Since Donald Trump is now helping Mitt Romney keep pace with President Obama’s fundraising, the whole "Donald the Birther" issue has been resurrected by some media outlets.  Let’s lay this thing to rest, shall we?
 
Trump pushed the issue because Obama wouldn't resolve it.  When you seal your own birth records (who does that?) and fail to correct literature advertising you as a Kenyan-born speaker, then you have no right to whine when people question your place of birth.
 
Some still question the legitimacy of the records Obama finally produced.  I've never been deeply interested in the issue, or followed it closely.  But I stand behind the birthers in one regard:  It was President Obama himself—not them—who kept this whole issue alive.  Of that there is no doubt, since only he—not them—could provide the documents to end the questioning.
 
I applaud Trump for pushing Obama to reveal more records, and I leave it to the experts to determine the legitimacy of those records.  Well done, Donald.
 
To be honest, when someone ascends to the highest levels like our President, I find it unbelievable that he can seal so many portions of his past from view. Birth records?  College papers?  Forget his nation of origin; I’m wondering if the guy was constructed in a lab.

And finally, to the big topic:  Money. Thanks to Trump and his big-spending friends, Mitt Romney will provide the GOP with something no other potential candidate could—a campaign that is financially competitive with Obama's money machine.
 
Rest assured, THIS is the biggest headache Barack Obama has received from Donald Trump—but don’t expect the media to focus on that part of the story.  They’re too busy trying to resuscitate one of the only issues left where Obama still finds a sympathetic audience in the American public. “Pay no attention to Romney’s gathering momentum!  Let’s talk birthers!”
 
Uh huh.  Good luck with that. 

Considering this week's dismal jobs report, Liberals, please answer this question:
 
Say a wealthy American has $10 million for building a business. To build in America, he/she faces sky-high costs in:
1. Corporate tax rate
2. EPA compliance
3. Labor costs
4. Regulatory burdens
5. Lawsuit protection
 
This wealthy American must compete in a global marketplace against foreign competitors having none of these disadvantages, so here's my question: WHAT'S YOUR PLAN TO GET THIS PERSON TO BUILD AND CREATE JOBS HERE?
 
What are you offering, Liberals? Higher taxes on the rich? Would you really tax wealthy job creators at the same rates as we did before countless nations started competing for their $10 million? I pray you’re not that stupid.
 
WHAT'S YOUR PLAN, LIBERALS?  Cap and Trade?  Card Check?
 
Republicans offer a 25% Corporate tax rate (matching the global average), greatly reduced EPA intrusion in the marketplace (balancing a clean environment with global business norms), Right To Work legislation (providing more jobs for all instead of fewer cushy union jobs for the well-connected), unleashed domestic oil and gas production (pumping billions of dollars into the private sector), greatly slashed legislation at all levels, and Loser Pays Legislation (saving American businesses from enormous insurance costs for protecting against frivolous lawsuits).
 
In other words, we actually compete for their $10 million.  We don’t condemn them for having it.
 
So again, WHAT ARE YOU OFFERING, LIBERALS?  Don’t whine about the global market. Don’t try to wish away reality.  Compete! Propose! Offer! Do something!
 
I await your answer.

I have a theory about the few remaining Conservative pundits who defend John Roberts.  Look at what they try: 

1.  Some project themselves into Roberts' mind and conjure up good motives.  With all evidence to the contrary, they insist Roberts wants to do what's right.

2.  Others claim he believes his "it's a tax" argument.  Setting aside how this re-writes the law to pass it, the Court's dissenting view and Mark Levin's analysis render this argument as impossible.  Roberts' intellect could never drop low enough to accept it....

3.  Still more claim he's a strategic genius who is helping the GOP unseat Obama.  Oh . . . riiiiiiiight.  Preserve the bad law to, you know, hopefully win and remove the bad law.  THAT'S MORONIC.

4.  Still more say Roberts honestly feels he's preserving the "integrity of the court."  In light of the all-too-predictable fallout from his miserable decision, I won't even dignify this with an answer.

Here's my theory:  These pundits fear that opposing Roberts will push him to complete his move to the Left.  They know deep down that he's largely a leftist activist, and they're hoping to pull him back from completely embracing The Dark Side.  So, they pander to him. 
 
Waddya think, folks?

By the way, pardon the length of this post, but I must re-iterate how it truly means nothing that Obama’s team floated the “it’s a tax” defense before the SCOTUS.  Here are some reasons:

1.  Since they had avoided that language in drafting the documents, this amounted to re-writing Obamacare AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  In other words, just by proposing this defense after the Congressional vote, Obama’s team was admitting that the legislative process itself had been side-stepped.  That should have ended it right there.

The Honest 4 justices wisely described their job as JUDGING THAT WHICH HAD PASSED THROUGH THE DULY ELECTED CONGRESS, not some subsequent re-wording; and that Obama’s team was free to run any re-worded proposal through Congress again to face the voters, should they wish to.  
  
2.  Justice Roberts not only ignored this obvious problem, but he proceeded to participate in it by adopting the re-worded proposal himself!  No wonder the Honest 4 were furious with him!  Obama’s team should have been laughed out of court for submitting a defense that was neither in the bill nor offered for the Congressional vote on the bill, but Roberts actually made this the sole foot on which Obamacare stood!  What activism!  What sheer determination to rescue a bill that he himself admitted was thoroughly unconstitutional in its form
offered before Congress!

3.  As the Honest 4 pointed out, there is no SCOTUS precedent for equating a penalty (which is designed to direct behavior) with a tax (which is designed to raise revenue).  For instance, while a traffic ticket raises revenue, we don’t call it a “traffic tax.”  It is a penalty.  Roberts’ re-wording was preposterous.

4.  Furthermore, ROBERTS NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO OFFER ANY SCOTUS PRECEDENT FOR EQUATING A PENALTY WITH A TAX.  Here was the cornerstone of his baseless argument, and he didn’t even try to show it was lawful!  Incredible!

5.  And let’s not forget the precedent Roberts set:  Basically, the government can now make us purchase ANYTHING, just so long as they charge us for non-compliance!  Can someone please explain to me how the Founding Fathers would have accepted this!

 6.  Most incredible was Roberts saying it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to rescue the voters from the results of their own votes—when the Congress they elected never got to vote on the bill as a tax!

Enough said.  Since Roberts was well aware of these points and more, I hope we can stop trying to assign some pureness of motive to our Chief Justice.