Now, take action on the Senate and Congress!

Comments Off on Now, take action on the Senate and Congress!

Carl sends me this one to pass along….

Please read the message below from our friends at the
Media Research Center, and then immediately forward it
to 25-30 friends urging them to sign this important petition.

Grassroots Action

From the Desk of:
David Martin, Executive Vice President

Why is the Senate rushing to pass their mammoth health care
takeover plan before Christmas and before anyone has time
to read it?

Because they don’t want any of us to know what’s in it!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bought off support for his
2,000+ page health care takeover bill, and apparently will
pass the $2.5 trillion ObamaCare plan through the Senate
with a vote planned for Christmas Eve.

Meanwhile, instead of shining the light of truth on this
socialist experiment, the left-wing media are applying a
full-court press to sell ObamaCare.  They swoon over Reid
and Obama, while ignoring or marginalizing those who
oppose a government takeover of health care that will
gut Medicare and bankrupt our country.

Why the rush? What happened to the promise of transparency?
We have a right to know the dirty details hidden in this bill
before the Senate votes.

These are questions the so-called “news” media should be asking
as they aggressively turn over every rock and shine a penetrating
light into every nook and crevice of this monstrosity of a
health care plan…

But no, the main stream media headlines and news stories vilify
the opposition for using “delay tactics” while heroic liberals “race
against the clock” to pass this “historic” legislation.

Don’t buy the media spin and lies!

The time is NOW for citizens to collectively rise up and
demand the media report the real truth about health care
“reform” plans that will almost assuredly destroy our quality
of care and take our economy to the very brink of destruction!

The media need to come clean and admit that the Senate bill,
if passed, would represent the largest expansion of abortion
since Roe v. Wade!

The Media Research Center is calling on ALL Action team
members to take immediate action in two very important ways:

+ + Action Item 1 — Alert your friends

Right now the MRC is finalizing a last-minute petition
delivery to the major news outlets — calling them out and
demanding they report the truth in this health care debacle!

That’s why we are asking all members of our team to immediately
forward this important message to 25-30 friends. Urge them
to follow your lead by clicking below and signing our petition:

A just-released Zogby poll measured the public’s outrage at
the “railroading” of Senate Majority Leader Reid’s health
care bill. An astounding 84 percent of Americans believe
the bill was crafted to be so long so that earmarks and
other nefarious details could be hidden and voted on before
the public has a chance to see them.

+ + Action Item 2: Call Your Senators

After alerting your friends, call your Senators
and demand they read this bill before they vote on it.

Again, the American taxpayers are on the hook
for ObamaCare.

We are the ones who will be forced to enroll
in this plan. We are the ones who will lose
our right to make our own personal and private
health care decisions. We are the ones who w
ill watch helplessly as the federal government
absorbs another one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

We are the ones — along with our children and grand-children —
who will be forced to pay for this monstrosity!

We have the right to know what is in this bill before it is passed!

For those of you in Tennessee, here is your contact information:

Sen. Alexander          202-224-4944

Sen. Corker     202-224-3344

We are urging all members of the Action team to call
EVERY DAY — until the vote is taken!

The outrage needs to be palpable — both toward
elected officials and the so-called “news” media whose active
deception of the public is reprehensible. That why we are
counting on our MRC Action team to help “raise the roof” over
these next few critical days!

Thank you for standing with the MRC.


Refuting the Bad “Health Insurance vs Auto Insurance” Analogy: A Lesson In Federalism

Comments Off on Refuting the Bad “Health Insurance vs Auto Insurance” Analogy: A Lesson In Federalism

Here’s a great article from a newly made friend that lives in Tennessee and is a retired Constitutional lawyer of 35+ years Publius Huldah. She has several articles I will probably post in their entirety a little at a time for education purposes. You can check them all out at  her website Publius

Refuting the Bad “Health Insurance vs Auto Insurance” Analogy: A Lesson In Federalism

Defending Our Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.

It has been said, even by some law professors, that Congress can force Americans to buy health insurance because …well, everybody knows that the “government” can force us to buy auto insurance.

Read on, and I will show you how such statements constitute a serious assault on “federalism” and our constitutional Republic. But first, let us hear from some of these professors.

Michael Seidman, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center,  appeared on November 14, 2009 on Fox and Friends Saturday. He said, in support of his affirmative answer to the question, “Can Congress force Americans to buy health insurance?”,

…the government, ah you know, the government requires us to buy car insurance, it requires us to to engage in to buy the social security to buy uh social security insurance essentially… [transcribed to the best of my ability]

Nan Hunter, law professor at Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for Global and National Health Law, gave the Introduction at a debate on October 26, 2009 between Professor Seidman and constitutional attorney David Rivkin.  The topic was “Are health care purchase mandates constitutional?”.  After describing Seidman as “one of the ah leading constitutional law scholars in the nation”, Hunter said,

…it is clear that government can mandate the purchase of private insurance before one engages in certain activities, for example, driving.  It can mandate the purchase of automobile insurance as a quid pro quo for ah legally being able to drive.  However, individuals can elect not to drive and therefore obviously not have to purchase auto insurance…

Timothy Stoltzfuz Jost, law professor at Washington and Lee University, participated in Politico’s September 18, 2009 forum on “Healthcare: Is ‘mandatory insurance’ unconstitutional?”.  Jost wrote that while the “claim” that “health reform” is unconstitutional is a “talking point” “pushed” by “Republicans”, “former Bush officials” such as David Rivkin, Fox News Commentator Andrew Napolitano, town hall attendees, and tea party demonstrators, “[i]t is not…an argument taken seriously by constitutional scholars.”  Jost went on to say,

The only plausible question is whether Congress has the authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause to require individuals to purchase health insurance. The primary difficulty here is that it is hard to think of a precedent where Congress (or for that matter the states, other than Massachusetts with its recent health care reforms) have required residents to purchase a particular product or service. Auto liability insurance mandates come to mind, but these are only imposed on persons who use the public roads.

Thomas J. Whalen, social science professor at Boston University, wrote on the Politico forum:

…the commerce clause seems sufficiently expansive enough [sic] to include mandatory health insurance for all Americans. After all, for some time now we’ve all been required to have auto insurance to operate our motor vehicles. And last time I checked, the Republic is still standing.

Apparently, Whalen is not a lawyer, though his biography informs us that he is an “expert”.   And Jost said i t was “…correct to invite…political experts to respond, because this is not a serious legal issue..”.

So!  While social science professors who agree with Jost are qualified to opine on this constitutional issue; “Republicans”, “former Bush officials” such as constitutional attorney David Rivkin, Judge Andrew Napolitano, town hall attendees and tea party demonstrators are most emphatically not. Their position, you see, is not “serious”.

By their invocation of the auto insurance analogy, such “expert” and “scholarly” professors as Seidman, Hunter, Jost and Whalen show that they have no understanding of “federalism”; or they think you don’t, and they are trying to take advantage of your supposed ignorance. So, is their metaphorical place under the dunce’s cap, or is it Antenora in the Ninth Circle?

What is “federalism”?  “Federal” refers to the form of our government:  An alliance of Sovereign States associated together in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas.

James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, illustrated “federalism” in Federalist No. 45 (9th para):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….[italics added]

Madison explained “federalism” again in Federalist No.39 (3rd para from end):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects…[italics added]

And in Federalist No. 14 (8th para), Madison said:

… the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[italics added]

This, Folks, is “federalism”:  The delegation by The People and their States of a few enumerated powers to the “federal” government; and THE RETENTION OF THE GENERAL POWERS – those which “concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people” – BY THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE AND THEIR STATES.

Article I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution, shows that the enumerated powers delegated to the “federal” government are confined to war, a few aspects of commerce (strictly defined), immigration, delivery of our mail, and the establishment of a uniform commercial system (bankruptcy, a monetary system, punishment of counterfeiting, a standard of weights and measures, and issuance of patents and copyrights). That’s basically it!

As Madison said, it is the States which retain an “inviolable sovereignity” over “the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”.  It is THE STATES which have required drivers to purchase auto insurance! The federal government has no authority under The Constitution to require us to buy any kind of insurance.

By saying that Congress can force you to buy health insurance because “the government” can require you to buy auto insurance, these “scholarly” and “expert” professors are  obliterating “federalism”.  Do they not understand what they are doing?  Or, are they trying to deceive you?

The concept of “federalism” is so easy to grasp that surely these professors can understand it.  After all, some non-lawyers among this writer’s contacts  – even those who attend tea parties and town hall meetings – seem to understand it quite well. PH

December 10, 2009

Comments Off on

What an imbicile…don’t say it if you’re in the public…they use video you dummy!

By Kerry Picket, Washington Times

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today took shots at those who are not supporting the health care legislation. During a floor speech, he excoriated Senate GOP members for holding up the pending health care bill and accused their supporters of being birthers and fanatics in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups. He started off by citing an editorial from the Manchester Journal Inquirer, which used the insult “lunatic fringe.”:

“Let’s Look At What Current Observers Are Saying As A Possible Early Indicator Of The Judgment History Will Inflict. Recently, The Editor Of The Manchester Journal Inquirer Editorial Page Wrote Of The  Current G.O.P. Which He Called ‘This Once Great And Now Mostly Shameful Party,’ That ‘It Has Gone Crazy, Is More And More Dominated By The Lunatic Fringe And Has Poisoned Itself With Hate.’ He Concluded, ‘They No Longer Want To Govern. They Want To Emote.’ A Well Regarded Philadelphia Columnist Recently Wrote Of The Conservative Paranoia And Lunacy On The Republican Right.”

After explaining why absent GOP members who did not vote for the Department of Defense spending bill was tantamount to a “no” vote, he went on to say that Republicans and their supporters just want to “break” the momentum of President Obama.:

“Voting ‘no’ and hiding from the vote are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it. It was clear the three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.

They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.”

When Senator Whitehouse was approached following his speech on the floor, and his responses to my questions were puzzling, to say the say the least. Mr. Whitehouse said he stood by his speech, but would not admit that he was accusing anyone who was against the health care bill as racist. He did reiterate that birthers are part of the group that is against the bill and are attacking president  However, when I asked the Senator from Rhode Island what he meant by describing those who do not support the bill as “aryan,” he responded “No, I didn’t say that….again, pay attention to the speech.”

According to the transcript above, Mr. Whitehouse did say what he seems to be denying. Perhaps he should pay more attention to what he says on the floor.