Supreme Court Resigns Duties, Tortures English Language to Save Obamacare
Judicial restraint? More like judicial hysterical appeasement.

In his 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell observed that “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” Today is Orwell’s birthday; it’s also the day the Supreme Court released its 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell, which preserves the Affordable Care Act at the expense of plain English.

The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the provision of the law mandating an “Exchange established by the State” should be interpreted to include an Exchange not established by any state, but instead by an agency of the federal government, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.

In his spot-on dissent, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia explains why this is an “impossible possibility”:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so. …

Faced with overwhelming confirmation that “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means, the Court comes up with argument after feeble argument to support its contrary interpretation. None of its tries comes close to establishing the implausible conclusion that Congress used “by the State” to mean “by the State or not by the State.”

The majority opinion explains away this blatant contradiction by expressing confidence that architects of the law intended something other than what they wrote—the opposite of it, in fact. Intent should trump plain English—even when the two directly oppose each other—writes Roberts, because the Court’s job is to defer to the will of lawmakers, and even contort logic to assist them, “if at all possible”:

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

If only there was some branch of government designed to review legislative actions, thwarting the intentions of Congress if they conflict with the law… oh, wait, that branch does exist: it’s the Supreme Court! The King v. Burwell decision is not merely the exercise of judicial restraint; this is judicial hysterical appeasement.

Supporters of Obamacare are excited about this outcome, as expected. The Huffington Postcrooned, “Supreme Court Rejects Obamacare Lawsuit, Preserving Insurance for Millions.” (Preserving insurance for some millions, no doubt, while depriving others of insurance—what about all the people who were kicked off their plans because of Obamacare-related complications?) Certainly, reasonable people can disagree about whether Obamacare is, on balance, a good law, and improves upon the dreadful state of the U.S. healthcare regime. But it’s vexing to see so many liberals cheering the utter death of the Court’s ability to rebuke lawmakers when they put forth nonsensical laws. Roberts’ decision gives a lot more power to Congress, obligating the Court to ignore the plain text of laws “if at all possible.”

Well, anything is possible. Is the preservation of limited government so universally unimportant—and the protection of Obamacare so paramount—that it was worth the utter subjugation of the Court (hereafter known as the Legislative Subcommittee on Wording Tweaks) to the will of Congress?

More from Reason on the King v. Burwell ruling here and here.


#newspeaker #ionpartystarterspeaker
Love it!!! (at #sapayagnifritsoy)

Watch on

Want to play some noise? #harmankardon #getsome #newspeaker #hopkinsfresh #hopkinssprint (at Sprint)


In George Orwell’s novella 1984 he proposed a future where an oppressive government called Big Brother sought to control every action of its citizenry. While Big Brother’s spying on its citizens gets the most attention (especially in our Edward Snowden elucidated era), it was a different tactic used by the government of Oceania that I found most scary - Newspeak:

Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as “thoughtcrime”.

Big Sister, also known as feminism, also wants to control our language to eliminate “thoughtcrime.” This means neutering the language, both literally and figuratively, through Femspeak:

When LA Clippers’ basketball star Chris Paul was called for what he felt was an unwarranted technical foul by female referee Lauren Holtkamp he voiced his displeasure after the game. When he did everyone accused him of sexism. Here is what he said:

“I think we’ve got to show better composure, but at the same time some of ‘em was ridiculous. Like the tech I got right there was ridiculous. I don’t care what nobody say, I don’t care what she say, that’s terrible. There’s no way that can be a technical. We try to get the ball out quick every time down the court and when we did that she said ‘Uh-uh (no)’ and I said ‘Why uh-uh?’ and she gave me a tech. That’s ridiculous. If that’s the case then this might not be for her.”

Apparently, the pronouns she and her are now off limits too when a man talks about a woman because there would have been no controversy in that statement had those pronouns been he and him

In an attempt to curb “sexist” dialogue in her company, Nancy Lublin the CEO of came up with a unique tactic to address the issue. Rather than marching offenders down to HR for reprimand and termination, she turned identifying “sexist” language into a game. If an employee catches someone saying something “sexist” they reply “pineapple”:

“Here at, we’ve turned it into a trigger word. When someone says something sexist, another person can shout out the word "pineapple!” and the sexist offender has to drop and do 10 pushups.“

“We were discussing the incredible leadership at another organization. I kept using masculine pronouns and saying, "that guy has done a terrific job!” One of the guys on my team shouted, “pineapple!” because it turns out, the CEO is actually a woman. Silly me for assuming the CEO was a guy! I dropped and did 10 feeble girl pushups…and when I said that, I was pineappled again!”

I admire Ms. Lublin for not marching “sexists” right down to HR, but that the feminist that created the policy gets pineappled for her “sexist” dialogue tells us that the movements Word Policing is so unrealistic it is a policy run amok. 

While the dual-gendered hyenas that populate feminism have no use for gender specific dialogue, the single-gendered population of the species has no such need or want for their Orwellian suppression of the language. Feminists claim to be liberals, but their demand that the populace adhere to their Femspeak protocol - or be slandered as “sexists” - is an act of fascism. 

Big Sister is listening and don’t you doubt it for a second.

Big Boss is Watching You

I found it weird that Big Boss would have this poster, considering Zero wants to control the world and Boss is against him. Then, I remembered how Zero wants Big Boss in the Patriots because he inspires people, he needs the Big Boss that people would give their life for. Kinda like how Big Brother is this “Brave Apollo” like Bowie puts it, for the people to love and fear. Zero needs this to achieve his goal and he needs Big Boss, as seen at the end of Peace Walker. Zero wants Big Boss to be Big Brother, a picture in a wall, taunting, intimidating, to unite people in its share love/hate. 

With the release of the new trailer, we now know Zero wants to control everyone with language “So the Major sought a system that used information, words, to control the subconscious” warns Ocelot (more on this later). In the novel, “newspeak” is a developing language made to control the masses, concepts like “freedom” are nowhere to be found in newspeak. This way, people cant assimilate this concepts. What Zero has created remains to be seen.

By the time of “Guns of the Patriots” Zero s dream is a reality, he controls the world with war economy (again, similar to 1984s constant war) and nanomachines (son!). Maybe Big Boss manages to stop Zero plan in 1984?. GW controls everything. GW  is the system. like 1984s ingsoc, the system is a living organism, O Brain doesnt fight for himself, he fights to maintain the system. This reminds me of how at the end of “Guns”, Zero, the person that we think is controlling everything is just a man confined to a wheelchair, a man that is not aware of the world he has created. The Patriots, like Ingsoc, was not controlled  by a man wanting power, it was its own castrating force of control.

Anyway, just a quick MGS/1984 reflection I had before going to sleep that I felt like sharing.
John Whitehead: The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech |
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

One of America’s most popular sheriffs has issued a “wake-up call” for conservatives following the Supreme Court’s two landmark decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare. The way Sheriff David Clarke sees it, the wild horse has broken loose and is halfway out of the barn, threatening to trample the crops. If the court can redefine marriage and force people to buy health care from a private…

View On WordPress

Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought , and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum
—  George Orwell, 1984 (this just BRUTALLY KILLS YEARS of high school persecution endured by the pretentious and verbose literature student :D ) 

Esperanto reminds me of Newspeak. The word for bad is ‘malbona,’ which sounds like ‘notgood’ to me and is reminiscent of Syme’s line “Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not.” Of course Esperanto (1887) is much older than Orwell’s 1984 (1949).

The Orwellian scenario did unfold with more efficiency and more subtlety than what was depicted in 1984. In the book, words were erased with each new edition of the Newspeak dictionary, effectively erasing the concepts behind these words.

In our world, there’s been a twist. Words were exchanged for others, that won’t enable any reaction against the system. For instance, I read recently that the words from the era of the class struggle, were largely changed because they carried a dangerous power in them. For instance : “the oppressed” (raising the question “by whom?”) became the “economically disadvantaged” (it’s only a status, raising no question).

Without anyone to blame for, there is nothing to rebel against. You just unknowingly accept that you are poor and powerless, and simply go back to watching your one-way telescreen.

All these articles calling those who fly the confederate flag traitors and treasonous… make me frightened not the people waving the flag. 

1.) you don’t understand history and the myriad reasons for the war (yes slavery was the biggie but like most Civil Wars/movements other states and people joined in for disparate reasons that sort of intersected (even though they found slavery distasteful and wrong) with the confederacy and you need a large movement to fight the federal government)

2.) You are putting way more power into that flag then anyone who actually flies it probably does as they simply see it as put of the history and legacy of where they live. That encompasses the good and bad. No different then flying your home state’s flag.

3. The treason and traitor rhetoric is some of the most anti-free speech and damn near Orwellian newspeak I have heard. I am truly frightened not of the flag wavers but of those who wish to charge them with one of the highest federal offenses for waving a historical document.

Inclusive seems to be something that takes an effort [to understand] if you think about how the term is presented such as ‘we should be inclusive of those who have whale blubber breath.'  But what are we or they including? That term carries with it the concept of a 'group’ – the 'ins’ if you will, who are in the position of otherwise excluding. So the ins, the exclusive group, are reaching out to build their power base from those they have not previously included. That is why you never hear calls to be inclusive of Christians, conservatives, stay at home moms, etc. Those people are excluded because to be an 'in’ you have to be of a certain mindset…seems like that mindset is destruction of morality as taught by our traditions. The replacement of the traditions is a pseudo inclusion….but in actuality a further exclusion of defenders of morality.

Mary Beck

It’s newspeak. The ones who preach inclusion are exclusive. Wrap your head around that.
The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech - Patriot Rising
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the …

The power elite have made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority. This is the final link in the police state chain