This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Supreme Court And Natural Law

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by James Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

The Supreme Court And Natural Law

I won a bet today.

A few weeks ago I wagered with a coworker that the United States Supreme Court would uphold the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare.  He reasoned that the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to force an individual to purchase a product from a private company.  My reasoning was much simpler.  Because the Supreme Court is a functioning arm of the state, it will do nothing to stunt Leviathan’s growth.  The fact that the Court declared no federal law unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995—from the tail end of the New Deal through Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society—should have been proof enough.  He naively believed in the impartialness of politically-appointed judges.  For the first time he saw that those nine individuals are nothing more than politicians with an allegiance to state supremacy.

It was a tough but valuable lesson to learn.

As far as unintended effects are concerned, the economic justification for increased government regulation of the health care industry has been argued countless times up to this point.  Proponents of intervention are convinced that more bureaucracies, red tape, and central planning are the answer.  They have no knowledge of the pricing system and how it functions as the most efficient means through which consumers and producers can interact to come to an agreeable deal.  They don’t realize that the undersupply of doctors and care providers is a direct consequence of previous government intervention and occupational licensing.  Many actually believe that Obamacare wasn’t written by the insurance industry and isn’t a fascist-like appeasement of another deep pocketed lobbying campaign.

Common sense economics tells us that Obamacare will only lead to further inefficiencies and rationing as decisions of care continue to be made by third parties.  Once fully enacted, doctor offices will likely start resembling that of the waiting area of your local Department of Motor Vehicles.

All that aside, the Supreme Court’s upholding of the Affordable Care Act should serve as an eye opener to those who still believe the state exists as a protector of property and defender of the rule of law.

In the present day, the vast number of edicts coming from Washington can hardly be characterized as laws.  “But wait,” you may ask, “when legislation is passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ultimately approved by the Supreme Court, isn’t it now considered the law of the land?”  While it is certainly true that whatever scheme envisioned by the political class can be enforced by the state’s monopoly on violence, such rules of governance are more often than not laws in the traditional sense.

Historically, what was known as private or natural law rested upon the rational deduction of a set of ethically-based norms.  These norms focused on acts considered morally wrong such as assault, murder, rape, and violations of property in general.  Such aggressions were seen by classical liberal thinkers as detrimental to social cooperation.  According to 20th century legal scholar Edwin Patterson, the concept of natural law evolved from

Principles of human conduct that are discoverable by “reason” from the basic inclinations of human nature, and that are absolute, immutable and of universal validity for all times and places. This is the basic conception of scholastic natural law . . . and most natural law philosophers.

Or as Murray Rothbard wrote in his book The Ethics of Liberty:


Positive law is the kind enacted by the state that bestows special privileges to specific individuals.  Whereas natural law is essentially negative in that it disallows for the violent treatment of others, state-sanctioned positive law is the granting of reward that is necessarily provided by confiscatory taxation or government coercion.

What the state, which is institutionalized predation and force, embodies is antithetical to natural law and the very belief that violence is morally repugnant.  To characterize the Supreme Court as some great upholder of the rule of law in spite of it being a pillar in the state apparatus is insulting to any decent person that has a basic understanding of justice.

In lieu of the upholding of the Affordable Care Act, it’s now worth asking what the U.S. government can’t do to Americans.  As of right now, a sitting president can call for the indefinite detainment and execution of both citizens and non citizens alike with no due process.  The band of thieves known as Congress can force the public to purchase a good or service and order its goons to read private communications without prior consent or knowledge.  The dollar is constantly inflated to the benefit of major financial institutions, thus destroying the purchasing power of the money Americans are forced into using.  The American people are no longer afforded their rights to their property, privacy, or own lives.  Those discretions are currently in the hands of the various marionettes of Washington.  Whether it is occupied by outright fascists or closet socialists, the state has no regard for liberty in its incremental quest for omnipotence.

As Ludwig von Mises spent his life expounding:


In the world of centralized or constitutional government, rules are always made to be broken.  The irony in today’s Supreme Court decision is that it was never given the authority to strike down federal laws under the Constitution.  The power of “judicial review” was established by precedent in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and was not explicitly granted in the language of the Constitution.  As Lew Rockwell puts it, judicial review is a

Usurped power not present in the constitution. The anti-federalists had anticipated it, however, seeing it as just another of the viciously increased federal powers to be enabled by the new constitution as versus the far more libertarian Articles, which had been overthrown in the federalist coup at Philadelphia.

Many legal scholars argue that judicial review is an implied power.  If that were so, their logic can be applied to each and every blatantly unconstitutional law enforced by the federal government.  And as history has shown, this is precisely what has occurred as the Constitution’s purposefully vague language has been the cornerstone for growing Washington’s dominance over every aspect of civil society.

The upholding of Obamacare is just more evidence of the totalitarian jackboot that continues to be pressed down upon on America’s collective throat.  Instead of Congress or the President, it was the Supreme Court’s turn to pave the way toward serfdom.  In a truly free society, all forms of violence would be condemnable and worthy of legal recourse.  Men with badges and guns would receive no special treatment such as they do today.  Thieves would be thieves.  Murders would be murders.  Counterfeiters would be counterfeiters.  And mobsters would be mobsters.  Titles such as “President,” “Congressman,” “police officer,” or “central banker” would mean nothing under a functioning system of proper law.

To those who may object to natural or proper law, it may be asked “would you not defend your life or the lives of your loved ones against potential aggressors?”  For those who answer in the affirmative, they have rationally assumed their property is theirs to protect and their life and the lives of the innocent can be defended from coercion.  The only other option would be for a society where no property, including one’s own body, is to be justifiably owned.  The widespread practice of the latter tends to be enforced through brutal totalitarianism.  The former is the foundation for peace, justice, and prosperity.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:18 | 2574989 Debtonation
Debtonation's picture

When the dollar collapses and the states reassert their sovereignty, Obamacare will become null and void.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:28 | 2575017 BarreraNorman70
BarreraNorman70's picture

A frieend's mother makes $84 hourly on the computer. Just go to web link http://LazyCash9.Com ( For full information click home tab. Its not Scam check this link atleat once. You will get answer of all your question on home tab)

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:39 | 2575041 Clycntct
Clycntct's picture

Hey I got a friend who says fuck you!

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:42 | 2575049 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

One day, your chain of lazyCash9 members will not get paid their $84/hr. Poof.. Hahahahahaahaha!



Fri, 06/29/2012 - 23:24 | 2575346 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Consider this type of scam a tax applied only to people with poor critical thinking skills (as lotteries are to people with poor math skills).


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 19:06 | 2577709 Cadavre
Cadavre's picture

My dear dear fellow Terrorist Citizens and Denizens of what used to be OUR "Republic:, all I got to say is what Ford Fairlane, Private Eye to the Stars, always say a t times like this:

Heres to sucking my dick!

Never went to them Ivy League ZOG Mafia Madrassas myself, but skinny kink haired pasty bi-polar sweet 16 nose job twice piped chicks on the MSM TV variety stream sure get wet for a Harvard W2 prospect. Don't know why myself,  most bend over, and drop, on a dime, when someone anyone anywhere answers the call for, "8 inches or less?". Did have a tenure with a few MIT Mafioso "self tug jobs", and learned a very simple lesson: Ask a simple question, like, "What is the difference between a settlement date and an accrual date?", to a room of 30 MIT MBA slugs, and ya get 30 different farking answers.

But Harvard has turned, Harvard must be teaching that new age sissified form of "Fuck Me Quick Banker Ebonics", cause alleged graduates, or the soured seed inbreds hatched by fat cat alumnus got their dips and degs the old fashion way: Daddy  bought it or a preschool sibling played find the quarter with the prof, and instead, found, the prof's little bitty teeny weeny peeny!.

Must be behind the times, but never had an inkling that "Penatly" translated to "Tax". I guess we can all start writing off our late pay penalties, traffic fines and even the "tax" (and just scratch out that bothersome "penalty" word as written in the HR by our well festooned man juice dribbling Synogress)  when we don't buy no farking G-man insurance.

Quite a reach around, indeed,  by any standard:
1) No new taxes were pledged.
2) The word "tax" was not in the bill
2) Swap a few juicy ripe fat preschoolers with the Justices, and they'll rewrite the "bill" so Synogress sewer rats can claim "I didn't do it, honest."

So now we have a Synogress that have transferred their authority to the Prez the Supremie, and a Prez who assume the authority and anything anyone he want. Somebody oughta start a chronicle - cause this shit is gonna come to ruin fast and ya need to plan ahead.

If corporations are people, then people are corporations, right.

This ain't gonna end very nice - unless you think the climax to Tolkien's "Return of the King" was some kind of bridge game. Bitches has got to knoze thiere limitations.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 18:06 | 2577661 Waffen
Waffen's picture

So zerohedge just deleted about 50 posts from this thread. Hmmmmm.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 19:37 | 2577737 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Why would ZH do this. One of the comments was mine. It was ordinary. This happened on a recent Bruse Krasting piece as well, pulled completely and all the comments.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 21:10 | 2577851 Waffen
Waffen's picture

notice they left the spammers post.


Sun, 07/01/2012 - 07:06 | 2578244 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

It could have been the post regarding the Rothschilds. There were quite a few damaging quotes. This appears to be a recent behavior on the part of ZH.  

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:37 | 2575127 Oldballplayer
Oldballplayer's picture

What the fuck is a frieend?  And if its mother is a whore, whats the father?

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:27 | 2575206 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

Meeso hungry. Me feed you long time.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 02:21 | 2575492 putaipan
putaipan's picture

admiralty bitches! ..... you can't handle the natural law!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 22:33 | 2577938 ejhickey
ejhickey's picture

you lie!  she makes more onher knees.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:08 | 2575083 Ray1968
Ray1968's picture

States reassert sovereignty???? Wake up, Abraham Lincoln ensured that doesn't happen ever again.

Jack-booted paramilitary with drones and microwave skin-burning riot dispersing equipment will be deployed.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:18 | 2575102 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

The technology TPTB command is pretty daunting. But they've always had the technological upper hand in the past.Yet history is full of examples of that advantage being overcome.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 06:22 | 2575720 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Grab them by the belt buckle"

     Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:43 | 2575117 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Sad and true. The best we can do is assert our own sovereignty as individuals and refuse to "just go along" with whatever bullshit the Establishment decides is good for us. I'll be damned if I surrender to anymore State sponsored thuggery in ANY form. I do not look to the State or the agents thereof for any part of my health, safety, or well being and am quite capable of looking after my own interests with satisfactory results.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:53 | 2575156 Ray1968
Ray1968's picture

Ironically the best form of rebellion is to join them (sort of). Just "tune in and drop out". Refuse to work. Refuse to feed the beast. Go off the grid. Eventually the whole system will collapse under its own weight.

They can't really punish you for playing their game.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:11 | 2575187 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

It's not a game to me.................

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 07:42 | 2576040 GCT
GCT's picture

Ray a constitutional convention can still be held with 38 states and overturn this law.  The Supreme court would be null in void in this situation.  This will never happen, but it is still a valid way to change laws the fed decides to pass.   

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:40 | 2579370 Turin Turambar
Turin Turambar's picture

A Constitutional convention?  Are you crazy?  I can think of maybe a handful of people in whom I would have even a little bit of confidence rewriting/changing the constitution.  This would be madness.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:26 | 2577118 Debtonation
Debtonation's picture

The states will reassert their sovereignty. The Federal Government couldn't fund a civil war even if it tried, it's costing us a fortune to fund wars already.  A collapsing dollar, no oil, loss of natural resources, it would be bad.  Someday freedom will live again in certain parts of present day America.  The US military won't support Obama, the military supports Ron Paul.  I would know, I'm a vetern myself.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 23:49 | 2578018 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

 That peckerwood Lincoln "ensured" nothing. Let the urban Congoids "riot" and get fried. I/we have other...more organized...plans.  

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 02:06 | 2575486 GoodMorningMr.V...
GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture

This may actually go down as the most brilliant opinion of the 21st century.

All is not what it seems. Lament not. So the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, has been upheld substantively on Congress’s power to "tax".

Well at least this seemly minor side -dispute is over. It's now a matter of law and fact the PPACA contained a tax provision. I.e.  Revenue.

So what about procedurally? does anyone else recall the legislative history of this piece of legislation?


At least Read the first 4 pages of the opinion. On federalism. Tell me that at LEAST those pages are very agreeable. The first time in a long time you see references to founding fathers and citations to Federalist Papers in any court opinion, let alone on the Supreme Court.


Within the first page:

In our federal system, "the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder."


Does anybody know which chamber Represents the people and which the states in the contract that is the U.S. Constitution?

Is was originally designed to  be  the  House and Senate respectively.

And on the issue of the two chambers of Congress.

Who originated  PPACA, this ..Revenue Bill ? What chamber did it on Dec. 24 2009?

Article 1 Section 7.  Article 1 Section 7. Article 1 Section 7.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 02:27 | 2575494 Waffen
Waffen's picture

All meaningless pap. Who will challenge it? So you not recall how others laws were passed without proper ratification or procedure?

One example. The 14th amendment could not pass because they could not get 3/4ths of the state to ratify, with their post civil war duly elected governments. So how does it get passed? Martial law known as reconstruction, which uses the point of a gun to force the 14th amendment to pass by throwing out the legally elected state representatives. How is a point of a gun a legal binding contact or properly passed law?

It was also not properly proposed as 23 senators were unlawfully excluded from the senate which violates article 5.

They just break the rules when they want.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 04:28 | 2575530 GoodMorningMr.V...
GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture

I'm saying Roberts just set a brilliant trap.

To put it bluntly, he just snared some dumb old socialists dykes needing a majority and legal grounds to uphold their
authoritarian impulses embodied in Obamacare, and created springboard for a great claw-back of the commerce clause into its Constitutional box.

Read opinion. He get's brilliant a history about founders a
the importance Federalism, dual sovereignty, States rights, and a kick in nuts of the commerce clause.

Fundamental concepts to our Republic that can now be cited by EVERY lawyer in country.

He gets the dykes to expressly agree it is classified as a (tax and therefore revenue bill.

They one the battle but lost the war.

It originated in the Senate.

It's now open to being struck down as unconstitutional for violating Article 1 section.

It was done with the help of the dissent read page 25 of the dissent. They are begging the state attorneys to turn around and now challenge it on these grounds. They give them the case law argument facts to cite in their brief. Pg. 25.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:33 | 2576232 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"I'm saying Roberts just set a brilliant trap."

"To put it bluntly, he just snared some dumb old socialists dykes needing a majority and legal grounds to uphold their authoritarian impulses embodied in Obamacare, and created springboard for a great claw-back of the commerce clause into its Constitutional box."


From the majority opinion:


I'm agreeing with your assessment.

The inexornable expansion (of a percieved loop hole, the Commerce Clause) eventuating into "legal totalitarianism" has been slammed shut to any political majority.

This is no small thing. And this is a very good thing IMO.

And, the majority opinion states quite clearly...


>>>It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."<<<

The SCOTUS (as an institution) has always given extreme deference to the political process...that is...elections, the will of the people.

They have also always took the laws created by Congress at face value...that is...they have always assumed (as a general rule) any law created by Congress was created without the intent of malice toward the people that will be governed by the laws created.

With the above in mind...and with only TWO questions being before the court to actually decide upon...he and the majority did what was "necessary and proper" said, the entirety of the new law amounted to a host of new taxes on the people and the "progressive" judges agreed.

Which it is...from tanning beds to pharma companies (which will be passed on to end users, you & I, the consumer) to HSA's to...well, just about everything.

Those who advocated for & passed ObamaTax have the ultimate responsibility now...defend it and themselves in the political arena...there is no Blue Team/Red Team now.

Its a tax on ALL the people.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:59 | 2577270 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

If it was agreed upon that Obamacare's mandate is a TAX then how was it passed?  ONLY the House has the authority to generate taxes, not the Senate.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:28 | 2577329 GoodMorningMr.V...
GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture

That's the brilliance of it.

The issue of whether it should be struck down because under Article 1. Section 7 only the house can originate tax bills and this one was originated in the Senate was Not before the Court. They only rule on the issues argued before them. It wasn't thought to contain a "tax" until Obama's own attorneys argued that before Supreme Court and It was then ruled a tax as a matter of law.

Here This explains the basics why Obamacare is now open t to being struck down as a revenue bill that didn't originate in Senate.

Also with Court striking down the medicare expansion,(read that part too he admonishes the states to act like sovereigns and not get addicted to federal money printing)Obamacare now can't even work on a liberal academic"s chalkboard. One of the key planks is fallen.

Now the poor are going to get hit hardest by this "Tax" for for not being able to afford healthcare and will make for a perfect plaintiff to challenge the procedure under which the revenue law was passed as a violation of Article 1 Section 7.

And with this opinion we start moving to put the commerce clause back into its Constitutional box.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 00:11 | 2578022 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

  Mr. V, U R an erudite moron, & Roberts is a slick shabbatz goy who sold himself to the Yid Gang of Four. Neither Obama nor Romney give a flying F about this fancy lawyer crap. For once, I entirely agree with Annie B, @ Just read it, all of it. And, mnewn, I am surprised at your foolishness. This "we lost, but we WON!" crap is right out of the neo-con playbook. Don't forget to wake me up when U get the Welfare/Illfare state "repealed" via the courts. It'll get repealed via Civil War. No other way.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 10:20 | 2578399 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"And, mnewn, I am surprised at your foolishness."

You can be surprised all you want. I'm not ready to start blowing shit up and killing my fellow countrymen over lying politicians.

Are you?

I'm willing to wait and see how many are really "foolish" come November.

The bill was a lie and a sham from start to finish. They didn't even read the damned thing. O'Barry had his "finger wagging in the camera moment" with George Stephanopolis and ball faced lied to ALL the American people saying it wasn't a tax...then he turned around and directed his own administration lawyers go before SCOTUS and argue that it is a tax. 

Thats some great Chicago style "constitutional scholarly" type work right there huh?

Now its up to ALL the people (who you want me to start killing for some reason) to decide if they can live with confirmed liars, insider trading before passing legislation, tax cheats (Geithner, Rangel etc.) and crony capitalists as their "leaders". 

This is the way its supposed to be done CF...this ain't Uganda quite yet ;-)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:07 | 2578953 sadmamapatriot
sadmamapatriot's picture

Who wants war? No one wants war. But it will take something big to change this. People did not rise in revolt after passgae of Federal Reserve Act, Social Security, or Medicare. They should have though and we are paying the consequences now. This ruling alone won't be enough. I believe it will be the economic collapse and everyone's ox getting gored at the same time to get people's attention. Also, collapse will wipe out banksters power (at least temporarily). But no election is going to fix this. Did you even listen to the Patrick Henry speech?


Vote Obamney 2012! He'll stop them and save us all.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:56 | 2578530 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture



Good for Annie B! And she's right about Romney too, if he is elected he'll do exactly squat about the ACA.


...and btw I told you bitchez SCOTUS would let it stand and not overturn it...I'd look up my post from a month or three ago and post the link, but it's such a pain in the ass now to track them down I'm just going to say fuck it.


oh and about this the other four 'conservative' justices are really pissed off at Roberts bullshit, just another dog and pony show scam.


It was a good week for the corporatacracy. or the CorpGov or whatever the fuck you'd like to call it.


How you Bushtards like his SCOTUS appointee Roberts now?  Let me guess...if we can just elect Romney we'll get an even better one. ROFLMAO.


oh and for you Obamanauts parading around acting like this was a great win for the people, you're just as fucking stupid. These Cults of Personality followers and political party loyalists make me want to puke...and I'm out.


enjoy your tyranny bitchez.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:43 | 2577355 GoodMorningMr.V...
GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture


If the commerce clause is taken off the table as a source of power, thinking politically, all the socialists in Congress, instead of framing their power grabs as wonderful enlightened programs to help the public, now have to frame them as... taxes.

And every new program will have to have a TAX as base of congressional power to justify it's existence.

The sheep in this country don't pay attention to much but when you expressly mention the word "TAX" they come to attention, and it something they can understand.

It will be Full and open disclosure.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 00:25 | 2578042 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

No, moron. As always, it'll be 1/2 tax, 1/2 debt financed. And the sheeple who think they're getting something for nothing will keep right on voting for it. "That's the beauty of it". In fact, since EVERYTHING gubmint does involves taxation, Roberts and the 4 kosher mafiosi effectively liquidated the Constitution; thanks to Roberts, the Reds don't even NEED the "commerce clause" any more. Again, see Ms. B's take at

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:34 | 2576691 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Lots of things will become null and void at that point.  Hedge accordingly.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 18:52 | 2577698 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

It probably won't last that long, but if it does, hyperinflation is certain, and probably martial law.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:19 | 2574992 Timmay
Timmay's picture

Uplifting article. I am beginning to wonder if Zerohedge is a psychops? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants??

Cypher was right, ignorance is BLISS.....

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:30 | 2575022 Western
Western's picture

I've been telling people to go get informed in the law, because it is being used against the people through "assumed consent". -> Frank O'Collins does a great weekly talkshoe Q&A regarding restoration of natural law and fighting the Roman Cult trolls. Yes these trolls also control the financial system.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:41 | 2575047 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

And another "wonderful" SCOTUS decision regarding human rights:

James Stanley, a career soldier, suffered soul murder as an Army lab rat. He was given LSD in 1958 without being warned of its dangers, as were 1,000 other "volunteer" soldiers.  Stanley suffered hallucinations, memory loss, incoherence, and a negative personality change. Fits of uncontrollable violence destroyed his family, and restricted his ability to earn a living. And he never knew why until 1975, when the Army invited him to participate in a follow-up study on "volunteers who participated" in LSD testing. In United States vs. Stanley,  the Supreme Court majority decided against Stanley’s claim for damages. However, Justices Brennan, Marshall and O’Connor dissented, asserting their belief that the Nuremberg Code’s standard of informed consent applies to soldiers as well as civilians. In 1996 James Stanley finally wrangled a $400,000 settlement from the government, but no apology for having ruined his life.

The Nazi human experimentation program rolled into the CIA's MK ULTRA program, whose goal was ultimately group mind control and the production of programmed assassins (review closely the Robert F. Kennedy assassination).  Just a small slice of MK ULTRA's victims list:


Stanley Glickman, Harold Blauer, James Stanley, Gail Kastner, Dorothy Proctor, Christine Bauman, Richard Carlson, Tony Vaitelis, Jean-Paul Martineau, the French people residing the village of Pont Saint Esprit in 1951, healthy American children in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, 1,000 "volunteer" soldiers, at least 23 women prisoners were also used as human guinea pigs, the Ottawa Citizen published an expose showing that hundreds of federal prisoners throughout Canada were used for pharmaceutical trials of untested drugs, sensory deprivation, and pain and electroshock studies, and unknown patients victimized by U.S. doctors injecting plutonium and uranium into unwitting hospital patients.

?An excellent site on this:


Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:35 | 2575455 JeffB
JeffB's picture

Unfortunately, we've had a lot of that type of thing.

It Can Happen Here - American doctors once conducted an experiment that proved you can kill the disabled babies of poor families and get away with it. Their research was funded by the Federal Government. Twenty-four babies with spina bifida lost their lives.The experiment was declared a success.

Forced sterilizations -


In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:


1936 Public domain. Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Nazi propaganda defends Germany's forced sterilization program by citing the United States as an ally in the eugenic movement, and its laws as proof of its status as same.

Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood, despite it's notoriously racist and eugenics roots, and rented space to medical companies that could dissect the babies they killed so they could sell the body parts. They've also been caught red-handed in helping to cover up child abuse, incest, statutory rape and human trafficking.

That's not taking into account that the abortionists are deliberately killing more innocent human beings every day than were killed in all of the 911 attacks combined. To keep up, the terrorists would have to pull off a 911 terrorist attack every day of the year including, weekends, holidays, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Christmas, Easter, Hannakuh, Ramadan, etc., etc. But even that wouldn't be enough, they would then have to do a grand finale of 6 more 911 equivalents on New Year's Eve so they could start of with a fresh slate on the 1st of the new year.

Our tax dollars at work.


Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:22 | 2575202 Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

Before this article I didn't realize there was a battle between "natural" and "positive" law. Now it makes sense. Obama said the constitution tells what government cannot do, but he wants it to tell what government can do. So he's a positive law guy. The severity of the turn he and his owners have made in the course of our government is about to drive us over a cliff and into the hard hands of authoritarians.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:01 | 2578540 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture


and they can just do things under the 'color of law'


color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protestors or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:49 | 2575043 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I wonder that sometimes too. Is the Hedge just another program in the matrix? Is it an outlet for those who are libertarian minded and logical thinkers. Rush and Beck are an outlet for conservatives, and MSNBC, CNN is an outlet for liberals. The system allows them to exist for a purpose.They are programs to keep the serfs from actually engaging with each other and doing something. I certainly hope not.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:21 | 2575105 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

"I would not say such things if I were you!"

Princess bride

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:24 | 2575110 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

As you wish.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:36 | 2575125 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I listen to people like Jim Rogers and Schiff talk Dr. Engali. I  know some people on here think they are part of the system somehow for the same reasons you stated. My personal belief is that once you subscribe to that there is no going back. There is no hope, no salvation and everyone at their core is evil. I can't go there. From another one of my favorite movies...

"I don't think you're quitting because you believe these things you say. I don't. I think you want to believe them, because you're quitting. And you want me to agree with you, and you want me to say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're right. It's all fucked up. It's a fucking mess. We should all go live in a fucking log cabin." But I won't. I don't agree with you. I do not. I can't."

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:31 | 2575212 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

The problem I have is since awakening in 2001 I have found everthing I used to believe is a lie. And the further down the rabbit hole I go the more everything stinks. It's come to the point where I question everything and trust nothing. Not a fun place to some extent. The best I can do is try to determine the agenda of the individual providing information and decipher the truth myself.

But I hope , for sanities sake,that the people I think are truth tellers aren't part of the system.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:43 | 2575234 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

What is different to me now is seeing things like the LIBOR stuff or the JPM stuff or even the fast and the furious stuff and realizing that they don't even have to hide it anymore. Corzine would prob be the best example. There are no consequences so this stuff is just done in plain sight.

My theory is this. Try to see things as best you can and trust in yourself. Look for those who do the same.

 Not to keep nailing you with quotes but this one is my all time favorite.

"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude after own own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."
Fri, 06/29/2012 - 22:51 | 2575307 RichardP
RichardP's picture

"... but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."

Do you know of this?

Rudyard Kipling

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:17 | 2575398 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"they don't even have to hide it anymore"

Hide it from whom? Why?

If doesn't impact the results of Dancing with The Stars, the features of the newerest iPhone, or the scores of the EURO 2012, you can count the percentage of people who care on one hand - and there's nothing to fear from them, so why bother hiding it?

What thief would bother covering his tracks if he knew to a certainty that no one would investigate, let alone, punish, his crime?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:06 | 2576555 Blankman
Blankman's picture

if you are smart enough to see the truth, you should be smart enough to prosper from it.  life feeds on life.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:55 | 2575250 dougngen
dougngen's picture

The battle of good and evil rages on. Its no differnt than the crusades or colonialism, the cold war or at any time in history. Corruption is the enemy and the pendulum is swinging that way. We will fight back, when oppression truly becomes intolerable. Lessons will be learned and the blood of a generation will be the price for renewed freedom. Its a price countless of our forefathers have paid. Our turn will come

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:07 | 2576355 PoorByChoice
PoorByChoice's picture

I agree dougngen but would prefer it be me who had to risk the bullets and tazers rather than my children......

The only comfort I have after coming here (ZH) and taking the correct colour pill?

Even now with all the power our rulers wield they are still vunerable and still afraid of us.

They wouldn't be arming their goons to the teeth otherwise!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:28 | 2576422 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



The insinuation here is that "We" in the last part of the excerpt is somehow not corrupt.  In my view, that may be the biggest lie of them all.  Corruption is ever-present, and history's pattern is expressed as cycles of power exchanges where the overtly corrupt seep their way into power, the exercise of that power causes revolt by the oppressed (or internal collapse of the power structure), followed by a rise of a new power.  The lie is the belief that the new power - the "We" - is just and/or impervious to corruption.

Since we are supposed to be on the topic of natural law, in my view it ought to start with a recognition that all men are by their nature corrupt.  The libertarian mindset (a predominant one on ZH) seems less willing to acknowledge or accept this fundamental issue.

Power struggles are about scarcity and who controls the knobs that allocate scarce things.  But that is a separate issue from corruption, even if over time they seem to be welded together.

Corruption is a reflection of evil.  And since evil is present in all of us, it is but wishful thinking that the next "We" will eradicate corruption; it will just usher in a new wave, masked for a period by some tranquility as those oppressed by the "old" regime celebrate its exodus.

I find it interesting when people become parents and start to act like their own parents, after having sworn never to do so.  The parallel here fits here - the revolutionaries think they will all be Luke Skywalker in the end and never replace Darth Vader and take their place by the side of the Emperor.  History and human nature prove otherwise.  And natural law is founded on that precept.

I envy them for all those things, I never got my fair share of... (N. Peart, The Anarchist)

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:36 | 2576256 Dapper Dan
Dapper Dan's picture

Moral men pitted against the immoral have this advantage, primary allegiance to loyalty and honor.  Predators and parasites have low latency loyalty if any.  Moral men draw from a deep well of everlasting water while immoral sup dew and tears.  No way can they maintain a cohesive esprit de corps only on plunderous gain; men that subscribe to such venality have none of the other qualifying virtues with which to maintain their power.  Like the USA, betrayed from within by self-servers instead of men of majesty, (The immoral) will be brought down by the decrepitude of avarice. 

Money is an instrument which conveys man's goodwill service to fellow man in furnishing him the essentials of survival and luxuries of hard won age in grade.  Losing sight of that, men seek profit in algorithms, sneakery, subtle diminishment of the institutions, courts and laws. 

They never prosper long.  It is like an error in genetic code which destroys the creature with cancer.  Men who work without the final object (increase of joy for their fellow) are in the wrong path, and sabotage their own futures. Here and in eternity.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:40 | 2576267 knukles
knukles's picture


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:42 | 2576276 nmewn
nmewn's picture

That was beautiful Double D.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:45 | 2576473 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’  (Luke 12:18-20)


The Framers did not want to put trust in "men of majesty" because they did not subscribe to the potential that such men existed sufficient to sustain a good and just government.  That is why they went out of their way to limit the ability of any men to assume power for any elongated period, and wrote voluminously about the perils of the will of men becoming too engrained in government (particularly the courts).  That vision has been eroded, and the U.S. is now on an irrevocable road to despotism. 

A wonderful piece you wrote, but the notion that there are men of majesty is an unfortunate illusion.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:25 | 2576653 nmewn
nmewn's picture

They knew there are two kinds of men (and women) in this world. 

Those who take decades to be corrupted and those who can be corrupted in a day (or an hour) as we are forever fallible at some point. Some repent and amend their ways, others do not and cannot be made to.

Identifying both kinds will always be the challenge.

That is the essence of "men of majesty" to me...there is virtue in the admission of evil, just as there is vice in never admitting to it.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:26 | 2576656 Blankman
Blankman's picture

DD:  Find me a truly virtuous man and I will show you a charlatan.  What is virtue and morality?  What is deception and trickery?  All just words.  Words meant to make you or I feel better about ourselves, feel better about our lot in life (words that bind us to fellow like minded individuals). 

I believe we are all our own universes, made up charicatures in our own minds.  What I see as beautiful and virtuous you may see as disreputable and unsavory. Who are you to impose your beliefs into my system?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:22 | 2576911 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

I am in the same exact situation and mindset. I think you will find this verse interesting.

Read the whole thing.



Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:51 | 2577508 Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Dr. Engali, our human nature forces us into choices of lesser evils everyday. Even becoming a hermit is a choice of a lesser evil. I owned my own news blogging service. I refused ads and particular sponsors. Now its closed because I am broke so instead of reaching thousands with truth, I now reach nobody. Zero Hedge has had to make a lesser of evils for a greater impact toward the good in ad sponsors. It doesnt mean they are part of the machine. Impacting the margins is about the best that can be done when your talking a planet of billions. Doesnt mean I like what I am saying to you either, it just is.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 18:59 | 2577704 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

I keep thinking that I accidentally slipped through a wormhole into a very deviant alternate reality, ruled by a guy with no past who looks like the Joker, and I keep looking for a way back to the relatively sane world I grew up in.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:23 | 2576406 buckethead
buckethead's picture

What's in the box? 

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:43 | 2575134 Doña K
Doña K's picture

Since nothing is what it seems, It is possible that ZH may be a branch of Goldman Sachs playing the other side. Without traders and investors shorting stocks and buying PM's, there could not be an oscillating market that can be manipulated.

It is also possible that Justice Roberts' move is a stratagem which will either pay dividents later and/or will deflect blame from the judicial to Congress.

As it stands, the President, congress and the states will have to unravel and recreate a new monster as adjustments are necessary for this bill to be implemented.

In layman's tems the supreme court told Obama and the politicians: You can not force people to buy anything. You can not force states to comply fully, but you can impose taxes. Now go figure this out by yourselves assholes. We do not make laws and we do not repeal laws.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 22:39 | 2575280 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture            *three history books about the court written by rehnquist - all good reads and one very timely

 the moment i heard kennedy wrote the opinion for the 'arizona immigration law',... my mind went into overdrive! why? i asked myself, over and over. he, being the only swing-vote justice on the bench now that o'connor's gone. but, i had already thrown my hat into the race with a 5-4 party line decision. ironically, as i've said before... roberts is coy, manipulative, and extremely elusive! the classic two-bird's with one stone vis-a-vis 'divide and conquer' stratagem kinda guy. it made perfect sense for him to side with the liberal side knowing the rancor caused in conference [one conference per each case] as ginsburg openly elaborated on weeks before the decisions were made public i.e., speaking to the press. thus he jumped-on the opinion handed down by yours [jr2] truly,... as all cj's have done in the past.  his decision will be revisited, but his main goal was to keep harmony and cohesion within the justices' chamber... having an amicable justice/jurist bench first and foremost is all that one chief justice can ask for, period!       jmo   

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:53 | 2576296 knukles
knukles's picture


That's the best synopses of the decision in its entirety that I've yet read.

Of note, the majority decision while hailed by one portion of the political spectrum shall be later found to have been antithetical to any ideologies desire of expansive federal government.
Roberts' decision for the majority effectively diminished in a meaningful and substantial manner, the expansive interpretations of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution.

Thereby limiting the effective reach of the Leviathan.

Nonetheless, I'd personally still have preferred that he haave found the same conclusions within the broader finding of Alito, et al., but it is what it is, is it not. 
And in response, we all get to vote for it, now.
Which possibly is the best thing possible for it is not the province of the Courts to make laws.  It is their province to interpret laws within the four corners of the founding documents, ensuring equal and fair application.

Which is something we ZH'ers might well hold dear as the pages of history turn.


Sun, 07/01/2012 - 01:23 | 2578096 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

  First mnewn and now knukles. IQ's must have dropped suddenly on this site, or both have mutated into neo-con trolls. Thanks to Roberts, the Reds NO LONGER NEED the commerce clause. Anything attached to a tax is now "constitutional" because gubmiint has "the power to tax". And since everything gubmint does involves taxes, HE EFFECTIVELY REPEALED THE CONSTITUTION. Let me see if I can phrase this better, so even mnewn and k. can understand: WE JUST GOT STUCK WITH ANOTHER MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR TAX+DEBT-FINANCED DEPENDENCY RACKET. 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 10:34 | 2578412 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Again...taxes are levied by the people you elect to Congress. Elect people who you believe won't raise your taxes and it kinda sorts itself out.

Laws have been repealed before and this one will be no different.

First blood lust and now an attack on knukles and my character/IQ's...just wait till you see what I said about 911 not going along with the moonbats...your head will probably

Try and calm down ;-)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:29 | 2578479 Doña K
Doña K's picture

Your point of view is not off the wall and the anger is visible. Most people including me did not like the decision, but some of us chose to look at the positive side and perhaps find the blessing-in-disguise somewhere instead of second guessing Roberts.

mnewn' comment below about politicians taxing and politicians replaced is indeed another message as well. Perhaps the future will tell.

Just wait and see what happens in 2014 or better yet late this year, with this monster of a bill and then we can reconvene this discussion.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:46 | 2575141 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The percentage of Americans who expressly state that they are supporters of the Tea Party movement is currently about as large at 22 percent of the population as the 21 percent who say they are liberals, according to Gallup polls.

41 percent of the population, according to Gallup, self-described as conservatives and outnumber both Tea Party movement supporters and liberals by nearly 2-to-1.

I would argue that the TP are the only ones truly engaging with each other, and they definitely ARE doing something.

Liberals are over-represented in the MSM which is now the official propaganda arm of the DNC. It’s all an illusion, I predict they will take another beating in the 2012 elections. It’s time for all patriots to put small differences aside and join forces.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:50 | 2575152 Oracle of Kypseli
Oracle of Kypseli's picture

Additionally, most if not all, Tea Party people vote. With your rational, they should whip O"bumm's bum. 

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:56 | 2575170 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture


Fri, 06/29/2012 - 22:18 | 2575276 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

BS! Diebold is the Democrat's talking point when they lose or are about to lose an election. They just can’t wrap their heads around the fact that the majority of people don’t agree with them.  You'll never hear a Lib say Diebold was responsible for Obama’s Win.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:41 | 2575432 General Decline
General Decline's picture


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 02:37 | 2575500 putaipan
putaipan's picture

quite possibly the heartiest laugh i've ever had at a double post....

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:53 | 2576306 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"You'll never hear a Lib say Diebold was responsible for Obama’s Win."

Because they know it was outright voter fraud.

When Mikey Mouse & OBL appear as "campaign contributors" AND THE MONEY IS ACCEPTED and ACORN is signing up anyone with a pulse (and not) multiple times under different names, its a little more than

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 02:44 | 2575502 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Sadly about half of the tea party people are of he glenn beck variety. Pro Israel, "don't like what I don't like" faux libertarian types. I mean beck supported sanatorum. If you dont already know beck is a pied piper who attacks any real liberty candidates and touts corrupted bullshit fake liberty candidates.

In short 50% of tea party people are still for big government they like or too dumb to see trough lies.

I was 100% tea party, but with rands support of romney the tea party looks to be a 100% failure. Hell they all voted for the NDAA.

I do like Walter jones and hope rand turns around.

P.s WE CAN NoT fix this by using the system that is already owned and corrupted.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:25 | 2576330 knukles
knukles's picture

I respectfully disagree.
Glenn Beck is not a Tea Partier.
Neither is Sarah Palin, et al.
That's a fiction of the left and MSM to slander the T's
A myth of the right to absorb the T's

The T's are Ron Paul types closest of all ideologically to the historical vein of the Olde Fashioned Western Conservatism of Barry Goldwater.  They are closer to "Libertarians" who again have been maligned for political expediency.

It's getting difficult to categorize people.
My pals know me as a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
Whatever the fuck that means.
But it captures the flag so to speak and I identify with the T's.
NOT Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin... they're useful tools to piss off the liberals, which is funner than a fat tick on a lazy dog in heat.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:05 | 2576538 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Tea Partiers are not uniform.  The binding tie in my view is that they are fiscal conservatives.  But some are social liberals (or "strong personal freedom" in libertarian-speak) and some are social conservatives (like Palin, etc.).  So there is some bandwidth in the Tea Party.  So many in the Tea Party are supportive of Palin, O'Donnell, etc. and many are supportive of Paul and his ilk.  In any case, the TP is it definitely not the Republican party, as the main stream wishes it was.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:19 | 2577557 knukles
knukles's picture

I hear you loud and clear, MK and thanks for the thoughts..
Where I differ with the characterization (And God is it getting Harder to put a Label on Anyone or Anything these days.) is that where one might be a fiscal conservative (In my view a necessity for a T.) if social conservatism is accompanied, I view the individual more as a neo-con. 
Methinks the more "pure" incarnation of a T is the fiscal conservatism and social liberalism thereby propagating a small central governmental authority, a la the old fashioned western conservatism of, for example, Barry Goldwater.
The thought being that which is necessary and proper (Yes, as in the Constitutional Clause) mandating a retention of Federal Powers inside those strictly enumerated within the document.  Which social conservatism remains at odds with, ie, it's not the gubamint's role to legislate morals, ethics, character, etc.

(I'd refer one to the Federalist Papers, specifically #'s 84, regarding the Bill of Rights and enumerated powers, #'s 33 and 45 regarding the reach of the Commerce Clause.  Yes, I see it as a matter of limitation in it's entirety, of the Leviathan state.)

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 07:21 | 2575951 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

The two party system will not give us a real choice for president.  It is crucial that we get strict constructionalists  judges on the court.  We can go after congressmen. Vote all the incumbents out.  Pick independents and third party candidates when you can.  Break up the oyster and campaign club on the Potomac.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 01:34 | 2578098 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

Roberts was a "strict constructionalist', and the Jews got to him. With DC completely kosher and, in state after state, the tax-and-debt consuming socialist wolves increasingly outnumbering the tax-paying capitalist sheep, I'd says this "elections" thing has about run its course. Think of something else.     

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 23:17 | 2575338 TicoTiger
TicoTiger's picture

Excellent question. Thanks much for asking it. There are many very intelligent and informed people here, but Zero Hedge may indeed be just another safety valve (intentional or not) which helps prevent meaningful action. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 03:35 | 2575515 AUD
AUD's picture

bitch club?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:32 | 2576431 knukles
knukles's picture

Guess what happened in Egypt several years ago during that "faux" Arab Spring horseshit?

The moment the powers shut down the social media, the people had to step outside their doors and chat face to face with other people to remain in communication. 
What happens when angry people leave their computer screens and sodas to go out in the streets to talk to other people about shit they're really pissed off about?
They get angry
Aand when they get angry in a crowd, they break shit
And when enough of them break enough shit, social order breaks down
And when social order breaks down big time, governments get replaced.
Don't close down social media or your government might get replaced.

Think about it.
Makes all the sense in the world.....

Social media is the opiate of the masses.TM

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 07:18 | 2575940 LULZBank
LULZBank's picture


Well said!

This is also my litmus test for the "programs" and their purposes. Information is good, but information not acted upon is useless. Knowledge is Power, they teach us, ofcourse, but they need Police with guns, TSA and a whole military industrial complex.

Also the fascination of ZH being acknowledged by the MSM, seems like an underdog looking for a pat on the head from the masters. Not a "Leader" with balls who knows who he is.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:43 | 2576279 flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>Is it an outlet for those who are libertarian minded and logical thinkers.<<<


Seriosly, you think THAT is what is going on here???


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 21:31 | 2577876 ebear
ebear's picture

Guards!  Seize him!

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:29 | 2575210 e_goldstein
e_goldstein's picture

Copyright ABC media. Sometimes it pays to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:40 | 2575225 CH1
CH1's picture

ZH a psyop?

ZH is about the worst possible thing for a ruling type.

Ruling humans requires the subversion of their will. ZH is a place where people reclaim theirs.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 22:37 | 2575295 e_goldstein
e_goldstein's picture

Ever hear the term "controlled opposition?"
If not, ask Ron Paul, Alex Jones, et al.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 07:29 | 2575980 LULZBank
LULZBank's picture

Sometimes its not even about just people but also "circumstances"which can change any time.

A tired Warrior of Truth, who feels he has not achieved "his rightful place" in the human history and the glory he was expecting and always wanted, is then offered an amicable compromise.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:42 | 2575227 dlc
dlc's picture

Cypher is dead.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 06:29 | 2575756 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Can't get more ignorant/blissful than that!

Dharma: Who is truly happy?  What is the greatest wonder?  What is the path?  And what is the news?

Yudhishthira:  He who has no debts is truly happy.  Day after day countless people die.  Yet the living wish to live forever.  O Lord, what can be a greater wonder?  Argument leads to no certain conclusion, the Srutis are different from one another; there is not even one Rishi whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about Dharma and duty is hid in caves of our heart: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod.  This world full of ignorance is like a pan.  The sun is fire, the days and nights are fuel. The months and the seasons constitute the wooden ladle.  Time is the cook that is cooking all creatures in that pan (with such aids); this is the news.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 23:08 | 2575328 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

If you have not wondered that your not thinking..

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 23:19 | 2575341 graneros
graneros's picture

Psychops? Would that be dinner at the annual therapists convention?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:35 | 2576244 Pee Wee
Pee Wee's picture

I would submit that ZH is the common sense equivilent of MERS.

Other than stated goals and processing, no one knows hardly a thing about "Tyler."

There is gain, and a lot of it going somewhere...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:30 | 2576667 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

ZH is increasingly something to do, for the unemployed FauxNews wackos.

Check the times of most of these posts; you only hear reasoned arguments, and hear from liberals, on eves/weekends. 

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:22 | 2575000 taniquetil
taniquetil's picture

It'd probably be best to keep quiet about the money you won in your bet. Uncle Sam's gonna come for it.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:25 | 2575008 PSEUDOLOGOI

Hope you bet a silver dollar

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:30 | 2575024 Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

John Roberts is either a traitor or a drug addled fool. Hope he burns in Hell for eternity ( if I believed in the conventional idea of "hell", which I do not, but wish there were just for this prick, and Bernanke, and Choomboy, and Pelosi, and a few hundred others).

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:55 | 2575071 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

I just figured he made his decisions via a consultation with the Rock Scissors Paper Robot.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:11 | 2575091 Precious
Precious's picture

Maybe he just figures that there will be 1000 chances after Obama and his Chicago punks are gone from the White House that the Supreme Court will have a chance to take the wrecking ball to this piece of DC lobbiest shit.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:51 | 2575245 Real Estate Geek
Real Estate Geek's picture

He did kind of stomp on the commerce clause . . .

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 23:55 | 2575374 Waffen
Waffen's picture

I would bet that he like most in powerful positions is compromised. You vote this way or (we release those pics of you with a child prostitute) else.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 07:23 | 2575956 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

Don't forget he voted for your right to own an AK 47.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:37 | 2575033 ugmug
ugmug's picture




Now the Supreme Court has hijacked that saying and it now reads - "Give me your convoluted, your poorly written legislation, your huddled masses of lobbyists yearning to breathe the foul air of political expediency, the wretched refuse of incumbents pouring from teeming sewers. Send these, the big government politicians, unapologetic of their greed to me, I will shut my eyes as they make off with the golden door."

Sadly, The Statue of Liberty has become the Statute of Political Expediency.



Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:41 | 2575045 lotusblue
lotusblue's picture

Bla,Bla,Bla.We now have at least some form of medical care for a larger proportion.

This is a good thing.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:46 | 2575056 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

You say that, chiefly because you heard that somewhere so essentially you're repeating a meme.

But if you closely read the legislation, written by and for the health insurance industry, you'll see they've structured it in such a way that the "good" portions can be defunded, while leaving in the mandate to purchase, the precursor to the privatization of taxation.

Primarily, this increases the privatization of health insurance, pumping more monies to the health insurance industry (owned by the banksters) which they will then use to further their own psychotic aims, still without any real oversight.

I wish you were right, but we've been observing the slide downwards and downwards, my friend.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:09 | 2575086 Precious
Precious's picture

Bend over and enjoy your medical care, loser.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:11 | 2575188 Ricky Bobby
Ricky Bobby's picture


and you know what FUCKHEAD labotomies are going to be free, but in your case that would be a waste of money.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:41 | 2575229 CH1
CH1's picture


My, what a pretty defense of thievery!

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 22:51 | 2575309 e_goldstein
e_goldstein's picture

It''s (probably over educated) morons like yourself who doomed us all. At least Mao got one thing right.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:07 | 2575048 q99x2
q99x2's picture


Fri, 06/29/2012 - 19:47 | 2575050 Landotfree
Landotfree's picture

It was the correct ruling people, the question should not be if they can tax you additional for not conforming which they already do if you do not contribute to say IRA, 401k, etc.  Your rights come from God, not from the government, one should be asking why they fall within the IRC to start with.   The Supreme Court ruled correctly but the ruling has nothing to do with me.   The States can withdraw from all the agreements that allow the US government to canvas the State to collect forms.   


“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide forgranting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.

But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.

[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]

Long v Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) stated at 238: “The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor the object of the revenue laws….”

Who are these non-taxpayers?



Sun, 07/01/2012 - 01:46 | 2578111 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

All Talmudic, meaningless BS. What Roberts and the 4 RedJews did was: LEGALIZE OBAMACARE. Truly, the neo-conz are out in force.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:10 | 2575088 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Once State's opt-out, good-bye government gravy train.



First, lift walnut shell. Next, create a diversion. Lastly, when no one is looking.. quickly move new taxed pea under walnut shell. Begin shaking hands and pointing to obscure objects behind audience. Slip taxed assessed value pea into your pocket. Redirect audience back to the walnut shell. Lift shell, proclaim money is needed, thru your donations in helping the cause.  

Shell games never end, until the money runs dry.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:26 | 2575101 RichardP
RichardP's picture

... Congress can force the public to purchase a good or service ...

A casual reading of Justice Roberts' opinion shows that he concluded the exact opposite - the Federal government has no constitutional authority to force anyone to purchase a product.  But Roberts did conclude that two points are true: 1.) Congress and the Administration have the constitutional authority to create programs (e.g., insurance exchanges) and 2.) they have the authority to tax.

Putting the two together, Roberts found that the Federal government can put together a program and then tax those who choose to not use the program.  You might think this is splitting hairs, but this an activity entirely different from forcing someone to buy a product.  No one has to buy the product; they will just be taxed differently if they don't.  This is exactly the same process as taxing someone who buys a house differently than one who does not buy a house.  The Federal government cannot force anyone to buy a house.  But they certainly can tax those who don't buy one differently.

The government has long pursued social aims through differentiation in the tax code.  The taxing activity surrounding the Affordable Care Act is just another example of this process.

The problem with this logic is that all bills that levy a tax must originate in the House.  The Affordable Care Act did not.  So - Roberts' logic has plenty of precedent to support it - the government can create programs and differentiate in the way it taxes citizens.  But he has a problem with the fact that this tax, if it is to be called one, did not originate as the Constitution says it must.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:31 | 2575119 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

There is also the issue of what kind of tax it is, legally.  It almost has to be a "direct tax" but direct taxes have to be imposed evenly.  This tax is not.  Roberts dodged the issue.

The installation of Bush by the Supreme Court was the first shock for many.  Justice? It's all about power and who has it.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:55 | 2575247 The Navigator
The Navigator's picture

I heard today (I think on Rush's show) that the Senate took a bill that the House had passed to them, gutted the whole thing and renamed it, and voila, the POS ObamaCareTax bill - thus this so-called bill did originate in the House.

The corruption is so vast and overwhelming, even the guys that play professionaly (the good Congress Critters) can't compete with the truly evil bastards in gov't that work their brains overtime scheming to fuck over Americans for the benefit of their masters.

Sometimes I wish I had taken the blue pill - too late now.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 01:50 | 2578113 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

"U might think this is splitting hairs...". Yes, pure Talmudic sophistry. Obama/Roberts said: buy the product. Even if U don't, U get to pay for it anyway. Or else. That's called Communism, U nitwit.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:21 | 2575104 Tony Rumjog
Tony Rumjog's picture

One wing of the Ruling Party had a victory over the other wing. The train is still going to the same place.

Swipe yo EBT!

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:23 | 2575108 spiral galaxy
spiral galaxy's picture

It's all about positioning your party to grab 18 percent of the U.S. economy.  I.e., All political all the time!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:11 | 2576363 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Have you noticed that Jonny Depp has just grabbed 100% of Amber Heard.

No its not a part of NZ sheep farm, its name of blond headed woman.

WHat impact will that have on prenuptial natural law?

How many times of repeat consumption makes this into long term investment ?

Meet Johnny Depp's new girlfriend - Entertainment - NZ Herald News

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:30 | 2575113 RonBurgundy
RonBurgundy's picture

Post Kantians, which all Austrians are, know nothing of the "natural law", willfully. This article is an absurdity--that inherent positivists can critique a blatantly illegitimate law on the basis of a prior positivism. Natural law is based in the nature of man--that his laws must reference his author, God, and God definition of man. Obama's law, and Roberts asinine defense of it, are against the natural law, but not in any way that a Kantian Austrian could comprehend.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:56 | 2575169 Itgoestoeleven
Itgoestoeleven's picture

Please disregard Ron Burgundy. For Christ sake. it is Ron Burgundy talking!

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:24 | 2575192 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

If RB is Dave from Denver (everyone from old TICE Prubear site ending up here?) you'll be amused to know one of my grandmothers is a direct descendent of John Locke.  LOL.  He also wrote the constitution for the colony of South Carolina, for his 'patron' the Earl of Shaftsbury - one of the most brutal places in world history.  So much for lofty ideals.  Granny was a peach, though.

Roberts kicked ass - deal with it.  BTW, he vacations up in my neck of the woods at Port Clyde (and apparentlly passes out from time to time, bouncing his head off the granite)  just around the corner from where Matt Simmons "drowned naturally" in his hottub.  My nephews probably bang his baby sitter, when they're not in jail. 

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:59 | 2575255 The Navigator
The Navigator's picture

Proof that it doesn't take many generations to go from great thinkers to lobotomized shit heads.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:42 | 2575435 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

I don't see how Austrians could be considered legal (or moral) positivists, care to explain how you reached this conclusion?

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:32 | 2575121 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

I'm sorry to see so many people disappointed by this.  It has to be this way.  You who are disappointed -- you still believe, or still want to believe in the Holy State.  Men in black robes, men in business suits, men on TV.  What is happening now won't be over until that belief is washed out of you -- washed out of our species.

The people who started this country took us one step toward freedom, with self-rule through representative democracy, instead of the rule of lordly criminals in fine clothes, carrying arms and telling you that you cannot. 

What has happened in the last few years should make it clear to anyone who is paying attention that the idea of democracy has been penetrated and subverted by the regressives, by the people who want to keep us as their cattle as they have for so long.

America led the way before, and now it will lead the way again.  In the time that is coming, we will show the world how there can be a country without a government, as we once showed the world how there can be a country without a king.

In the time that is coming, we do not need representatives who can be bought and controlled by the beasts who rule us.  We do not need 'government' to tell us what we can and cannot do.  We will have free-market courts that interpret natural law, and the will of the polity, expressed directly.

The age of Pisces is passing, and the age of Aquarius is dawning.  You can't be the fish, swimming in water any more.  Now you are the humans, who have to carry the water. 

Stand up, little fish.



Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:37 | 2575129 Atomizer
Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:44 | 2575237 RichardP
RichardP's picture


But we do need food to eat, water to drink, clothes to wear, shelter, and transportation.  Since the government controls the production of all of these (through safety laws, if in no other way), you are naive if you think you don't need the government.  If the government shuts down the production of any of these, or denies you access to any of them, your life will be seriously constrained.  The government can easily make you come around to its way of thinking, simply by denying you access to any of the aforementioned items.

Escape the government's influence by going off into the forest to live off of the land by your own wits and effort.  Think that one through and you will conclude it will be a lonely and weary existance.  Oh, wait ... you can't even do that - since the government won't let you have an axe or a saw to fell the trees or a plow in order to plow the ground, or seeds to plant.  Oops.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:03 | 2575380 The Navigator
The Navigator's picture

I see what you're saying - if the govt shuts off the water to a neighborhood and then tells those there "there's plenty of water in our FEMA camps, get on the bus", 90% will jump on the bus.

So yes, many depend on the govt for food, water, and shelter - but some others have other options or abilities and don't need or want anything the govt has to offer.

"a lonely and weary existance" but free of statists telling you, you must buy a product/service.

RIP USA: 1776-2012

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:48 | 2575242 Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

PS Micky, it's the placing of "democratic" above Republic/laws that created this.  Democracy is just another name for mob rule.  Read the Federalist Paper sport.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 08:47 | 2576273 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Mike's message goes to the words and actions of the founders at the time of the Revolution, Declaration of Independence, States' constitutions and Articles of Confederation. And he's right.

The question of representative democracy - and its immediate subversion of the Republic - only came into the picture many years later with all the negotiations and compromises that finally led to a Constitution. There were many British royalists among those who drafted the Constitution - Alexander Hamilton being the most prominent and devious of them.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:52 | 2577163 machineh
machineh's picture

'the age of Aquarius is dawning'

Yah, that's what they told me around 1968. Then the War on Drugs started in 1970.

The age of Aquarius turned out to be a damp squib, if not an outright fraud.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 01:56 | 2578114 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

Let's see..when was CF born....hmmmm...8 February. Nice!

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:44 | 2575138 blindman
blindman's picture

@.."They don’t realize that the under supply of doctors and care providers is a direct consequence of previous government intervention and occupational licensing. "
. or ...
is a direct result of debt = fiat money = economic
career decisions based on financialization of
physical elements, as in zombie transfiguration
so.. let us sell pet rocks, rr...r...etc.... how many ways can it be
said before it is embraced? you tell me,..
doctors, potential, leave the field because there
is no way to pay for their training once they recieve
it, which is torture and pharma zombie mind and
practice control; enter obamination. we need not mention fuck the patient,
they would suffer and die either way. "good" for themus.
you do not see because you do not see. see? no !
of course not. it would be .... just wrong..
to see.
let them eat morphine, iv. and debt fictitious
eternal, ahhhhh men.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:54 | 2575159 Irwin Fletcher
Irwin Fletcher's picture

For centuries natural Law has been used as a philosophical justification for slavery or conquest, because worship of the Natural Lawyers' god was seen as a principle of human conduct that is discoverable by reason. Now, not paying for health insurance is seen as a principle that, by reason, is morally wrong and detrimental to societal cooperation. Fuck Natural Law. Nobody's interpretation ever seems that natural to me. I prefer Liberty.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:45 | 2575236 CH1
CH1's picture

Your version of natural law is... how shall I say.... WAY off.

Read John Locke.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 22:24 | 2575281 Irwin Fletcher
Irwin Fletcher's picture

As far as I understand (which evidently is way off), Locke was the exception rather than the rule. He favored religious tolerance, and that was pretty unusual at the time. He favored liberty, and not the Hobbes-style kneeling before the state. Natural law for the previous 400 years had been the domain of St Thomas Aquinas, which held that religion was reasonable, and that people who didn't agree with it were unreasonable. But yeah, good call on Locke. Should be required reading in schools.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:19 | 2576620 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Locke also wrote the charter for the colony of South Carolina; one of the most brutal slave states the world has known.  Maybe YOU need to read John Locke.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 20:59 | 2575173 Der Wille Zur Macht
Der Wille Zur Macht's picture

This post is so fucking good. I love getting philosophical. Throw some of John Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government in this bitch and I'll be set.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 22:34 | 2575182 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

WhyTF does a Canadian, who has healthcare anytime he gets a serious illness, feel like he needs to chime in here.  Worth under 300K? In the America, one single serious illness of an uncovered family member will suck you dry.  So fucking blow me, OK, Canuck?  You have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't know much about your source.  John Locke, one of the modern articulators of natural law, also wrote the constitution for the colony of South Carolina - along with Barbados, one of the most brutal slave colonies in human history.  In other words, that should have reminded you that high-minded, abstract ideals need to be considered separately from reality - but apparently you have trouble with that concept.  I mean reality.  Americans pay twice what the rest of the world does for healthcare, due to the bloodsucking AMA and the private insurers.  Over 1/5th of Americans have no coverage - so basically if they get seriously ill, their local municipality and state get to fix them up for free - after we finish draining all their assets.  You have none of those problems, just your noble masturbation about being a free man.  Make sure to wipe off afterwards, OK?

Want to experience natural law for yourself? Renounce your Canadian "nanny state" citizenship, and your right to healthcare.  Get rid of any assets.  Move yourself, and your wife and kids who you love down to America, with nothing for healthcare coverage, when a simple gall bladder removal bills at $30K. Then get back to us on what John Locke has to say, OK? 


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 01:16 | 2575463 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Your argument is backwards, blaming a Canadian for being Canadian and for having "free" healthcare. This is a tu quoque accusation. If anything, it would make more sense to infer that the author opposes Canadian "free" sickcare, and UK "free" sickcare, and all other "free" sickcare, on principle. Beng Canadian does not make him a hypocrite, and using Canadian "free" sickcare would not make him a hypocrite either, as to my knowledge there is (in general) no other option for Canadians.

Now, it seems you are implying that the view he expounds would somehow be more detrimental to the plight of US sickcare patients - something you are keenly aware of but obviously have no understanding of the causes of - than the law in question. That is utterly absurd, although your quite obvious biase explains entirely why you would write such a vitriolic and whiney missive, full of ad hominems but light on substance - unless it's somehow Locke's fault that Barbados, like most of the world, had institutionalized slavery.

PS: A month ago, almost to the day, I had a cholecystectomy and I assure you it did not cost $30,000. The surgery was about $3,500, anaesthesia $1500. Some $30k, eh? The undiagnosed pancreatitis on the other hand cost about $25k all told, as something any sono-tech can confirm in 5 minutes instead required 3 X-rays, a CT, an MRI, a gastroscopy with enteric biopsy, 2 ER visits, 3 sonos, and a miserable week in hospital. But you expect me to believe that will all be a thing of the past when Obombacare reins in those evil insurance companies - the ones who wrote the ***damn thing - you would be simply a pedant with a grudge and a very nasty disappointment on the way.

Stick with what you know - something other than facts.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:17 | 2576594 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

3500 + 1500 + 25K = 30K.  So, you admit it cost you 30K, but it didn't cost you 30K?

You wackos use a unusual kind of math - or more likely are incapable of processing information (aka reality) that doesn't agree with what you hear on FoxNews.

Fri, 06/29/2012 - 21:17 | 2575193 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

It is only going to get worse.....Time to move out of the country..
