There's a thought

According to the UK Observer, huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery. Forty-eight percent of the population would consider supporting a new anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism, and would support policies to make it statutory for all public buildings to fly the flag of St George or the union flag.

And this is not white little England expressing its frustration either:

According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK".

Commenting on the findings, Richard North observes:

[W]hatever the detail of the findings, they do lend support too a suggestion that there is room for a true, mainstream nationalist party. That is perhaps where the true political divide lies. At the moment, all three main parties are tranzie-orientated, which means that the majority of the population are no longer politically represented.

This further suggests that the main political objective must be to recover and rehabilitate nationalism, projecting it as a force for good. It has been tainted by Nazism and Fascism and the tranzies have dined off the disorder ever since.

That, though, was state nationalism. I'm thinking we need people's nationalism.

Is that the answer we have been looking for? Is this what Fjordman has been arguing for and theorizing about all these years?

The notion of a 'grass roots nationalism', as an expression of the will of the people seems to me to be wholly natural. As Dr. North observes, it is when the state abuses that nationalism for its ow ends that disasters happen. But is standing up for your home, you family and friends and your traditions always necessarily a bad thing, as the tranzi machinery and the multi-cultist would have you believe? I don't believe it is.

Dr. North calls it "early days yet, but the germ of an idea is forming. A state run by a nation of people, not a nation of people run by a state. It is a question of who is in charge".

And of course, it is a question of who we let be in charge. We are the people, after all.

Sanity prevailing

In what is hopefully a first step in restoring some sanity in the world, the US House of Representatives have voted to stop funding the IPCC, the UN's climate panel. Via WUWT: House votes to defund IPCC.

From Climate Science Watch , their take on the issue, though a bit political, shows how it is viewed:

Just before 2 a.m. on February 19, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments.

Given the less then stellar quality of the last report by the IPCC, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 for short) this is welcome and completely understandable. Here's hoping more governments will follow suit and finally kill this pseudo-scientific cabal.

[UPDATE001] The Telegraaf (NL) reports that the PVV, in the person of Richard de Mos, will ask state secretary for environment Atsma to follow the American example and stop funding the 'lying' IPCC climate panel. De Mos also asked the government to specify how much tax money has been lavished on the IPCC over bygone years.

A growing epidemic

Halal foods are stealthily converting our daily diets to an islamic approved dhimmi-diet. This is not done by overly-cunning members of the OIC or the Muslim Brotherhood, but by our own food industry before. We touched the issue before, most notably here.

Over on Up Pompeii (thank you, DP111) there's a post shining a light on the truly massive scale to which this 'halal epidemic' has grown in the UK alone. But as we noted before, this is not an issue in isolated countries, this concerns the food industry in all EUnion members.

The Halal market is worth about £1 Trillion per annum and the OIC (organization of Islamic countries) want this to grow especially in the European market, the OIC have approached Turkey to further this cause, why Turkey? well it is the main food producer to the Islamic world and there is still a possibility that Turkey may gain entry into the EU which would facilitate the further spread of Halal products throughout Europe. OIC urges Turkey to take the lead in $1 trillion halal food market

What follows is a truly frightening list of food suppliers, from supermarket products to restaurants, caterers and sandwich and snack manufacturers that have sought, and received, the halal seal of approval.

The post includes the thoughts of Dr. North, who succinctly describes the (bad) choice being made by the industry:

The choice is either to introduce a separate production line or to take the cost-cutting option of having just one production line, Richard North writes. But in this one-size-fits-all world, it’s not the most humane and dignified method of slaughter – the one enshrined in British and EU law – that wins out.

No, the ‘one-size’ is the less humane method of killing tailored to the religious demands of just four per cent of the population. Since it is not illegal to palm off halal meat on non-Muslims, that is being done on a massive scale. And there is nothing the Government or the EU can or will do about it.

Thus, commercial greed has found a way of circumventing a law that we, in our ignorance, expect to be obeyed and that we have a right to see obeyed. We do not expect commercial interests to prevail, on a technicality, over something that many campaigned for – the humane slaughter of our animals. This is not only commercially wrong, morally it is a disgrace.

For years and decades campaigners have strived for a modicum of respect in the process of providing us our daily bread, for humane treatment of animals, up to and including the moment of their death. But when push comes to shove the industry chooses to reduce our civilization, to reduce us as humans and stewards of the animals we keep. And they do so without being upfront about it, without telling us, so we may look for more agreeable alternatives. They have tainted our food and played us for fools. And it is about time we spoke up.

Wilders trial - Day 11

Both Ferdy and I don't have a lot of time to do extensive covering. So I'll give you a quick run-down of today's preliminary session.

As was the case at the start of the first half, the judges ruled against the many witnesses Wilders wants to hear for his defence. The judges said it is not necessary to hear the prospective witnesses. Wafa Sultan and arabists Hans Jansen and Simon Admiraal have already given a deposition. The court feels the other potential witnesses will not add values to the accounts given by these three and so has rejected them.

But in a surprise move, the court did agree (NL) with Geert Wilders to get to the bottom of the now infamous dinner party at which  judge Schalken supposedly tried to influence Hans Jansen, even though the latter was a key witness expected to appear before the court the day after the dinner. The judges ruled that Mr. Schalken, prof. Jansen and the host of the party, Bertus Hendriks, are to be heard.

Mr. Wilders reacted pleased with the courts decision. "Apparently the judge also is of the opinion that what happened at that dinner, was inappropriate". He has announced he will interrogate judge Schalken himself, saying "I am looking forward to it".

The next session will be held on March 14, at which time Bram Moszkowicz will mount the 'preliminary defence', arguing the public prosecutor has no case and the trial should be dismissed. The prosecution will respond two days later. The courts decision with regard to the preliminary defence is expected on March 30.

See also:
Gates of Vienna - Objecting to a Kangaroo Court Proceeding

The crisis and the loss of virtue

Via The Skeptical Doctor, a blog tracking the publications of Theodore Dalrymple, we learn of a speech the good doctor gave at The Iona Institute in Ireland on the subject of the economic crisis there (and throughout the Western world).

It is classic Dalrymple, philosophical and factual, but it stirs the soul and provokes the mind.

I have worked it out from figures published in the Financial Times that the gross foreign debt of Ireland is approximately $486,000 per capita. (Here I must enter a caveat: having become used in the 1980s to billions, we are now being asked to think in trillions, and it is easy to get one’s orders of magnitude wrong with so many zeros in a calculation.)

Let us be generous and suppose that Irish foreign assets are $186,000 per capita; that means that our family of four has a gross foreign debt of $1,200,000. Let us suppose that interest rates are 5 per cent: that meant that the family has to find $60,000, or 40,000 Euros, before it has a cent of income to itself. I leave you to draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind that the average household income in Ireland is about - 35,000 Euros.

Dalrymple blames the crisis on the west on all three parties in it: governments, the financial sector as well as the public. He argues that what these three have in common is the loss of virtue. Prduence and temperance in particular

I am not an economist, or even a businessman; does one, however, really have to be either to know that it might not be a good idea to do what the Northern Rock did, that is to say extend mortgages of 100 and even 125 per cent of the then value of houses, moreover in an area with high structural unemployment and a public sector that accounted for up to three quarters of all economic activity? Does one have to have a Nobel Prize in economics to realise that to build on credit one new house for every six people in the country, as happened in Ireland, might be imprudent? Perhaps, indeed, one needs a Nobel Prize in economics to be able not to understand it.

And temperance, as I have said, went the same way as prudence. Many people, I won’t say all, were seized by the notion that there was no such thing as enough; that the sky was the limit as far as their desires were concerned, and furthermore was within their grasp, and that he who consumed stratospherically was stratospherically happy, or stratospherically more important and clever and wise than he who was content with what he had, or wished only for gradual accretion rather than a rocket-like ascent into that stratosphere.

If you have a little time to kill this weekend, you can read the entire speech here (pdf). I think it well worth it.

No gold for pensionfunds

The Mugambo Guru is (in)famous for consistently advising investors to 'buy lots of gold, silver and oil' as a hedge against the disasters and mishaps that are bound to occur in economies that run on fiat money, like all of the economies of the West. That seems to be utterly sound advice. But what if the state won't let you?

Via Zerohedge we learn that the Dutch central bank, De Nederlandse Bank (DNB) has ordered a pension fund to sell its gold. Zerohedge calls it 'perhaps the most stunning example of what may be in store for asset managers and pension funds (and possibly retail holders) who dare to challenge central bank monetary authority'.

The story in a nutshell: the glassworkers pension fund (SPVG) was ordered by De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB, or the equivalent of the Dutch central bank), that it has to sell the bulk of its gold assets. After the SPVG refused to comply with the order, the DNB went to court and the decision has come out, siding with the central bank, ordering the SPVG to sell the required gold within two months.

The pension fund, which invests for 1142 employees, in late 2009 had gold bars worth 34.6 million euros, or about 1400 kilograms. The total fund assets amounted to 288 million euros at that time. The DNB argued gold is a commodity and holding 13 percent was overweight in comparison to the 2.7% average that pension funds are invested in commodities. DNB has found that such a large proportion of gold is inconsistent with the interests of the participants. SPVG sees gold as a medium of exchange, such as euros, but DNB believes that the price of gold fluctuates too much for it to be classified as an investment.

Tyler Durden of ZH puts things in more plain language:

The central bank has now directly ordered a fund how to allocate its gold assets, because it explicitly disagreed with the fund's statement that gold is money, claiming instead that it is nothing but a very volatile commodity. Very soon no pension funds in the Netherlands will be allowed to hold any amount of gold more than the merely nominal. This latest gold confiscation equivalent event is most certainly coming to a banana republic near you.

The ruling is up on page II of KV (NL).

This is not just some arcane bit of economic news. This is a rather draconian intervention by the state in the private dealings and investments of a private pension fund. This should be all over the the news. But the only Dutch outlet carrying the news is RTL-Z quoting Het Financieele Dagblad (NL). Where the hell is out media?

And what, pray tell, is the point, the real point of the DNB seeking this ruling?

[Instant Update] On a related note, could this be why the government is making such a flap about the aging population: Dutch Politicians Plundered ABP State Pension Fund To Pay For Their Promises.

Geert Wilders: The Lights Are Going Out All Over Europe - video

Via Gates of Vienna. h/t Ferdy.

Wilders Trial - Day 10

Today was the first day of the second half of the Wilders trial. Today's session was a preliminary session, in which both sides could explain to the court how they would like to proceed. DutchNews.nl gives a short brief with the key points.

Wilders' lawyer Bram Moszkowicz said he wanted to start the whole process from scratch. The public prosecution department said it is not in favour of going right back to the beginning but would agree to the defence's wishes. After a bit of back and forth the prosecution agreed to hear judge Schalken, but only behind closed doors, without cameras. To the surprise of one of the judges (!) it was revealed that Schalken in not a suspect in the case brought against him by Wilders.

The most powerful moment came when Geert Wilders took the word and gave what probably will be known henceforth as the 'All over Europe the lights are going out'-speech. Ferdy sent me a transcript. I made a quick translation, including the presiding judges remarks at the end.

One thing to explain: The 'preliminary defence' referred to at the end is the plea that argues that the prosecutors don't have grounds for prosecution. This is based on some technical legal stuff I admittedly only half understand. But as I understand it, it amounts to an argument that what Wilders is accused of falls outside of the scope of the articles of law under which he has been charged. Additionally, given Wilders' status as an MP the Amsterdam court does not have the authority to hear the case against Wilders. Hence the court should summarily reject the case.

Obviously that is not the same as being acquitted. But it would be a vindication nonetheless, because it would mean that the case Geert Wilders was without grounds, in a legal sense, to begin with.

Anyway, here's my translation of Ferdy's transcript:

Geert Wilders - All over Europe the Lights Are Going Out.

President, members of the court,

Lights are fading out all over Europe. Everywhere on the continent where our civilization flourished and where man created liberty, prosperity and culture,
Everywhere the foundation of the West is under fire. Everywhere in Europe the elites act as the defenders of an ideology that has been out for our destruction for over 14 centuries

(Plaintiff: Mr. president, may I leave the room?)
(Judge presiding: You may leave the room if you do so quietly)

An ideology that originates from the desert and one that can only produce deserts, because it doesn't allow man to be free. The islamic Mozart, the islamic Gerard Reve, the islamic Bill Gates, they do not exist, because there can be no creativity without liberty.

And I believe, with everything I have in me, that Islam is an ideology that distinguishes itself in murder and manslaughter only, that only brings forth societies that are backward and impoverished. And strangely, those same elites won't tolerate any negative word about this ideology.

My trial is not an isolated incident. Only the ignorant think it is.

Throughout Europe, not just in the Netherlands, but in Europe as a whole, multiculturalist elites are fighting a total war against their people, with continuing mass immigration and islamisation at stake, ultimately resulting in an Islamic Europe. A Europe without liberty. Eurabia.

All over Europe the lights are going out.
Who thinks and speaks independently, is in danger, freedom loving citizens that criticize islam or even only dare to suggest there is a correlation between Islam and criminality or, for instance, honour revenge, pay a bitter price. And are threatened, persecuted and criminalized. He who speaks, who speaks the truth, is in danger.

All over Europe the lights are going out.
Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at the ready, looking out for thought-crime everywhere. Everywhere looking to throw the people back within the lines within which they are supposed to think.

This trial, Mr. president, members of the court, is hence not just about me.
It is about something much bigger. Freedom of opinion is not the property of the accidental elite of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birth right of the Dutch people as well. Centuries have been spent fighting for it and now it is about to be sacrifices to accommodate a totalitarian ideology.

Future generations will watch, and look back on this trial, and wonder who was on the good side and who wasn't. Who stood for liberty and who wanted to sell out liberty.

All over Europe the lights are going out.
Everywhere our liberty is being curtailed. That is why I will close with the words I also spoke last year during the first session. It is not only the right, but also the duty of free people, to speak out against any ideology that threatens our liberty.

It is hence a right as well as a duty, my right and my duty as a member of parliament as well, to speak the truth about the malignant ideology that is Islam.
I hope the freedom of opinion will be victorious in this trial, I hope not only that I will be acquitted, but above all that the freedom of opinion of so many Dutch and so many Europeans, will continue to exist.
Thank you.

Judge: May we receive a copy of your epistle?
Wilders: Yes.
Judge: The clerk will come and get it. I would like to put the following to you, Mr Wilders. Having heard this, you are somewhat banging on about the fact that you prefer an acquittal. Did I understand that correctly?
Wilders: Certainly.
Judge: If a preliminary defence of yours would be successful, there will be no acquittal.
Lawyer: I've have talked about this with my client, Mr president.
Judge: I'm just putting it to you. I would like to leave him in a good position.
Lawyer: This must be clear, I have spoken about this with my client. You are right to point out, that when you conduct a preliminary defence, and it is honoured as well...
Judge: Could be
Lawyer: ... and it is honoured as well, it could be, we would not get to the underlying reasons why prosecution was ordered. Mr. Wilders knows this, and has chosen, consulting with me, to follow the legal way. If it is not honoured we will get to the underlying reasons, and then he would very much like an acquittal. In other words, I hope the preliminary defences will succeed. But should they not succeed I am counting on an acquittal.
Judge: Alright, I thought it would be good to get this clear. Just so that we know where we all stand exactly.

Court will be reconvened next Monday, February 14, 10:00 local, at which time dates will be set for the actual trial sessions.

Sunday linkage

Only one link for this instalment of Sunday Linkage. That is because it is a must-read. It is this Sundays column by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph about the hardly noticed but fundamentally different way in which we are governed today as compared to as recent as the early nineties.

Inevitably the column deals with the situation as it applies in the UK. But the issues highlighted are equally valid for the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and all those other EUnion member states:

All this amounted to a mutation in the nature of our governance. And the consequence is that we are now ruled by a vast maze of bureaucratic structures, not answerable to Parliament, operating at every level, from Brussels down to the town halls and a plethora of executive agencies. The power of elected politicians at all levels of government has been immeasurably diminished – which is one reason why they are now held in such contempt by the public.

The dead hand of this system now stretches into almost every area of life, not just sapping businesses but exercising its grip over the NHS, the education system, the police and much more besides. And the most striking thing about this new presence in our lives is how it lives by its own peculiar values, talking only in its own stultifying jargon, unable to relate to the real world. Common sense, like democratic accountability, has gone out of the window.

The system damages all it touches, which is why it lands us with one disaster after another, from the pointless destruction of billions of fish to the shambles it has made of our rubbish collection; from the skewing of our energy policy in favour of useless windmills to the way our family courts have turned every principle of justice on its head to allow politically correct social workers to seize children from loving parents.

The system’s one success has been to seal itself off from the rest of us, so there is virtually nothing we can do about it, other than pour in ever more money through our taxes to keep it in being.

Go on over and read the whole thing. No, really!

Bears repeating

About a year and a half ago we flagged up a book by Sam Solomon. At the time we described it as 'Another book you won't find on any shelf in Europe'. The book is entitled ' Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration', which would immediately explain why we thought it anathema to European bookstores. And as far as I am aware that assessment was right.

So why drag it up?

Well, I think we may be entering the decisive phase of this first battle in what Samuel Huntington predicted to be the 'Clash of Civilizations'. Around Europe the problems with unfettered immigration, especially from muslim quarters is now undeniable and more and more generally accepted.

As recent as only a few years ago this would have been unthinkable, but despite the policor pressures in civil society, more and more people are starting to notice that reality does not exactly resemble the paradisical image projected by the multi-cult. The small example we pointed out a few days ago is but a small instance of reality biting.

Europe News published a review of the Solomon book over Christmas: The profound problem of Muslim immigration. It succinctly touches upon the problems that Solomon explains in his book and sheds a considerable light on the corrosive effects of islam in out society.

However, more important than the flagship violent jihad is the so-called 'Stealth Jihad', where Islamic law (Shariah) is quietly being implemented in our societies, usually in seemingly benign aspects of life, but leading to a constant affirmation of Islamic identity being more important to Muslims than honest integration in the host societies. Sam Solomon quotes extensively from scripture and interpretation, pointing out how Islam in itself constitutes a barrier to integration.

Remember the stealth force feeding of halal foods?

Solomon argues that immigration is a tactic in the hands of those that want to conquer the world for islam. A tactic ordered by muslim sacred texts.

This first and foremost means the life and conduct of Muhammad, the perfect example for the pious Muslim even today. The authority of Muhammad is absolute in Islam, be it in form of Quranic commands or the examples of conduct recorded in hadith collections, known in Islam as the 'Sunna'. Hijra, immigration, was a key element in Muhammads takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina.
Unfortunately, the concept of Hijra is not limited in time or space to 7th century Arabia. The command as given is absolute, and remains an obligation on Muslims. One of many hadith quotes Muhammad for this:

I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.

Thus, immigration is step four out of a five step plan. Sam Solomon elaborates:

So Hijra or migration is binding on all Muslims for numerous reasons; the most important being that migration is preparatory to jihad with an aim and objective of securing victory for Islam and Muslims either in another country or generally as a community.

The conclusion of that paragraph is: Those who do not desire to live in an Islamic theocracy better take heed. To that we cannot add anything more.

(Thanks to DP111)

Wilders trial - Going into second half

Next Monday (tomorrow) will see the resumption of the Wilders trial. Actually, it is a do-over after the trial came to an abrupt end with the dismissal of the court of judges on grounds of 'apparent prejudice'.

In the run-up to the second half, one of the lawyers representing the aggrieved filed for postponement of the trial (NL). This on the grounds that the plaintiffs feel that the acquittal sought by the public prosecutor in the first half of the trial goes against the brief the prosecutors received from the Amsterdam court (the order to prosecute Geert Wilders). In this, according to the plaintiffs, was 'disloyal' of the public prosecutor and merits a postponement until a news set of prosecutors can be appointed. However, the public prosecutors office as well as the Amsterdam court disagreed (NL) and rejected the motions put forth by the plaintiffs. This leaves free the way for a resumption on Monday.

The second half of the Wildres trial will in all probability be dominated by a single issue, initially: The role of judge Schalken in the prosecution. Remember, he was the one who ultimately caused the dismissal of the court, after it came out he had allegedly tried to influence one of the most important witnesses for the defence, prof. Hans Jansen, at a dinner party thrown by a mutual friend. It should therefore not come as a big surprise that the defence of Mr. Wilders wants to interrogate judge Schalken (NL) in the witness stand.

'I want clarity about the precise role [Mr Schalken] played in that whole process [to decide to prosecute Geert Wilders]. In particular, the obserbation that he was the originator of the ruling that Wilders needed to be prosecuted. And what actually took place at dinner.', says [lawyer Bram Moszkowicz]. According to the Amsterdam lawyer the charges filed by Wilders against the judge are no obstruction for an appearance in the witness stand. 'The question is whether Schalken in a suspect already. On that issue, the public prosecutor has not reached a decision yet'.

All in all, I think we can look forward to some interesting procedures. And if indications are correct, the judicial system in the Netherlands will not come out of this smelling of roses. Actually, it may come out smelling of the stuff that roses reportedly grow best on: Horse manure.

[UPDATE001] Snouck offers some thoughts.

Some good news

From Esther: Gov. Mike Huckabee meets with European Freedom parties.

Mike Huckabee, currently in Israel, met today with the heads of the European Freedom parties from Austria, Germany, Sweden, and Belgium, and discussed with them the rise of radical Islam in Europe and the world, and the challenge it poses to the free world.

The parties decided to cooperate in the war against fundamental Islam. Huckabee promised to publicly support anybody who fights this phenomenon, including the Freedom parties in Europe, who lead the struggle against the Islamic religious radicalization which is currently happening across Europe.

I was always under the impression the Gov. Huckabee did not have any outspoken opinions on matters islam. Maybe I've not been paying attention (that happens), but this is some surprisingly good news.

Wearing thin

From GeenStijl (NL), we get this video that makes the blood boil. It shows a pack of moroccan kids (boys AND girls) bearing down on two Dutch girls cycling by. The pack proceeds to steal the bikes and abuse the two girls. This happened in Gouda this winter, a city with a fine history of moroccans running rampant and the authorities doing nothing to stop them.

At first sight one might conclude that moroccan parents are very lousy at parenting. But it is a well-known phenomenon, first commented on publicly by the late, great Pim Fortuyn, that other moroccans are never subjected to this kind of horrible behaviour.

Note the age of the kids in the pack: They're all pre-pubescent. Hence, this is not a case of raging hormones, either. So, there is basically only one conclusion left: The hostility and contempt with which these cretins treat the girls was taught. Evidently, their parents teach them that the Dutch are scum and it is okay to do this.

Let that sink in for a while: This video, by inference, raises some very uncomfortable questions about the attitude of the moroccan community as a whole towards us, nominally their compatriots. An attitude that is evidently marked by hostility and extreme contempt. And evidently that hostility and contempt is actively inculcated from a young age onward.

And if that is the case: Are we really going to let ourselves and our children be mistreated by the guests we've allowed into our homes? Guests who persist in rewarding the opportunities given them with ingratitude, contempt and outright hostility. Isn't it about time for a warning that the welcome is wearing thin? Isn't it about time to emphatically suggest that it's time to start thinking about moving out?

[UPDATE001] The Gouda police lets know (NL) they are investigating the video and promises the culprits will be arrested shortly. No points for correctly predicting the lame and utterly useless sanctions that will be placed in these cretins, though.

Fail

Breaking news from Michelle and Jim: A Florida federal judge has ruled that Obamacare, is unconstitutional. Specifically, the judge Roger Vinson ruled that the 'individual mandate', forcing US citizens to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties, exceeds the limits set by the constitution on the powers of congress.

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.

Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

This cannot be described other then as a major setback for the Obama administration. As one of the commenters on the Gateway observes: 'You’ve ruined the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, you’ve spent trillions of dollars that we didn’t have, you’ve ignored or worked against the interest of American foreign policy for two years……. And what do you have to show for it? Resign!'. Obamacare, with its huge projected costs, its death panels and all that other goodness in the 2,700 page bill,  seems to be the definition of an 'epic fail'. And it still has a vote to repeal in the US senate to look forward to.