A Few More Obamacare Ruling Links

I’ve given more sanguine views a hearing as reflected in my linkfest yesterday.  But I am convinced that, whatever his motives, John Roberts’ Obamacare ruling is an absurd and dangerous expansion of federal power.  Ace of Spades captures that very well:

It wasn't a tax for purposes of getting it passed politically, also wasn't a tax for purposes of delaying judgment based on the Anti-Injunction Act, but then magically became a tax in order to be upheld.

If the government now has the power under the taxing power to enforce its preferences regarding how citizens live their lives, Ed Morrissey proposes, modestly, a new tax on those who refuse to buy guns.

Allah[pundit] considered a similar question yesterday: Whether the government could put a punitive tax on you for owning a gun. Gun ownership is a right, he thought, so the ObamaTax logic wouldn't fully apply. You can't burden a right.

Well, owning a gun is a right, but not owning a gun is not a right. Or at least it's no more of a right than not owning insurance.

We can pass a great many laws like this, enforcing our preferences in any area that isn't an explicit (or penumbra-ish) right under the Constitution.

Don't go to Church regularly? Why, we can tax that. And before you say it's your right not to go to church -- of course it is, but we can compel all Americans to spend at least two hours each week on philosophical contemplation, whether it be at church or in Quiet Home Study of non-religious philosophical texts.

If a temporary majority in Congress thinks it's a good idea -- tax away!

The Constitution apparently gives the government the right to dictate almost all of our personal choices, so long as it enforces these preferences via punitive taxes. So let's get started.

And here is Ed Morrissey having some fun with Roberts’ ruling with a Modest Proposal.

Remember the Romney campaign raising $100,000 in less than an hour after the ruling?  It’s now over $4.3 million and counting.

But do not think it is all wine and roses between conservatives and the Republicans.  Ace again goes yard with a blunt (language warning) open letter to the GOP, “Dear GOP: You get one more chance.”

And that is my sentiment as well, which I intend to spell out in due time.

By the way, expect a fight next year in the Senate over reconciliation.  I expect that will be how repeal passes.

Initial polling does not look good for Obama on this subject. I find a Survey USA poll of Florida particularly notable: Voters disagree with the court 50/39, 47% expect their health care to get worse while only 20% expect it to improve, and 51% think it will get more expensive, too.  Only 6% of Florida seniors expect health-care costs to decline, while 44% expect costs to rise.

Obamacare Ruling Open Linkfest

I think what I will do (now that I’ve prayed the Litany and calmed down a bit) is link to what I find particularly relevant or interesting concerning today’s ruling on Obamacare.  I may make extended comments of my own later.  But I suspect that would be simply repeating what someone else has said, sooo. . . .

. . . . Let the links begin:

Here are the opinions.  Note that Justice Thomas joined in the dissent, but also added an additional very brief dissent at the end.  He always has been known as a man of few words.

DNC Executive Director Taunts on Twitter: “It’s Constitutional. Bitches.”  No, I am not joking.  And I saw it on twitter myself.

AND (LANGUAGE WARNING) that’s not all he tweeted.

Mitt Romney raised $100,000 in less than an hour after the ruling.


Bluegrass Pundit cuts to the chase on Roberts opinion: “What Chief Justice Roberts is actually saying is the government can not force you to buy insurance, but they can tax you if you don't.”

Charlie Martin looks on the bright side.
The Anglican Curmudgeon is sharing his usual in-depth analysis.

The Knight Blog has posted his favorite parts of the dissent.  My favorite? "Article I contains no whatever-it-takes-to-solve-a-national-problem power."

Jay Cost also looks on the bright side.

From Twitchy, here’s a sampling of the vile racist attacks on Justice Thomas and more on the reactions from those lovely people at the DNC. Also there was not a little initial confusion on the ruling from the news media.  (To be kind, it is a strange ruling as the Bluegrass Pundit pointed out above.)

Christopher Johnson is on a rampage. ;)

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson is also looking on the bright side, in part “because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.”

Ezra Klein’s take on John Roberts and his opinion is interesting.  I seriously doubt Roberts is a “political genius.”  But Klein’s piece is worth considering.

I’m listening to Mark Levin now.  He is not so sanguine about John Roberts or the ruling, and that is an understatement.  And I put a lot of weight on Levin’s judgement.

MORE: Levin calls John Roberts’ opinion with its tax contortions “Mickey Mouse.” And I agree.

Mainline libchurchers are in the Amen Corner for this ruling, of course.  I don’t trust myself to comment further in polite words at the moment.

Speaking of which, the Bible says not to let the sun go down on your anger.  Good thing there’s still over two hours of daylight left here.

(And yes, the formatting is a bit off.  Sorry about that.  The Blogger interface can be annoying that way.)

Why I am not posting about the Obamacare ruling . . .

. . . at least not for now.  I have learned not to trust myself when I am really angry.  And, yes, I am angry beyond polite words at Chief Justice Roberts’ betrayal.  

I trusted him, too.

I think it is time to go pray the Litany.

Is the Dennis Canon part of massive fraud?

That Dennis Canon The Episcopal Church has used to grab the property of departing orthodox parishes?  It most likely was not really enacted in the first place.

George Conger has posted his pleading in the California Episcopal Church cases, and it is damning.  The conclusion:

I believe that the Dennis Canon was not properly adopted. In that regard, I affirm those findings: (1) that documentation relating to the Dennis Canon of the 1979 General Convention is missing from the archives and therefore that it cannot be verified that the canon was lawfully adopted by the Convention; (2) that no evidence exists in the archives that shows notice as required by Canon V.1 Section 5a was given to the wider church; (3) that no evidence exists in the archives that shows a motion to suspend the rules was offered to the House of Deputies under Rule VI.22 to permit the resolution to be considered out of time or that two-thirds of the deputies voted for such a suspension . . .

So in all likelihood what we have here is a national church using a canon they never properly enacted to grab property for which they never paid*.

The Episcopal Church is lucky it is not being prosecuted for fraud.

---

(*In a few cases, dioceses may have given departing parishes financial aid in times past.  But in no court case of which I am aware is that anywhere near the expenditures of the local parish itself in purchasing and building its properties.)

You can leave me out of “Us”.

Remember the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel?  Well they are changing their name to reflect their current apostasy to just United Society or “Us”.  None of that must old “propagation of the Gospel” here!

‘No doubt this name worked well in its day, but words like “propagation” are simply out-dated in the twenty-first century. So it was time for a change.

‘Our new name, Us, is directly derived from USPG, so it speaks to our heritage, but it also speaks about inclusivity. There is no “them”; we are all “us”. Our work – in partnership with the churches of the Anglican Communion – is for the benefit of the whole community, regardless of ethnicity, culture, gender, sexuality, age or faith. No-one is excluded.’

Ah, yes.  The true modern Gospel is inclusion.  Tell you what – someone is excluded from that.  Me.  For I exclude myself from such apostate tripe.

Historically, SPG was (You got that past tense right! – Ed.) a traditional missionary-sending agency. John Wesley was one of many hundreds of missionaries sent around the world by SPG.  (Leave his name out of this!  He would be ashamed of you!)

However, over the decades, this view of mission has shifted, and the focus today is on inspiring local communities to unlock their potential so they can overcome whatever barriers they face, whether economic, political or spiritual.

Because the modern Gospel is all about unlocking human potential and inclusion and . . . and “Us”!

Yeah, well count me out of “Us” then.  You “propagate” another gospel now.

Writing a Sermon

Soon I will be preaching a Sunday sermon at my parish.  Yes, my first sermon as an Anglican.

Monday of last week, I had a good idea of what I would preach and thought I would have my sermon written out in a week, no problem.

I’m still writing it.  (I’m close to finished, though.  But I best get back to it.)

As you imagine, this experience deepens my appreciation of those pastors and rectors who preach a sermon every Sunday.

Opening Mass of Fortnight for Freedom in Corpus Christi

Last night, I attended the opening Fortnight for Freedom Mass at Corpus Christi Cathedral.  And if that service is any indication, the Fortnight is off to a good start.

I arrived 15 minutes early, but the large sanctuary was already filling up, and it indeed did almost fill up.  I was not expecting that at all for a weekday mass. 

The service and liturgy was well done.  Trying to endure a horrific mass at St. Francis Cathedral in Santa Fe recently (about which I may post sordid details at some point) made me appreciate the reverent liturgy at Corpus Christi that much more.

One of the items added to the liturgy was a Litany for Liberty.  And there were some patriotic aspects such as singing God Bless America for the recessional hymn.  But the patriotism was neither overbearing nor inappropriate.

It was a very substantial service with an unrushed sermon by Bishop Mulvey, and with so many there, receiving the sacrament took a while.  But I was surprised to see it all took exactly 90 minutes and no more.  Now I don’t mind a longer service if done well.  But since I deferred dinner until after the mass, I appreciated the efficiency.

I am glad I went and am glad to see the Fortnight for Freedom off to a good start in the Diocese of Corpus Christi.

Side notes:

Being Anglican, I could not receive the sacrament, of course.  But I wanted to receive a blessing so I went forward.  I expected to go to a priest nearby, but was ushered to a line to the front instead. . . . And the line led straight to the Bishop of Corpus Christi himself.  Yes, I received a blessing from him.

---

When I left, I received one of those wonderful saint cards.  It was of “St. Thomas More, Patron of Religious Freedom.”  I later found the card online.

Now Thomas More was a man of courage and conviction, but a “Patron of Religious Freedom”?  The Protestants he persecuted might disagree with that. 

“Patron of Opposition to Tyrants” would be more accurate . . . and appropriate given the current occupant of the White House.

Fortnight for Freedom Begins Tonight

I’m blogging up a storm and need to get to work in the real world.  But I want to encourage my Roman Catholic friends and all who care about freedom of religion to participate as they can in the Fortnight for Freedom.  Many dioceses have services and events beginning tonight. 

Among said dioceses are Sioux Falls and Corpus Christi.

Church of England Pontificates on . . . UK Participation in EU Treaty?!?

I should say at the beginning that I think the UK would be wise to protect its sovereignty (and currency) from the EU.  But that is beside the point.  I am downright flabbergasted that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have seen fit to lead the Church of England into pontificating on the subject.  More specifically, they have officially criticized PM Cameron’s veto of an EU treaty.

That the Archbishops did not have enough sense to see this might not be an area in which the Church of England has any expertise or authority or credibility or unction amazes.  And where is the consideration for the fact that many faithful in the Church of England have a very different view on participation in the European Union?

I would say the sooner the Hairy Lefty departs from the throne of Canterbury the better.  But Canterbury candidate Sentamu also participated in this farce.

God help England with a national church this . . . stupid.

RAAAAACISM!

If you care about Fast and Furious and about Barack Milhous Obama’s claim of Executive Privilege, you are RACIST.

Just letting you know.

Richard Milhous Obama

Up to now, whether Obama is involved in covering up Fast and Furious has been, at least for the most part, conjecture.

With this morning’s Nixonesque declaration of executive privilege, it is conjecture no more.
---
MORE: It is hard to miss the irony that the Obama Administration leaks intelligence secrets all over the place – ones that make Obama look good, of course.  But when it comes to Fast and Furious?  Executive Privilege!
---

An Apology: The headline above is inappropriate.  And for that I apologize . . . to the friends and family of Richard M. Nixon.

Nobody died in Watergate.

The Vindictiveness of Church of England Feminists

As John Bingham of The Telegraph has been reporting, feminists in the Church of England are so unhappy with bishops’ modest efforts to accommodate traditionalists that they may vote down women bishops legislation altogether in Synod next month, which would set back the cause by at least five years.

I just do not get rock-headed vindictiveness like this.  It gives the old saying “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” new meaning.

Those ready to vote down women bishops legislation because it, as amended by the bishops, now gives traditionalists a little breathing space refuse to deal reasonably with the fact that some in the Church of England cannot conscientiously recognize the ministry of women bishops.  And it has nothing to do with any He-man Woman-haters Club, but with convictions about the teaching of scripture and tradition.  For many, there is no legislation in the world that can change those convictions.

Now the rational proponent of women bishops (and there are many) would see that and therefore would propose to allow those of said convictions to have the alternative arrangements they are requesting and otherwise move on with women bishops.  But that is not good enough for the uberfeminists.  Having women bishops is not good enough unless the traditionalists are crushed or driven out or both.

What the heck do these feminists want?  The Principal of Pusey House being forced at the point of a sword to kiss the ring of a woman bishop?  More Anglo-Catholics forced to flee to Rome?  And there is little question some feminists secretly desire the latter.  And it is hard to see how their efforts are any less than attempted persecution of the Faithful.

If the feminists kill women bishops legislation because they refuse to allow orthodox opponents a little space, then they don’t deserve to have their women bishops . . . ever.  Further, their vindictiveness proves themselves unfit to called bishops or ministers of Christ . . . or Christians for that matter.

And most of them have indeed proven themselves, by both their teaching and conduct, more feminist than Christian.  For the sake of Christ’s Church, and for the sake of their own needful repentance, may their utter lack of Christian reasonableness and charity indeed bring about their own defeat again and again.

Occupy Protests Conference on Minor Sex Trafficking

Just to be clear, because, yes, this is rather amazing – “Occupy Oakland Patriarchy” protested a conference on stopping minor sex trafficking.  Enforcing laws against sexual exploitation of minors is apparently racist, capitalist oppression, whatever.

The disgusting details may be found here.  Further comment may be found here and here. 

I am at a loss for words myself.  I could say Occupy are not decent people.  But that would be understating the obvious, would it not.

By the way, I’ve looked to see if other Occupiers have denounced this protest.  I haven’t seen that yet.

The Invisible Romney (union) Vote?

One Jazz Shaw has written a perceptive post positing, along with Clark Judge, that some Romney supporters in unions are not showing up in opinion polls. 

For said supporters remain quiet because they do not wish to become a target of union leaders and/or their goons.  They see life as easier if they confine their support to the ballot box and otherwise keep their views to themselves.  And given the thuggish history of many unions, that is very understandable.

I recommend those who are skeptical about this thesis to look not only at the Wisconsin recall results, in which Walker greatly outdid the exit polls, but also some of the comments at the above post, such as this one:

I used to be a member of a trade union and I was a union officer for several years. The whole time I was in the union I had to lie about supporting the Democrats if I wanted to work, and in some cases, to avoid being beaten to a pulp. I was surprised to learn how many other members did the same thing. It’s a lot.


There are a lot of union members who believe that the Democrats are the be all and end all of politics and the saviors of society, and that anyone who doesn’t support them is evil. The true believers are fanatical, utterly intolerant of the slightest dissent, and vicious to those they perceive as heretics. Independents are despised almost as much as Republicans.
There are a lot of union members who will loudly proclaim their love of Obama and fealty to the Democrats and then vote a straight Republican ticket. It’s a simple matter of survival.

Now I do not think this invisible union vote thesis applies to red states in which unions don’t have enough power to be much of a threat.  But I do think some union workers are keeping their opinions to themselves in swing or bluish states where there is a history of union intimidation and violence against those who don’t toe the line.

By the way, I think there are other anti-Obama voters under pollsters’ radar.  There are others who do not wish to become the target of vindictive Lefties (Remember the attacks on Prop 8 supporters?) or who simply do not wish to be seen as RACIST BIGOTS.  They would rather just cast their secret ballots and leave it at that.

And in this toxic environment, I can hardly blame them.

Obama, a Tyrant in Trouble (and acting like it) UPDATED

Two polls this week make clear that Obama is in trouble.  First was the Rasmussen Poll putting Romney up 3 in Wisconsin.  (Obama won Wisconsin easily in 2008 and led in a March Rasmussen Poll by 11.)  Then yesterday came a poll showing a tie . . . in Michigan.  And Michigan is hardly a swing state.

Now I was going to write that one should watch for Obama to act like a desperate totalitarian and bypass Congress and the Constitution to decree by executive order pandering measures to win votes.  But then I read this morning that it’s already happening:

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act . . .

Can’t pass the DREAM Act through Congress, but want to appease the Latino vote?  No problem!  Ignore Congress and the rule of law, act as if it’s the law already, and win votes!

Now some aspects of the DREAM Act are desirable.  But we are still a Constitutional republic.  A President has no business ignoring the law and Constitutional processes to win votes.

But with Obama in trouble and with his totalitarian streak (that I’ve warned about again and again), that is exactly what we can expect from him between now and Election Day.

MORE: Even Obama agrees that he cannot do what he just did.  From just last year: "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true."