United States Supreme Court makes Obamacare Rulling

[Bonnie]

Is Roberts a turncoat or is he as brilliant as some say he is? Maybe, just maybe, this decision is going to turn out to be a gift, the straw that breaks Obama's political back and costs him the election. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any of the Democrats in Congress who are coming up for re-election out "hoorahing" this decision publicly and why is that?! So maybe this is a blessing in disguise. We'll have to wait and see...

[Conrad]

Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke

LOL .. you are the one who said people are scared of you cuz you have guns ... go pull out your gun and go to city hall in your town and start waving it around and talking about revolution, see how that works out for ya ... in fact, take all your buddies with their guns too ... let me know how it goes ...

Thank you for point out our delusions.
(This is not sarcasm.)

[Conrad]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Well Guys...This has nothing really to do with Health Care...I did some research and discovered WHY the Supreme Court would contradict the Constitution...and that is...in short, since the culmination of the American Civil War, the "Union" of States has inflated into a "Government" of States.

This is evidenced in two ways...first, The Federal Over-ride of the State Government on almost every level, and secondly, and most importantly, those insitutions based on this Federal Government are attached to it.

If the Federal Government collapses...so will the Supreme Court...

So I wondered what could be of such benefit to the Government that the Supreme Court would rule to protect itself...or more likely its future.

Barack Obama DOES NOT WANT YOU TO BUY HEALTH INSURENCE...what he wants for you is to fail, or refuse...because then you will pay the Federal Government money...He has imposed, what he hopes will be a tax on every single American...The Supreme Court wont rule against this, because in these hard times the Federation NEEDS money...

Its WORSE then forced Insurence...its nothing short of gunpoint theaft. Buy something you dont want, dont need, and cant afford...or give me your money...which can be spent on ANYTHING.

Here is the thing....You Federal Government is well beyond its design brief...There has been little to no State Assertment since the Civil War...look how before the civil war it wasnt about two rival political parties...it was about the soverignty of the individual states.

A True American should realize that the real Tyrany the US Constitution was designed to stop vanished when the Union had to defend itself against the Confederacy, and became something it was not supposed to be...a war time footing might have been needed to win the war...but did someone forget to tell them that the war, once over, meant whatever they had done to coordinate multi-state action should have been reversed again

You MUST start thinking of yourself as fifty SOVERIGN STATES....Your Federal Government, shouldnt even meet each day!! Your President only Exists to mediate between State on State indecision, and is only a benefit to the international world. You are a Hive Mind...A Convention....

The true irony of this who affair is...the Federal Government shouldnt even be discussing this sort of matter!!!!!

...and I do truely blame it on the Civil War/imediate successor Administrations.

If your individual States do not have the power, and thought for themselves to constantly fight for their STATE Rights, to the extent the Southern States did...then they have already given their powers away to Washington...

You will need a Revolution to get them back now....or a complete Reformation of the Federal Government

Dave, I'm proud of you. You've clued into several things that many Americans miss, including that the Federal government is "beyond its design brief." Great phrasing, btw!

Regarding Federal over-ride of State law. That's actually a big part of where the Federal govt has over-stepped it's boundaries. There is supposed to be a division of jurisdiction, defaulting anything not specified in the "brief" to the States. Now, it's being done differently. So, if a State wanted to impose these same regulations, it may actually be Federally Constitutional because that imposition would be left up to the individual State.

Also specific to the healthcare bill, the way Judge Roberts interpreted the law is as unprecedented as the law itself. In my state, if I choose to drive a car, then by law, I must be insured, whether I buy it or am covered on another plan is irrelevant. How I'm covered is between the insurance company and the individual buyers. Our state has simply declared that I must be covered in order to drive. The State will still license me to drive (as a skill set) whether I have the insurance or not. It is illegal for me to exercise that license without insurance. So, I can own a car and be licensed to operate it, but cannot drive legally without insurance coverage. The only way to avoid buying (or someone buying) the "product" (insurance) is by me simply choosing not to drive. If I break that law, they don't tax me, they fine me. If I don't drive, they neither fine nor tax me. They are saying that I must buy a product (insurance, I know it's really a service, but get over it) based on my own decision to drive.

In the case of healthcare, I didn't choose to be born. I can't "choose" not to have a body without killing myself. A tax in imposed on the subjects (or citizens, there's a difference) simply for being alive. This is what Roberts is leaning on. However, this is being imposed in a perverse manner. The imposition of the "tax" is based on not-purchasing a product, to coerce the individual for the benefit of corporations. I can't choose not to have a body like I can choose not to use a car. This is so twisted.

It was tossed around by public critics, "experts" who get news interviews, that other countries have government issues coverages paid for by taxes. That methodology is NOT what this enormous law enacted.

You are right in your observation that this is to impose degradation. It's always about control and power, anymore. In the 60's, a document came out called the "Iron Mountain Report" that the conspiracy nuts went..., well, went nuts over. From the pages I've read, it's likely the result of government sponsored research (if genuine) and regards how to subjugate the US population. National health care is mentioned as a step toward Universal ID carding, global citizenry, and defaulting on the debts to the banks (e.g. Federal Reserve/Bank of England) as property. By birth certificate, under the terms from 1933, the population is collateral. I would not say that the Iron Mountain Report is necessarily good information, but the co-incidence is alarming.

Oh, and since you commented on it, for more on the difference between what the US was build on, pre-Civil War, and how we went from individual, anti-imperial freedoms (in contrast to the globalist control of British naval trade routes) to Anglo-American Globalist Imperialism, see the film "1932" on LarouchePAC.com, here
http://larouchepac.com/1932 This explains everything you said about the Civil War. Edit: When the film focuses on FDR, after the 50% mark, don't get the idea that I think everything FDR did in the New Deal was appropriate or consititutional or whatever. The primary point about FDR in the film was that he was anti-imperialism. It's too bad that an example of Big Government comes from FDR as well.

Then see "The Takedown of Glass-Steagall" here:
http://larouchepac.com/gsfilm You'll hate Ben Bernake after that, as well as he predecessors.

Edit: With those two, see if you can get your hands on a copy of the 1996 film, "The Money Masters." These put together, with another that I can't remember the title and a few good books, explain 75% of everything. I'm really picky about recommending anything, and question a lot of statements made. If you have a chance to read "The Secret Side of History" by Zahner from 1994, that will help. No ISBN on that book. It's from JBS (and don't let JBS know you exist either ;) ). Zahner ties together a Biblical view of man with the effects of abandoning that view for communism, pre-Marx. (Yes, Communism preceded M&E.) It explains, therefore, how the USA was differentiated from France in the ideologies and deception that drove the revolution. The same deceptions are being played out today in the USA.

Note: I don't squarely recommend Lyndon Larouche. He went insane around the time of the assassination attempts on him--who can blame him. Before that, he was a little odd, but actually got some stuff right in his assessments and predictions. Repeatedly, I keep going back to saying, "Wait, Larouche was right back when he said..." He now functions with a very tight, unhealthy personality cult around himself. If you question anything, even for the sake of obtaining clarification, you're treated like a threat. He has some good researchers under him, but that's about as good as it gets. Check their material, but don't let them know you exist. Stay flexible. I hope this reply is worth your time.

(OMIGOSH that was lengthy...sorry...my mind just kept daisy chaining from concept to concept that Dave touched on. My bad.)

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Conrad

1) "beyond its design brief." Great phrasing, btw!

2) So, if a State wanted to impose these same regulations, it may actually be Federally Constitutional because that imposition would be left up to the individual State.

3) If I break that law, they don't tax me, they fine me. If I don't drive, they neither fine nor tax me. They are saying that I must buy a product (insurance, I know it's really a service, but get over it) based on my own decision to drive.

4) That methodology is NOT what this enormous law enacted.

5) National health care is mentioned as a step toward Universal ID carding, global citizenry, and defaulting on the debts to the banks (e.g. Federal Reserve/Bank of England) as property. By birth certificate, under the terms from 1933, the population is collateral. I would not say that the Iron Mountain Report is necessarily good information, but the co-incidence is alarming.

6) don't get the idea that I think everything FDR did in the New Deal was appropriate or consititutional or whatever. The primary point about FDR in the film was that he was anti-imperialism. It's too bad that an example of Big Government comes from FDR as well.


7) (OMIGOSH that was lengthy...sorry...my mind just kept daisy chaining from concept to concept that Dave touched on. My bad.)

1) well, I'm of the mind that the Constitution pretty much is a design brief...its so rare in this world to have a convention of independant states sit down and litterally hash out an agreement...to litterally design from naught a political machine which hasnt appeared from any political evolution. I doubt the Consitution figures much in Washington, because in a sense I hadnt realized til late...the Federal Government HAS Evolved. I think the trigger was innocent enough...when your fighting a war, you have to be on alert all the time...But its the way that AFTER the Civil war, the Constituition didnt seem to be the absolute...more of a guideline...and I love how the Government pretend its a guideline FOR THE PEOPLE...when its nothing of the sort! its a Guideline FOR THEM, and one they constantly ignore...and have to...like I said, I think the structure would collapse if a Constitutionalist were ellected President

2) Yes I recognise that also. Remember that I live in a world where health care is part of our Tax. My point is not that such a scheme shouldnt be done...but firstly, that its being done without clarity on the true nature...and secondly, its being introduced by an unauthorized "government" with the sole aim of using the proceeds to maintain an illegitamate Tyrany over fifty REAL Governments!

3) we are the same...and its the same system. I dont have a problem with that either...the point is, thats not a money maker, its a form of punishment under the law. They cant claim Tax is anything like that.

4) Indeed...Obama is not out to make a National Health Service by using public Funds. Neither is he out to force people to give money to insurers. His aim is to create a new citizen wide income for a Federal Government that should exist in its current state (pardon the pun, I meant no reference to D.C ) The Supreme Court babbled because it is part of the problem. It is part of an overinflated gorup of politicians, and relient on some Hub that represents far more then a Union...but is something in its own right..which according to the consitution, it should not be.

5) You mean international. Look at Europe and the debates between England and Germany at present...Iowa should be having the same debate with Washington D.C. These are NOT County Councils! they are Governments in their own right! "Nationalizing" anything by the Government beyond Transport maintainence, Imports/Exports (theoretically if beyond continental America) and The Military is outrageous...they should not be discussing health, they should not be discussing education...and I would devevole the tax system back to the State and let the State and Federal Banks sort that one out.

6) people make mistakes...Im afraid that the person in the office cant act with their own personal traits against the consitution, because, just like a monarch, they come and go...and there is no promising a later person in the office wont missuse their innocent beginings. I dont know enough to say how it would have been possible to pop the Federal Expansion after the civil war...but someone somehow should have found a pin

7)