The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday sued the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to uncover documents related to laptop searches at the border.

“The ACLU believes that suspicionless searches of laptops violate the First and Fourth Amendments,” the group wrote in the suit, filed in a New York District Court.

In July 2008, the Customs and Border Protection agency within DHS published formal guidelines for laptop border searches that gave CBP officials permission to search laptops and electronic devices at the border. Court cases on the topic have generally found that citizens should have diminished expectations of privacy when re-entering the country because the U.S. has a right to protect itself and control what crosses its borders.

I actually tend to agree with them, at least when it applies to American citizens crossing back into the United States. But, here it comes…….

Critics of the policy claim that laptop searches are an invasion of privacy – a personal computer holds a lot more information than a suitcase full of clothes or briefcase full of paperwork. What’s to stop CBP from copying the contents of your computer and keeping it on file indefinitely, they have argued.

Yet, the ACLU still has no problem with Obama’s snitch mail program, the collection of email addresses by Democratic operatives, nor any of the intrusive methods proposed in the Waxman-Markey cap and tax bill as well as the health system destruction bills. Apparently, giving an unknown amount of unknown people outside of the IRS access to your tax records is no big deal to the ACLU. Their view, which from 1/20/2001 to 1/19/2009 was “never trust the government,” has changed to “aww, Barry’s so cute, how could we not give him the benefit of the doubt?”

“Traveling with a laptop shouldn’t mean the government gets a free pass to rifle through your personal papers,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group, said in a statement. “This sort of broad and invasive search is exactly what the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches are designed to prevent.”

Being an American forced to swallow the government option poison pill shouldn’t mean the government gets a free pass to your tax records and bank account information, either. Hello, ACLU? Beuller? Beuller?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I remember the fall of 1992, watching the FSU homecoming parade pass by the law school, at which I was a first-year student, along Jefferson Street. I, along with other students, stepped outside to watch the parade. There was an odd incident when a student tried to mount a horse in the parade with bad results (but that’s not important now). It’s a vivid memory, just like my memory of spotting then-Senator Bob Graham walking by, waving and smiling. From half the width of the two-lane street away from him I shouted, “I don’t have health insurance!”, at which Senator Graham swiveled toward me, smiled broadly, and headed my way with hand outstretched. When we were just close enough for the handshake, I finished my thought by saying, “and I like it that way!” at which Senator Graham dropped the hand, dropped the smile, and performed an impressively smart military-style about face and got himself away from me. From now until this blog post, that has been the sum of my discourse with my senatorial representation about my health care, but my desire to maintain control over my own body and health remains the same.

As an aside, Senator Nelson, If I was appearing before you today at an open town hall meeting, I would be wearing a coat and tie. That, after all, is the uniform when meeting with and speaking to one’s senatorial representative. It’s a matter of decorum; I wouldn’t dream of appearing in court without a coat and tie, nor would I try to persuade a powerful politician without the proper attire. I only mention that because one of your senatorial colleagues finds the participation of “well-dressed” Americans in important political discourse to be prima facie evidence that their views are illegitimate and can not only be dismissed, but demonized. I trust you find that point of view to be as absurd as I do, if not a window into a certain mindset that requires dissent from our leaders to come only from the poor, uneducated, and ill-mannered. That’s silly, isn’t it?

And before I get to my petition to redress grievances, if you will, let me address the issue of whether or not I am part of a “mob” sent by puppet masters to publicly disagree with you about pending health care legislation (notwithstanding that today at 11:33 a.m. Mitch Stewart from BarackObama.com sent me email starting with the words “Organizing for America” and going on to give me instructions about calling Congressman Algrayson and giving me instructions on precisely what I was to say to him or his office).

Senator Nelson, I’m not part of a mob. When I was a child my family moved into your district while you were still a Congressman. We attended a church with which you were affiliated (and where I first heard your name), the Tabernacle Church of Melbourne, pastored at that time by the extraordinary and late Jamie Buckingham. As a young teen I even picnicked at your family’s home on the river south of Melbourne. I’ve seen you many times, most recently at a ceremony at the Kennedy Space Center (holy cow, Aldrin was there! Wasn’t that great?). You (along with then-Senator Paula Hawkins) granted me a nomination to West Point (since I had two nominations we decided to forfeit yours to another candidate) — thank you for that, by the way. Later as a younger attorney I applied and interviewed to work for you while you were Florida’s Commissioner of Insurance. My point in all this is that I am not a puppet; I am not a mob member; even though you and I disagree on much, our lives have crossed paths several times. We are neighbors and know many of the same people.

Let me wrap up the “non-mob” disclaimer by telling you that I make my living by representing the poor; my clients are either children or parents who are at odds with a certain state agency that has the most beneficent mission statement possible, that usually actually does have the best of intentions, but which in practice often destroys children and families or simply behaves like a powerful faceless agency with limited accountability that never has to pay for its mistakes or sometimes cavalier attitudes. I get paid a pittance to clean up messes (if I can) or at least to act as a speed bump in cases involving a state agency that has the power, if not over people’s very lives, over their families and children. It is thankless work, representing the flawed and poor and discouraged. It does not have the potential political rewards attendant to being a community organizer, but it does teach me much about the power and dysfunctions of government agencies. It is from that point of view that I respectfully ask you to pause before you vote for the Senate’s health care bill and consider what it will take from at least some of us.

I started with my account of telling then-Senator Graham that I didn’t have health insurance back in 1992, but liked it that way because I am now in my 40s, have children and run a small business, and still like it that way. It’s not that I wouldn’t choose to have it, it’s just that I don’t need it imposed on me and, respectfully, it is none of your business.

I also happen to have severe hypertension. It is controlled by medication, thankfully — I’m told it seriously threatened my life before I got treatment. Here’s what I do: I take three pills every day. It would be either one or two pills if I didn’t take generics, but I’m willing to split it up and take generics because I can get my prescriptions filled at an established and reputable American retail chain at a cost of $120 for an entire year. So far to keep myself alive with a genuine and serious medical condition, I have to pay 33 cents a day. I see my doctor, who does a great job of working with me to keep costs down, every three months or so. I pay out of pocket for $65 per visit. Nobody is obligated to pay that for me. That’s another 71 cents per day. My doctor bugs me to get labs done, and I resist because I’m a stubborn and difficult patient, but my dear wife has found a local lab that will do all sorts of blood draws and panels for $20 a pop. So I spend about $80 a year on that to keep peace with my doctor. There’s another 22 cents per day. So all told, outside of catastrophic care insurance (with which I might find common ground with you in that it could be addressed), I am in my 40s with a serious and ongoing condition and keep myself alive and get needed treatment at the cost of one dollar and twenty-six cents a day, at most. I couldn’t do it without my wife, who is genius at finding solutions for needed services (the Administration should hire her), but I do it, and hang on to my autonomy, dignity, self-sufficiency and liberty all at the same time.

Now I know that not every American can take care of his or her medical needs at that low cost. I get that. But why should I be required to give up control over my own body and future when I have my own perfectly good private (and non-burdensome) solution? Can you make that case to me?

Here’s another aside. Why the need for such enormous health care bills? If I understand the goals of the administration, why wouldn’t the proposed law simply read as follows: “The eligibility requirements of Medicaid are amended to declare that all persons applying from within a postal code contained within the boundaries of the United States and all persons who are bona fide citizens of the United States residing abroad are eligible for any and all Medicaid services”? Anyway…

This leads me to my actual point. I’ve read (with difficulty, even though I am an attorney) Senate Bill 444 which can only be read to lead to mandatory handing over of private medical records to be digitized and maintained and used by a non-profit company under the control of the federal government which may or not be dissolved after ten years (huh? explain, sir, if you can). Here’s the thing, Senator Nelson: all other things aside, all debate about a public option and everything else forgotten for the moment, I simply don’t want to give up my private medical records. It does not matter that proposed laws have supposed safeguards for privacy. Even if those promises were genuine and were faithfully followed, the fact remains that my medical records are mine. I own them. They are my property. They are my “papers” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. Mine. I’m old and wise enough to be rather annoyed that in federal jurisprudence, the word “privacy” has so little to no meaning outside of authorizing abortion.

So, to narrow our disagreements to one, as to my medical records: you can’t have them. When it comes time to remit my personal medical records to federal authorities so that the new health care system can be implemented, I will not obey. Sir, here is my question to you. Senator Nelson, can you look me in the eye and tell me that you will vote for any legislation that will criminalize (or at least impose a fine) on me for not handing over my personal property — my most private personal papers even in the face of the 4th Amendment– for the use of the federal government if I do not wish to do so?

God bless you, Senator, and I thank you for considering my thoughts.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

How unconstitutional is Barack Obama? I’ve begun to count ways.

1) Bailouts
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer’s money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally spend taxpayer money.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

Two Presidents had a hand in the auto industry bailout: 1) President G. W. Bush by using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money authorized by Congress and 2) President Barack Obama, not using TARP funds, but declaring that he would use monies from somewhere, and do so with the authority and power of the Executive Branch. At the time, CNSNews.com correspondent Fred Lucas asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs where President Obama derived his authority to use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler.

I think the determination has been made both by the previous administration and the current administration that this assistance is legal, and our goal is to ensure that the taxpayers in any instance when this is used feel confident that it’s being done in a transparent and accountable way,” Gibbs said.

President Bush’s use of congressionally approved TARP funds is suspect also, although the money was “legislated” by Congress. The bug in the ointment is that the TARP funds were authorized only for use by the Treasury to purchase “troubled assets” from “financial institutions.” The auto industry does not qualify as a “financial institution.”

CNSNews.com once again seeks an answer, this time from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.

I don’t know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don’t know technically where that authority would be,” said Hoyer. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don’t have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don’t know technically the answer to that question.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) introduced a Bill in the House to give the President Constitutional authority for the bailouts. Sixty Senators were required to vote for the legislation to overcome a Senate filibuster. Those votes were not there and the legislation was dead.

Then comes the Time of Obama. There was no attempt to get the Senate Banking Committee to introduce the needed legislation.

Rep. Barney Frank washed his hands of all responsibility of the administration’s trampling the Constitution. Again, when CNSNews.com asked Frank about Obama’s intentions to do the bailout without Congressional approval, Frank allegedly said:

It’s an administration situation so I’m not very well informed on it,” Frank told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com

Then the correspondent asked Frank if Obama’s promised guarantee of the auto warranties for GM and Chrysler needed “legislative authority,” Frank was even clearer in his answer:

Do the words ‘I’m not very well informed on it’ have any meaning to you? Am I speaking a language you don’t understand?”

It’s not something I’m focused on,” said Frank. “The committee, which I chair, keeps me busy. I have not had a chance to look at that. I do not have an informed opinion on it. It’s not my understanding that Congress is going to get to vote on it. So I tend to focus on things that are under the jurisdiction of the committee and that we’ll have to vote on. When things are neither, I don’t have a very well-informed opinion.

So much for constitutionally-mandated Congressional oversight.

Back in October 2008, the CATO Institute looks at the constitutionality of the auto bailouts. After exploring the fact that the government “created this crisis with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for affordable housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Nevertheless, CATO Institute’s chairman, Robert A. Levy, says, no, the bailout is not constitutional.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers’ money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Con­gress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.

Levy then discusses the rationale of using the commerce clause to legitimize the spending, but he clearly decides that any reasoning for this position is a misinterpretation.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators’ misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies-and who knows where it stops.

Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.

Under the sub-heading No Intelligible Principle, Levy says (snippets):

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch….A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.

But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that “the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.” The legislative power, wrote Locke, is “to make laws, and not to make legislators.”

Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of our economy.

Here’s the link again to Mr. Levy’s article.

2) Supreme Court

President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court nominees embrace “empathy” in their decisions and opinions. Nevermind the the oath that a Justice swears to:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

There is no room for empathy when justice is blind and the poor and the rich have equal rights in the sight of the law of the land. While the U.S. Constitution does not provide the oath for a Supreme Court Justice, it does state that others “shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support this constitution.”

Additionally, if the President keeps his oath of office, he will not require a Justice who uses “empathy” to decide a case, because empathy is unconstitutional and unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Appointing activist Judges to the Supreme Court is an avenue to interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document…an avenue for a Judge to insert personal opinion, maybe “empathy,” which is unlawful. The only way for the Constitution to take a breath is through an amendment. There is no other way. Outside of amendments, the Constitution is ageless, and it awaits it’s use as a service to all Americans, but not at the whim of an activist Judge.

Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing document without amendments, renders it practically impotent, because it no longer has the power to protect our rights. Eminent domain is an excellent example.

3) The Czars

The appointment of the many “czars” by the Obama administration are unconstitutional. There’s the Car Czar, The Pay Czar, The Great Lakes Czar, a Cyber Czar, a Drug Czar, an Energy Czar, a Health Reform Czar, an Intelligence Czar, and a Tech Czar. The Czar Czar, of course, is Barack Obama. What is Obama’s Cabinet members doing these days? They’ve all been demoted and they know it and there’s not a thing they can do about it.

Here’s the problem with Czars. They report to no one but Barack Obama. They have far reaching powers and Congress cannot stop a single decision they make. What has happened to our egotistic Congress who has been so willingly hypnotised into giving up their grasp on EVERYTHING? Maybe it’s something in the water. So much for checks and balances. Barack Obama reigns.

Even Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in history, hates the idea of Czar appointments. It’s dangerous he says. It gives the president too much power.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the czar system “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.

As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

The wildly liberal CBS News, at the end of the article on Byrd, says:

These days, however, Byrd’s comments have less force as he is no longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.

What does Byrd’s chairmanship or the lack of it have to do with the fact that it is unconstitutional to have presidential appointees making decisions about taxpayer monies without congressional oversight?

4) Government ownership in private business

The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We’ve beat this horse to the ground. No need to say more.

5) Redistribution of Wealth

Engineering the redistribution of wealth in the GM stock debacle is unconstitutional. I’m not sure I have the latest figures, but nevertheless, it’s not good for shareholders who I believe end up with 10 percent of their investment or five cents on the dollar. The government gets 50 percent of the stock, about 87 cents on the dollar. The Unions get 40 percent ownership, plus $10 billion in cash – about 76 cents on the dollar. Doesn’t this make you want to throw-up and then find a quiet spot and grieve for our country?

6) Health Care

Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional. The first thing that comes to mind is his plan to pay for his health care plan by taxing the wealthy to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional in America. Then there’s the fact that he plans to put private business out of business to achieve his goal, which is simply power over all of us.

In the fall of 2008, Obama told Tom Brokaw that health care “should be a right for every American.” The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing health care. BUT, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has introduced H.J. Res. 30 which calls for a Constitutional Amendment to establish “the right of citizens of the U.S. to health care of equal high quality.”

7) Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document

The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,

That’s my six obviously unconstitutional steps taken by President Obama.

We live among idiots, and I guess, we are idiots because if we had the proper sense of outrage, we would sit on the steps of Congress until all of the above are overturned, or Barack Obama is impeached, whichever comes first.

Where are our Defending Fathers in Congress? They should be on the floor railing about these issues every single day, over and over. Are we…are they, really so willing to devalue our prized Constitution.

From Thomas Paine:
A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.’ ‘A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.’

Think about that:

“…operating the government without the Constitution “is a power without right.”

I as a “people” didn’t grant that power, neither did you, neither did Congress.

I ask this question: Who will limit the expansion of government? President Obama and the Executive Branch? Speaker Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Reid? The Supreme Court? For the moment, The Supreme Court is the only chance we have. Once Sonia Sotomayor, an activist judge is confirmed, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign and then we have not one branch of government to stop the wild ride to Socialism. By the way, Socialism whether Americans want it or not, and I believe a huge majority do not want it, is unconstitutional. The preamble to the Constitution makes it clear:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

(guarantees a republican form of governance)
I know there are other unconstitutional acts to add to this list, including: the budget an earmarks, the stimulus expenditures that do not create jobs, eminent domain, snatching rights designated only to states, and other unlawful federal rights granted that are clearly unconstitutional – such as “special interest” legislation. If you have thoughts about this or other additions, please leave them in comments. I’ll continue updating this list and give you credit, unless you prefer that I not. Help me compile a complete list. While the U.S. Constitution is not a living, breathing document, this post will be.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Do you want your government to know that you have bowel troubles? Do you mind if the president can discover if you have erectile disfunction? Would you be out of sorts if your local Congressman could discover if you’d had an abortion? How about if your state comptroller’s office or your governor could discover if you’d had breast implants? Well, a vote for Obamacare is a vote to give away your personal, private, maybe embarrassing medical information.

Do you think this is a silly claim? Well, don’t. In the newly released Obamacare plan, section 3102 titled “Financial Integrity” makes provision for state and federal governments to be able to investigate any medical care provider at any time. This provision gives government the right to look at any record that a doctor has in his files and that means your private medical information. Worse, they may do so without court approval, without a warrant, with no cause stated.

Patient’s United has created a searchable data base of what is in Obama’s “Health Care For All Americans” plan, if you’d like to take a look for yourself. But here is the section I described above: (Note: the term “gateway” as in the bill is defined as a state-created insurance plan, which in turn will control the doctors.)

Sec. 3102 Financial Integrity

“(1) In general – A State shall keep an accurate accounting of all activities, receipts, and expenditures of any Gateway operating in such State and shall annually submit to the Secretary a report concerning such accountings.

“(2) Investigations – The Secretary may investigate the affairs of a Gateway, may examine the properties and records of a Gateway, and may require periodical reports in relation to activities undertaken by a Gateway. A Gateway shall fully cooperate in any investigation conducted under this paragraph.

This is a downright authoritarian clause. Doctors will no longer be free of what is now defined as “illegal search and seizure” because with the passage of this bill **PRESTO-CHANGO** all requirements that government faces to get a warrant and go through the courts to stormtroop through a doctor’s office to seize records is magically eliminated.

Remember, with government involvement comes government interference and control.

So, next time you are with your doctor talking over some delicate medical condition that you would just rather not have everyone else know about, remember that you are telling every last member of the government the same embarrassing information whether you want to or not.

Now, when Ed Morrissey first wrote about the above facts, someone took Ed to task for having once agreed with the warrantless wiretapping of foreign terror suspects and posited that the Bush era program and this matter of government snooping into everyone’s medical information at will is pretty much the same thing.

But this lefty that chided Morrissey couldn’t be more wrong. In the first place a foreign terror suspect is not covered by the Constitution of the United States. In the second place, those wire taps didn’t target specific people, but only lighted on buzzwords that raised a red flag for investigation later. On the other hand, these medical records that the government has suddenly decided are its property is specific information about specific people. And specific people that are American citizens on top of it.

So, no, the situations are nothing at all similar.

In any case, a vote for Obamacare is a vote to give away our privacy to the federal and state government. To me that does not sound like a very good deal.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

(1) IN GENERAL – A State shall keep an accurate accounting of all activities, receipts, and expenditures of any Gateway operating in such State and annually submit to the Secretary a report concerning such accountings.

(2) INVESTIGATIONS – The Secretary may investigate the affairs of a Gateway, may examine the properties and records of a Gateway, and may require periodical reports in relation to activities undertaken by a Gateway. A Gateway shall fully cooperate in any investigation conducted under this paragraph.

That means we say “see ya!” that pesky 4th Amendment thing, since no search warrants will be required to obtain information. And said information will be shared! Let’s go to p91-92

(c) NOTIFICATION OF NONENROLLMENT.—Not later than [_____] of each year, the Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Internal Revenue Service and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall send a notification each individual who files an individual income tax return and who is not enrolled in qualifying coverage (as defined in section 31____ of the Public Health Service Act). Such notification shall contain information on the services available through the Gateway operating in the State in which such individual resides.

So now the IRS is going to be involved in notification? Great way to get individuals on the IRS’s radar, eh? No chance for abuse, eh?

Let’s go back up the document to page 24, regarding the offering of “health insurance coverage and related insurance products through the Gateway at an affordable price by qualified individuals and qualified employer groups”

(1)VOLUNTARY NATURE OF GATEWAY.—

(A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL.—A qualified individual shall have the choice to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.

(B) PROHIBITION ON COMPELLED ENROLLMENT.—No individual shall be compelled to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.

One of the complaints by the “let’s nationalize health insurance and health care” crowd is that there are 45 million Americans without coverage. Taking the illegals out of the mix, the people who lost their jobs and their company provided insurance, those who switched plans so as to appear to be without for a day or two, and those can’t afford it because of pre-existing conditions (done away with on pages 7-8), we are often left with those who are young and do not feel like paying for insurance, because they are invincible. So, they still won’t have to be covered. Till the government gets around to mandating coverage.

Here’s the big thing: they still do not know how to pay for it! The legislation discusses monies granted to the States for the plans that they appear that they have to develop (Federalism, anyone?) (starting on page 21), but, where does said money come from? The “rich” talking point can only go so far. Taxing the benefits of those who already have insurance through their companies? Taxing soda? A national value added tax? Or, how about the tried and true “print money we do not have and create massive deficits?” That one seems to be popular this year.

Remember: this is just step one on the road to socialized/nationalized health care.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Yo, baby, Surrendie loves this nationalized health care that The One is pushing. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with the government in charge?

Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs.

The Government’s rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is expected to confirm guidance in the next few weeks that will effectively ban their use.

Well, we see how it is done in Great Britain. It’s just too darn expensive to be humane to people who are suffering. But, on the bright side, we will all be waiting in long lines, allowing our symptoms to become worse, like in Britain, Canada, and France, among others, if nationalized health care is imposed. Not to mention having our 4th Amendment Rights violated constantly.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the Secret Service “could construe this as a threat against President Obama,” according to the incident report released this morning.

The sign, which read “Abort Obama Not the Unborn,” was returned to Harrison later that day, the report said.

Police spokesman Steve McCool said this morning that the sign was taken in error, and Oklahoma City residents should not be worried that their First Amendment rights will be violated.

Harrison told the officers that in his opinion the words “Abort Obama” meant to impeach him. He told the officers he does not believe in abortion because he is a Christian.

Harrison was stopped on westbound Interstate 240 at 8:45 a.m. on Feb. 12, according to the police report.

Harrison said he later received a call from a person who said he was a lieutenant supervisor for the Internal Investigations Department and wanted to know his location and return his sign to him.

According to Harrison, the supervisor said the Secret Service had been contacted on the matter and had told them the sign was not a threat to the president.

Harrison was asked if he would like to file a complaint. He said he was not sure but would take the paperwork, just in case.

But his run-in with the law wasn’t over yet.

”The Secret Service called and said they were at my house,” Harrison said.

After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.

”When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren’t going to ransack my house or anything … they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn’t a part of any hate groups.”

Harrison said he invited the Secret Service agents into the house and they were “very cordial.”

”We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house,” Harrison said.

He said they interviewed him for about 30 minutes and then left, not finding any evidence Harrison was a threat to the president.

”I’m still in contact with a lawyer right now,” Harrison said. “I don’t know what I’m going to do.”

Harrison said he feels his First Amendment rights were violated.

McCool said the officer who pulled over Harrison misinterpreted the sign.

”We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant,” McCool said. “You’ve got an officer who had a different thought on what the word ‘abort’ meant.”

McCool said the sign basically meant Obama should be impeached and it was not a threat.

”(The officer) shouldn’t have taken the sign,” McCool said. “That was (Harrison’s) First Amendment right to voice his concern.”

McCool said although the sign should not have been confiscated, the situation was made right in the end.

”We always try to do the right thing and in the end we believe we did the right thing by returning the sign,” McCool said.

Emphasis mine.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post