Thursday, June 28, 2012

Open Thread

And barely enough time for that.

Question: does this mean we can check illegals for insurance documentation?

Otherwise, I don't see a big change. Anyone who's ever been audited knows that the IRS was already in the colonoscopy business.


Aloysius said...

Roberts did the right a favor. He called a spade a spade. He provides the galvanizing force to re-elect Romney and repeal the mess.

mushroom said...

Roberts may have done Romney a favor. I still think he is a traitor, and I am sincerely sorry I ever voted for anyone named Bush.

It is hard to see why the Administration is happy, since they are now saddled with explaining a huge tax increase on the working class.

I think I will vote Libertarian this time. Romney will carry my state anyway. He was just babbling about making sure the states can give everybody affordable health care. The fact is that Medicare is going to go bankrupt and Medicaid is a huge burden on the taxpayers. The intrusion of the government into health insurance is the justification behind every nanny-law, from seatbelts to bicycle helmets to the outlawing of Big Gulps.

I am so angry that everything I think of to say would ping the domestic terrorist sniffers.

John Lien said...

"Click" goes the ratchet.

Rick said...

If I don't buy health insurance,
I can be executed?

julie said...

Mushroom - yep. The thing is, even if Romney gets elected, I don't trust him to do anything about Obamacare. Heck, he practically grandfathered Obamacare, so I doubt he even sees that there's a problem that needs to be addressed.

As to the issue of calling a tax a tax, I doubt it will change anything. They can now say with confidence that it's a Constitutional tax, and therefore they are permitted - nay, practically required - to impose it for the good of the people.

mushroom said...

Rick, I don't know about execution, but the Gestapo, er, IRS can make you an offer you can't refuse.

What is it they say? The reason the government goes after organized crime is because they don't like the competition.

I'll bet the Mob would close the border if we paid them to.

Van Harvey said...

I wasn't much surprised by the decision or by the fact that it was upheld as a Tax, rather than through further abuse of the the commerce clause. Taxation was the only wooden leg it had to stand on, which was why Obamao swore up and down so often that it wasn't a tax... and then sent his solicitor to sell it as a tax.

To save the U.S., We The People need to relearn the ideas which had to be understood in order for our nation to be found in the first place. If we don't understand what our Rights are & what they mean, how can we possibly expect our govt to respect them? If We The People don't understand our Rights, then Rights will be unknown.

It's just basic math.

Two posts this week on just that: "You have No 'Constitutional Rights'. None. Nada." and "Rights from the source... so to speak"

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

WTF man? Roberts turns out to be a turncoat when even Kennedy sees that Obamaocare is unConstitutional?

I think Romney will sign a repeal.
He wants to be liked and he will wanna get reelected (if he wins of course).

I don't trust him but if he does sign a repeal of this slavery law he will get a lot of brownie points in my book.

Van Harvey said...

Mushroom, I hear ya, and I'm no fan of Romney. But. I'll repeat what I said to a friend the other day: this election, IMHO, isn't one where a vote of conscience or protest is sufficient, as it was when the options could still be called political differences, as '92 with Clinton - Bush 41 - Perot (though, really, that wasn't so much a vote For Perot, but a statement against George "read my lips" Bush).

This election isn't just about good and bad political policy, but fundamental philosophy, and it pits us against a deliberately destructive (to principles of American governance), consciously anti-American administration. That's a situation that requires more than expressing disapproval, it requires defense - it must be stopped. Simply registering support for other candidates and ideas is inadequate, the current proregressive direction we're heading down must be stopped, and the only way of doing that, that I can see, is by putting my x by the ballot option most likely to have a chance of DEFEATing Obama.

Not registering dissapproval, Defeating.

As far as I can see at this point, that means Romney (oh, excuse me, I just threw up a little bit in my mouth).

I have zero expectations for good things coming from a Romney administration, I expect only to stop the acceleration of proregress, a lessening of bad things, and (hope of hope) perhaps a reversal of direction in a few limited areas, from a Romney administration. I'm not voting for Romney, but against Obama.

Voting is Not our primary responsibility as citizens however, it is not enough to Vote and go home until the next election; a citizen must put effort into supporting and spreading the ideas they see as important so that when the next election comes around, those ideas might be more reflected in the options on the ballot - and in the people voting on them.

I'll continue as best as I can, working to spread the ideas that enabled our nation to be founded in the first place, trying to educate people on what our govt Should be, which I think is the only way of truly battling candidates such as Obama AND Romney.

Ephrem Antony Gray said...

The curious part about democracies is that since - at least ultimately - the power comes from the people, the people are the monarch, etc, etc, both the people and their leaders tend to think that the system can't lead to enslavement. We're just 'choosing' to gradually make everyone more and more wards of the state, but "we chose it and its helping people, right?"

I saw an interesting piece on the crazy thing the US did to a bunch of German speaking people (with the help of the USSR naturally) - a forced exodus of a mass of people (with assorted deaths and so forth) that was worth of the other fascisms of the time. Evidence that ultimately bolsters Jonah Goldberg's theory in 'Liberal Fascism' - ours is the 'third' fascism - the one that survives because it has a happy face.

Possibly the EU is a fourth, but then again it doesn't seem substantively different, only culturally.

Anyway, this is just a reminder that the fed has always been the enemy of the people -- it's a natural enmity of sorts, one that of course could only be mediated by the states having some strength.

The states having wasted all of their strength and authority in the War Between the States are now puppets. States rights can mean to most now nothing more than 'we'd like to do unprogressive things.' Can't have that!

With them gone, there's nothing to prevent the Fed from having its way with the folks.

Socialism has its way of going from helping to guilting to draining... when times get tough, suddenly 'good breast' becomes 'bad breast', if you know what I mean - the government can't afford to be a giver anymore (as if anything other than authorized theft was really going on).. Greece is our prime example. If Greece were richer it might have fared better, but its fate is a sign for the rest of Europe - their greater wealth is only relative, and the desire for programs and 'progress' has no bounds.

I hope my son will be a good revolutionary.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Mushroom: I cooncur, a large portion of our govt. IS the mob now.
Particularly those on the left.

On the bright side, if this doesn't galvanize conservatives, nothin' will.

Well said, Van. The future of liberty depends on enough of us gnowing our rights and understanding our Constitution.

And speadin' the word.

Ephrem Antony Gray said...

@Van all we're doing at this point is buying time, then... but for what purpose? What sort of plan is there? Even if Romney's Mormon administration manages to halt the insanity, there doesn't appear to be any path 'out' of it through them, which is what we need. We need things to get bad enough that people are willing to say, "waitaminute, this is insane."

Maintaining the status quo only works if the system can heal itself given time. I think we've past that event horizon.

NoMo said...

Here, I mixed up a little lemonade for y'all...

I concluded shortly after the SCOTUS decision that it may be the best of possible outcomes. Here’s why:

O-care only stands if the mandate is a tax (SCOTUS said so). That it be a “mandate” not a “tax” was critical to selling and passing the bill. Now that it is a tax, it is the largest tax increase in history. Everyone who voted for O-care can now be seen as having voted for the largest tax increase in history. Not a good place to be.

Now, to get rid of O-care, the significant majority of voters who want repeal will have to rally behind Romney for president AND behind a Republican controlled House and Senate to get it done. The need to repeal O-care in full now depends on that happening and I predict it will. Get used to “President Romney” (whew, that one was particularly sour).

With Republicans in control, all kinds of positive economic and social actions will be taken. Not least of which will be the selection of who knows how many Supremes will be replaced over the next 8 years. Critical.

This is not the end, it is the beginning. The revolution against the dreams of leftist tyranny is now fully under way, strongly aided by the SCOTUS ruling and the brilliant John Roberts.

Thank God for the Tea Party. Thank God for Obama who turned up the socialist flame too high and too fast so that the frog clearly noticed what’s going on and is jumping the hell out of the near-boiling water.

I know, still tastes bitter. Anyone got a little more sugar?

Call me Pollyanna, but we’ll see what happens.

julie said...

Nomo, I hope you're right. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure they're going to mandate that most of the sugar be taken out of that lemonade...

Ephrem Antony Gray said...

Can't have health insurance costs going up, you know, because of bad diets.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

River Cocytus said...
Can't have health insurance costs going up, you know, because of bad diets."

Right, it's the govt's job to make insurance rates and healthcare costs go up.

They'll just blame fat folks (or anyone slightly overweight), smokers and old timers.

However, that won't be enough, so they'll find new scapegoats; drinkers, homeschoolers, conservative media, Christians, Jews, etc..

Hi Nomo! Thanks for the pep talk.
Good points.
I hope more folks wake up and realize our liberties are in serious jeopardy.

Ephrem Antony Gray said...

I wonder if it isn't time to start healthcare co-ops? They can hopefully get themselves counted as 'official health insurance' or some such, and be used to cover most health expenses among a community. Big health would only be needed for major medical coverage, which is usually a pittance, truth be told, especially if the deductable is pretty high.

mushroom said...

I appreciate the positive views, and I will no doubt be in a prolonged debate with myself from now til November about how I vote.

But did you hear Romney's remarks? He said we have to make sure that people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable health insurance. No, we don't. That is not the government's job. Insurance companies are just below rattlesnakes on my list of beloved entities, but they cannot stay in business covering costs for people who don't come in until they are sick. THAT is why the insurers demanded the mandate. They need the normally uninsured young folks to pump money into their coffers to cover the costs of older, sicker clients.

EbonyRaptor said...

We The People have gotten the government we deserve.

The American Compact requires vigilance and sacrifice to maintain the proper government/citizen balance and the American citizenry has not been up to the task. Most of us spend more time seeking entertainment than giving a passing thought to the long erosion of our liberties.

I hope all is not lost but this has been a long time coming and has always been inevitable. Of the poeple, for the people, by the people is on the verge of being replaced with Of the government, for the government, by the government.

Will enough people turn off the TV and wake up by November?

Rick said...

My joke-point was, will one be thrown in jail if one refuses to buy health insurance/not pay the tax? What if one still doesn't pay? Eventually will one be executed?

That doesn't sound very healthy
and it hurts my hair...

julie said...

Here, Rick - this handy chart might clear things up. Or not. But it smells like bacon.

Rick said...

Thanks, Julie. That gives me an idea...

Universal Bacon Insurance!

Van Harvey said...

River said "States rights can mean to most now nothing more than 'we'd like to do unprogressive things.' Can't have that!"

States can have no Rights, only Individuals can have Rights. States have powers and nothing more... or we have nothing more than living under their power.

'States Rights' do, and can mean, nothing more than empowering proregressive power. States Rights are the method of invalidating Individual Rights, and of transforming Property Rights into simple privileges of possession, dependent upon favoritism from those in power, and individuals comply with, or are enslaved to, those in power.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Van Harvey said...

River said " all we're doing at this point is buying time, then... but for what purpose? What sort of plan is there?"

Riv, the only alternative, the only one there has ever been, is to push back against the real power that has always been opposing us, philosophy and its rusty needle of public education mainlining its ideas into us.

America is a nation of ideas. That is, and always has been, the only battle, and we've not even put a toe on the battlefield for over 150 yrs... and you think... what, we can gain all of that ground back by voting For (___ insert useless candidate name here)?

Ain't gonna happen. We cannot reclaim America through electoral blocks. America is NOT 'democracy', it is not people choosing, it is the principle of a people understanding the principles of Individual Rights, their political anchor in Property Rights, and the rule of objective, integrated, Law.

That requires a people who understand that, strive to be, and admire Virtue, and seek to become Educated to be a self governing, moral people capable of living in Liberty.

There is NO short cut or work around for that. None. Zero. Nada. And it doesn't matter one bit if you really, really, really wish it were otherwise.

Reality doesn't care. It has all the time in the world.

"We need things to get bad enough that people are willing to say, "waitaminute, this is insane."

If they aren't feeling that by today, they aren't going to feel that ever. And chances are that if they suddenly felt that today, they will be feeling something else by next weekend. There's no short cut. I've always known that hoping for a solution within fifty years, was ridiculously optimistic thinking. Doesn't make me real populare, I'll tell you what. But I see nothing to suggest that I'm not right.

"Maintaining the status quo only works if the system can heal itself given time. I think we've past that event horizon."

We set course for that event horizon back in the early 1800's, when Justice Taney decided in "Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge" to judge against Property Rights for the 'greater good', at which point Daniel Webster muttered " "The death of property rights" - we came right up to the horizon with Justice Taney's next winner of a 'judgment' in deciding that Dred Scott was property, not man. But we didn't figure it out.

We thought it was simply a shooting war. Couldn't have been more wrong. As impressive as the shooting war was, the real war was going on in philosophy and education, and they absolutely won the field. Justice McReynolds marked our passing over that event horizon in 1935 when FDR played Nero in the Gold Clause cases and took a hold of powers he had ABSOLUTELY NO constitutional power to take. McReynolds said then that 'that's the end of the constitution'.

And he was right. It was.

We just realized it today.

And you think people getting riled up is going to change all of that? At the ballot box?! Sorry, but as good for the soul as laughter is, that won't even stiffle a sneeze.

We've got a long, long, haul ahead of us. No shortcuts. No marketing solutions. We either take the time and effort to learn again what it means to be an American, or we leave it to ferment for a thousand years for the next people to give it a whirl.

Van Harvey said...

Nomo said "Now that it is a tax, it is the largest tax increase in history. Everyone who voted for O-care can now be seen as having voted for the largest tax increase in history. Not a good place to be."

Hey Nomo! Yeah, a number of people I know, and myself included, are looking in that direction. I think it will be useful in winning the immediate ground game.

But like the Civil War, it's dangerous to mistake the visible fight with the much larger and more significant intellectual and spiritual war.

If we do that, we could elect Romney, sweep the House & Senate, and impose something as effectively bad from the other side of the aisle.

But, fight on we must. The alternative being...?

Van Harvey said...

Mushroom said "But did you hear Romney's remarks?" Yep. Depressing, eh? Like I said, I won't vote For him, but use him as an effective vote against Obamao.

And continue on the next morning to spread the ideas that will undermine Romney as well.

A political beach head & fox hole, nothing more. We've got to take them, and occupy them, but never think that they are what we are fighting for.

Tactical ground, nothing more.

Van Harvey said...

Oh, and ;-) to the lemonade comments!

mushroom said...

I like Brigid.

Voting against I can do, probably. That had been my approach to this point.

While it is true that States do not have rights, what the Confederates meant was that the people of a state were sovereign outside the boundaries of federal enumerated powers. Slavery was such an atrocious violation of basic human rights that the Republicans and Abolitionists felt justified in overstepping those boundaries to eradicate it. While I am glad they did, the over-reach has not stopped since.

Not just with the New Deal economic intrusions, but in "good causes" like good old "forced busing to achieve racial integration", the federal government has taken more and more control over the lives of individuals. Respect for the sovereignty of the States had limited federal intrusions through much of our history.

I can understand the people who think that the South should have won, especially on a day like today. Secession is sounding pretty appealing.

Ephrem Antony Gray said...

The power of the states certainly, is what is meant, not the 'rights'. But 'State Power' sounds even worse, hah.

My personal approach, in any case, has been to opt out of politics. For my part, it is a simple cost/benefit analysis: Cost: looking into the eye of the horrorterror. Benefit: Maybe feeling good when your guy wins but then Congress just passes big increases anyway.

Brazentide said...

Based on Robert's comments, I couldn't help but get the impression that he was writing from the position of a tired and irritated parent who has lost patience with his miscreant kids.

"I'm sick of bailing you brats out whenever you do something stupid. This is one lesson you are going to have to learn the hard way. Perhaps next time you will chose better friends to hang with."

He would be right in saying so, of course. But the far-reaching implications of this ruling do make it seem rather short-sighted.

Gagdad Bob said...

The left is reduced to arguing that Romney isn't an authentic conservative, therefore vote for a radical statist.

I seem to be in the minority in believing that Romney is a genuine conservative. Over the past five years I've heard Hugh Hewitt interview him on any number of occasions, and if he's faking it, he has certainly bypassed my BS detector. The presidential election is all about wooing brainless independents, so I wouldn't worry about what he has to say or refrain from saying in order to accomplish that.

julie said...

I hope you're right about that, Bob. I've never much listened to him speak; all I have to go on - and really, all that matters to me anyway (though admittedly that method has its errors, too) - is his record. Romneycare is just such a huge, flaming warning sign that I have a hard time getting past it. I'm sure that I'd probably like the guy on a personal level, I just don't trust that he sees what a big deal this is. If it were just about the economy, I'd have more confidence.

I'll still vote for him; I just have less hope than usual that it will do any good.

Gagdad Bob said...

Don't worry. To paraphrase Bill Murray in Ghostbusters,

Back off man. I'm a prophet.

julie said...


Rick said...

I've thought Romney may be a conservative. Perhaps the ghosts of conservative past will visit him if he is elected. Who knows what that's like. It's sacred ground. To some people.
Anywayz, I believe in natural selection, so the guy who is one molecule better than the other gets my vote. Otherwayz, how will they evolve?

Gagdad Bob said...

The thing is, when I hear him interviewed, it seems to me that he actually understands and has internalized the logic of conservatism. He doesn't just mouth the platitudes, but, like Reagan, seems to really get it. And once you get conservatism, there's obviously no regressing back to liberalism. But we shall see.

Rick said...

Speaking of evolving and Bill Murray, he has a movie coming out: Hyde Park on Hudson. Please google for the trailer -- my linking skillz are not.
It's been great watching his career over all these years.

Gagdad Bob said...

However, it is true that Romney may be too nice a guy to understand the extent of the spiritual rot of liberalism -- which is also true of Justice Roberts. But few politicians understand politics at that level. They think more in terms of policy, not spiritual forces.