For Obama, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is today, while Romney endorses the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the final word on all things Constitutional

Whether it's King George or King Barry, "tyranny" by any other name would smell as rank.*

Officials have already drafted 13,000 pages of new regulations for the new ObamaTax law.

King Barry will be hiring thousands of new tax people to enforce "the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years." And you won't get your refund until you provide proof of insurance.

It's bad enough that when you're pulled over you have to show proof of auto insurance. That's the government punishing you for driving. This is being pulled over for proof of health insurance. That's government punishing you for living.

If the Obamacare "tax" is really a penalty (which it is), then the law is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force free people to buy a particular product. Misdefining "penalty" as "tax" is how Chief Justice Roberts justified siding with the deranged half of the Court in upholding Obamacare, and its how Obama's liars lawyers argued it before the Court, all of which is an admission not only that Obama knows that the law is unconstitutional, but that he thinks you're stupid.

Why is Obama changing definitions again? Because he knows that the American people are sick of taxes, and we will not tolerate 13,000 pages of new taxation. If we opposed socialized medicine when it carried with it a "penalty," how much more despised will it be now that the "penalty" is a massive tax increase?

And there is Romney's problem: He's right to call it a "penalty" (liberals, like all tyrants, love to punish those who disobey them) and not a "tax," but his handlers want him to call it a "tax" because they think that will make it easier to defeat Obama. They think that We the People are incapable of understanding Obama's shell game. But if it wasn't obvious before, it should be clear now that Obama's the operator, the politicians, media, and Supreme Court justices are the lookouts, muscle, and shills, and the American people are the mark.

Romney would be best off calling the penalty what it is and not endorsing the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the "final word" on all matters constitutional. We the People, judging in accord with our nation's founding principles as stated in our Declaration of Independence and enumerated in our Constitution, are the final word. Mitt should explain Obama and his fellow Socialists' willful, condescending deception and vow to repeal it.

How will the Republic survive when its only alternative to King George is afraid to state plainly that the emperor is wearing Marxist underwear?

Obama silent while spokesman denies mandate is a tax:

Anchor Soledad O’Brien asked LaBolt: “His spokesman…said it’s a penalty. The Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. What does he believe?”

“That it’s a penalty,” LaBolt answered.  “You saw our arguments before the Supreme Court…”

“So then he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision that says it’s now a tax?” O’Brien asked.

“That’s right,” said LaBolt.  “He said that it’s a penalty.  You saw our arguments before the Court.”

At that point, O’Brien pointed out that the Obama administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued before the Court that if the justices chose not to find the mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause, they could still uphold it because it is a tax, and Congress has broad power to levy taxes.

*Apologies to Messrs. Ramirez and Shakespeare

Hope for a change? We'll see, since it's a different dose of the same socialized medicine

Does anyone really believe that the guy who did "for" Massachusetts what Obama's done to the Republic will deliver on this video's implied promise?

What choice do we have? When the patient is hemorrhaging to death, you've got to stop the bleeding. Our chance to do so is this November. Vote out B. Hussein Kevorkian. And if Romney lacks the sense and courage to restore the Rule of Law, vote him out, too, and every other politician who promises to "take care of" the American people, when what they're really doing is coaxing voters into selling their God-given liberties for a bowl of soup.

Politicians' positions exist to protect our rights, we do not exist to provide them position.

Romney's plan to defeat jihad? Pay the jizya!

Jizya is the humiliating and oppressive head tax inflicted upon populations conquered by Islam -- just like Mohammed and his god commanded.

It is essentially what Mitt Romney has proposed to defeat jihad.

From here:

Hugh Hewitt is a conservative talk show host and author with a national audience. He likes to think he knows the intricacies of any particular issue relating to national politics.

Not too long ago, before the general public knew of CAIR's perfidy, Hugh invited one of their propagandists to appear on his show to spread their deception. Hugh was bombarded with phone calls and e-mails informing him of what his guest was.

If the cluelessness of those who are supposed to be our leaders weren't so tragic, what followed would be funny: Hugh scrambled desperately for an "expert" to counter his guest.

The best he could do was Frank Gaffney who, though he is knowledgeable in many areas regarding national security, knows only "radical extremist jihadism," not jihad and not Islam.

And Hugh was revulsed at the number of Neanderthals in his audience claiming that Islamic terrorism has something to do with Islam.

Since that time, Hugh has read several books on terrorism and interviewed on his program many "experts" on the subject, but (to my knowledge) he runs from Robert and his work like the plague. Whenever I've suggested him to Hugh as a guest, I've received no reply.

The same Hugh Hewitt who invited CAIR to speak on his national radio show is the same Hugh Hewitt who insists that it is the mujahideen who pervert Islam, not those who reject jihad.

He now throws around authoritatively terms like "radical jihadism" (sound familiar?), "Salafist," and "Qutb" (this too should sound familiar!), but he still denies the core fact that Allah and his false prophet command the enslavement or death of all who refuse to convert to Islam.

Despite numerous e-mails and phone calls, Hugh Hewitt continues to define Islam in terms of its heretics, apostates, and apologists. He believes that it is a "tiny minority of radically-extreme Islamo-fascist fundamentalist jihadism-ists" who've "hijacked a great world religion."

So, what does Hugh Hewitt have to do with Mitt Romney's position on jihad?

Hugh Hewitt wrote a book to help Romney get elected. Mitt is Hugh's guy. They use the same vocabulary on "jihadism." Mitt wants to throw unlimited Infidel money and manpower at jihad in hoping to "win [Muslim] hearts and minds."

If Romney really understands the Source and Sustenance of the global jihad, how can he propose such suicidal nonsense?

And how can Hugh cheerlead so vigorously for him?

Romney's "strategy" is both jizya and proof of a complete ignorance of what motivates Allah's War Against Humanity.

To assume otherwise is wishful thinking. All those suffering under the tyranny of Allah have had enough make-believe.

Unless a candidate makes and adheres to a public statement identifying the cause of the global jihad as the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, it would be foolish to assume knowledge or judgment any better than we've had the last six years.