In my blogtirement, I figure I can putter a bit and provide some correct thinking, so I will render an observation from afar, being in Toronto and away from work.

I have not read the recent decision regarding the insurance take over by the government, a requirement to comment on Obamacare, but because I have heard aware lawyers talk about it, not being able to leave the room, I can render an observation, contingent upon reading the decision, which I really would find as painful as watching the jets hit the World Trade Center. 

I stopped watching the crashes in toto after the third replay on Sept. 11.  Why dwell on catastrophe? Those who do are hypnotized.

So, here is the take away: my observations was correct that the commerce clause does not justify the establishment of the insurance take over scheme. If I understand it correctly, all nine justices agreed with that. So, you would think this a victory of paramount proportions?  Absolutely not. 

The decision maintains the pretense of a constitution and an aspect that people generally understood was granted lip service; yet, the decision has gutted any remnant of an operative Constitution. The ends analysis is all that matters, the means analysis is a con game played on those who have no knowledge of the Constitution. That is, anyone who went to a public school and gets their information from TV.

So, we agree, the commerce clause does not enable the establishment of an entire mechanism to take over an industry and penalize citizens for being independent. So, how do we get what we want?

The power to tax justifies whatever the government wants to do!  Read this over three times and see if you can figure out how we are not completely enclosed in a dictatorial structure. When the taxes hit in January, people will say: "Huh?"

More than that, the bill itself spelled out that it was NOT a tax. So, the idiots over in Congress had to be corrected. Similarly,  Congress said the bill was not "severable," meaning if one part falls, the entire bill falls.  Severability is addressed in every contract; every lawyer knows what it is. However, when Congress decides a bill is not severable, well, you can't take them at their word.

Therefore, all things are now enabled. The federal government can establish a tax, then any program the tax will cover is Constitutional.

This recent decision and the Seventeenth Amendment have eliminated the balancing of powers as the founders established. That was really annoying the bankers.  We really are becoming a democracy in that the mob rules and it is easy to buy people who have been dumbed down. Excuse me, I have to retrieve my Obama Phone from the Cash for Clunker's Car. It was so easy to subvert the Constitution.  When the taxes hit, the gate behind us will be locked.

The government can now declare a Legal Care Affordablity Act wherein everyone has to pay a tax so that everyone can have a lawyer.  Why not?  What's the difference?  The people who need a lawyer most are those who cannot afford one.  However, as corporations are people under the law, so free corporate, patent, trademark, collections law can be funded by the taxi driver. Or, is that just using the hobgoblin of consistency?

Now, we can have the National Peanut Butter Access Act or the Driver Relief Act where the lower and middle class are taxed so anyone who wants can get a GM solar car can do so. Anyone includes, of course, millionaires and billionaires. The great part of the GM law would be that the unions will be secure and can contribute to the central government. Now, how can we feed the teachers' unions?  Everyone should be entitled to a private tutor in Jamaica?  Anyone who puts their child in a catholic school has to pay a tax, even though they pay property taxes?

There is no structural difference between health insurance, legal insurance, car insurance, and so on.  None.  Nor is there anything in the Constitution that permits such a national program. The justices agree, except, on the other hand, they have held, if you can tax it, then it must be enabled, though by the terms of the Constitution it is not.  Mere hobgoblin. 

Stop.  Do not look for any logic. It will hurt. Drones will nod and the minority of people who reason are already moving assets off-shore. It may be that the only chance of rebound it a complete collapse and the subjugation of those who were expecting money from Obama's stash.

As I say, some day, I will force myself to read the majority decision for a reality check, but it will feel the same as watching the jets take down the World Trade Center. Why watch the 3,000 lives extinguished or the final elimination of the government that generations of Americans have died to protect from external enemies. 

Taxes are about to jump, the dollar is about to tank, the IRS will commence its attack, the economy will tank after that next weak hurrah, capital will disappear, as well as leave, people will ditch their citizenship before 2014, illegal aliens will be given the right to elect criminals, as they did in their home countries.  Democratic leadership is now socialist and Republican leaders go along with them because they both want state control and what better way than to subvert the notion of freedom.  In the meantime, Ron Paul is a kook.

So, have a nice July 4th bar-b-que.

Time and Tide

So, the Constitution is irrelvant, Time Magazine reflects. Seems we are much different now, having sexting, for example. (I am not making this up.)  The Marxist push, you see is dilute the protections of the individual in the Constitution by appealing to their vanity. Obama calls this the "negative"
 aspect of our Constitution, as opposed to the Constitution taking control of our lives.

Sadly, the supider we get, the more this works.  So, we are now facing Homeland Security having your medical information (No, HIPAA does not apply,) some board telling you if the homeland will let you get an operation, and so on, because the Obama advocates say that the commerce clause, being living and flexible, would provide justification for its control over your body, for taking control of the insurance industry, and making paying a private doctor directly a felony.  The common good overcomes the individual, you see, after you shred the Constitution.

Quoted in the recent Hillsdale College email letter:

"It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

- Calvin Coolidge
July 5, 1926

So, join me, as of 1965 and never buy Time Magazine. 

I gave up on it, then, later U. S. News and World Report, because I thought it was just crap, lightly researched, simplistic, and pushing movies and music also owned by Time Warner. I didn't realize it was part of a mindset that can only be called a latent European mind virus.

Time Magazine is irrelevant. It does not seem to desire the freedom of the press promised in the Constitution.  This is because its freedom is guaranteed as long as it is an organ of the left, which it desires and assume will be the ruling class.  Time, so to speak, will tell.