Not So Good News . . .

I’ve read all the arguments, some ingenious, for why the Roberts majority opinion is actually “good” in the long run. I don’t buy that at all, and worry that rationalizing defeats is no way to learn from them. From now on, the precedent has been established that U.S. citizens can be forced to buy a product that government deems necessary — period. Who cares what a particular president on occasion deems to call it — tax, mandate, whatever — at any given expedient time, or what a justice does to finesse that definition to protect implementation of the law?

The same is true with the Arizona decision. I don’t see how that decision is such great news either: We now live in a country where a state that tries to follow and enforce federal law is seen as a usurping power, while those government entities, such as the sanctuary cities, which deliberately seek to undermine federal immigration law are, for all practical purposes, exempt. Add that Arizona is now supposedly acting unconstitutionally in trying to close its borders, and the president is apparently acting constitutionally as he sidesteps Congress and implements de facto amnesty by fiat, doing far more damage to the notion of federal law than any conceivable action by Arizona. That is surreal.

As for the culture of the Court, we must accept that when four liberal judges vote in typically liberal fashion they are open-minded, and when conservative judges do the same they are partisan and small-minded, putting enormous pressure, apparently, on the latter to now and then vote in liberal fashion, and none at all on the former to do anything but remain orthodox. There is no conservative majority, but rather a 4/3/2 court, with absolutely predictably liberal justices and those inclined often to join them becoming a reliable majority.

As for the Holder contempt charge, nothing much will come of it. Holder will not release the required documents any time soon; the matter will be manufactured into an illiberal assault on an African-American attorney general who has already shamelessly used the race card in his defense; and there will be, as planned, stalling and stasis until after the election and little knowledge about or justice given to a slain American officer.

Meanwhile, after a “disastrous” May and June, Obama is edging up again in the polls. For all the reports of his fundraising problems or his existential election crises, he seems to have many millions in key swing states to run class-warfare hits against Romney. The serial “Swiss bank accounts” and “shipping jobs overseas” don’t seem to be countered, and so are having some effect. If Obama is where he is after a disastrous 60 days, where will he be after a so-so next two months? Conservatives should not listen to themselves and their ingenious rationalization about how things are “really” swinging their way, and instead accept that the presidency, the courts, and much of Congress are doing all they can, as quickly as they can, with enormous powers at their disposal, to change the fundamental nature of the United States — and so far are mostly winning. All of the above should mobilize conservatives in 2012 as never before and open their eyes to the resources and zealotry pledged against them: November is really a sort of last-ditch effort in a way prior elections were not.

To be a conservative...to be a FReeper...doesn’t mean one HAS to be pessimistic about this Supreme Court decision. I am choosing to agree with your post and believe it to be a fair assessment from a glass-half-full perspective.

I prefer that we channel our energy into correcting wrongs rather than lamenting every turn of events, especially when we really do not know the ends of the matters yet.

Doom and gloom may be headed our way fast enough; do we really need to hasten the end of American freedom, as so many FR posters seemed resigned to do? What if this really is an opportunity for conservatives to make a difference for the good cause?

Again, thank you for your encouraging post.

“For example, Freeper Buckwheat surely does not see your sliver (I meant sliver not silver) of linings, and I’d like to hear your point counterpoint to his argument which is also substantial regarding limitations on the commerce clause.”

Simple counterpoint:
What limits? Nothing was limited in reality.
If there is a loophole to let them takeover 1/6th of our economy, they’ll find a loophole for the rest.
“It’s a tax!”

The ONLY silver lining, if any, is if this turns into a victory in November. If not, this is and will be a disaster.

The demographics of the country have changed dramatically the past 2 or 3 decades and still are.
The country is becoming more liberal. That is the core of the problem.

Actually, I have been the one here saying Romney is not doing very well, especially considering how bad the economy is, and Obama is. I always thought he’d be a crappy candidate and still do.

Herman Cain was on Cavuto yesterday talking about Democrat Race baiting, he reminded me why he appealed to me last year as a candidate. He could have made the race fun.

"'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

But Humpty is unperturbed by her doubts. He answers,

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5777142

**********

Take the blue pill and eat your peas.........

“.......Roberts usurped congressional authority to write tax code. He called a penalty......a tax. A FINE IS IMPOSED AS PUNISHMENT. THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT I BROKE THE LAW BEFORE THEY CAN FINE ME (IMPOSE A PENALTY). I get a day in court. Rules of law apply. A TAX IS LEVIED AND IF I BELIEVE IT IS UNFAIR OR IS UNJUST I MUST PROVE THAT I AM INNOCENT. I may or may not get a day in court. Moreover I HAVE TO PAY THE TAX BEFORE I CAN APPEAL THE TAX. What the court has done is to allow the government to force you to do whatever they want or they will impose a fine that can now by called a tax. The Constitution is very specific about taxing authority and what can and cannot be taxed. This violates that portion of the Constitution which apparently does not to bother Roberts..........?
************************************************************************************
The part of your post that I CAPITALIZED brings to my mind the question of how would the IRS determine that the tax is due from an individual. My guess is that this tax will be treated as are other similar IRS items where the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE that you have acceptable medical insurance will result in your automatically being assessed the “tax”. I guess acceptable “evidence” will be some “coverage” data employers will have be required to put on their employees’ W-2s and/or something akin to a 1099 form that insurance companies will be required to produce and send to the government and, probably, the covered individuals. And remember that the “covered individuals” will include all the secondary persons (spouse, “children”) who are on the policy and may be employed elsewhere without insurance company coverage. More tax related and bureaucratic paperwork and hours expended for everybody.
I sure hope that this monstrosity will be repealed before it goes into effect.

Both of youare SOOOO wrong. Not one single republican vote was cast for this monstrousity of a bill. All sorts of illegal shenanigans were done to pass this wretch in the middle of the night behind closed doors.

Tax law MUST originate in the House. This bill did not. The House bill specifically called for a tax to pay for Ocare. The Senate decided to offer its version which specifically did NOT have a tax but which did have a FINE ( a punishment if you will) for failure to buy insurance. The power to tax is covered in the constitution and MUST follow specific rules.

Do not give up freedoms and powers that are rightfully yours.

Roberts is a coward and a traitor and maybe even mentally ill

—Tax law MUST originate in the House.—

This has actually been discussed in other threads. Technically, it DID originate in the house. And that is what matters - assuming you want to use that to say the law is invalid.

If I bring an offer to you to buy your house, and you gut it to the point that the only thing that still matches is the address and then bring it back as a counter offer, the original offer still started with me.

That is the sort of thing that happened here. Apparently it’s pretty common for the Senate to do this with things that start in the house.

The 16th allows for a tax on income. Income is derived from some ACTIVITY (employment, business ownership, investments, etc.) Like the original authorized excise tax, they are both based on ACTIVITY.

The mandate in obamacare forces that one go from INACTIVITY in a market to ACTIVELY participating in that market. In other words, you are coerced to ACTIVITY and if you do not become ACTIVE then you are TAXED for the INACTIVITY resulting from your failure to become ACTIVE.

Some people don’t have cars and a portion of those would like cars but can not afford them. Should we be able to force you to purchase a car on a federally mandated schedule and if you do not you must pay a TAX so that we can buy other people cars? How about cell phone requirements? Ipods? The expansion to any market is completely legal under this precadent.

We just empowered lobbyists, corporations and politicians while stealing liberty from private individuals.

In essence, all limiting principles of the US Constitution were dismantled yesterday. Hence, our Constitutional Republic is dead. What remedy is left to us as individual citizens? Is there any that are legal? Probably not.

Am concerned by the poll numbers.

I hope things change as we get closer. It still is very far out.

But, if it doesn’t and he wins, Obamacare will stay. There will be no chance to ever repeal it again.....and I can’t describe how horrible that would be.

We have to win this election. We have to win.

You apparently have never read the Constitution. It is folks like you who think that just because congress does something that it is legal and constitutional who put this nation at risk.

The Senate version NEVER mentioned a tax ( because their bill was an origination bill). It states specifically that it is a penalty and punitive for NOT buying health insurance.

Your muddled thinking is as dangerous and wrong as Roberts

—It is folks like you who think that just because congress does something that it is legal and constitutional who put this nation at risk.—

Phrases like “folks like you” will not win you any arguments. It is also baloney. I’m a unique individual.

And I AM familiar with the constitution.

And your response is not to the point I was making. It has been made many times here. The bottom line is that technically, it DID originate in the house.

Look you haven;t argue before the supreme court. Mark Levin has. Listen to him and read his take. My points were NEVER addressed by you. You only spout talking points to make it sound like something good happened. It did not. The commerce clause was not changed....the court did not so rule it was roberts speaking singlely in his opinion oh and four others who did not concur but were the dissenters.

Words have meaning. You do nit understand the constitution nor the freedoms you lost yesterday.

I’m done. Go talk to George Will another know nothing

Is Obama really doing poorly? I know he is below 50% in almost every poll, and I know that undecideds usually break heavily for the challenger.

But as Hanson says, despite having what was widely regarded as a bad couple of months, Romney only ever managed to take the lead by a few points in a just a few polls.

And over the last week, there has been clear momentum in the polls for Obama. Romney’s lead in the daily Rasmussen and Gallup polls are gone, replaced by Obama leads.

Why does Romney not have a better answer to the offshoring and Swiss bank account garbage coming from the Obama campaign? Is he responding? Does he not have enough money to respond? Obama quickly had a response ad up to counter the ‘private sector is doing fine’ ad ran by Romney.

It’s true that Obamacare has been unpopular, but what will happen now? Will it energize conservatives, or will the blessing of the Sup Court enhance Obamacare, and along with incessant mainstream media cheering, make it more popular?

This will be a tough fight. I think it’s at best 50/50 that Obama is defeated.

When I say Obama is doing poorly, I really don’t mean vs Romney. I mean that only the True Believers still support him. He is a laughing stock to even reasonable liberals. They just see him as a batter path to their goals than Romney.

We are about to find out the character of the American people.

Does the old “silent majority” still exist, or are we just a shadow of what we once were. Is it time for the huns to take the gates. Should I get a gallon of gas, a book of matches and a fiddle? I suspect so, but I’ll know better by Noember, and gas will probably be cheaper then.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.