which will force every healthcare provider in the country to participate in the program on the government terms.

But, for the moment, let's suppose the House proposes a separate stand alone bill to repeal Obamacare (not the repeal and replace feature in the American Healthcare Act). It won't clear either House until the Supreme Court settles a constitutional issue—does that bill simply repeal an existing law or does it "veto" a lawful act which legislatively requires separate two-thirds majority "yea" votes in both the House and Senate to override the signature of a constitutional sitting president?

Clearly there is a legal question here. Is repealing an existing law in the United States the same thing as vetoing a newly enacted law by requiring a two-thirds majority vote in the US Congress to expunge either? As much as the Democrats would like it to be that way, it isn't. "Repeal and replace" is usually done because of some facet of a current law is being updated.

The problem is, Trump's demand to repeal and replace doesn't work because there's no part of Obamacare worth saving—except for the social progressive Democrats who planned all along to use Obamacare as a devise to end the lives of the chronically or terminally ill who are draining Social Security. How? Through the Independent Payment Advisory Board [IPAB] where 15 medical bureaucrats created the rules in the Affordable Care Act which determines whether those in need of lifesaving medical attention will receive it.

Whether or not the Independent Payment Advisory Board survives the transition from what should have been named the Unaffordable Care Act depends on whether the House gets the American Healthcare Act passed in the Senate as an independent bill or merely as an amendment to the annual 2017 budget reconciliation bill.

In either case, its an even bet the Left will argue that, in this one instance, repealing Obamacare today is no different than vetoing Obamacare in 2010—which the Republicans couldn't do because, being the minority, they couldn't muster the votes to veto it. Thus, in this one instance, the Left could, and likely would argue that the Republicans should be required to produce a two-thirds majority vote to kill Obamacare, leaving Ryan's budget reconciliation measure as the only conservative option.

If the Left can stymie House Speaker Ryan, and the Republicans can't get enough votes in the Senate to enact the American Healthcare Act, what options—if any—remain to repeal the Affordable Care Act? None that can be enacted by the legislative branch of government. If the House Speaker can't get the Affordable Care Act repealed, the only option which remains may well be found in the hands of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions.The solution to Paul Ryan's legislative dilemma will be found in Jeff Sessions' Originality Clause solution.

Constitutionally, Obamacare doesn't exist. Anyone who's studied American Constitution 101 knows that based on Article I, Section 7, paragraph 1, "...all bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." Members of the House are the caretakers of the pursestrings of America.

Fines, however, are not considered "revenue." They are penalties for wrongdoing. (Now you understand why House Speaker John Boehner was so tough on spending bills, and why Barack Obama couldn't raise taxes on anyone unless Boehner let him do it. As much as the Democrats like to raise taxes, they can't constitutionally create a spending bill. That's why Obama's 15 trillion dollar spending spree ended when Nancy Pelosi lost the Speakership in 2010.

Except, that is, for a handful of new taxes that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2016 which were added in the Affordable Care Act when it went into Joint Conference in 2010. In other words, absolutely nobody voted for them. Not a single Republican voted for those new taxes which were buried in the Affordable Care Act. Not only did no Republican vote for it, no Republican got to read the bill which contained them.

The taxes were added in Joint Conference session with a handful of far left Democrats from the House and Senate led by Obama Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel, a member of the Executive Branch—who, under the Separation Clause, had no constitutional authority to lead the Conference or interfere with the legislative process. The following new taxes which Obama wanted and Rahm Emanuel added were:

• Medicare taxes went up from 1.45% to 2.35%
• Top income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.5%
• Top income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
• Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 39.6%
• Dividend tax went from 0% to 55%
• Estate taxes went from 0% to 55%
• A 3.5% Real Estate transaction tax was added. (This is equal to 50% of the normal real estate commission on a normal residential dwelling.)

When the Affordable Care Act was challenged by several States (not for the taxes, [above], which the Executive Branch added to the bill in 2010, but for the fines the Department of Health & Human Services were allowed to charge those who refused to enroll in the healthcare program), and ended up on the docket of the US Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts sent affidavits to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], Sen. Harry Reid [D-NV]. and then-House Speaker John Boehner [R-OH] asking them to affirm that HR3590 which, with S3962 (which confusingly appears everywhere as HR3962), originated in the House of Representatives.

The problem with Obamacare is that both of the healthcare bills which became Obamacare originated in the US Senate. While Obamacare was first proffered, and narrowly passed in the House on July 14, 2009 as America's Affordable Health Choices Act, the Senate didn't like bill, HR 3200. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked it from ever getting to the floor. It died in Reid's desk drawer and was never construed to be the bill which originated the healthcare bill. Reid preferred his own bill, one of five Senate versions which originated in the Senate. Only HR3200 originated in the House, and it died at the door of the Senate.

The Senate originated it's own House version, HR3962. And this is where the shell game begins to get complicated. Because in this shell game, there were three peas. Let's call the first pea HR3200, the second pea HR3962 and the third pea HR3590. Pea one and pea two are peas. But pea number three is actually a bean. But, we'll get to that.

The original version of Obamacare proffered by the House as HR3200 was never voted on the Senate. It did not become law. The Senate claimed, initially, that HR 3962 originated in the House in November, 2009. But it didn't. It originated in the Senate as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That was the bill which ultimately became Obamacare. In reconciliation, we are led to believe that HR3200 was merged into the Senate version, HR 3962, which the Nancy Pelosi House consented to, telling the media it was easier to concede a few changes in the Senate version by voting to accept the language in the Senate bill rather than haggle all summer on specific changes from the original House version. As near as I can tell, all that was accepted of the House version was the bill number. HR3200 (voted on in the House) was 1,200 pages. HR3962 (voted on in the Senate, and accepted by the House) was 1,990 pages. And, 2,409 page HR 3590 (voted on by no one) was submitted to Congress by Chief Justice Roberts asking if HR3590 was the original House version of the Affordable Care Act. (Remember that third "pea" than was a "bean?" Well, here it is.)

Regardless how HR 3590 was manipulated, and while it was 100% unconstitutional, it became the law of the land by affidavit. Reid, Pelosi and the Speaker at the time of the request by Chief Justice Roberts, John Boehner, all falsely testified that HR3590, which was proffered on Sept. 19, 2009 by Congressman Charles Rangel as the Service Members Home Buyer Tax Credit Extension Act of 2009 as HR 3590. It passed the House on a vote of 416-0.

It is also the non-healthcare bill that mysteriously morphed into the version of Obamacare that became the law of the land. Base on the legislative rules, you don't get to use bills over again if you need an earlier date although it's common practice in both the House and Senate by Congressmen and Senators who need to keep quid pro quo legislation from being read on the floor of Congress to conceal earmarks so the voters back home won't know they're giving their tax dollars away and will likely vote you out of office if they find out..

Since too many people in Congress knew that HR 3590 was the Service Members Home Buyer Tax Credit Extension Act of 2009 and not Obamacare, they had to erase the Service Members Home Buyer Tax Credit Extension Act of 2009 out of cyberspace—completely. They almost succeeded. Click on this link and follow it to a larger view of this document which will let you see just how HR 3590 originated.)

The Senate, which did not think of Obamacare as a tax bill (since the penalty for not buying it was a fine, not a tax), wrote its own version, HR 3962. And this is where the shell game begins to get complicated. Because in this shell game, there were three peas. Let's call the first pea HR3200, the second pea HR3962 and the third pea HR3590. Or, was it? Pea one and pea two are definitely peas. But pea number three, as you have just seen from this article, was actually a bean.

Inserted into the record by the prevaricators of Fake News—and fabricated for a gullible population who believes government is truthful and the media it virtually controls would never be allowed to make up fake news that is spoon-fed to us. Why, we ask, would the "custodians of truth" lie to us? Is that not why they are protected by the First Amendment? To protect our right to know? True—in 1787. That was then. This is now. Today, Fake News is presented by the media as real news, and real news has been relegated into the lore of conservative myth, and Paul Bunyon tales of lumberjacks and blue oxen.

That's poppycock fiction—like many of the headlines we see in the newspaper and watch on TV news—the false claims of the social progressives who have some how become the caretakers of history.

How do you know it's fiction? With the history of the only bill which fails to meet the Originality Clause test, HR 3590, the caretakers of legislative fiction in the Library of Congress inserted this note for those looking for the legislative history of the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009: "Note: For further action, see HR 3590 which became Public Law 111-148 on March 23, 2010, often referred to as the Affordable Care Act, the bill that became the health care reform law."

No one knows better than the curators of the Library of Congress that the statement in Thomas was a lie since HR 3590, which was enrolled by Congressman Charlie Rangel [D-NY] as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 on Sept. 17, 2009. It passed the House by a vote of 416-0, but died in the Senate from any lack of action. HR 3590 had nothing to do with healthcare. Ever. It was a bill to provide first time military personnel home buyers with a tax credit to purchase a home as a reward for their service to the nation.

Because the Democrats needed a healthcare bill with a pre-2010 origination date, Charlie Rangel's dead-on-the-Senate-doorstep Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was scrubbed clean and the entire text of HR3962 was substituted, making it appear that on Sept. 19, 2008, 416 members of the House of Representatives voted for the passage of the Affordable Care Act when it is a matter of pubic knowledge that HR 3200 cleared the House when 219 Democrats voted for the measure. The bill received one vote more than it needed to pass. It's common knowledge that no Republicans voted for Obamacare so it makes you wonder how the bill which the bureaucracy claims became The Affordable Care Act received 416 out of 435 Democratic and Republican votes.

All that was accepted of HR3590 was the bill number. HR3590 was the version which former House Speaker Pelosi, GOP House Speaker (when the challenge against Obamacare was heard in the US Supreme Court in 2015), John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, all lied in signed affidavits to the high court that Obamacare originated in the House as HR3590, on Sept. 17, 2009.

I suspect that Chief Justice John Roberts knew that HR3590 was a fraud when he asked for the affidavits, and chose to accept their perjury as truth because it was politically expedient to do so. Why do I say that? Because it took me less than 15 minutes to find the evidence to tie HR3590 to the Service Members Home Mortgage Act of 2009. I have to believe the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is a lot smarter than me, which suggests he knew what I found.

Thus, what originated in the House on that date was the Service Members Home Mortgage Act. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi needed a house bill origination date before HR3962 (which is actually the Senate bill.) If that's true, then Boehner, Pelosi and Reid committed a Class A federal felony when they lied to the Supreme Court.

The mainstream media expunged their crime by simply trying to erase all traces of the Service Members Home Mortgage Act of 2009. Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to have a serious sit-down with Chief Justice John Roberts, decertify Obamacare as a law which violated the Originality Clause, and take appropriate action against Pelosi, Reid and accomplice John Boehner. No one in the United States of America is above the law.