(Washington Examiner) It’s been said a thousand times: Congress had to pass President Obama’s health care law in order to find out what’s in it. But, despite the repetitiveness, the level of shock from each new discovery never seems to recede.

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.

The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.

What could possibly go wrong in handing over being forced to hand over confidential patient records? What if someone hacks in to the government server? What if yet another government moron loses their laptop or briefcase containing private data? What about the government getting a look at the confidential and private business practices of the insurance companies, which could “undermine their competitiveness”?

What happens to the federal government if it loses a laptop full of patient data or business information? What recourse do individual citizens have against an inept bureaucrat who leaves the computer unlocked? Imagine a Wikileaks-sized disclosure of every Americans’ health histories. The results could be devastating – embarrassing – even Orwellian.

Excellent point. What do we do when the government essentially says, in bureaucrat speak, to just suck it up and deal with it?

The HHS attempts to justify its proposal on the grounds that it has to be able to compare performance. No matter what the explanation is, however, this type of data collection is an egregious violation of patient-doctor confidentiality and business privacy. It is like J. Edgar Hoover in a lab coat.

Interesting how the Left always complained about Bush “trashing the Constitution” and invading our privacy, how they say the government should stay out of our bedrooms, as well as how the government should stay out of the doctor’s office when it comes to abortion on demand, yet, here we have a power grab that will put sensitive, personal, and confidential health records in the government’s hands.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

The Justice Department filed a challenge to Alabama’s tough anti-illegal-immigration law Monday, arguing that the Constitution prohibits state and local governments from creating a national “patchwork” of immigration policies.

The suit, filed in Alabama’s Northern District, marks the second time the Obama administration has sought to block a state immigration reform law. Last year, the Justice Department filed a similar challenge to Arizona’s controversial SB 1070. A federal judge decided to temporarily block key parts of that law, including a provision that would have required police to determine suspects’ immigration status. (snip)

The federal complaint argues that the law, which is set to take effect Sept. 1, “exceeds a state’s role with respect to aliens, interferes with the federal government’s balanced administration of the immigration laws, and critically undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives.”

Well, if the Obama admin. is claiming that the Constitution prohibits…, then they should have no problem doing it themselves, right? It should be interesting to see what Alabama argues, which should certainly include the malfeasance of Los Federal government, along with the 9th and 10th amendments. The Law of the USA may be the supreme law, but, is there any reason why States cannot tighten those laws up?

Then there is Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;… That would seem to say that Los Federales are duty bound to stop illegal immigration.

Article IV Section 3: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. So, States have a claim to deal with their own property.

Moreover, the law, known as HB 56, “would result in the harassment and incarceration of lawful resident aliens — and even U.S. citizens who would not have readily available documentation to demonstrate their citizenship,” the government argued.

Yet, so far, any incidents have been so minor as to be meaningless. People who did not break the law have been harassed for other things in the past. Some people have been, unfortunately, put in jail for crimes they did not commit. Nothing is perfect.

But, hey, perhaps Team Obama has tanked the economy even further in order to get the illegals to go back to their home countries, because there are no jobs here.

Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and Indiana are surely next on the block for a lawsuit, as they also have tough illegal alien laws. Expect those suits to come quickly, if they come, because Team Obama surely doesn’t want these lawsuits during the general election season, since so many people are against illegal immigration.

Two Obama policies that will clamp a vice-grip on the American economy for decades are Obamacare and insidious legislation that has been renamed under its new cover, the “American Power Act.” Once known as Cap and Trade, the benign sounding “American Power Act” is Barack Obama’s coup de gras – his economic death blow to family budgets and the American economy. Broken down, Obama’s American Power Act supports Al Gore’s global warming strategies, socialist-based green movements and the United Nation’s Agenda 21 that targets both the U.S. treasury and America’s Constitutional freedoms. Every member of Congress must be sent the LINKS posted below that detail the growing green threat. Members of Congress can no longer claim ignorance after reading the information within the following articles. All Republicans who support the Obama/UN agenda are Green RINOS waist-deep in Progressive ideology:

(See: Obama & the UN: Agenda 21 – , Lean, Mean and Green, The Smoking Gun – Part One , and Lean, Mean and Green, Takedown of America – Part Two.

Republican presidential candidates must be asked at every juncture if they support Obamacare. Republican presidential candidates must be asked at every outing if they support the American Power Act, formerly known as Cap and Trade, which promotes both the green movement and climate-change agendas. Equally revealing will be their position on the mountains of new EPA regulations coming out of the Obama administration that will stifle the personal lifestyles of average Americans while cutting off our nation’s potential for job growth and energy independence. Reams of regulations will rain down on Americans from the Obama controlled EPA that demand adherence – or face mandated fines and potential jail time. Regulations will be imposed on how much energy you use at home and at work, how much home insulation you have, if your doors and windows meet federal guidelines, the type of appliances you use, etc. etc.

Though the White House claims it is only doing what is best for America by shackling you and your employer with onerous government regulations, there is no better example of duplicity than Obama’s treatment of Israel. Under the guise of making peace, President Barack Obama insisted that Israel give up valued portions of its land and return to its pre-1967 borders. Around the time he did so, another report surfaced worldwide, with little to no mention by the American press, about vast amounts of newly discovered oil shale and gas reserves in Israel. Lawrence Solomon, Executive Director of Energy Probe, details in the Financial Post that Israel has enough shale oil reserves, estimated up to half a trillion barrels, to break the grip of the OPEC cartel. Once considered too expensive to extract, Israel is quickly developing the means to cost effectively obtain oil from oil shale that will bring projected costs down to $35 or $45 a barrel. Solomon also says that natural gas being produced by Israel will be scheduled for planned exportation to Europe. Positioned to be a new oil power, Israel opposes Barack Obama’s desired give-a-way of Israeli lands that include many of their recently industrialized cities? The new call –“Drill, drill, Israel” – is likely to put Obama’s Middle East “landscaping” plan on hold.

Americans have learned the hard way, that the public agenda of Obama rarely matches the private agenda of Obama. Green RINOS who are Obama-light or support the UN’s green agenda must be weeded out, not only from the Republican presidential field, but out of office in 2012.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of landlords, tenants and employers in Fremont.

The suit claims that Fremont’s law interferes with the federal government’s authority over immigration matters and further that it has a discriminatory effect on those who look or sound “foreign.”

“This law encourages discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens,” Amy Miller, Legal Director of ACLU Nebraska, said in a statement. “We’re going to do all we can to make sure this extreme law, which would lead to individuals losing housing and jobs because of their appearance and language accent, never goes into effect.”

This, of course, misses the whole point of that pesky word “illegal” that keeps popping up with regard to so many immigrants to America. For the likes of the ACLU and their Democrat co-conspirators, “illegal” it’s just a technicality that, if ignored long enough, will eventually disappear when the right administration regime and the right Congress are in power — who will grant illegals amnesty and in return, earn the allegiance of millions of new contributors and voters.

“Let’s make it clear that the unlawful parties here are the immigrants that chose to break federal and state laws by coming here illegally in the first place,” Nebraska State Sen. Charlie Janssen said in a statement.

The Fremont Tribune also reports that the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is a co-plantiff with the ACLU in the lawsuit. With leftist legal eagles teaming up to push around small municipalities like Fremont, they make it all the more clear that no where in the United States is safe from illegal alien blight: the lowered property values, lost American jobs, and higher crime that inevitably appear in illegal alien population centers.

Whether the city ordinance is “legal” or not isn’t really the issue here, is it? Just as in the Arizona case, a local jurisdiction is trying to step up and do that which the federal government refuses. If the feds will not enforce existing immigration statutes, and if local and state government can’t, then you folks in the heartland of America, you had better brush up on your high school Spanish but quick.

The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government’s role in immigration control.

“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

So, it is not copacetic for Arizona to officially enforce what is actually federal law, yet, sanctuary cities? They’re cool, the DoJ won’t force them to follow federal law.

Meanwhile, have you heard that ICE has been directed to pick and choose which illegal criminals they will take from the cities and states?

Thirteen days ago, the Supreme Court undermined Chicago’s ban on handguns by applying the Second Amendment to the states, ruling that people have a right to protect their homes with a gun. Four days after that, Chicago passed another handgun restriction that edged right up to the line drawn by the court. And on Tuesday, a group of gun dealers and enthusiasts sued the city again to overturn the new law.

Bullets are flying on city streets, but the vital work of limiting gun use has become a cat-and-mouse game. Beleaguered citizens deserve better from both sides.

Nowhere in this craptastic bit of an editorial will you find out that the majority of those bullets are flying from illegal guns by criminals, who could care less what Chicago’s, or any other cities, gun laws are. They don’t care that one couldn’t purchase a gun legally in Chicago, nor that the law allowed only one handgun per household, nor the requirement to receive training, but, not in the city limits. The only people put in danger are the citizens of Chicago. There were 50 homicides in June alone, up from 46 last year, including a police officer. If I were a betting man, I would bet that most involving handguns were caused by illegal handguns, ones owned by criminals. Harsh gun restrictions hurt law abiding citizens.

We strongly disagreed with the reasoning that led the court to find an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, ending handgun bans in Washington, D.C., in 2008 and everywhere else last month. Nonetheless, the law of the land is now that people have a constitutional right to a gun in their home for self-defense.

And there you have it: the NY Times liberals put in print their disdain towards the Constitution, since, in this case, it doesn’t support their feelings. They do not like the 2nd Amendment, which was meant for all people. The 1st was the only Amendment meant specifically for the federal Congress (something which is copied, for the most part, by every State constitution). They do see, sort of, what the law of the land is, so, what do they want to do, since they hate the law?

Cities and states have a need to be extremely tough in limiting access to guns, but they need to do it with more forethought than went into the Chicago ordinance.

Fortunately, Liberals aren’t as smart as they think feel they are, otherwise, they would call for massive restrictions on the sale of bullets.

The law is likely to draw heightened equal-protection scrutiny from skeptical judges at all levels. Chicago would have been better off allowing gun sales under the strict oversight of the police department, which could then better check the backgrounds and movements of every buyer and seller.

So, the Times wants every legal gun owner to be constantly tracked, like they were a criminal? That would seem to violate the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments, not to mention that part which says “shall not be infringed” in the 2nd.

As flawed as the Chicago regulation is, the lawsuit challenging it is entirely over the top. It disputes virtually every aspect of the law as a violation of the Second Amendment and poses ludicrous hypothetical situations to show that everyone needs a gun…….

The gun lobby is going to attack virtually every gun ordinance it can find, if only to see what it can get away with now. (Last week, the same lawyers who brought the Chicago and Washington cases sued North Carolina, challenging a law that prohibits carrying weapons during a state of emergency.)

And what is the answer by the Time editorial board to these pesky folks who support the Constitution? Why, more restrictions! They just want the cities to enact them in ways that will stand against lawsuits. That way, it will mostly be criminals roaming the streets with handguns, putting the citizens who follow the law in danger.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

The Obama administration has not always been completely clear about its immigration agenda, but it was forthright Tuesday when it challenged the pernicious Arizona law that allows the police to question the immigration status of people they detain for local violations. Only the federal government can set or enforce immigration policy, the government said in its lawsuit against the state, and “Arizona has crossed this constitutional line.”

There is nothing terribly complicated about this principle, which is based on several aspects of the Constitution, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions over the years. A patchwork of state and local immigration policies would cause havoc.

I wonder if someone from the Fish Wrap could explain the 9th and 10th Amendments, then? I’ll wait while they frantically search for a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Oh, and while they are at it, perhaps they could look at this paragraph in Article VI, which I have mentioned a few times previously

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Hmm, funny how the Times fails to mention that all these folks must follow the laws, and that the Federal government is not fully upholding its job to “repel Invasions” as set forth in another section of that pesky Constitution, not to mention barely following federal immigration law as it is.

As the Justice Department points out in its complaint, the Arizona law will divert resources from the government’s pursuit of dangerous aliens, including terrorists, spies and violent criminals. It will harass authorized immigrants, visitors and citizens who might not be carrying their papers when stopped by the police. It will ignore the country’s cherished protections of asylum and will interfere with national foreign policy interests. (Already several Mexican governors are refusing to meet with their American counterparts in Arizona, a sign of the diplomatic disarray produced by the law.)

No one ever said the job of government and law enforcement was easy. Hey, the Times is failing to mention that Rhode Island has had this exact same law for years. I wonder why? Oh, BTW, Fish Wrap? Federal law requires legal visitors to our country to have their “papers” on them at all times. Shocker!

Though private lawsuits have done so, the government’s suit does not allege any discrimination or civil rights violations in the law, in part because that case is difficult to make until the law goes into effect on July 29.

So, Obama, Holder, and all sorts of other Democrats were full of mule fritters with their talking points about discrimination? Who knew?

Anyhow, it is good to see the NY Times step up to defend the Constitution, even if their defense is somewhat misguided. I wonder if they will step up for the Constitution regarding the ObamaCare insurance mandate?

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state’s new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

Look, I’m no lawyer. I’ve never claimed to be one. But, I can read, and the Constitution was written for everyone, and this seems to be pretty easy to understand (Article VI)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Supreme law. Yes. Agreed. As long as they do not violate the Bill Of Rights, and, in this case, the 9th and 10th Amendments. Just because Los Federales make a law, doesn’t mean it is supreme. Furthermore, there are two ways to look at the supremacy clause, one which is that there is no reason why the States can’t take a federal law and make it stronger, which is what Arizona did. Furthermore, the clause says that the laws made must be in line with what the Constitution allows the federal government to enact, but, that is a separate subject (health insurance mandate, anyone?).

Let’s say the federal government passes a law that states that no more than 6 unrelated people can live in one home (not sure if there is a federal law for real on this). It would be perfectly legal for a state, let’s say, North Carolina, to make the restriction 5 (which is actually the law in NC.) Then, a college town, say, Greenville, NC, makes it 3 (actual law.) Does the supremacy clause mean that NC and Greenville must allow 6? Or simply mean they cannot go higher than 6? From my POV, they are following the law, just making it more restrictive for their own purposes.

Oh, hey, here is a duty Los Federales are charged with

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Hmmmm. Interesting. Let’s go back to the last paragraph of Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So, if Los Federales have legal laws that require they enforce illegal immigration laws, and are tasked with repelling invasions into our country, perhaps Arizona should sue the Obama administration and Congress for failure to properly follow their own laws. After all, the Arizona law is basically a state version of the federal law.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

This could get interesting.

The next time you make a withdrawal from an automated teller machine, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner might be watching over your shoulder. Boosted by the sweeping, 1,400-page financial regulatory proposal currently making its way through the Senate, Mr. Geithner would have unprecedented, real-time access to a wealth of personal and corporate financial data – all in the name of protecting the public.

The legislation, sponsored by Senate banking committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, would create the innocuously named Office of Financial Research as a central repository for transaction-related records held by financial companies. According to proponents, “decision-makers” like Mr. Geithner need up-to-the-minute information to act in order to prevent what they refer to as another Wall Street meltdown. The proposed agency would also provide statistical analysis and research, purportedly to monitor systemic risk to the financial system.

And all without any sort of warrant.

Yet the details of the proposal show that this new agency’s mission is not meant to be limited to improving the quality of financial data. Mr. Dodd’s legislation would grant the agency director the coercive power of subpoena to obtain records and rulemaking authority to force private-sector firms to maintain their internal financial records in a format acceptable to the government. The legislation also grants sweeping authority to maintain a data center that would collect and maintain “all data necessary” to carry out the director’s wishes. Needless to say, the government’s history of losing hard drives and laptops filled with sensitive information suggests entrusting more to a federal agency is not a smart idea.

Waiting for the ALCU to jump in in 3….2…..wait, they aren’t? There is nothing on the ACLU website, nor do we find any articles by searching “ACLU Office Of Financial Research”? I thought they would be rather upset about the government giving unelected and unaccountable people (who are going to get paid quite a lot to do the job) the ability to data mine our personal financial records. As the American Spectator points out, the data would also not be protected and confidential, and could be shared across government agencies. No, no, nothing could possibly go wrong.

“As we read this legislation, the CFPB could mine for whatever data they want, bank card activities of a subset of American citizens, credit card debt and payment patterns, who is spending money on whatever,” says a Senate committee source. “And if the business community isn’t already scared out of their minds, they should be.”

In one example the staffer raised, the Obama Administration-created agency might want to track whether U.S. consumers “were spending too much” or cutting into savings rates. “They could, as we read the bill, monitor your spending habits, and it’s not clear what that agency could or could not do with the data,” says the aide.

I’m still waiting to find any liberal who is upset with this. They pitched hissy fits over listening to overseas calls between non-Americans without a warrant, let’s just call them terrorists, yet, crickets on this. Shocker!

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

U.S. Hispanics and Democratic lawmakers furious over Arizona’s harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants expect huge weekend rallies across the United States, piling pressure on President Barack Obama to overhaul immigration laws in this election year.

Let me get this straight: the American left is stark raving mad about a crackdown on crime? Seriously? If the GOP was smart, this would end up in a TV commercial for the whole country to see.

You have to love the signs that go with the story: WE HAVE RIGHTS. Um, no you don’t.

Comedy gold at The Moderate Voice, which seems to think that getting mad because Arizona is cracking down on criminals is a good thing.

Anyway, good news

Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

According to the report, 100,000 illegals have left Arizona over the past two years as they cracked down. Excellent!