Fascism in America Upheld by the Supreme Bureaucrats
by Scott Lazarowitz: A
Disagreement With Collectivist Anti-Business Conservatives on Immigration
Given so many
bad decisions by the Supreme Bureaucrats in Washington in the past
few years, I am not surprised that they would uphold one of the
worst and most clearly un-American pieces of legislation in U.S.
upheld the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare.
The biggest surprise for me was that the "conservative"
appointee of President George W. Bush, Chief Justice John Roberts,
joined the four
in approving what is essentially the power of the federal government
to order Americans to buy health insurance.
As Ryan McMaken
"Now that one of Bush's appointees saved Obamacare for Obama,
every conservative who voted for Bush to get ‘strict constructionists’
on the bench should have the word ‘sucker’ tattooed on his or her
Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Now, in that terrible, freedom-destroying
opinion, Roberts wrote,
Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial
penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized
as a tax," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.
the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid
it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," he concluded. The
conservative Roberts joined the four most liberal justices to
uphold the law's key provision.
fine as punishment for not buying health insurance is not a "tax."
To me, a government "tax" is a fee that is imposed on
the civilian, non-government victim to involuntarily use government
services. That is supposedly why we have taxes: to pay
for government services (that we did not contractually agree
to use in the first place).
call this punishment-fine a "tax" because the people whose
wealth is being stolen are not being punished for not using a government
service. They are being punished for not buying a privately-provided
medical insurance plan. It is not a "tax." As Nancy Lugosi
would say, "Are you serious?"
is time for Chief Bureaucrat Roberts to retire, no?
And this fascism
will be enforced by the notorious and unconstitutional
IRS. In my opinion, IRS income-thefts are unconstitutional because
they consist of government bureaucrats intruding and prying into
individuals’ private lives, which they have no right to do.
Amendment states that we have a "right to be secure" in
our persons, papers, houses and effects. The Fifth Amendment states
that we have a right not to be "deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law."
So just who
are these government bureaucrats to demand that we report
our private financial contracts and employment matters, property
sales, bank accounts to them? All these matters are private
matters and are none of the government’s damn business!
to the government our private financial matters, our private health
and medical matters, or other matters that are private has been
one big step toward yet another tyranny that has taken us all down
to the status of banana republic.
grows in size, power and intrusiveness – and more and more every
day, it seems – our liberty shrinks and shrinks.
Barack Obama’s main
goal – and that of many Democrats and progressives – is for
single-payer health care. That’s a total government monopoly over
the health care-insurance system (i.e.
control is what many of these tyrants crave, and for them
to be at the top. This Supreme decision fuels their totalitarian
shouldn’t be too much panic amongst the freedom-loving masses. As
in 2010, the voters can always elect anti-ObamaCare candidates to
the Senate and Congress this November, candidates who will promise
to repeal ObamaCare if elected.
But wait a
minute! Didn’t many of those candidates in 2010 who were elected
also promise to repeal ObamaCare? And did they repeal ObamaCare?
Nope. Oh well, as I wrote
in March, 2010, these elections are mere rearranging of deck chairs,
and just kicking the can down the road toward Amerika’s final collapse.
So while Congress
is not reliable in saving us from the federal government’s overreaches,
usurpations and intrusions, neither is the Supreme Court.
are a government monopoly in ultimate judicial decision-making.
Monopolists are not accountable.
But these monopolists
will obviously be loyal to their fellows who also "work"
for the State. They will not come to the defense of the individual
and one’s liberty.
with these well-fed and pampered Supreme Monopolist Bureaucrats
is their lacking in common sense.
the five "conservative" Justices recently voted to uphold
police strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses such
as overdue parking tickets or walking a dog without a leash. Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote
that "people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be
the most devious and dangerous criminals."
Kennedy, how many people arrested for overdue parking tickets really
turn out to be "the most devious and dangerous criminals"?
There is no common sense in that! In my opinion – and, of course,
I may be way off here, I don’t know – when a case comes before you
in which someone has been arrested for an overdue parking ticket,
someone who has actual common sense would say, "It’s just a
parking ticket! That’s NOT an arrestable offense!" Such a Justice
with actual common sense would vote to forbid such invasive, potentially
harmful strip-searches. But not Justice Kennedy (and his four fellow
supreme schmucks). Some states have been expanding their long lists
offenses now, in the Totalitarian States of Amerika.
By the way,
if someone actually is arrested for some minor thing, such as walking
a dog without a leash, he or she should not only sue the local police
department, but have the arresting officer arrested and charged
with endangerment. That officer’s arresting some innocent civilian
and bringing him or her to the police station and made to stay in
a cell with actual criminals is endangering that civilian’s life.
In this case, it is the arresting officer who is the dangerous criminal!
But I digress.
So, as an alternative
to the useless "Supreme" Court, what is needed is scrapping
the whole system in favor of freedom. No restrictions on
competition. People should exercise their God-given right to seek
third-party arbitrators in their communities or their neighborhoods
and not be forced to use the one government-run service. In an actual
free society, no one would have any monopoly power, certainly not
the power to order someone to buy health insurance, or do this or
that against one’s will.
And the inhabitants
of each of the states that compose the United States of America
should not be forced by law (or the Constitution!) to have to rely
on the federal Supreme Bureaucrats for the final word on anything.
As I mentioned,
Americans having this federal-government monopoly in ultimate judicial
decision-making has shown to be counter-productive to the preservation
of liberty. We can probably expect that, when the economy and the
system collapses and there is civil unrest and martial law, the
Obama Regime will attempt to totally disarm the civilian population,
and the Supremes will uphold that. "It’s an emergency,
In our current
system of so-called justice, such a non-contractual, not-voluntarily
agreed-upon relationship between the people and the federal government
has shown to be a complete farce. In such a bizarre, banana republic
system, the people are serfs of the State and its bureaucrats.
Hoppe stated in Private
a security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose
offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually
guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what specific things
I will regard as your to-be-protected property, nor will I tell
you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion,
I do not fulfill my service to you – but in any case, I reserve
the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay
me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would
immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of
customers. Each private, freely financed security producer instead
must offer its prospective clients a contract. And these
contracts must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying
consumers, contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly
defined mutual services and obligations …
as already noted, are always and everywhere eager to disarm its
population and thus rob it of an essential means of self-defense,
private law societies are characterized by an unrestricted right
to self-defense and hence by widespread private gun and weapon
ownership. Just imagine a security producer who demanded of its
prospective clients that they would first have to completely disarm
themselves before it would be willing to defend the clients’ life
and property. Correctly, everyone would think of this as a bad
joke and refuse such on offer. Freely financed insurance companies
that demanded potential clients first hand over all of their means
of self-defense as a prerequisite of protection would immediately
arouse the utmost suspicion as to their true motives, and they
would quickly go bankrupt. In their own best interest, insurance
companies would reward armed clients, in particular those able
to certify some level of training in the handling of arms, charging
them lower premiums reflecting the lower risk that they represent.
Just as insurers charge less if homeowners have an alarm system
or a safe installed, so would a trained gun owner represent a
lower insurance risk.
thus be able to defend themselves if some neanderthal claiming to
be a neighborhood security provider attempted to "arrest,"
kidnap and detain someone for an overdue parking ticket. The same
thing would apply to someone claiming to punish an individual for
disobeying government bureaucrats’ fascist commands to buy health
Lazarowitz [send him
mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Scott Lazarowitz