News and Commentary Reported by Doug Fiedor

Use Android + AI for “Personal Robots”?

2010-08-09T13:28:00.001-04:00

By Doug Fiedor
August 9, 2010

Nao, a robot designed by researchers at the University of Hertfordshire, is said to be "able to display and detect emotions", The Telegraph in London reports. Computer scientist Lola Cañamero said, "Nao is able to detect human emotions through a series of non-verbal 'clues', such as body-language and facial expressions, and becomes more adept at reading a person's mood through prolonged interaction." Watching the video at the site one sees that the 23 inch robot is rather cute -- and it’s almost a shame that they describe how it operates.

Anyway, they used a number of modern sensors that input to an artificial intelligence routine to detect the attitude and emotion of the human interacting with the robot and taught the robot responses.

Back when the Internet was nothing but a terminal hook-up between universities and researchers we played with a software package something like that called Eliza, and later Doctor. In fact, in my physiology research laboratory, we actually dedicated an IBM PC specifically for an offshoot of Eliza that was programmed in a combination of C and Prolog. I wrote the code and designed in a parsing system containing 5,000 common words for the natural language section. However, we had an "open" research notebook for the project and welcomed suggestions from all of the researchers on the floor.

The unsuspecting user could actually have a conversation with that computer. Some actually thought we were tricking them and there was a real person in another room answering. It would often take a few minutes for a quick thinking human to trick the computer into an incorrect answer.

Alas, we soon reached the limits of our computing equipment and that (non-official) project ground to almost a halt due to the lack of memory and speed of the available PCs of the day. The C components of the system ran quite fast. The Prolog components, however, often ambled along at a less than desirable speed.

Today, things have changed greatly. Our personal computers are blazingly fast compared to those old PCs. So is most of the software. Better yet, some of today’s operating systems are (almost) blazingly fast at searching and retrieving information from the Internet.

Here, I'm talking about Android.

Most people would not think of Android as being a speed demon, but my new HTC-EVO seems to do some things faster than my desktop -- especially when running Google applications. Not only can it find and display information quickly, it also has a good speech to text and text to speech function. Even better, the information necessary to run those routines are not part of my local storage and can therefore be run on my phone. How cool is that!

Yeah, Android, I'm looking at you and wishing that I wasn't retired and still had that laboratory (and the funding) to play in!

Picture a natural language dictionary of 10,000 common words with all the parsing routines written. Any of today's mid-price computers could handle that easily. Add in our updated Eliza-Doctor software, along with all of the Google Android applications and a few other of the information gathering apps.

Hello HAL Jr.!

Could that be programmed into a robot? Sure. Limited versions of it is already in my EVO phone, so I'm sure there would be no problem inserting the proper hardware and software in a robot the size of Nao.

And there you have it: An information service that walks around and reacts to the emotion of the user. Good, bad or indifferent, that project is doable right now.

Sure, I know, there’s little monitory benefit to constructing such a device. But, that's what some said about the PC, too, back when I was a researcher. There's no real profit margin in it, at the moment. But, isn't that the direction robotics is going? I think so. So, it stands to reason that the first company that gets a package like that going is most probably the company that will show a profit from "personal robots" soonest. And, from my point of view, I hope it's an American company. . . .

Yeah, I'm looking at you, Android. I expect to see Android becoming a great little core system for the "thinking" and communication part of a personal robot. All the communication and Internet handling routines are already perfected and reasonably fast, so it’s almost a plug-and-play system.

So okay, some of the good computer scientists may find a few things to contradict here. But, isn't the concept sound?

# # #

Restaurant Violates ADA Law?

2010-08-02T09:37:00.001-04:00

Did you know that, if you play your cards right, you can get free money for being a bit inconvenienced because of a handicap? Being what some call “disabled,” I knew a little about that, of course. But I had forgotten some of it.

Ben Conery, writing for The Washington Times, reminded me about that in his article “Chipotle in violation of disabilities act” this morning.

Apparently there’s a paraplegic college professor out near San Diego who “has an extensive history of filing ADA-related lawsuits” and didn’t like how high the counters are at Chipotle restaurants because it’s a problem for him “choosing from among the ingredients lining the counter and watching staff assemble the meal” while sitting in a wheelchair. Therefore, he wants the restaurant chain to remodel their business to conform to his special needs. So, as reported:

“The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that two restaurants in San Diego violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the counters where the staff prepared tacos and burritos were too high and blocked the view for people in wheelchairs.”

Well now, let’s see how that works for me. My neck and spine are frozen. Yeah, all of it. I can’t look up and I can’t look down. Oh, and I cannot see all that well, either.

As many might know, most fast food joints have their menus high up, behind the counters. See what I’m getting at yet? I cannot see the menus that are placed high behind the counters. Sometimes I can see the pictures, but in no case can I read the words – or the prices. So, according to this whining professor, and the ever silly, often overturned, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, I have been wronged! Legally.

Yuppers, under the ADA I can sue any and all of these restaurants and not only get them to change the way they do business but also make them pay me money. Cool, eh?

Now, I can’t really say exactly where I would like them to place their menus so it would be comfortable for me. But that doesn’t really matter. I don’t have to redesign their facility to make me comfortable. All I have to do is whine that the present design is unworkable for me. And no, under the silly ADA laws, it also doesn’t matter that the current design is just fine for 98% of the population, either. I can “get paid” anyway, simply because it’s difficult for me to choose an order in those places.

Of course, I would never do such a thing. But I’ve just been reminded that the current federal law is such that I could. Better yet, the federal government would even provide me with a free lawyer, if I so desired.

Al Franken Proves That He Makes a Poor Senator

2010-05-07T10:53:00.001-04:00

In today’s Los Angeles Times there’s a very informative article concerning the recently elected Senator from Minnesota: Al Franken. The article is almost funny, but the video included really tells the story. Therein, the LA Times reports:

No, this is not a "Saturday Night Live" skit. This is the real thing from the Senate floor where the 100 members are paid $174,000 -- each -- for this work. The folks back home must be very proud of the honorable gentleman.

It's hard to believe that the far-left LA Times would give some space to showing readers just how big of a mistake the voters of Minnesota made in electing this jerk to Congress.

Also, I never realized how poor of a public speaker Al Franken is. This video identifies how ignorant (and stupid) he is, too.

Why Muslims Face Mecca While Praying

2010-05-05T15:37:00.002-04:00

Back about the year 600 there were still many tribes on this earth that were just barely out of the stone age. Some were indigenous to a certain area but many were nomads, endlessly wandering. Even what is now the United States had many such tribes. Still today, two large tribes regularly wander the desert in the Middle East and even enter Israel at will, but they probably have little to do with this topic.

Anyway, previous to 600, some of these desert people revered many of what the Hebrew Bible today calls the “gods of other lands” because nearly all they knew they learned from the ancient Sumerians living in what we today call Iraq. Some also revered one or two of the gods of ancient Egypt, but that wasn’t quite as prevalent.

For instance, one of those “gods from other lands,” Nannar (Sin), was very revered as a benevolent god in ancient Summer and is still today venerated by some Muslim sects. Even today, the symbol of Nannar, the crescent moon, can still be see all over that part of the world.

One object certain people of the desert venerated around 600 is still a sacred object today for many millions of people: a black rock, which is actually a meteorite.

Mecca is said to be the center of the world for Islam. All Muslims are said to face Mecca while praying. Actually, though, their primary area of interest is a 60’ x 60’ black building located on the grounds of a large mosque in Mecca called the Kaaba.

Inside the Kabba can be found their primary religious artifact of interest: a black stone framed in silver. The same black stone, it is said, that the indigenous residents of the area worshiped long before Muhammad was born.

As the story goes, there once were many venerated statues and whatnot, along with the black stone. Muhammad, however, ordered all of that stuff removed but allowed the black stone to stay. Today, the black stone is located on the eastern corner of the Kaaba and the photograph shows how it is encased in a silver band. We can also view rare pictures of the inside of the Kaaba.

You can see and read more about it here, towards the bottom of the page is a bit of what they say is the history of the black stone and the Kaaba. You decide on the veracity of what you read. I’ll not comment, except to say that the information is both interesting and enlightening.

Suffice to say that Muslims face Mecca to pray because that is where the Kaaba is. And, the object of interest in the Kaaba is the venerated black stone, a meteorite.

Lest anyone think that I am somehow debasing Islam with this information, that is not true at all. One can respectfully describe what is true and many Muslim publications say the same things, albeit with a better explanation.

Great News About Cell Phones for Senior Citizens

2010-05-02T20:44:00.001-04:00

Most of us already have cell phones with us when we’re out and about. Those mobile phones help us keep in touch with the kids and grandkids and are really handy in an emergency.

Some of us even send text messages on our mobile phones. But as we all know, those phones are usually very hard to type on -- and besides, the small screen gets rather difficult to read if the text is a little long.

Well, things are changing for the better.

How about if we had a larger screen that was very bright and easy to see? Add to that a keyboard that’s twice the size of the screen keyboards on many cell phones. And, on top of that, add on an eight mega-pixel camera that is simple to use and will also take great videos.

But wait . . . let’s say that we’re out driving around somewhere and see a rather interesting looking restaurant we know little or nothing about but are thinking of stopping at anyway. What are the prices? What do they serve? Is the food any good? Should we take the chance?

If our new phone is also a rather powerful pocket computer and quickie information source, no problem. So, before we go into that restaurant we take a picture of the front of it. Then, one or two clicks (no more) later up pops all the information known on the Internet about the place. Not only will we see everything the restaurant published about itself, but also what previous customers say about the place. Handy, eh? Yeah, quick and simple, too.

That same trick works with many stores and other places, as well as most tourist attractions. That’s right! While some guide is babbling on with their prepared speech, we can find a whole history of the attraction within seconds. Easily, too. And, by easily, I mean that there are not a bunch of steps to learn to make that happen. Touch a big icon on the screen, snap a photo and up comes more information than you’ll probably want to know abut the place. That works with art & stuff, too.

Almost the same thing also works in any store. Say we want to buy a high-ticket item, like a new television. When you find one you really like, take out your little pocket computer/phone and snap a quick photo of the bar-code found on the box or price tag. That easy step done, you have a choice: You can either have your handheld device instantly look up all sorts of information about that product, and/or you can have it list what many stores in your area (and on the Internet) are selling it for. That applies to hundreds of items found in stores, even food -- and soon it will apply to almost everything.

Want to save money on gasoline? That’s simple, too. Wherever you may be, just speak the words “gas station” into your little device and up pops a list of all stations close by. Or, search for “price” and a list pops up from lowest price to highest with an address, phone number and map attached to each of the local stations. Oh . . . you don’t know that area? One click gets the GPS guidance system working and your device will guide you there. Folks who travel a lot with campers or large vans can pay for the phone many times over with the savings from just this one function.

There’s also a simple way of getting store coupons on the phone and, I’m told, that modern check-out computers will scan them right off the phone. I haven’t tried that yet, but I’m told it works well.

And then, for people like me who sometimes get a little lost, there’s yet another handy little function on our new pocket computer/phone. Two simple clicks and a map pops up showing you were you are. You can zoom in or out on the map easily of course. Or, you can type in (or voice search for) where you are going and the GPS system will guide you there.

Unlike some other GPS guidance systems, this one gives the choice between the standard map, an actual street view of the area as you drive, or a satellite view that includes all trees and buildings. You can switch anytime to any view while on the go and the device keeps guiding you with voice commands. So it’s kind of hard to stay lost with this device along for the ride.

Another thing that I find positively amazing is that much of what the little pocket computer/phone can do can be activated with voice commands. That includes telling it to call someone and/or even sending text and e-mail messages.

Yeah, I got that correct: sending text! Speak the words you want written into the phone and somehow the computer part of the phone figures out what you are saying and types it for you. It does a surprisingly accurate job of recognizing what you are saying, too. Of course, you still have to choose who you’re writing to first and then click to send it -- the thing doesn’t read minds yet.

And there you go. These are the basics that most senior citizens will use effectively and maybe often. All are simple to use functions that do not require a lot of training to perform. Some make it easy to keep in contact with family -- and make it very simple to send along photos when you’re on a trip. Any computer and most cell phones can accept these pictures. Two of these easy to use functions can help save you a lot of money -- I’ve paid for my phone many times over in gasoline savings alone. And, of course, that easy to use combination of Google maps and GPS will always tell you where you are and/or direct you to where you want to go. It’s free, too.

Oh sure, there’s more to this new pocket computer/phone. Much, much more! Of course, I’ve left out music and movies because most phones have those nowadays. Instead, I’ve just described a few of the easy to use and very useful functions here. These are functions most anyone in my age group can be expected to use effectively the second day they have the new device.

There are currently about six new mobile Android phones that perform this way. Most have “regular” sized screens, though, which makes it a bit difficult for me to see everything I need to see sometimes. So, I’m currently holding out for the new top-of-the-line HTC-EVO phone Sprint will be offering soon. It may be one of the most sophisticated smartphones available this year, but it will also be one of the simplest to use.

Why? Because this EVO Android phone has a 4.3 inch new-technology screen that is bright and easy to see and you can easily zoom in and out of everything with your finger. I want all of the functions mentioned above -- and a great deal more -- and I want that really nice eight mega-pixel camera that’s part of the device. It’ll have satellite radio service, too, if I subscribe. Really, there’s no reason for me to carry a camera, small computer, Walkman radio, and cell phone when I can now have it all in one device that fits neatly in my pocket. And, yeah, I’ll be using it to save money, too -- a lot of money, I hope

Remembering the Carnage at Waco

2010-04-19T13:21:00.001-04:00

Yes, I remember Waco. Anyone watching the news videos and the later published feature videos cannot not remember. That was a time when the United States government made war on American citizens for no apparent reason. One or two Texas Rangers could have peacefully handled the two complaints government had against the Branch Davidians. Instead, the Clinton Administration sent in a few squads of men in their Ninja war-suites on a sneak attack.

As it turned out, it was mostly about funding for the BATF. Yes, ATF wanted more funding and so scheduled what they thought would be an easy sneak attack on unsuspecting citizens to garner headlines. Well, things didn’t quite work out the way ATF planned that day.

Now, the disgraced Bubba Clinton is mouthing off in the news yet again and mentioning things like Oklahoma City and Waco. Such is the shame of that failed Clinton presidency!

Below is something I wrote in 2001 about one “hearing” on the Waco atrocity. The Danforth hearing was part cover-up, to be sure. But it did bring out a few good points inadvertently.

For a full account of the Waco story, please see the excellent compilation by Alamo Girl. My offering here is but a short wrap-up on one hearing.

----------------------------------------

Dated: April 15, 2001
Author: Doug Fiedor

Danforth’s Folly Exposed

(Newsletter #226 - A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia)

Operation Showtime was perhaps one of the best armed "police action" operations in American history. It was also one of the worst bungled actions in American history. And, most probably, it was a totally illegal action from beginning to end. Except, federal agents were the perpetrators, so the justice department and the courts helped cover up the most grievous errors.

Over the years, we have watched, read and written so much about the massacre at Waco the material almost fills a complete file drawer. Issues #63, 151, 152, 185 are typical examples of what has been published on these pages.

It’s not over yet, though. Last week, a report on Special Council Danforth’s whitewash was released by the Cato Institute.⁽¹⁾ This report is Cato Policy Analysis No. 395: "No Confidence -- An Unofficial Account of the Waco Incident," by Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.⁽²⁾

Lynch writes that former Missouri senator John C. Danforth’s official report "raises deeply disturbing questions not only about the tactics used at Waco but, more generally, about the mindset often found in America’s increasingly militarized law enforcement agencies."

A number of illegal acts were conveniently overlooked by Danforth. Lynch points out a few that would be easy prosecutions, if even an honest prosecutor looked into the fiasco.

For instance, "ATF agents were caught on tape assaulting a local television cameraman after he had filmed their retreat from the initial raid on the Branch Davidian complex." Yup! Assault and battery with show and tell available. There’s more, though. The ATF agents also committed federal felonies by lying to federal investigators. U.S. Marshals pointed out the offense to Justice, but Reno gave them a free pass.

Then there’s the little matter of gross disregard for human life by both ATF and FBI agents. Indiscriminately shooting into a building occupied by innocent mothers and children is obviously wrong. We know that the FBI killed at least one young child when they used hand-held grenade launchers to fire more than 350 "ferret" rounds into the windows of the residence. The FBI bragged that they fired many in every window and door. Killing children by crushing with an Army tank would also have a few penalties if prosecuted. Murder, these actions are called.

As Lynch appropriately points out: "Does anyone doubt that, if the Davidian adults had been holding children of senators and congressmen hostage within Mt. Carmel buildings, the FBI’s tank assault plan would have been rejected out of hand?"

Lynch also points out that some of those killers, suspended after misdeeds at the Ruby Ridge incident, later turned up killing again at the Waco incident. One of these jerks was eventually sentenced to prison for destroying evidence and lying to investigators about his role in the Ruby Ridge cover-up.

Michael Kahoe, chief of the FBI’s Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Section, who Reno identified as one of the supervisors at Waco, got 18 months in prison for destroying evidence and lying to investigators about his role in Ruby Ridge. At sentencing, his lawyer told the judge that Kahoe committed crimes to "protect the institutional best interests of the bureau."

So, as Lynch correctly reports: "With a convicted felon in a supervisory position on the Waco case, obstruction of justice seems not only possible but probable." But Danforth didn’t even look twice at these guys.

Lynch writes that the Waco incident, "has become the most controversial law enforcement operation in modern American history. Although the ’official’ investigation of the incident now places all of the blame for the carnage on the Branch Davidian leader, David Koresh, numerous crimes by government agents were never seriously investigated or prosecuted. If those crimes go unpunished, the Waco incident will leave an odious precedent -- that federal agents can use the ’color of their office’ to commit crimes against citizens."

The new report is 18 pages long and well worth reading. It sheds some new light on just how far the Justice and Treasury Departments are willing to go to cover up for their agents’ lawlessness -- even when it includes murder.

Rambling About the Forces of Inflation

2010-04-15T16:07:00.001-04:00

There comes a time when a politically astute senior citizen wants to throw up his hands and just say “screw it!, it’s time to let them do what they are going to do.” Because, sometimes the profoundly ignorant actually win and there’s really not much one can do about it.

Of course, it really all started way back before even I was a kid. Back then, FDR threatened court-packing to get his strict central government controls passed into law and we’ve been more or less a socialist nation every since. Everyone knew the scheme was totally unconstitutional, but they did it anyway. That’s how we got all those federal regulatory agencies.

Think it’s not socialism? Is “freedom” some blanched faced bureaucrat sitting at a desk in Washington telling farmers what and what not they may grow and how much? Is it freedom when the central government dictates how our cars must be designed, how much water you may have in your toilet at once and even the consistency of toilet paper? If that’s freedom to you, then I guess it’s okay that they are now gearing up to regulate all American citizens on where and how they must get their medical care.

Did you know that they just raised taxes again? Yup, they did. A lot, too! Most of it is hidden, but you’ll see soon. Even those of you who pay no income taxes will see the results of that because the prices of everything will start going up soon.

Oh . . . and while I’m thinking of prices . . . Remember all those billions of dollars in “stimulus” money floating around? Where do you think they got all that free money to give away? Officials of the central government act like it’s their money to give away and I guess it is, somewhat. After all, we gave part of it to them as taxes.

Other than the tax bucks we sent them, where do you think they came up with the rest of it? Truth be told, most of that stimulus money is just fiat money. That is, they didn’t have it in the bank and they sure didn’t walk out back where the money trees grow and pick some. Nope. They created those many billions of dollars out of thin air. Because . . . well . . . the central government runs the central bank, so government can do that.

Now, here’s a closer to home question: What do you think all those billions of dollars in fiat stimulus money is going to do for our economy? If you have a trillion dollars already floating around in the economy and add another trillion bucks to the economy, many folks are apt to have a lot more money, right? And so they do. Is that “stimulating” the economy? Think so? How?

Okay then, who pays for that extra trillion bucks suddenly in the economy? We do, actually. All of us do. That’s because all that extra money causes the worth of the dollars already in circulation to decrease. So, we will all pay for that stimulus money the government created to give away through inflation. Think not? Go look at gold and silver prices after the stimulus program started. The price of gold and silver are a great indicator of how much the dollar is worth day to day -- so much so, in fact, that many smart investors tend to park their money in gold and silver anytime the dollar is fluctuating too much for them.

The inherently ignorant are allowed to vote in this country and vote they did. They voted for “change” and they got some. It’ll take a couple years before the consequences are so severe they realize their mistake. It will jump up and bite them in the ass at some point, though. They will first realize it at the food store, and then everywhere else, just like the rest of us.

Hey, but there I go assuming stuff again, huh. Because, most probably the inherently ignorant walking among us may never even realize they are responsible for electing the socialists now running the central government. No, they’ll properly blame capitalism and the Republicans. That’s how they’ve been trained, after all. Propaganda works and the Socialist-Democrats are great at it.

On the other hand, there’s a TEA Party function coming up soon and I think I’ll attend to lend my voice to those in the bright sector of our society.

---

States are Sovereign and Should Not Participate in Federal Regulatory Schemes -- Including Obamacare

2010-04-07T12:33:00.001-04:00

James Madison once wrote: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." And so it is with those "certain unalienable rights" mentioned by Thomas Jefferson.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law, executive order, rule, or regulation may supersede the Constitution. Only a Constitutional amendment may change a Constitutional right. Therefore, any violation of the Constitution must be a very serious breach of the law -- a violation much more serious than a breach of the laws passed by Congress.

In fact, a law, executive order, rule or regulation contrary to the Constitution cannot be a valid "law." And, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton tells us exactly that:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

One sentence there sums it up nicely: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." When government violates the Constitution, government then becomes an illegal entity and relinquishes its Constitutional authority. This places the burden of correction squarely on the shoulders of the people.

We should look to recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to properly define the legal jurisdiction and balance of power between the different branches and levels of governments today. Recently, the Court has been clarifying the relationship between State governments and an overreaching federal bureaucracy. Lately there have been some important developments in the case law. Below is a short compilation of some of the applicable opinions of the Supreme court.

In Alden et al. v. Maine(1) the Supreme Court admonishes:

"The text and the structure of the Constitution protect various rights and principles. Many of these, such as the right to trial by jury and the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, derive from the common law. The common-law lineage of these rights does not mean they are defeasible [capable of being annulled -- ed.] by statute or remain mere common-law rights, however. They are, rather, constitutional rights, and form the fundamental law of the land. . . .

"By the same token, the contours of sovereign immunity [of the States] are determined by the founders' understanding, not by the principles or limitations derived from natural law. . . .

"The Constitution, after all, treats the powers of the States differently from the powers of the Federal Government. As we explained in Hall: 'In view of the Tenth Amendment's reminder that powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or to the people,' the existence of express limitations on state sovereignty may equally imply that caution should be exercised before concluding that unstated limitations on state power were intended by the Framers. . . .

"The Federal Government, by contrast, 'can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, (1816); see also City of Boerne v. Flores, (1997); United States v. Lopez, (1995). . . .

"We believe, however, that the founders' silence is best explained by the simple fact that no one, not even the Constitution's most ardent opponents, suggested the document might strip the States of the immunity. . . .

"Our historical analysis is supported by early congressional practice, which provides contemporaneous and weighty evidence of the Constitution's meaning. . . .

"By 'splitting the atom of sovereignty,' the founders established 'two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.' Saenz v. Roe, (1999), quoting U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, (1995) (concurring opinion). 'The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.' When the Federal Government asserts authority over a State's most fundamental political processes, it strikes at the heart of the political accountability so essential to our liberty and republican form of government."

In New York vs. U.S.(2), the Supreme Court explains why the federal government may not order States to act:

"States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state officials appear nowhere on the Federal Government's most detailed organizational chart. The Constitution instead 'leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,' (The Federalist No. 39), reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment. . . .

"Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing is clear: The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a Federal regulatory program. . . .

"Congress has vast power but not all power. When Congress legislates in matters affecting the States, it may not treat these sovereign entities as mere prefectures or corporations. Congress must accord States the esteem due to them as joint participants in a federal system, one beginning with the premise of sovereignty in both the central Government and the separate States. Congress has ample means to ensure compliance with valid federal laws, but it must respect the sovereignty of the States. . . .

"Although the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people, it does not follow that the National Government becomes the ultimate, preferred mechanism for expressing the people's will. The States exist as a refutation of that concept. In choosing to ordain and establish the Constitution, the people insisted upon a federal structure for the very purpose of rejecting the idea that the will of the people in all instances is expressed by the central power, the one most remote from their control. . . .

"We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. ... The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments' regulation of interstate commerce. . . .

"But whether or not a particularly strong federal interest enables federal regulation, no Member of the Court has ever suggested that such a federal interest would enable Congress to command a state government to enact state regulations. No matter how powerful the federal interest involved, the Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate. . . .

"Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the 'consent' of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment. ... The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the 'consent' of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States."

The U.S. Supreme court continued on with that thought and slapped the federal government's overreaching regulatory hand yet again in Printz, v. U.S.(3)

"Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear 'formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day. . . .

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. . . .

"The Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. ... We warned that this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations, 'The Federal Government,' we held, 'may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program'."

And so is the supreme law of our land today.

According to the United States Supreme Court, State governments are sovereign entities. Which means, except for that short list stipulated within the Constitution, the federal government should not and may not coerce or order State governments to pass or enforce any law, rule or regulation.

The Constitution of the United States also gives citizens the means of protection of our State and individual rights. Article VI states:

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Any other law or State Constitution notwithstanding, all judges in every State shall be bound to rule according to the U.S. Constitution -- and, hence, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court. This, then, includes the Court cases cited above.

Actually, current federal law encourages citizens to take overbearing federal regulatory agents and bureaucrats to court. The law of interest is 5 USC 706, which describes the scope of judicial review allowed of federal agencies:

"To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall --

"(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

"(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be --

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;

(D) without observance of procedure required by law;

(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or

(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error."

We should pay close attention to section 2, parts A and B. "The reviewing court shall" . . . "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be" . . . "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion" or . . . "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity."

Congress wrote this law and a President signed it. Therefore, at one point in time anyway, we can assume that they meant it to be enforced. That being the case, we citizens have cause for some very serious discussion with the federal regulatory bureaucracy.

"The reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . contrary to constitutional right." This simply means, all courts “shall” enforce Constitutional rights -- all of the rights, Constitutional provisions and Supreme Court opinions stated above. By extension, this also means that each and every elected official, in all levels of government, is also bound by their oath of office to do the same.

Because, there is also a federal law barring "conspiracy against rights" (18 USC 241) that can be very applicable here:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

"If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured --

"They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

So, if a regulator, without legal jurisdiction in an area (such as within the boundaries of a State), conspires "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

There is also a "deprivation of rights under color of law" statute (18 USC 242), which, under general conditions, applies better to government agents overstepping their authority:

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both . . ."

According to Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States,(4) prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress (page 920), State courts are also bound to enforce all of the above:

"The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States -- the supreme law of the land.

"State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court."

We see, therefore, that State courts have jurisdiction to hear local matters that pertain to illegal acts of federal agents just as federal courts do. This means, a local judge may also rule on 5 USC 706 and enforce 18 USC 241 and 242 when a local citizen has been harmed by unconstitutional (illegal) actions of federal regulators. Because the State courts are often much more responsive than federal courts, that would seem to be the best place to bring such local matters.

This, of course, applies to all actions of federal officials not authorized to the federal government by the Constitution or added by treaties (such as FCC). States are sovereign units of government and cannot be required to pass laws and regulations in support of federal programs, including the new Obamacare scheme.

-----------------------------

1.Alden et al. v. Maine No. 98-436 (1999)

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html

2. New York vs. U.S. et al 488 U.S. 1041 (1992)

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-543.ZS.html

3. Printz, v. U.S. 95-1478, 1997)

http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/95-1478.html

4. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html

Android vs. iPhone

2010-04-01T14:48:00.002-04:00

Seth Weintraub writes in PC World that: "New reports indicate that Apple's iPhone may not own a majority of the smartphone market anytime soon," and that's probably true. But there are many reasons for that. Weintraub reports:

"Today, Changewave issued a study of purchasing plans of smartphone buyers in their admittedly limited pool of respondents. While people who planned on buying iPhones did rise slightly (1% to 29% overall), people who planned on buying Android phones increased 9% to 30% overall, indicating that Android uptake will continue to outpace that of the iPhone in the coming months."

The graph displayed in the PC World article shows that both the iPhone and the collective group of Android smartphones both approach 50% of the user market, which disregards two very large cell phone companies that use neither the Apple or Android OS, so I take that piece of information with a large grain of salt.

Sure, Android phones have quickly caught up with Apple's iPhone in popularity. The iPhone is a very nice phone and easy to use. But, come on now . . . Android is today's new and sexy technology. The iPhone OS is now middle-aged and improving slowly, whereas the Android system is young and progressing quickly. Sure, Apple is currently suing Android phone producers, trying to slow down the competition, but that's not going to work because one shouldn't patent a general idea, as Apple has done often.

Really, the iPhone has little to worry about as far as sales go. The sale of Android phones will continue to grow fast and soon overtake Apple. But, that's not to say that Apple's iPhone sales will not also increase. The iPhone will just not be the leader anymore. That’s because the whole of the smartphone pie will be growing fast. So, even though Apple will no longer control half of those sales, their phone sales will still be increasing for the next couple years.

Soon, though, the Android OS will be so much more advanced than iPhone's that Apple will have to do a major overhaul to increase sales. And, because Steve Jobs has been so nasty to the leadership of many other companies, we cannot expect any of them to be willing to give Apple any type of break to help them stay solidly in the smartphone market.

This constant competition, of course, is great for consumers. Availability and choice will be better and prices will decease. Better yet, there will be thousands of great applications available -- besides just games and music. Already, reports state that many of the most prolific application writers are shying away from the constraints of the Apple iTunes store and instead writing applications for the new Android world of devices.

Over Half of American Voters Favor Tea Party Views Over Congress

2010-03-28T13:00:00.001-04:00

An article this morning in the Rasmussen Reports should be studied and digested by all patriots and conservatives alike. Therein, the pollster reports that over half of American voters now favor the views of the Tea Party members over the political class in Washington:

In official Washington, some consider the Tea Party movement a fringe element in society, but voters across the nation feel closer to the Tea Party movement than they do to Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.

This is very significant simply because it broke the 50% mark and means that most of those politicians up for reelection in November are in for a bit of a problem.

Most of us would think that is a rather good indication of things to come but it gets even better towards the end of the report:

As you would expect, there is a wide divide between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed.

By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.

“The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century,” Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, says in his new book, In Search of Self-Governance. “If we had to rely on politicians to fix these problems, the outlook for the nation would be bleak indeed. Fortunately, in America, the politicians aren’t nearly as important as they think they are.”

So, what happens when the Political Class no longer has the support of the majority of the American voters? We all support peaceful change. So, are you out and about actively supporting good candidates in the up-coming primary election? If not, now is the time to get actively involved and there are plenty political party and club meetings around that would welcome your involvement.

In any case, it appears that American voters have had quite enough of the socialism crowd and there will soon be significant change in Washington. But, it will NOT be quite the type of “change” Obama was hoping for.

Congressional Staffers Opt Themselves Out of Obamacare

2010-03-27T15:05:00.001-04:00

What the average citizen to do? In the scheme of things, we’re thought of as just the proletariat, after all. Evidently, we’re to do as we are told and not worry about what our betters in Washington do.

As an example, last week The Wall Street Journal reported that not all medical care plans will be equal. Nope, as Allysia Finley wrote in a piece titled, The Beltway Loophole:

Staffers who wrote the health-care bill exempted themselves from the requirement to join the state-run insurance exchanges.

Well, yeah, what’s so different about that? You cannot expect the beltway insiders to join in the same programs and obey the same laws they inflict on the rest of us, can you? Many in Washington are exempt from the new Obamacare law. No one knows exactly how many yet, but it will be safe to bet that the number will be in the thousands before they are done counting. Of course, that includes everyone in the White House and Obama’s cabinet, too.

Just because they feel they can devise outlandish programs for us to follow, under penalty of law, doesn’t mean that THEY will also participate. They won’t.

Sen. Baucus Publically Admits to the Redistribution of Wealth Goal of the New Obamacare Law

2010-03-26T16:53:00.001-04:00

Radio talk show host and blogger, Hugh Hewitt, reported today that socialist Sen. Max Baucus sort of spilt the collectivist beans on the Senate floor today. Baucus, of course, is the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and also one of the Democrats most responsible for pushing Obamacare through the Senate. As Hugh Hewitt wrote (in part) in his blog today:

“In an unusual speech on the Senate floor moments ago, Max Baucus declares that the ‘healthcare bill’ to be ‘an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans.’ Baucus continued, ‘[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.’

Yup, just as we thought! One of the major goals of Obamacare is the redistribution of wealth. That’s the socialist way, after all. . . .

It’s not just the rich who will be feeling the pinch, though. Small business, the middle class and senior citizens will all be totally screwed by this new law. Stay tuned, the alarming particulars will start becoming identified soon.

Attorney’s General of 13 States Join in Suit to Ban new Health Care Law as Unconstitutional

2010-03-25T20:50:00.006-04:00

Calling the new federalized health care law “unconstitutional,” thirteen State Attorney’s General joined in a federal court action to have Obama’s health care law ruled null and void. The court filing states, in part:

"The Act represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals living in the Plaintiffs’ respective states, by mandating that all citizens and legal residents of the United States have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty. The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage. By imposing such a mandate, the Act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution."

We hope they win. And quickly!

---

55% of Americans Favor the Repeal of the Health Care Law

2010-03-25T20:26:00.002-04:00

In a Rasmussen poll published today it was revealed that: 55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill.

“Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.”

The Attorney General of Florida joined with twelve other states in a federal court action to bar the new socialized health care law. In yet another poll, Rasmussen reports that: 54% of Florida Voters Favor Suing Federal Government Over Health Care.

---

Obama Care Looks a lot like Hillary Care

2010-03-25T19:51:00.006-04:00

I happened across an old text I wrote back in 1994 when Hillary Clinton was trying to socialize medical care in the United States. It’s long, but because Obama’s scheme is so close to Hillary’s, I thought I would post it here. In either case, the same Constitutional law applies.

-------------

The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interference in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen too that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. -- James Madison. The Federalist Papers. No. 44

FEDERALIZING HEALTH CARE

An Assault on Our Fundamental Inalienable Rights

By Doug Fiedor

March 15, 1994

Synopsis

The following text contains 18 Supreme Court opinions, one Appellate Court opinion and one Circuit Court opinion. All opinions demonstrate that the Administration’s Health Care Security Act (i.e. federally controlled socialized medicine for American citizens) will not pass Federal Court muster.

This text is by no means all inclusive of the law; rather, it is a starting point for any future legal research on the subject.

Socialists and our liberal friends should be quite familiar with the text of many of the cited Court cases -- especially those pertaining to medical privacy. Because, since the liberals among us supported these Supreme Court opinions when the subject was the personal privacy of the medical treatment popularly known as abortion, they must also support our right to privacy and our right to choice in all medical care.

Conservatives will also notice that some Court opinions they have previously disliked are quoted extensively in this text. This is currently the law of the land, so let’s use it. Herein, conservatives should consider it as a bit of retribution to use what some think of as very liberal words in favor of defeating a very socialist-liberal type scheme for medical care.

In this day and age, it is amazing that people who cannot even subdivide a small amount of property into a profit -- even when one of them is a state Governor -- are actually believed by some when they say that they can properly direct the management of one-seventh of this nation’s economy.

---

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

Duties of Government

The most important function of government is the protection of the rights of the people. We the citizens must never let government forget that. We are now approaching an era where human dignity and liberty will require that We the People adamantly demand strict protection of all of our inalienable rights. But first we must properly understand just what those rights are. Exactly how and to what extent we expect government -- in this case the federal government -- to protect our rights and liberties is one of the major underlining elements of this discussion.

An outline of the Federal government’s authorized duties and responsibilities can be found in the United States Constitution. Our Constitution issues specific mandates to our Federal government, including mandates to:

· Protect our country against invasion

· Issue coin and control a stabilized money supply

· Set up and run a post office

· Secure our borders

· Protect the natural and inalienable rights of all citizens

· Guarantee a Republican form of government in the States

· Protect commerce between the states

· Regulate commerce with foreign countries

· Pass all laws necessary for proper government in the District of Columbia

Of these duties, only those pertaining to the military are performed adequately. Congress no longer controls our monetary system; it abdicated that to the Federal Reserve, a semi-private bank. Our borders are essentially open and free to any alien and/or drug-runner wishing to enter. And all public and private accounts label The District of Columbia as the worst-run major city in this country.

Still, many in the federal government seem to think they can centralize and manage our nation’s health care system. Towards this end, the Administration has put together a 1,342 page health bill that effectively trashes our Common Law rights -- our Rights of Life, Liberty and Property.

Rather than promote individual freedom, as should be government’s primary function, the Administration’s scheme is to centralize power through a National Health Care Board. The Board is to be made up of appointees who would have complete dictatorial authority to decide how much the nation will spend on health care annually.

Local Regional Alliances are planned with areas similar to congressional districts and appointed regional alliance boards set up in each district. These regional alliances, or government-appointed health care dictators, are to have complete authority to decide which health care plans will be offered to the citizens of their district.

These regional alliances, however, will be on a strict federal budget. So if alliances and their HMO’s see medical spending exceeding the per-capita limits set by the National Health Board, the bill requires them to cut payments to doctors, staff and hospitals -- in other words, to force providers to stay within budget. Provisions of the bill even limit what we can pay our own physicians out-of-pocket to the amount prescribed by the local alliances.

This means that, by law, regional boards must actively take steps to ration both the amount and the quality of health care provided to most citizens.

Worse yet, the system will be mandatory for most citizens -- but not, interestingly enough, for anyone on the federal government’s payroll.

There are 37 million Americans uninsured, we are told. No mention though of the 182 million Americans who are quite well-insured. No mention, either, of the 24 million Americans insured by Medicaid.

So we are told, to insure the 37 million uninsured (and this number is very, very suspect), the 228 million people with health care insurance are to be inconvenienced -- and the 182 million Americans with great health care coverage will be degraded down to some government mandated norm.

Is this an exercise in the rugged American individualism that made this country great, or is it the collectivist method of Socialism?

It should also be noted that the Administration is surprisingly silent about the bureaucratic health care fiasco the federal government already operates -- this country’s largest existing health care organization -- the Veteran’s Administration Hospital network.

“The federal government now spends 42 cents out of every health care dollar,” wrote Representative Dick Armey(1) in The Wall Street Journal.’

In another article(2), Representatives Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich gave a blistering account of the Administration’s plan for socialized medicine:

“All Americans will have to rely on the government for health care and the government will tell them what they can get, where they can get it, whom they can get it from, and how much they can spend for it”. [The Program] “would create 105 new bureaucracies, expand 47 others, make major changes in the tax laws, and promulgate more than 100 new federal regulations.” …

[The Program is] “teeming with new quasi-governmental agencies, all overseen by a seven-member National Health Board whose decisions would not be subject to judicial review.”

The VA alone has three volumes of U.S. code on medical care. Therefore, one very important question demands asking: Exactly how many volumes of laws, rules, and regulations would be required if the federal government attempted to control the whole country’s medical system?

This is a very important question. A few years ago, Business Week reported that there are more than 100,000 new laws, rules and regulations enacted in the United States each year. Between 1976 and 1986, state legislatures alone made up 248,000 new laws. And, on average, each of these laws spurred at least ten new regulations.

The Federal government is much worse. Forget all of the enacting laws for a moment. There are 11,585 pages of IRS regulations, 11,270 pages of regulations for Agriculture, 11,808 pages for the EPA, and 5,368 for Labor, to name just a few affecting our personal activities. A quick look in the Cincinnati Public Library federal government section showed 211 books containing 122,027 pages of Federal regulations imposed directly on the American citizenry.

No elected or appointed member of government has a working knowledge of all of these laws, rules and regulations. No career agency bureaucrat can even accurately interpret their own agency’s code. Still, citizens are expected to know and obey all 211 books of federal regulations!

Take, for instance, the annual antics of one well known agency, the IRS: The misinformation often provided citizens by career employees of the IRS is well documented, even in the Congressional Record.

In reality, because there are so many federal laws, rules and regulations, many are seldom enforced. Rather they are only researched and trotted out as a club for use against so called “citizen activists” -- those of us silly enough to question the reasoning or authority of some minor bureaucrat.

During Janet Reno’s Senate conformation hearing she was overheard agreeing with Senator Biden that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Apparently, it’s not important that no single person in government has the responsibility of knowing all this law. Citizens are!

If a citizen were to actually take the time to read, understand and obey all these many thousands of pages of rules and regulations contained in the 211 books, would that citizen be safe from prosecution? Probably not! Congress and the regulatory agencies change these laws, rules and regulations almost on a weekly basis.

And so it would be, if the federal government were to centralize control of our nation’s health care insurance. A full-time Congress will change the law full-time. So will the many bureaucrats in the associated regulatory agencies. That’s the whole of their job description, after all.

With these facts in mind, We the People must ask: Exactly, how many more laws, rules and regulations will be enacted to socialize medicine in this country? And how often will Congress and the regulatory agencies change these laws, rules and regulations -- with or without our knowledge?

The public good is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual’s private rights. -- Sir William Blackstone in The Commentaries on the Law

Public Rights Versus Public Wrongs

Back in 1660 John Locke wrote of individual or, as he called them, “natural” rights and the problem of allowing government arbitrary power over the citizens. The Founding Fathers knew Locke’s writings well and quoted him extensively. In Of Civil Government(3) Locke writes:

“First, it is not nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator, it can be no more that those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer to another more power that he has in himself; and nobody has absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other to destroy his own life, or to take away the life or property of another.”

Although Locke was quoted extensively, another English citizen had even greater influence on our Founding Fathers. In the years prior to the American Revolution, it was said that every American gentleman owned at least two popular books. The most important book to the Colonists, of course, was The Bible. The second most important book to the gentlemen of the American Colonies was Blackstone’s Commentaries On the Law.

Blackstone’s Commentaries, describing English Common Law, started appearing here in 1765. The first American edition was printed in Philadelphia in 1771 -- with a pre-ordered run of 1,400 copies. The text is still well read and can be found in any American law library.

Blackstone writes that the Absolute Rights of Individuals(4) “may be reduced to three primary articles”.

The right of personal security “consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.”

The right of personal liberty “consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, or moving one’s person to whatever pace one’s own inclination may direct”.

The right of private property Blackstone defines as consisting “in the free use, enjoyment and disposal by a man of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land”.

Each arm of this sometimes called “trinity of rights” -- our inalienable natural rights of life, liberty and property -- would be violated by any governmental scheme to nationalize health care in the United States.

The rights described by Locke and Blackstone are said to be Natural Rights, or the fundamental and inalienable rights every man already had in nature, before entering society. As citizens of an organized society, we are also said to have Positive Rights.

As a Member of the first United States Congress, Representative James Madison entered a description of both types of rights into the Congressional Record (5). At the time, Madison was introducing a bill for Constitutional Amendments we now know as The Bill of Rights.

Positive Rights, such as trial by jury, are those rights “that cannot be considered as a natural right, which regulates the action of the community, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is essential to secure the liberty of the People as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”

Natural Rights are “those which required no constitutional protection” and the addition of amendments covering them would only be ‘declaratory’ of their inviolability.” (emphasis added)

Positive Rights can be found throughout the body of the Constitution, as well as in the Bill of Rights. When searching for those Certain Inalienable Rights Thomas Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence, however, most legal scholars usually point to the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe. --Edmund Burke

An Assault on Our Person

As Blackstone identified 239 years ago, one of our most important natural rights is our right to our own personal security -- our legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of our life, our limbs, our body, our health and our own reputation. Little is more fundamental or more important than our own personal right to privacy and the complete control over our own body.

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution is an outward statement in defense of the inherent natural rights of the individual -- a written indication in support of the concept of the individual sovereignty so cherished and fought for by our Founding Fathers. As President John Adams told the people “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments, rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Happily, many of today’s legal scholars still agree with Adams.

For instance in a discussion of the Ninth Amendment with Senator Joseph R. Biden (6), Judge Souter affirmed that “in my interpretive enterprise, I have to start with the text and I do not have a basis for doubting that somewhat obvious and straightforward meaning of the text.”

Privacy, as pertaining to health care -- and our personal decisions over presenting our body for medical treatment -- has been debated in this country for over two decades. The law is clear. Our right to our own personal security and privacy precludes any governmental restrictions in these matters.

For instance, in Griswols v. Connecticut (7), Supreme Court Justice Goldburg writes:

“The Connecticut birth control statute was held void as a violation of the ‘rights of privacy’ under the Ninth Amendment as well as under specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

“The court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’

“While this court has had little occasion to interpret the Ninth Amendment, ‘it cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.’

“The Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. As any student of this Court’s opinions knows, this Court has held, often unanimously, that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain fundamental personal liberties from abridgment by the Federal Government or the States. … The Ninth Amendment simply shows the intent of the Constitution’s authors that other fundamental personal rights should not be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they are not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments.

“In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments.

… “as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one which are protected from abridgment by the Government though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

“In a long series of cases this court has held that where fundamental personal liberties are involved they may not be abridged by the States simply on a showing that a regulatory statute has some rational relationship to the effectuation of a proper state purpose.”

So, as we see from Goldberg’s opinion, there are “rights to privacy” (the word rights is in the plural), and that “fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments.” Furthermore, we see that “the liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the federal Government or the states is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments.”

If the regulation of the “right” to birth control, a minor medical treatment, is unconstitutional, may we not extrapolate a bit and say that the government regulation of all medical treatment would be very unconstitutional?

That was back in 1965. In 1980 Chief Justice Burger held that rights “even though not expressly guaranteed, have been recognized by the Court as indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined(8).” (emphasis added)

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger ruled:

“Notwithstanding the appropriate caution against reading into the Constitution rights not explicitly defined, the Court has acknowledged that certain unarticulated rights are implicit in enumerated guarantees. For example, the rights of association and privacy, the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to be judged by a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, as well as the right to travel, appear nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Yet these important but unarticulated rights have nonetheless been found to share constitutional protection in common with explicit guarantees. The concerns expressed by Madison and others have been resolved; fundamental rights, even though not expressly guaranteed, have been recognized by the Court as indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined.”

In Roe v. Wade(9), Justice Blackmun wrote, “Our cases long have recognized that the Constitution embodies a promise that a certain private sphere of individual liberty will be kept largely beyond the reach of the government.” In this case the subject is the kind of medical treatment we determine appropriate for ourselves.

The federalized health plan would allow the government to inquire into, and punish people for, seeking and contracting for the type of health care they believe necessary for their own bodies. It would provide, in effect, an unconstitutional general search warrant to snoop into our most personal of effects: our own body.

No right is more fundamental and natural than our sovereignty over the care of our own body. And, as Justice Cardozo (10) ruled in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.”

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. -- Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

An Invasion of Personal Security

As early as 1886 the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were held to “apply to all invasions of a man’s home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense;” the Supreme Court ruled (11), but it is the invasion of his indefensible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property.

The Administration’s health care scheme is an obnoxious attack on our personal security. As part of the plan, doctor s must report every patient visit to a national electronic data bank, which will store the medical histories of all Americans.

Already, Senators Kennedy and Riegle are getting into the act. Senate Bill 732 -- ostensibly, a bill calling for the government to pay for the immunization of all children for preventable diseases -- has some very surprising computer related sections included.

The bill calls for a computerized immunization registration National Tracking System. It mandates that a database include every American child’s shot record, as well as complete medical history, family history, school record, and criminal record.

Of course, the children’s family history must also include the parents’ and siblings’ personal information. Some of the required parental information includes: date and place of birth, educational level, occupation, psychological and medical history, drug and alcohol abuse history, marital status, and criminal record. All data is to be shared between the States and any “interested Federal agencies.”

The Administration’s scheme is similar, except it includes every American citizen.

Another disturbing aspect of the Administration’s health plan is the identification card. For many years policing agencies have wanted citizens to carry proper identification. Now government officials may get their wish under the guise of health care. Health cards are intended to quickly become the national identification card, and then some.

Magnetic card readers are cheap. So initially, there are plans for a programmable magnetic strip on the back of the health security cards. Magnetic strips, however only hold a limited amount of information.

Ultimately there will be a computer chip inside the card which will carry a great deal of information. Selected companies around the country are already working on such devices, as well as low cost equipment that can easily read from and write to them.

“Smart cards with a microprocessor and memory chips currently hold the equivalent of 30 pages of data,” William M. Bulkeley(12) reported in The Wall Street Journal. “An optical card now holds about 2,000 pages of data.”

Clifford Krauss(13) reported in The New York Times that “Civil liberties groups have long argued that such cards would infringe on the privacy of citizens and facilitate greater Government surveillance of individuals. The concern that the health care cards could become de facto national identification cards is shared by several officials in the White House and Justice Department.”

The identification method most desired by two Federal agencies, the FBI and the IRS, is our DNA, or genetic code sequence. The FBI and IRS have wanted this gene typing used as the nation’s official identification for many years -- and, for many reasons.

How would a long numerical sequence -- such as four different groups arranged in sixty-four different triplets -- like your individual genetic code, be used you might ask? No problem, the Administration already has a system worked out. A genetic code registration fits right in with Clinton’s proposed Health Security Card plans. After all, DNA typing is also health related information.

Gautam Naik(14) reported in The Wall Street Journal that already, “Data banks that store the unique genetic mugshots of thousand of convicted criminals are opening up a brave new world for crime fighters.” Twenty states now have such data banks and the FBI is working on connecting the systems in a “computerized network that will aid in searches for suspects who have crossed state lines.”

Health insurers also like the DNA registration plan for some of the same reasons: It will allow them to easily identify those with a genetic predisposition for many medical and psychological anomalies.

Stephen E. Bajardi, Executive Director of Huntington’s Disease Society of America(15) wrote: “More than 4,000 disorders are believed to have a genetic component. While many are not life-threatening, insurers are hungry for information that pinpoints high-risk individuals likely to require expensive medical care.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that citizens have “the right to be let alone” by government. For instance in Olmstead v, United States, Justice Brandeis(16) wrote:

“The protection guaranteed by the [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. … They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilian men.”

The Fifth Amendment provides that the Federal government shall not deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The same restriction is levied on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

And, in Allgeyer v. Louisiana, the Court ruled in favor of freedom of action. Perhaps this “action” could also include the right and freedom of hiring one’s own physician?

“Liberty under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right of the citizens to be free in the enjoyment of all of his faculties. Thus it means not only freedom of person but also freedom of action.” (17)

If sitting Justices are consistent with their own past rulings, the socialized health care scheme will fail at the Supreme Court level. In Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians, Justice Stevens (18) wrote:

“The concept of privacy embodies the moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not to others in society as a whole.”

Also, just two years ago, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter(19) ruled that “all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States.” Yes, they wrote “ALL”!

“[The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] declares that no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The controlling word here is ‘liberty’. Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for the last 105 years at least since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623,660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one ‘barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’ … Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States.

“It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the constitution. … But, of course this Court has never accepted that view.”

So, the Due Process clause contains a “substantive component” barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. That takes care of “fairness,” one of the Administration’s favorite terms.

In the opinion of these sitting Justices, all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty (see the section on Blackstone) are protected by the Federal Constitution. Also remember Justice Stevens words, that “a person belongs to himself and not to others in society as a whole”.

And this “liberty” as we saw, includes “the right to be let alone” by government.

The Federal Government was a government of delegated powers and it was not granted the power to intrude upon fundamental personal rights. --Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 84

No Constitutional Authority

Under Sec. S402 [d]: 5401 of the proposed bill, there are to be new categories of federal crimes. Penalties are up to, and including, life in prison. And, of course, that most blatant of government’s tyrannical acts, civil forfeiture, is also included.

In this case, the health board’s “inspector general” would receive all forfeited property, “to expand investigative activities.” So, as with the drug task forces, the investigators keep what they take from citizens -- which, in turn, encourages even more civil forfeiture taking of property from citizens.

Even the common act of paying a doctor for medical treatment could become bribery under Sec. 5434, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

A slight extrapolation, based on public comments of Administration officials: Look for a “Wellness Ethic” soon after the scheme is passed. They’ve already started on cigarettes. Next will be laws concerning over eating, drinking, exercise, etc.

Again, citizens must ask: Exactly, under whose authority are they doing this? No section of the Constitution gives authority to Congress, or the Administration, to provide health care security for the citizens of the United States. Rather, there are dozens of Supreme Court opinions clearly stating that the federal government is one of clearly enumerated powers. Yet, half of Congress seems ready to jump on the Administration’s health care bandwagon.

David B. Rivin, Jr. called it correctly in an excellent Wall Street Journal(20) op-ed piece:

“… every man, woman and child in the U.S. must participate in the system. The healthy must subsidize the sick, the young must subsidize the old; the not so old must subsidize the very young. …

“Where, exactly, does the U.S. government get the power to require that every one of its citizens must participate in a government-sponsored health care plan?

“Congress will be able to regulate you not because of who you are what you do for a living, or whether you use the interstate highways, but merely because you exist.

“If Congress can regulate you because you are, then it can do anything to you not forbidden by the handful of restraints contained in the Bill of Rights.”

Any student of American Government 101 learns that the Federal government is supposed to be one of clearly enumerated powers -- and, that those enumerated powers are set down in our Constitution for all to see. This concept is well established throughout the text of The Federalist Papers and in the rulings of a number of Supreme Court cases.

Most notable of the Supreme Court rulings is the 1803 opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall(21) in Marbury v. Madison in what amounted to a quarrel between President Jefferson and the Judiciary. In this case, the President won, but Marshall’s opinion has been a classic in American jurisprudence ever since.

“The original and supreme will [of the people] organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed in writing, if those limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not outline the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

“If the former part of the alternative, then the legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.”

In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall(22) is noted for sustaining the doctrine of implied powers, and proponenting an implied limitation upon the States, preventing them from interfering with the functioning of federal agencies. Less quoted is Marshall’s warning in that same case:

“This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was defending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.”

So, even Chief Justice John Marshall, who gave us “implied powers” for the federal government, and “implied limitations” for the States, admits that there are, in fact, limits to the legislative power of the federal government.

Later opinions also agreed with Marshal. “The Federal government is one of enumerated powers. There are no legislative powers affecting the nation as a whole which belong to, although not expresses in, the grant of powers to Congress in the Constitution.” The Court said(23) in Kansas v. Colorado.

Last year on Sept. 15, 1993, the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals(24) held unconstitutional the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990, saying that the Act “does not appear to have been enacted in furtherance of any of the enumerated powers of the Federal government.”

So too, should the Courts hold unconstitutional any variation of the Health Care Security Act. The plan is a blatant and obnoxious assault on the fundamental rights and freedoms of the American people.

Congress shall have the power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. -- Article I, Section 8: The United States Constitution

Health Care is Not Commerce

Many in Congress are of the opinion that the federal government may regulate anything that has once been in interstate commerce. Much of the Senate’s new Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, provisions for limiting our right to keep and bear arms, is based on this premise.

However, while some in the Senate were writing that telephone-book sized gun-grabber bill, the United States 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Federal Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. Circuit Judge Will Garwood agreed that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce in guns, but this act did not allege any connection to interstate commerce.

The question here is this: Just because a product was once shipped between states, does Congress have the power to regulate it forever? If not, then how long must the product be at rest, in a consumer’s hands, within the borders of a single State, before Congress has no further regulatory control?

And, as per our inalienable rights over property; once a citizen has complete ownership of an object, does not that citizen also have complete regulatory powers over said object? Has property ownership degraded to Congressional permission to hold and use a product, as directed by Washington, or may a citizen actually own an object? At what point of ownership may a citizen tell Congress to But-Out?

Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several States, but has no power to regulate commerce within a State. In another well quoted Supreme Court opinion(25), Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall ruled:

“The word “among” means intermingled with. A thing which is among others is intermingled with them. Commerce among the States cannot stop at the external boundary-line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior.

“It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such power would be inconvenient and is certainly unnecessary.

“Comprehensive as the word ‘among’ is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. … The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.”

Later, in Hammer v. Dagenhart(26), the court again agreed that: “It may be desirable that such [commerce] laws be uniform, but our federal government is one of enumerated powers. …”

“In interpreting the Constitution it must never be forgotten that the nation is made up of states, to which are intrusted the powers of local government. And to them and to the people the powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved. ...”

Seldom do Americans cross a State border to receive health care. Rather, health care is local commerce. Medications may move in interstate commerce, but patients usually do not. The family doctor is usually within a few miles of the patient’s home; the hospital may be a bit farther away but it is usually within the same State. Purchasing a service, within one’s own State, is then out of the legislative and regulatory reach of Congress.

As the Courts have ruled, sometimes even interstate contracting is beyond the reach of the federal government. For example: In Williams v. Fears(27), the court held a contractual arrangement for the furnishing of labor in another state was not a matter of interstate commerce -- and so not subject to regulation by the federal government.

Then, in Blumenstock Bros. v. Curtis Publishing Co.(28), the Court held that Contractual arrangements for advertising in a magazine published outside the state is not interstate commerce and thus is subject to State regulation, not federal.

The Court even held the business of professional baseball(29) to be a local activity and not interstate commerce, and therefore not subject to the Sherman Antitrust act. “The business is giving exhibitions of baseball, which are purely State affairs.”

These, and other Supreme Court rulings, show that a strong argument can be made against using the Commerce Clause as authority for federalizing health care in the United States.

… laws impairing The obligation of contrasts are contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation. --James Madison. The Federalist Papers. No44

A Violation of Our Right to Private Contract

A contract is an agreement resulting in obligation. A contract is a promise, or a set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. Our inalienable right to contract for goods or services -- with whomever and whenever we please -- predates the formation of the United States Government by hundreds of years.

Apparently, however, the many attorneys resident in the White House choose to disregard the hundreds of years of English and American custom and Common Law. On page 239 of the Administration’s health plan they state: “No health plan insurer, or any other person, may offer to any eligible individual a supplement health benefit policy that duplicates any coverage provided in the comprehensive benefit plan.”

If a citizen does contract for whatever treatment the Administration wishes to become a government pre-empted medical service, Page 241 states that the citizen “shall be subject to a civil monetary penalty (not to exceed $10,000) for each violation.”

According to Representatives Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich(30): “The bill denies funds for extended treatment of congenital conditions such as cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, and spinal bifida.” Apparently, people with these anomalies may contract for treatment of those specific problems, but no other.

In other words, depending on how the politically correct wind is bowing, sometimes citizens will be permitted to contract for medical services, but usually they will not!

In Nebbia v. New York(31), however, the Supreme Court had quite a different opinion:

“Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not public concern. The general rule is that both shall be free of government interference. …

“The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to say that no State may pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.”

It is an insult to the American people to even submit such an idea to Congress. And, since the Administration’s health care scheme is so foreign to our American way of life, it should be quickly struck down.

In defense of our Constitution, James Madison(32) wrote:

“The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.”

Imagine what the Founding Fathers would say to the Clintons if they were to read the Health Security Act or listen to their social-psychobabble. . . .

The Health Security Act is so far removed from the ideals of Washington, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Henry, et al, that probably they would consider beginning the government anew. Possibly, they would call for another revolution. For sure, they would be heard.

We need such men today.

NOTE: The Federalist Papers has been cited as a source of constitutional law by the Supreme Court of the United States, and is so regarded by many legal authorities. In Cohens v. Virginia, the Court said: “Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a complete commentary on our Constitution], and the part of two of its authors performed in framing the Constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the view with which it was framed.”

Many a person seems to think it isn’t enough for the government to guarantee him the pursuit of happiness. He insists it also run interference for him. --Anonymous

Footnotes:

1. Your Future Health Plan, Representative Dick Armey, Oct. 13, 1993, P. A-20, The Wall Street Journal.

2. The Welfarization of Health Care, Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, P. 53, Feb. 7, 1994, The National Review.

3. John Locke, Of Civil Government, 135 (1690).

4. . Blackstone’s Commentaries On The Law, Chapter I: Absolute Rights of Individuals.

5. 1 Congressional Proceedings 454, Rep. James Madison.

6. Nomination of David H. Souter to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, September 13, 1990.

7. Griswols v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)

8. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia 448 U.S. 555 (1980)

9. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973).

10. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals (1914).

11. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886).

12. Get Ready for “Smart Cards” in Health Care: William M. Bulkeley, May 3, 1993, P. B-5, The Wall Street Journal.

13. Clifford Krauss, P. A-9, Aug. 16, 1993, The New York Times.

14. Police Like Genetic Data Banks, But Critics Question Validity. Gautam Naik, Polic P. B-1. July 28, 1992, The Wall Street Journal.

15. Letter to the Editor, Stephen E. Bajardi. Executive Director, Huntington’s Disease Society of America, P. A-16, Oct. 16, 1992, The Wall Street Journal.

16. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 72 L. Ed. 994, 956,48S. Ct. 564, 66 ARL 376.

17. Allgeyer v. Louisiana 163 U.S. 578 (1897).

18. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstricians, 106 S. Ct. at 2189 (1986).

19. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 112 s. Ct. 2791 (1992). The Supreme Court’s Opinion: O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter.

20. Health Care Reform v. The Founders, David B. Rivkin, Jr. Aug. 29, 1993, P. A-17, The Wall Street Journal.

21. Marbury v. Madison: 1 Cranch 137: 2L. Ed. 60 (1803) Written by Chief Justice Marshall.

22. McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheaton (U.S.) 316; 4L. Ed. 579 (1819).

23. Kansas v. Colorado: 206 U.S. 46 (1907).

24. U.S. v. Lopez--- --- (1993).

25. Gibbons v. Ogden 9 Wheat 1; 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824). Chief Justice Marshall

26. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; 62L. Ed. 1101; 38 Sup. Ct. 529 (1918).

27. Williams v. Fears: 179 U.S. 270 (1900)

28. Blumenstock Bros. v. Curtis Publishing Co., 252 U.S. 436 (1920)

29. Federal Baseball Cluv v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs: 259 U.S. 200 (1922).

30. “The Welfarization of Health Care,” Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, P. 53, Feb. 7, 1994, The National Review.

31. Nebbia v. New York: 291 U.S. 502; 54 S.Ct. 505;78 L.Ed. 940 (1934).

32. James Madison: The Federalist Papers, No. 10

###

Concerning “The Law” in Washington

2010-03-23T12:29:00.001-04:00

INTERESTING LEGAL TERMS

Below are a few legal terms that seem to apply to the current news reports. These are provided only because they offer interesting insight into what some lawyers in the Department of Justice may (or should) be thinking if they read the same news reports we do.

Just for kicks, we picked the oldest law dictionary on our shelf: "The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary" by James C. Cahill, dated 1922. This dictionary was chosen because it was published before American law was corrupted by the FDR administration.

Conspiracy: "A combination of two or more persons by some concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means."

Malfeasance: "The unjust performance of some act which the party had no right, or which he had contracted not, to do."

Misfeasance: "The performance of an act which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner, by which another person receives an injury."

Nonfeasance: "The neglect or failure of a person to do some act which he ought to do. The term is not generally used to denote a breach of contract, but rather the failure to perform a duty towards the public whereby some individual sustains special damage, as where a sheriff fails to execute a writ.

"When a legislative act requires a person to do a thing, its nonfeasance will subject the party to punishment; as, if a statute requires the supervisors of the highways to repair such highways, the neglect to repair them may be punished."

Last but not least comes a term from a twenty year old political dictionary of obviously liberal bent. We choose this book because we believe that, when the subject at hand is the behavior of liberal politicians, it is probably best to define the terms the way the liberal politicians understand them. And, this term was once a real favorite of the socialist reactionaries among us:

Civil Disobedience: "Refusal to obey a law, usually on the ground that the law is morally reprehensible. Recent examples of civil disobedience include Negro refusals to obey segregation laws and actions of anti-Vietnam war groups in refusing to honor draft regulations. Civil disobedience ordinarily takes the form of nonviolent resistance and is aimed at arousing public opinion against the law."

THEY SHOULD OBEY THE LAWS

Four years ago, Congress passed a bill requiring them to obey all laws, rules and regulations, just like normal citizens. Therefore, we offer a few selected excerpts from Title 48, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Revised as of October 1, 1996, for your reading enjoyment.

This is good stuff. Because, if everyone on Capitol Hill (and those in all executive departments) are legally bound to obey each and every one of their laws, rules and regulations, our question is this: Where do we go to file charges!?

Almost everyone in Congress is in violation of these “Standards of Conduct.” So are their staffs. On the slim chance this regulation could be enforced, the halls of the Capitol Building would be rather empty.

Of course, those elected to federal office are above all this. They give lip-service to obeying all laws, then totally disregard anything too restrictive for them. Nevertheless, it is fun to wave this stuff in their faces, if only just to tell them we notice the blatant violation.

We might also add that, since elected Americans can pick and choose which laws they wish to obey, why shouldn't ALL Americans do the same? On that note, you may wish to send a copy of the following to your Members of Congress. Their reply should be interesting.

.............................................................................

Title 48, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations(1): This part prescribes policies and procedures for avoiding improper business practices and personal conflicts of interest and for dealing with their apparent or actual occurrence.

3.101 Standards of conduct.

Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct. The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships.

As a rule, no Government employee may solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from anyone who (a) has or is seeking to obtain Government business with the employee’s agency, (b) conducts activities that are regulated by the employee’s agency, or (c) has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties.

Gratuity or other thing of value includes any gift, favor, entertainment, or other item having monetary value. The phrase includes services, conference fees, vendor promotional training, transportation, lodgings and meals, as well as discounts not available to the general public and loans extended by anyone other than a bank or financial institution.

Influencing or attempting to influence, as used in this section, means making, with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance before an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any covered Federal action.

Person, as used in this section, means an individual, corporation, company, association, authority, firm, partnership, society, State, and local government, regardless of whether such entity is operated for profit or not for profit.

.............................................................................

Perhaps, we should also take the time to define a couple legal terms that are more or less common practices within the federal government.(2)

Malfeasance: “The unjust performance of some act which the party had no right, or which he had contracted not, to do.”

Misfeasance: “The performance of an act which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner, by which another person receives an injury.”

Nonfeasance: “The neglect or failure of a person to do some act which he ought to do. The term is not generally used to denote a breach of contract, but rather the failure to perform a duty towards the public whereby some individual sustains special damage, as where a sheriff fails to execute a writ.

“When a legislative act requires a person to do a thing, its nonfeasance will subject the party to punishment; as, if a statute require the supervisors of the highways to repair such highways, the neglect to repair them may be punished.”

Every member of every level of government takes an oath to support and defend our Constitution, as written. Any government official who does not is in violation of the supreme law of the land.

1. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-retrieve.html

2. “The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary” by James C. Cahill, dated 1922. This dictionary was chosen because it was published before American law was corrupted by the FDR administration.

MALFEASANCE IN WASHINGTON

“Congressional Responsibility” is almost an oxymoron. They pawn-off everything they can to boards, commissions, agencies, and what have you. To make a decision, to actually take a stand on an issue, is to loose votes. And, that could put them out of a cushy job.

Professional politicians will do everything possible to stay in power. Therefore, they must pick and choose their “positions” very carefully. That is also why they do not pay much attention to that paper document known as the Constitution. To do so would not always be politically expedient.

So, it’s with pleasant surprise that “The Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997,” received some attention. The purpose of the act was, as the name implies, to force Congress to comply with its Constitutional role. As Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stated in his “Freedom Watch Update” newsletter:

“Article One of the Constitution limits the power to make certain laws solely to Congress. But the [current] practice has been very different. Congress has all but abdicated the real law-making authority to the alphabet soup of federal agencies. These agencies -- like the IRS, the EPA, the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, etc. -- make rules which carry the full effect of law. These rules affect the minute details of the lives of individuals in every aspect of life, yet no elected official -- accountable to the voters and taxpayers -- sees the rules or has any part of the process. It’s now time for this to change. These bureaucratic dictators need to be reigned in; and only Congress can do it.

“This legislation will end the arbitrary rule-making authority of agencies. When an agency decides a rule is ‘needed’ for whatever reason, they will be required to submit that rule to the House and Senate. Those two bodies will debate the rule, just like any other piece of legislation, and then vote on it. If it passes, the rule goes into effect. If the vote fails, the rule does not go into effect.”

Of course, the bill didn’t pass. But, it is needed.

It is hard enough to keep up with what the conniving socialists in Congress are doing. It is impossible for citizens to keep track of the lawmaking of thousands of control-freaks working in at least 112 different federal agencies, too. Yet, each and every action of any and all of these bodies can adversely affect our lives. According to the Constitution, Congress, and no one else, is responsible for making law.

Worse, we are legally bound to obey all these stupid rules and regulations, even the hundred or more that contradict other agency rules and/or federal laws.

This is definitely not what was intended by the Founding Fathers; and, everyone in Washington knows that.

While we're at it, there is a law already on the books that Congress is skidding away from like a hot coal sliding down an icy hill. This one is the “Congressional Review Act.”

The 1996 Congressional Review Act gives Congress the ability to scrutinize and expunge all new regulations, rules, policy statements, and guidelines issued by executive agencies. Except, no one in Congress has ever used it! To do so might require that some of them make a decision.

For instance, there are at least forty Members of Congress publicly against the (and totally ridiculous) EPA clean air regulations. But, not one Member of Congress is actually working to stop this new round of oppression.

Not one.

“Malfeasance,” it’s called. And, malfeasance is a crime.

Everyone in government takes an oath to support and defend our Constitution. According to the U.S. Supreme Court(1), when we have a question as to the exact meaning of any part of the body of the Constitution, we may look to The Federalist Papers as an authoritative source: “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed.”

Public officials not conforming to the Constitution, as written and explained in the Federalist Papers, are intentionally guilty of malfeasance: “The unjust performance of some act which the party had no right, or which he had contracted not, to do.”

.............................................................................

1. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 1821 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/19/264.html

Back Again

2010-03-19T21:05:00.002-04:00

I’m here testing a new setup on a new computer and ISP. This blog was down because we’ve made a major move. The move is now complete and this space will soon become active again.

~Doug

A Whole New Netbook Market May Rain On Microsoft’s Parade

2009-09-23T17:16:00.002-04:00

Microsoft, the bloated multi-billion dollar software company, has ultimately controlled the personal computer market in one way or another for years. Now it is grudgingly losing its grip a bit, but not by much . . . yet.

Most recently, it was Microsoft that was mostly responsible for limiting the growth and development of the netbook computer market. They did that through threats to computer manufactures and sellers and by providing Windows XP very cheap for the netbooks so better Linux operating systems would not be developed and used.

After all, when the first netbook, the little Eee PC, came to market it used a very efficient and easy to use form of Linux and that obviously frightened the hell out of the management at Microsoft. The Eee PC was fast and “easy” to learn to use, unlike Windows. So, Microsoft soon went into protection mode by telling manufactures and sellers that they would sell them a subset of Windows XP Home Basic dirt cheap if they would keep their netbooks’ functions to a strict minimum.

That mostly worked, to the detriment of development on netbooks. Manufactures used Linux less and all but a very few Chinese netbook computers were offered with “lower” processing speeds and somewhat diminished graphics than today’s technology could provide for about the same price.

But, that was then and this is now. Things have been changing considerably these past few weeks.

For instance, Microsoft is ready to release the new Windows 7, which they say is much faster and more efficient than Vista or XP. It can also come with touch-screen availability. And . . . Microsoft will allow any version of Windows 7 to be run on netbook computers. Of course, Microsoft will also sell Windows 7 at full price (to most of us). That’s why they will allow it to be used on netbooks, after all.

This week, Intel announced what may very well be a very efficient quad-core processor for laptops (core i7) and a slightly lower power version for netbooks. Intel also has a new chipset for graphics that sounds great and we’ll assume that it is intended to work with the new quad-processor. Of course, these new Intel processors will be rather expensive for a while. But other chip manufactures are gearing up to offer lower priced multi-core processors and good graphics systems for netbook computers, too, so the consumer will win because of that competition.

There have also been a few reports that netbook manufactures have been ordering a lot of the newer style touch screens that are between 10 and 12 inches. That’s also very good news for consumers! Quantity orders, after all, also work to keep prices down.

This means, now that Microsoft again seems to feel it can make its bucks from almost every computer sold, they will “allow” the manufactures to develop netbooks to their fullest potential. And so it is happening -- quickly, too.

So, let’s put this all together for the netbook product that interests most of us:

By this time next year we should see the real netbook computer that I want on the market for well under $500 each, and there will be many brands (competition driving down price!) from which to choose.

The one I will buy will have an 11.6 to 12 inch touch-screen and a great keyboard. It will have a relatively fast duel or quad processor and at lest 2 GB of RAM, with a somewhat large hard drive. Of course, there will also be a few USB ports and a good memory card-reader. It will also sport a large, multi-touch mouse-pad and have very good Wi-Fi. Truthfully, I do not care what operating system it runs, as long as it quickly performs the dozen or so functions for which I normally use a computer.

Those who will have such a netbook computer ported to one of the cell-phone networks so they can connect anywhere might also run an iteration of Android on the side with a fancy GPS system and all the Google “street” and “earth” goodies. I sure would!

Sure, early on the new Microsoft operating system will certainly reign king on these new netbooks, keeping the prices too high for many buyers. But, sitting in the background, quietly waiting, are a few hundred developers for operating systems like Android, Moblin, Chrome, and various distributions of Linux, who also have a great deal to offer for the new netbooks. Unlike the Microsoft Windows 7 operating system, these operating systems will mostly be free, which will cut the end-user price of the more powerful netbooks considerably.

As I wrote above: As long as it’s easy to use and does everything I want, why should I care what operating system my new netbook runs? The fact is, I don’t! And, many of the these other operating systems will be designed to be much easier to use than any version of Windows. Besides, the price is right. . . .

Hence, I see a very well appointed netbook – a fast and efficient netbook – in my future within the next few months. The cost will be less than almost any laptop available. The only downside is that it probably will not have a CD/DVD drive included, so I may have to purchase an inexpensive outboard at some point. And, chances are great that it will not be running Windows, which doesn’t break my heart at all. Because, I should mention here, like the Linux based Eee PC netbooks, the “free” open source operating systems also have lots of “free” software available for those who wish to download some. And that is over and above all the great stuff that already comes with the initial package when you buy the computer running one of these alternative operating systems

Will Microsoft lower prices to stay in competition? They will probably have to. But, don’t look for that to happen anytime soon. Meanwhile, watch how an open and competitive netbook market provides quality computers at reasonable prices. Then, a little later, notice how that exerts pressure on the laptop market. Those positive pricing and quality changes may only take a few months. Actually, it’s starting now; but few have noticed yet.

Rent-a-Mob Socialists Activated Yet Again

2009-08-07T17:53:00.001-04:00

Heck, I can remember when Town Hall meetings with the Congresscritter used to be interesting. Lately, though, some are becoming dangerous places to be.

In the mostly blue collar town of Romulus, Michigan, Rep,. John Dingle (D-MI) was greeted by jeers (from Democrats, no less!) at an over-packed town hall meeting when he stated support for socialized government medicine. Dingle actually had police remove some of the folks speaking against the scheme.

It’s disheartening to see that the Socialist-Democrats are back to hiring the “rent-a-mob” thugs from the unions and ACORN again. Yup, just like the Nazi Brown Shirts, these jerks are sent in to do whatever they can to disrupt the gatherings so nothing of substance can be discussed.

Think about the dichotomy here: 90% of the union workers around the country already have great health insurance provided by their employer. So, why the hell would they disrupt town hall meetings and say they support a government medical plan operated by federal regulators? Fact is, they do not really support the government operated health insurance scheme; the thugs are paid to be there and disrupt those who are against the government socialized medical insurance plan.

In every election cycle, those far left leaders of the unions, and other socialist-leaning groups, pony up hundreds of millions of dollars in what is called “walking around money” for far left activists. Much of that money is used for paraphernalia, food and booze, as well as busses and phone banks -- and to pay disrupting thugs. In other words, it is used to pay those leftist-liberal activists we see out there and bus then around to wherever they are most needed. You didn’t think they were doing that gratis, did you?

Worse, many of the leftovers from the Clinton cabal formed “non-profit” political activist groups that have collected hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. Not only do they support socialist candidates for office, they also pay rent-a-mobs and activist groups to do whatever possible to support socialist programs.

Most of that flow of cash is actually illegal as hell, but prosecutors fear doing anything about it because that system is well entrenched within the leftist factions and the Democrat Party. So, illegal, in this case, is conveniently overlooked. The Democrats in Congress even fixed it so ACORN receives a lot of taxpayer funding to support unconstitutional and socialist programs.

Someday, conservative folks might catch on and fight back with like action. But, currently, there are no conservative groups doing anything like that.

Every person seen at any meeting speaking against government regulated socialized medicine is there on their own time and speaking their own mind. The interesting point is that conservatives are smartening up and that is why they greatly outnumber the rent-a-mob thugs at all meetings. The problem is that they still allow the thugs to make more noise and disrupt things.

However, conservatives are slowly catching on. So, some of this may start changing soon. I just hope things don’t get too rough.

More Waste of Funds in our High-Living Congress

2009-08-05T13:51:00.001-04:00

The “Elected Ones” are at it again. By that, I mean that they are spending hundreds of million of taxpayer dollars just to make life more comfortable for themselves.

There are commercial airlines flying all over the globe and all of these commercial airlines have cushy first-class accommodations for the wealthy. However, apparently these cushy first-class accommodations are not good enough for the elected ones in Congress. They want better.

Today, Rollcall (a D.C. newspaper that watches Congress) published an article indicating that the “House Orders Up Three Elite Jets”:

At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

…

The Gulfstream G550 is a luxury business jet, which the company advertises as featuring long-range flight capacity that “easily links Washington, D.C., with Dubai, London with Singapore and Tokyo with Paris.” The company’s promotional materials say, “The cabin aboard the G550 combines productivity with exceptional comfort. It features up to four distinct living areas, three temperature zones, a choice of 12 floor plan configurations with seating for up to 18 passengers.”

This is the very same Congress that chastised the captains of the auto industry for flying private jets. Yet, the Congresscritters want to be able to fly themselves -- along with their staff and families -- around the world on those dubious “fact finding” trips (read golf, dinners and beach) in the ultimate of luxury.

Yup, they spout that the nation (and government) has fell on hard times, and then they spend $200-million on even more luxury jets for their own use. Worse, this is just one instance of many. . . .

Isn’t it time we hired some adults to take their places? Think about it, because this is the time we voters should start looking for good candidates for next year’s primary election -- and start whipping up support for our chosen candidates.

About that Socialist Proposal for Federal Health Care

2009-08-05T13:03:00.001-04:00

Apparently Hillary Care lives, and has grown even more onerous this time around. One bright light in the newly proposed Marxist/socialist mess that would be government controlled health care is that many of the really bright lights in the medical community are again coming out in opposition.

Here’s a question that must be answered: Anyone see any authority in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to regulate health care in any way whatsoever? Nope. Of course not, because there is none! Therefore, they should keep their nose out of it completely. Nonetheless, Obama has a plan to do away with the insurance companies and make all health care government owned and operated. And, we can believe that to be true because he said so specifically.

Toker-about-town, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), isn’t known for being too bright but had the correct approach to federal government controlled health care. Conyers proposed a Constitutional amendment making health care a “right”. That will never pass, of course, but at least it’s the proper way for the federal government to get the authority to do such things.

Anyway, Congress has two legal laboratories with which to try such a scheme legally and should show us how good it is by making the plan work there for a few years first:

There are millions of federal employees (including everyone in Congress -- but not the military) who should try their proposed health care system first. Also, the Constitution gives Congress all plenary authority over the District of Columbia, which would also be a great test for the proposed system. This would give federal regulators a few years to get the kinks out (or scrap it completely) before it is imposed on everyone in the nation.

After all, the federal government has a strong history of messing up nearly everything it touches and we cannot expect it to do any better with health care. So, they’ll need some practice before instituting a nation-wide program. Let’s repeatedly suggest that to any available official and see how they like it.

Meanwhile, the White House is officially asking for snitches:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we are asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Ahem . . . Okay then, perhaps we should send them mail, both pro and con. But, to be sure, we should send them mail anytime we hear a politician spouting off untruths about the proposed socialist health care plan -- along with an actual quote from the bill showing how said politician was wrong. And yes, we should also publish it on the net for all to see.

Sure, this is a serious matter. But, that’s not to say that we can’t also use it to have a little fun messing with the socialist heads of the political types along the way by forcing them to participate in the scheme first. Because, if it’s not good enough for them now, it’s most certainly not good enough for the rest of us later.

Tell them so. Repeatedly.

Rep. Conyers admits to negligence in Congress

2009-07-28T16:44:00.001-04:00

Yet again, the Congressman from Detroit shows his utter disrespect for his position in government and his complete disregard for the wellbeing of his constituents back home. Worse, this jerk is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, too.

Yesterday, CNSNews.com and others reported:

During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Remember, now, Conyers has been in Congress for a couple decades and currently chairs the House Judiciary Committee. So, one would think, he is probably trained well enough to know his job description.

It is both the duty and responsibility of each member of congress to read and understand every aspect of every bill long before voting on it. If they do not, then simply put, they are negligent and should be charged as such.

What Should Happen When a Judge Lies under Oath?

2009-07-16T13:20:00.003-04:00

We all could guess, easily, that any judge knows damn well that it is against the law to lie while testifying when under oath. Most judges will get you for that and cause unpleasant circumstances for your person and/or your bank account.

So . . . what do we do with a judge who blatantly lies while they are under oath? Should they be promoted to a higher position? Should they be charged with the felony and taken off of the bench completely? What?

The instant topic, of course, is Judge Sonia Sotomayor and her Senate hearing for the Supreme Court. According to Fox News yesterday:

She said her work as a judge for 17 years does not show any "liberal instincts" in the cases she officiated over. "If he was talking about the fact that I served on a particular board that promoted equal opportunity for people, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, then you could talk about that being a liberal instinct in the sense that I promote equal opportunity in America and the attempts to assure that," Sotomayor said.

Sigh . . . I guess she thinks that her opposition to Constitutional rights, like our Second Amendment rights, our right to freely contract, and her propensity for supporting special rights for special groups, doesn’t count as liberal positions for the purpose of the Supreme Court hearings.

Senate Republican turncoat Arlen Specter was quoted saying that his fear is that Sonia Sotomayor may say one thing at her confirmation hearing and do another as the next Supreme Court justice. Really? Wow, such insight from a Democrat, eh?

"Is there anything the Senate or Congress can do if a nominee says one thing seated at that table and does something exactly the opposite once they walk across the street?" he asked Sotomayor Wednesday during Day 3 of her confirmation hearings as she seeks to become the first Hispanic to sit on the high court.

Yes, Senator, there is something that should be done: Charge her with perjury for all the lies she has already told while under oath and kick her butt out of the judiciary forevermore. After all, she has an extensive written record to fall back on.

Have you no ethics whatsoever in the Senate? Don’t you even care when judges tell obvious lies while under oath?

Oh wait . . . I guess y’all answered my ethics question during the Clinton impeachment trial, huh.

Why All Those Socialist-leaning Bills in Congress This Year?

2009-07-14T13:09:00.001-04:00

In January of 2007 the House of Representatives for the 110^th Congress voted 233-202 to elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as Speaker of the House. She was elected on a strictly party-line (unanimous) roll call vote. This action by the Democrats was, of course, an outward sign that the Democrat Party was finally acting under their true political colors. The problem was that, because of our very liberal mainstream media, the underline reason was hushed up and few American voters noticed.

Nancy Pelosi, of course, has been a long term member, and served on the executive committee, of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is actually an arm of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

So, let’s take a moment to see what type of mischief these card-carrying socialist in Congress have the ability to get into. According to the Progressive Caucus web site:

The Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, U.S. Representatives Raúl M. Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, welcome your interest in the growing Progressive Caucus. Our Caucus Members want to do more than speak out against extremism from the Right. We want to take on the Bush Administration's agenda by providing a comprehensive, thoughtful, progressive alternative -- what we call The Progressive Promise -- Fairness for All (PDF).

So, let’s look at the Progressive Caucus leadership. The Co-Chairs are:

Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) – a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on Natural Resources. He pushes socialized medicine.

Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) – sits on the Committee on Education and Labor and chairs the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. She is also on the Committee on Science and Technology.

There are seven Progressive Caucus Vice-Chairs:

Diane Watson (D-CA) -- sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and chairs the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement. She also sits on the on the Subcommittee for Domestic Policy and the Subcommittee for Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She chairs the Congressional Entertainment Industries Caucus and is a Co-Chair of the Korean Caucus

Keith Ellison (D-MN) -- serves on the Financial Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) -- sits on The Committee on the Judiciary, The Committee on Homeland Security and The Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mazie Hirono (D-HI) – sits on Education and Labor Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) -- Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He is also a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Donna F. Edwards (D-MD) -- serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee where she sits on the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.

Alan Grayson (D-FL) -- sits on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittees of both the House Financial Services Committee and the House Science and Technology Committee.

There are also seventy-some other House members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well as two senators. Many of these members, such as John Conyers (D-MI), chair important committees and sub-committees. More on that later, as time allows.

Background on the Democrat’s Activities in Congress

2009-07-09T11:25:00.004-04:00

Everyone seems to have their favorite conspiracies nowadays and we get "alerted" to four or five new ones a week. So, herein, we shall not be starting yet another. Nonetheless, there really is a well entrenched political organization active in Congress whose goal is to unabashedly reorganize life in the United States as we know it. This group is not at all secret, either; it just never gets much press. Yet, they hold semipublic meetings in our nation's Capitol and everyone in the Washington press corps know about them.

Fifty years ago, most members of Congress would have quickly labeled the goals and activities of groups like this as "un-American activities." Today, all the members of the group in question are members of the Democrat Party, as well as members of Congress.

So, while this cannot be labeled as a secret conspiracy, there really is a workable plan afoot that put the leadership of many of the important committees in Congress in the hands of people with decidedly un-American intentions.

We’re talking about the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Seventy -some members of the House actively belong to the Progressive Caucus (including the Speaker of the House) and herein is part of what drives and defines that segment of the Democrat Party.

The Progressive Caucus is actually an arm of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Their web page was even hosted by DSA until we (and then others) exposed them in a newsletter a few years ago. Originally, their web page was operated by the avowed socialist Representative from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, and the Progressive Caucus was labeled as the affiliated arm of the DSA in Congress.

And, according to them: "DSA is the largest US affiliate of the Socialist International (SI), the worldwide organization of 140 socialist, social democratic and labor parties. The SI has the distinction of being the largest political organization in the world."

Some folks might correctly remember that the SI membership included well known politicians like Josef Stalin, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, and Leon Trotsky. That probably explains why so many of the planks of the Communist Manifesto are included in the Democrat Party's platform and are the expressed goals of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Again, they prove that with their own words. The think tank of the Progressive Caucus is The Progressive Challenge -- The Institute for Policy Studies. The progressive Challenge bills itself as: "Linking grassroots activists, scholars, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus toward a multi-issue movement for fairness and justice for all." It is also aligned with the DSA.

As their introduction states:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Institute for Policy Studies and countless national and community organizations and citizens around the country have been fighting tirelessly for a Fairness Agenda for America -- for a redirecting of national priorities toward fairness and economic justice.

Their "Fairness Agenda" comes as close to calling for the implication of all planks of the Communist Manifesto (those not already written into law) as they dare at the moment.

The Progressive Caucus and Progress Challenge support the Transnational Institute, which has yet another interesting take on socialism in the United States and worldwide.

Studying the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and these associated groups, will provide great insight on what is happening in Congress today and why.