Whatever you think of the Affordable Health Care Act (AKA Obamacare), last week’s Supreme Court ruling should have sent up all kinds of red flags.  As the information became available, I took note of several curious aspects of the ruling:

• Chief Justice Roberts wrote the “majority opinion” himself.  No one can assign the writing of an opinion to him–he must choose to do it.  It was intentional.
• There is a precedent for the Chief Justice to side with a close majority in order to control who writes the opinion, and thereby to weaken or limit the effect of the ruling.
• All four of the other justices in the “majority” wrote a concurrent opinion, but strongly disagreeing with the Chief Justice’s conclusions about the Commerce Clause and the Taxation clause.
• All four justices in the minority issued a dissent, never referring to the Roberts opinion, but calling the liberal concurrence a “dissent”.
• Roberts’s vote put him in the majority, but his reasoning gave the weakest possible justification for the ruling.  By calling the mandate a tax, which the government had not done in its argument, he made the ruling both political and narrow, and put the issue back in the hands of Congress.  (A ruling on the Commerce Clause, which the government wanted, would have had far more reaching effect on governmental power.)
• Chief Justice Roberts is on record as being very concerned with the public/media perception of the court and its balance of power between its left and right factions.

My observation and conclusion was that something unusual happened behind the closed doors of the Supreme Court, and that the Chief Justice manipulated the opinion to minimize public/media outcry toward the court, while putting the issue back on the table of public debate in an election year.

Then today I see a news article that, if true, supports my conclusions about what went into the court’s decision.  I should be glad that I was right in my perceptions, but the article is troubling for another reason:  The court is leaking.

The Supreme Court has been and needs to be about secrecy.  Nothing about private deliberations or disagreements is ever published until years after the fact, when the issue is long settled and the majority of the justices involved are no longer on the bench.  But here is a story, based on anonymous sources familiar with the conservative side of the deliberations and machinations of the writing of the opinion, published before the ink is dried on the decision.  That is disturbing.

IF the Chief Justice is indeed susceptible to the pressure of public/media opinion; and if the honor code of secrecy has broken down, allowing sources close to the court to leak information and potentially shape that same public/media opinion; then the Supreme Court of the United States has become another political branch of government, controlled by outside pressure rather than the Constitution and the justices’ ideological approaches to it.  And that’s scary.

Thank God for Justice Thomas and his refusal to read the New York Times.  As the saying goes, may his tribe increase.

Attorney General Holder has been cited for contempt of Congress by one committee, and the full House of Representatives will vote next week.  But what does it all mean?

Absolutely nothing.

Some history:  Holder has turned over 8,000 documents, and has refused or neglected to turn over roughly 132,000.  The ones already submitted show that the agency knew about problems with operation Fast and Furious, but didn’t want Congress to know that they knew.  Many of the withheld memos etc. are believed to hold clues as to the discussions that went on within the agency concerning how they ought to address Congress–what they should say, and when they should say it.  In crude agricultural terms, they realized that they had a manure pile on their hands, and they had some discussions about who should man the shovels (or if they could get by with just using a few air fresheners).  The President has declared that the strategy discussions fall under the general confidentiality of the executive branch, and are therefore privileged information and need not/may not be released.

The claim of executive privilege is probably justified, unless the strategy discussions in question constitute conspiracy to commit a crime.  More likely, they consist of discussions on how to justify a misguided and horribly failed program.  Courts historically will not get involved in questions of executive privilege unless an impeachable crime is in question, and I have not heard anyone suggest that there is such in this situation.

So what if the House of Representatives votes the Attorney General in contempt?  They turn the issue over to the US Attorney to take it to a grand jury to seek an indictment.  The US Attorney works for the Justice Department, under the leadership of the Attorney General, appointed by a President who is known for choosing when and if to enforce the laws.  So absolutely nothing will happen.

Oh, it may be uncomfortable for AG Holder to testify in the House again, because they have the technical authority to have the Sergeant-at-Arms detain him and hold him in jail for not less than 30 days, nor more than one year–but that procedure has not been followed for decades, and is not under consideration here.

So what’s the upshot?  The Executive Branch is and has been in contempt of the current House of Representatives since the Republicans took the majority after the 2010 elections.  The only difference is that after next week’s vote, it will be official.

Several years ago when I was working in a Christian school, we had a policy that said that students were not allowed to listen to certain types of music–EVEN AT HOME.  Apart from the issue of interfering with parental rights, this policy had another drawback.  As my wise principal told me:  “They know we are not going to come into their rooms and check what’s on their stereo; and when we make a rule that we have no intention of enforcing, we are encouraging the students to rebel and disobey.”  I have always accepted that reasoning, and tried my best to follow through by applying the credo, “Don’t make a promise you can’t keep, or a threat you won’t carry out.”

Well, Congress has made some laws that have penalties that COULD be carried out, but the executive branch, responsible for enforcement, has decided not to enforce them.  It started with federal laws against marijuana; it continued with the Defense of Marriage Act; and most recently has been applied to immigration laws.  The law of the land, passed by the representatives of the people by majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by a former president, will officially be ignored by the current administration.  Those in charge DO NOT care about representative democracy, the will of the people, or the dangers of encouraging people to break the law by eliminating the penalties.

I could respect a statesman who worked in Congress to repeal what he considered unjust laws.  I find it despicable for a politician to pretend that the laws don’t exist or don’t matter.  Which laws won’t exist next?  What is the opposite of integrity?

Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
(Mat 5:37)

There is an ongoing debate concerning NYC’s attempts to ban large sugary drinks:  is personal health a private matter, or an issue of “…the general welfare…” of the country?  [BTW, that’s a quote from the Constitution, for certain federal judges and others who didn’t recognize it.]

IF health is a matter for the government to manage for the general welfare, justified under the “necessary and proper” clause of Article I Section 8, then it only follows logically that government has the responsibility:

• to provide universal health care;
• to ensure that there are enough doctors and medicines for all citizens and conditions;
• to control the use of all harmful substances, including the banning of alcohol, tobacco, processed sugars, and red meats;
• to require proper exercise and vitamin/supplement regimens;
• to provide safe and healthy housing to everyone;
• to include all residents, regardless of their legal, enemy, or criminal status;
• to dictate to all our trading and immigration partners how they need to act to avoid violating our standards;
• to determine how children should be raised and live from the cradle to the grave; and
• to pay for its implementation, oversight, and enforcement by uniform taxation throughout the states.

And there you have it.  Look over the list and you must reach one conclusion:  Consistent government control over personal health is not possible, affordable, or desirable; and anything less than a consistent approach means that some rogue agency will determine which aspects and which citizens get left out.  That approach not only eliminates liberty, but justice as well.

IF health and health care are NOT civil rights granted, guaranteed and protected by the government, then under what circumstances would the nation/state be justified in getting involved in the issue?  It is apparent that there is a class of people that could not survive, let alone thrive, without government intervention.  I believe that the private sector (including the church) ought to do everything within its power to see the the needs of the poor and elderly are met apart from federal or state involvement; and that the government should get involved only in cases of genuine need regarding those who utterly lack the means of helping themselves.

Does banning sugary drinks meet that standard?  I don’t think so.  Does banning smoking in public places (such as sidewalks or college campuses) meet the standard?  Yes, because non-smokers in public have no way to protect themselves apart from avoiding those public places, which is unreasonable.  How about private places such as bars and restaurants?  Non-smokers have the reasonable ability to avoid those establishments where the owners have chosen to allow smoking, so Uncle Sam should keep his hands off.

What about the argument that people can’t control their consumption of sugary drinks, and that’s why we need regulation?  Phooey.  Their lack of self control in no way rises to the standard of compromising my liberty, justice, and taxable income.  Step up America!  You don’t want Marxism with its social engineering?  Then start at home–grow a brain and a backbone and eliminate the justification for government intervention.

In a news article (link at bottom of page), a left-wing candidate for the Green Party nomination for the US Presidency is quoted as stating her positions.  What she believes is a pretty good commentary on why  I am a conservative.

“I feel sorry for the American people who’ve been hoodwinked by both of these parties of nothing but criminals that sit in Congress there enriching themselves,”

Liberals apparently believe that all voters are ignorant, and all their representatives are rich crooks.  Conservatives believe that voters can be educated, and that people of character and integrity can be chosen to represent them.

“Other issues on [the candidate’s] platform include ending the Federal Reserve,

Well, I don’t have an issue there.

“…stopping “debt slavery” by “forgiving all school loans,

“Forgiving” is the right word.  A sin, crime, or offense must be forgiven–and failure to pay back thousands of dollars that one borrowed and promised to pay falls into that category.  Economically, when the banks receive nothing on their investments, they have less money to lend to businesses or homeowners, and less money to pay interest to the average saver.  Only a federal government takeover of all financial institutions could accomplish this goal.

“…withdrawing military support for Israel…

This is a biblical issue.  God promised to bless all those who supported the descendents of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.  In addition, Israel is the primary force in the world standing against the radical and terroristic wing of Islam.

“…and making war “obsolete.”

Liberals believe that they can change man’s sinful nature; remove all greed and territorialism, and eliminate all causes of war that can’t be negotiated away. 

“We can have a really great world. We can have a world that was at peace and was prosperous and efficient and just … I just think, wow. I think we’re really in that cosmic space where we can actually command our group will to make something change very quickly. I think we’re just so on the verge of that,” [the candidate]  said. “I just like to encourage people to jump off, man. Jump off and start thinking clearly.”

I understand that this candidate is an actress with a reputations for speaking her mind.  But when I hear what she has to say, it makes me want to, well, “…jump off, man.”

The article in question can be found here.

Man who beheaded, ate fellow passenger on Greyhouse bus in Canada wins bid to leave grounds of mental hospital.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-beheaded-ate-fellow-passenger-greyhouse-bus-canada-wins-bid-leave-grounds-mental-hospital-article-1.1080377#ixzz1vDeaf6nl

RDBowker:  O Canada!  The land of Greyhouse buses and untreated schizophrenia.  Maybe it wasn’t his fault–he got tired of waiting for an appointment at his socialized medical clinic, and needed a snack!  [Note:  the article has updated to let everyone know that this happened on a Greyhound bus; apparently the Greyhouse bus company was unhappy with the adverse publicity.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Upstate New York woman busted for naked stroll through lumber store

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/upstate-york-woman-busted-naked-stroll-lumber-store-article-1.1079762#ixzz1vDgY1qEI

RDBowker:  Two warnings–watch out for slivers and shivers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michigan boy finds piece of a finger in Arby’s sandwich

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/michigan-boy-finds-piece-a-finger-arby-sandwich-article-1.1079966#ixzz1vDhcCs6z

RDBowker:  Probably the healthiest thing on the menu.  No, seriously–“Turns out it tasted like finger.”?!?  I wonder what kind of warning label this lawsuit will result in: “Caution–product may give you the finger.”  (Gross scientific observation:  apparently human flesh is tougher than roast beef.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RDBowker:  Sounds like a bad case of low self-esteem.  At least he will have stories (three stories, to be exact) to tell his grandchildren:  “And then I slid from the seventh floor down to the sixth floor, and I felt kind of safe from my evil girlfriend, but I knew she had arms like an orangutan, so….”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~