There was a man named John who wrote

IN THE BEGINNING

Was THE WORD

and THE WORD was with GOD

and the WORD WAS GOD

He was in the beginning with God
All things came to be through Him
and without Him nothing came to be.

What came to be through Him was LIFE.
and this LIFE was the
 LIGHT of the human race.
The LIGHT shines in the darkness
and the darkness

HAS NOT OVERCOME IT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bonne Nouvelle Selon Jean

Au Commencement LA PAROLE existait deja. LA PAROLE etait avec DIEU et LA PAROLE
etait DIEU. 

Au commencement LA PAROLE etait avec DIEU. 

Par Elle, DIEU a Fait Toutes Choses, et il n'ya rien fait sans Elle. En Elle,

 Il y a LA VIE, et la VIE est LA LUMIERE des etres humains. 

 LA LUMIERE brille dans la nuit,

mais
la nuit ne l'a pas recue.

Station of the Cross

To Start Palm Sunday week-end. The below video is moving, and John Lennon's Vietnam War inspired song appropos and not. The 'Imagine there's no religion' feature would mean that this kid would not be discovered by 'the nuns' in the shoebox as an infant (watch below and you will see what I mean.) But the Peace message always welcome. Nuns are the people tending to orphanages- because of their Faith which translates as their 'religion.' This Friday, as in every Friday of Lent at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew there is a 5:30 Mass followed by Stations of the Cross whereafter a 'simple Lenten meal' is served (bread and soup) benefitting a worthy charity. This Friday it is an orphanage in Peru that helps babies and kids like that below. All are welcome to learn more about it. http://www.villalapazfoundation.org/

Emmanuel Means

God With Us.

And here is a kid named Emmanuel.

The Regulation of Interstate Commerce

Barge Travel down the Susquehanna River.

      In the late 18th century the mode of transporting goods was River Barge and horse drawn vehicles and later trains in the 19th century. As horse drawn vehicles got more expensive the larger they were because the larger the vehicle demanded more horses, River Barge travel was the main method of transporting long distance goods at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
Goods travelled by steam boats and barges up and down all the major rivers and canals in the US. In DC we see the remnants of this in the C&O Canal before the railways were all built in the 19th century.
Google yourself when the rail lines were laid- it wasn't until after the Constitutional Convention.
The Constitutional convention attenders, aka "the founding fathers" wanted to give Congress the power to 'regulate interstate commerce.'  What they had in mind was that someone selling tobacco in Virginia who wished to ship it up the Potomac to Pennsylvania should not be so heavily taxed at the Maryland line  or impeded with a barge locke until they paid such an exhorbitant tax that they went out of business before they got to Pennsylvania. This video describes what barge lockes looked like-its in France but this is what we had here also and you can see remnants of it everywhere:


http://www.hulu.com/watch/105632/rick-steves-europe-burgundy-profoundly-french

     Interstate Commerce regulation had to do with GOODS moving through state lines- not people. It was never intended to speak to regulation of people just because they pass through state borders. It had rather to do with  someone selling apples in New Hampshire trying to take them to farmers market in Faneill Hall, Boston who should not be taxed so heavily at the Massachusetts border that they have to dump them in the pond.  The Yale Law Prof. who makes the argument repeatedly that people lived within a 50 mile radius then so what the founders thought the Commerce Clause meant then has to be updated to mean regulation of people any way congress wants to regulate purchasing is totally absurd. It was not an authorizing statute for the regulation of people, or CONSUMERS but for the benefit of commercial enterprises and on any state, state actor or private enterprise that would impede interstate commerce. 

   To be sure the commerce clause has historically enjoyed expansion in precedential twists and turns but it should not be construed to mean a blanket congressional authorization on all consumer activity. Just not what was intended by the authorizing constitutional principle. There is no such constitutional authorization for congress to regulate individual consumption any way it wishes under whatever common good health and welfare principle it deems worthy.

  Philadelphia was at the time de facto headquarters of the Revolution, George Washington had his encampment on "Misery Mountain" now known as Valley Forge just outside the city. It was a major commercial center because it sat on the Schuykill River which flowed through Delaware south and was a major Port city. It was for a time the Capital of the country prior to Washington, DC for that reason. The founding fathers had in mind River travel and not impeding it because rivers flowed naturally through several states. The commerce clause originally had NOTHING to do with regulation of consumers and the impingements of liberty on such a notion would have shocked them silly.

If Justice Breyer is Right

Centrally Planned Economies work better than a free market.

And here are other things that can be deemed necessary to health and well being of Americans that the government can force you to buy.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035384_Obamacare_Supreme_Court_insurance.html

  Now think of what you would tell every American they need to support interstate commerce if you were President.  On my list would include:

Greek Yogurt- proven to assist longeivity.
Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream-craved by a good percentage of pregnant women.
Pizza  -with vegetables to get kids to eat their vegetables and
Escargot-which done right contain lots of garlic which is a natural antibiotic.

   In fact, I could probably exist on a desert island with just those four food groups (dessert island that is) so this is essential to my health and well being and also aids interstate commerce. So everyone must buy them now. End of Commerce Clause.

What God Will Do

For Your Soul. You just have to let him find you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/blind-dog-fiona-in-trash-rescue_n_1379889.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl17%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D146919

Thanks for sharing Ariana and crew.

The Holy Spirit

told them so.

There are men

Who by reason of dreams, intuition, or faith informed by knowledge of scripture I can not say- who know with as firm a certainty as the fact that the sun will rise in the morning whether you see it or not,  that God sent a unique and only Son of his into our world to raise your soul to new life that will last a time longer than you have capacity to grasp, a time we call eternity or forever, in a place of utter purest indescribable Joy, which Son named Jesus created your soul for this utter purest indescribably Joy- and this is the greatest news you, and all mankind could learn. These men are called Priests. They have given up everything in the world as a witness to you so that you would understand that God loved you so much that he wants you to know of this, because this place of utter purest Joy is with Him.   It is with him, through Him and in Him in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit told them so.

   So please pray for these men- they are messengers appointed for your soul's safe passage.

If you do not know a Priest they can be found at any Catholic Church in America and they want to meet you this Easter.

Insurance Company Executive

Everyone Above Vice President Gets a Second Beach House Act. Is there any S.Ct. briefing on how much profit health insurance companies actually make, their executives pull in, and what their stock dividend profiles look like? Totally obscene. The premise that the insurance companies cannot cover for pre-existing injuries and treat women non discriminatorily unless they make people who will never need the service pay for something they don't use seems unsubstantiated by the record. The whole thing hinges on that premise. Look at actual insurance company profits. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/the-truth-about-health-in_b_863632.html

It's not that they can't- it's that they won't. Because they want to make more money. Obamacare costs more not less. It solves or serves no compelling state interest when Congress could have just as easily said that the insurance companies be non discriminatory as a matter of law, and that they must cover for pre existing injuries (and provide portability and other touted benefits.)

   

My Dead Man Walking Complex

Thank you Justice Alito. I now have a Dead Man Walking Complex wherein I feel guilty that I do not own Burial Insurance and someone in the country is going to die without it. This must be my fault. My not owning burial insurance, when indeed one day I too will inevitably die, must put a cost burden on someone else who didn't have the foresight to buy burial insurance. In fact I must buy it every year because every year someone dies. Just not me necessarily. Or anyone I know. Perhaps the real dead guy didn't have the foresight to purchase it because their relatives were wealthy enough to cover it out of pocket with the yaght and all for the out to sea burial. Perhaps because they too were too young to contemplate death. This must be my fault- or at least I read that the government thinks it so- so I must be made to pay for burial insurance for me, if Justice Breyer gets his way and Congress has the right to make me buy it. Does Congress have the right to make me buy top of the line insurance to cover burial in the most exclusive resort area and cover the marching band that will serenade me into the ground or just the yaght burial at sea package? Or can I just get the quick pine box dump me in the ground version? If I get the pine box version does that guarantee then the shifting of the risk to the unanticipated unloved dead or those whose relatives are stiffing them (forgive the pun.) Please tell me quick because I feel guiltier by the minute for existing in this state of health and well being when there are people dying every day and I assume a good percentage of them didn't make proper preparations because Congress said so.

Free Market Economies, Collateral Damage

And Bartering. The town has 500 people in it. There is a lawyer and a doctor who golf together and have been buddies since college. Once in a while the lawyer goes in for a friendly neighborhood check up with the doctor and in return the friendly neighborhood lawyer gives the doctor free legal advice on general legal and the occassional malpractice claim threats. They worked out a deal and its been working out great for years. Now the Federal Government says that the lawyer must buy insurance with which to pay the doctor for his services or pay the IRS. So now the lawyer doesn't give the doctor free malpracitce advice- and the doctor gets sued- Doctor decides its too expensive now to practice in the small town and retires. Everyone within 50 miles is without their friendly neighborhood doctor. In this town of 500 every third house is owned by someone who runs a small business. It's a real butcher, baker, candlestick maker town. The federal government requires that they all pay out the nose for their health care or pay the IRS. They all decide to move and go work for Wallmart that covers all health benefits. The real estate market tanks in the town which becomes a ghost town putting out of business the local pharmacist, movie theatre, dog groomer, shoe store and real estate company. The Starbucks boards up and moves to Wallmart town. All because of Federal mandated health care at no cost capping under threat of criminal IRS prosecution. Crazy kids.

The RAW DEAL- Insurance Regulation Market

Isn't the Health Care Market. This isn't the New Deal, its the Raw Deal. That was a main point of those arguing against the Health Care mandate. While everyone may need health care, they may not all need insurance. Further the catastrophic policies are not what is being mandated- a minimum coverage package is. Also, if you are hit by a bus in a car your car state mandated insurance might already cover that. So the government is telling you to get something you may never need- forcing you to do it. The guy from West Virginia who runs a sole proprietorship flooring company in a town of 300 people says this will bankrupt him personally. It's like Social Security argued Ginsburg. Except it isn't. Because social security is something paid for over time in a means tested way in percentage proportion to your income from your income/paycheck and gives back to people in a manner proportionate to their giving into the pool after they hit a certain age including the person who paid into it. Chief Justice Roberts made the point that in fact some of what the mandate requires is something that some people will never ever use, like pregnancy or pediatric care. Health insurance buyers may never need the breadth of the insurance or the insurance at all. Some people do die peacefully in their old age- and have little doctors bills up until their death or none that are not already covered under their medicare or medicaid. Further, the health care statute is not saying that the health care mandate costs must be some minor percentage of income. They are imposing an affirmative purchase obligation without a cost cap or definition, and if you don't buy a package of what they say you must minimally have, you are going to be fined and subject to criminal IRS prosecution. Crazy. Justice Breyer sounded like there was no restriction on anything the government wanted to regulate ever given the right circumstances in something that sounded too 'big brotherish' even for the usually liberal allies. The government, he argued, could tell you that you had to buy a cell phone for emergency purposes, or tell you that you had to get a vaccine, or tell you that you had to buy anything if they said it regulated interstate commerce. Buying anything always has a tangential affect on commerce, even interstate, but that is not what the innumerated powers sought to define. I love Justice Breyer usually but here he seems way over the top. The fact that the government was allowed to create a government bank didn't mandate that people had to put so much of their own money into it. There is a huge difference between regulation of contractual relations of people already in a market and making people get into a market. The government can decide that it can regulate for public health the pasturization of milk but can it force everyone to buy a gallon a week to support interstate commerce? That notion, I venture to guess shocks people. That would indeed, as Justice Kennedy suggested at the outset fundamentally alter the relationship between Americans and their federal government in a way that does not bode well for what people call 'liberty', 'freedom' or things Americans love about being Americans. Rationing has been in past justified in war time, to limit purchases of people in a market of things they already purchase. But the government cannot tell people who like Pepsi that they must now all buy gallons of Kefir instead. The question of the limiting principle was asked over and over again. No one has a problem with creating a national health care system where people are taxed for revenues to support a public health system it seems. But forcing people to purchase private products that they don't want or need (and cannot afford) to underwrite a service others do use strikes people as basically really unfair. The argument that we all need health care of some kind at some point is irrelevant to the forced buying of private insurance argument and is a false premise anyway. The argument that everyone who doesn't buy insurance is a deadbeat is wrong. Some people use services that they can afford to pay for as they go along and are covered for catestrophic in part by car insurance. What the statute didn't ever do was challenge the excess and in some cases obscene costs of health care to coddle the providers and drug manufacturers. It is ridiculous that it costs for example $1,000 to get a basic set of chest x-rays- and a huge profit is built into it by way of just one example. Huge profits are built into most health care that the government does not challenge- it just wants to make more people pay for underwriting the exhorbitant services without regulation of any cost structures or even minimal investigation into the excessive nature of these costs. Small business people are going to be put unfairly out of business by this if it is passed. It strikes one as just violative of a basic right to order ones finances and assess ones risks as free agents in a free society. It's not Social Security at all.

Health Care-- kind of

And the Beggar Nation If you cannot afford health care insurance the new health care law, obamacare, has within it a provision where you can go petition HHS for an exemption due to 'hardship.' So some government beurocrat at HHS is going to tell you according to some government regulation whether you can or can not afford to buy health insurance. If you could afford it you would have it now. Can you imagine the nightmare scenarios of people having to go before some agency, taking time out of their day, battling the government over whether they deserve this exemption to be declared by the government a hardship case. Where is the dignity in that? Can you imagine some housewife standing in a government office for lines longer than she has time to wait with a crying baby to explain that the boiler just blew, she needs new tires, she is two months behind on the mortgage and her husband just left her? Seriously. And if she can't convince that guy that she shouldn't refinance her house to pay for insurance (or prove that she already did twice and that still has her in hot water because the house is worth much less than the mortgage debt now and she carries two notes with interest) she gets hit with yet another cost burden that she has to pay to the IRS or the tax man is going after her for CRIMINAL tax evasion. The bill has the potential to turn the working poor into criminals. Although I can see this being the solution to what we do with unemployed attorneys looking for pro bono work as armies of lawyers will be needed just like in the SSI context to help that category of people who are the one tenth percent now in mortgage foreclosure proceedings because they can't afford their mortgages, this law is a bad law. Also in the SSI case there will not be enough pro bono lawyers to address all the crying shame wrong decisions of the government beurocrat. The law doesn't address the most major issue- cost of health care. That was the problem. This is not the solution. If the government is forcing you to buy something unaffordable or get hit with some other cost burden, the government is not helping. The 45 or so million without insurance who motivated the rational behind the act likely overlap with the ten percent whose houses are in foreclosure proceedings. If they cannot afford it, making them buy it is like saying "just buy a house stupid" to the homeless. There are other things that don't add up in this 'too unintelligible to be enforceable as arbitrary' act. It should in whole or part be sent back to the Congressional drawing board. Whether the Constitutional challenge or an election will do that is up in the air- but the act is bad enough that it is motivating a huge segment of the population to 'pray for relief.' Nice effort though.

Honor, another word for Respect? Women sitting in dungeons

Romney Says Mormonism Is A Fraud

Park Romney that is- Mitt's Second Cousin. Former Mormon High Priest who saw the light and defected. Not polite to talk about it in polite company but it is a cult and one that persecutes apostates. We really don't want that in a President.

What's Wrong When

Forty-One (41) percent of all pregnancies in New York City end up Aborted?

Best Quote of the Day

"I find it hard to think that this is clear" said Scalia as the Supremes puzzled whether the Anti-Injunction Act precluding litigation over tax assessments on jurisdictional grounds until the tax is paid and protested applies to Obamacare. If it does apply Congress can basically attach a penalty that the IRS collects to any ruling for compliance purposes and thus insulate themselves from any challenge until the damage was done and people had to pay for something that might be unconstitutional- So the Parades of Horribles on that line of thinking are unending- Theoretically imagine- Congress passes a law that everyone over the age of 25 has to buy a house at an unstated price and if they don't to support the construction and real estate industry then they must be fined by the IRS, and subject to civil AND CRIMINAL penalties by the IRS for collection purposes. A Penalty or Fine is not a Tax. Clearly.

Counterfeit Religion, Counterfeit Candidate .....In Case You Were Still Wondering

No, Mormonism is not Christianity. That isn't to say some Mormons don't see through their own garbage and are actual Christians. I don't judge. But Mormonism is not Christianity. To be a Mormon missionary, and a Bishop who gives piles of money to the church, one assumes absent a disclaimer that you believe in the tenets of the faith you profess. Mitt doesn't want to distance himself at all from his Faith. He is a big Mormom. A Jewish friend was confused. 'But aren't they called the church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints?' Yes, but I can call myself a Surgeon and it doesn't make me one. Even satanists call themselves the Church of Satan. You have to look at what they believe and what their belief structure is founded on- and if you do that, I guarantee that you will discover that the Jesus they claim is Jesus, isn't the authentic historic one that Christians believe in. Christians believe in the consubstantiation of Jesus and God in a Trinity as not defeating monotheism- Mormons do not. They made up a lot of zooey nonsense about where Jesus appeared after the resurection and a lot of crazy totally fictitious populations in central america that are really Jews (don't laugh) that sound like old testament people but aren't. A kid with a fertile imagination who would be a game boy addict if he were born in modern times in the 19th century named Joseph Smith invented the book of Mormon, and invented names like Lamenites because it sounded like people like Ammonites, Hittites and Jebusites that do exist in the old testament. You can do this too- think of names that end with 'ites' - schruberites, flubites, loserites, scamaramarites. Now imagine they are all fighting each other in battles that you describe like an airport novel. There, you have started the fictional story line of your new religion. Now add a few angels, wierd references to ancient languages that do not exist like 'reformed egyptian' that you can pretend to translate and you have yourself a new religion to con the gullible. Joe Smith was expert at conning the gullible- just look at the Bank he started which invented schemes of securities fraud that would impress MIchael Milken. Joe Smith is a false prophet who would have been stoned if he lived in old testament times. In America he enjoys the status of founder of a billion dollar empire. There are lots of gullible Americans. Counterfeit religions produce counterfeit politicians. Con men. Etch a Sketch moralists. Guys who pretend to be for you when they are not really. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Con Law 101

Least Restrive Means for a Compelling State Interest ... The Obamacare statute is under review by the Supreme Court this week. They have to identify some compelling state interest for the statute and whether it is the LEAST restrictive means of impinging on any constitutional competing rights- no question assisting in the best possible public health is a state interest but is that what it is doing and what are the means applied? Religious Freedom has been identified as one competing right. There may be others. Like the liberty interest generally in forcing anyone to buy something for nothing if they don't need the service. If they were just looking at the HHS authorization for imposing mandates on religious institutions (you would think this is the only thing they are looking at given the hullabaloo) then they would have to find a compelling state interest in providing birth control to all women and whether forcing religious schools to provide advertising to access for it is the least restrictive means. What is the state's interest in controlling births? For everyone?? The state does have an interest in preventing AIDS transmission but the rule doesn't speak to just condoms and oral contraceptions don't prevent AIDS. Does the state have some population control interest? Sure looks like they think they do but they weren't elected for that. Who else thinks that? What are other least restrictive means they could use to stop AIDS transmission? Enter John Stewart. They could provide condoms for free in dispensers in men's rooms paid for by the government. Some government AIDS service delivers boxes of condoms for government dispensers that are required to be placed in men's wash rooms on campus. The school can put a warning on the dispenser stating "The government and the Pope have determined that this prevents the transmission of AIDS but we don't think you should be needing it. If you drive recklessly buckle up for safety-it's the law. Cameras are monitoring who uses this and we will tell your Bishop" or something like that. Or, the machines could be installed next to a confessional with a sign "Before pressing the button please visit the booth to the left." or "Nice Girls don't let men drive drunk, but if you found a nasty mean one, wear a raincoat at your peril." Or- "if you think you are HIV positive get tested to be sure and if you insist on jeopardizing anyone pull the lever and call the school nurse." Obviously if someone knows that they are HIV positive they shouldn't be risking infection of any other student. It seems like with the insurance notification paid for by insurance accommodation they are searching for something least restrictive, however, it doesn't help the self-insurers. There seems to be in the HHS context zero attention paid to the non optional verses optional issue- as in sterilization. Is there a medical necessity clause?? Sterilization is necessary to avoid uterine cancer and death in the form of hysterectomies sometimes. That would be non optional. Having your tubes tied because you don't want more children is optional, not health mandated or necessary. There is obviously no compelling state interest in pushing things that are not medically necessary. Moreover there is no much less a compelling state interest in pushing things that can actually harm your health like oral contraceptions which are high risk drugs that have been identified as carcinogens. Should public health cover or does Obamacare make other people cover for other people's cosmetic surgeries? Nose jobs? Tummy tucks for too many trips to Taco Bell? How will/should the Supremes handle that? What is the compelling state interest in making sure all kids on any campus have the right to morning after pills when they should not have been fooling around in the first place and now know better? Isn't the compelling interest rather on the side of making sure kids know that they shouldn't be fooling around if they don't want to get pregnant? What about mandates in general. You want to cover everyone so everyone has to buy insurance from somewhere whether you can afford to or not or get fined?. It's like car insurance- exept it isn't. Because you cannot option not to drive your body. If car insurance is too expensive and you don't want to pay for it you can option not to drive or own a car. You don't have that option with your body. Non analogous. In a down market you are imposing another onerous cost on people whether they need the service or not. How does the Commerce Clause allow you to do that? If you were allowed to do that why didn't you just demand everyone buy a car instead of the 'cash for clunkers' program to spur on the auto industry? Is making everyone buy insurance the least restrictive means to people's freedom given that public health care likely is a compelling state interest? No, setting up government run clinics would be lesser restrictive-or just providing individual state funded insurance visa or debit cards and state funded insurance (federally funded), where instead of billions to the defense industry the government decided to fund health instead of war. That would be less restrictive than making everyone pony up on top of their tax bills. Some of the features publicized and touted as laudable about Obamacare are admirable indeed- portability, no preexisting conditions or discrimination against women (not sure if I ever had to pay more for any service because I was a woman and not sure what they are talking about) but the affordability isn't addressed when the costs aren't contained. So it didn't solve the major problem there. The question on everyone's mind is if the foundational mandate fails does the whole thing go down? Is it all premised on these mandates to underwrite the actually sick part of the population who need the medical treatment covered? Isnt that just the game to keep the private insurance companies profitable? And then there is that old buggaboo on the Commerce Clause problem- what is the limiting principle. If the government can do that, why can't the government tell you to buy CDs at the local bank to support the banking industry so they don't have to bail it out whether you can afford to or not? If the government can give billions and billions to bail out AIG and GM, why can't it fund medical clinics or just give everyone visas for medical costs, and if you dont need it you won't use it? I believe in public health. This particular method? Too many problems-It might be a good idea to send parts of it back to Congress for better consideration. For the veterans health bills, why don't we make the defense contractors underwrite it because they profited off the wars that disabled and sickened the veterans. While they profited, others lost their health. Just a thought-don't expect it to go anywhere. Can you see Boeing or Lockheed Martin setting up a Veterans' Disability Fund for medical treatments? Fundamentally I think our problem is a values problem where we have no problem paying for war but we have to gimmick the system to make it profitable for someone to pay for health. We don't just want a government dipping into its own coffers for health- but we pay an obscene fortune to defense contractors to fight wars. Public health should be that- not private insurance boondoggles by government rigging. The American people don't always win then. Only a select few do.