Affordable Health Care For America Act?

H.R. 3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act is repressive rather than progressive. There was no referendum to pass this 1,990 page restructuring of 15.3% of our economy. If health care is the problem, insurance is not the cause, and bigger government is not the answer.

Fortune 500 shows that last year's profits for the ten largest private insurance companies in America were eight billion-altogether. Medicare lost to faud 20 times the profit of the most profitable insurance company

It has little to do with making health care affordable for Americans and great deal to do with usurping personal choices by empowering the American Government. It is health care being delivered by the U.S. Postal Service and administered by the Internal Revenue Service.

Do you want your medications delivered to you the way this government misdelivers the mail of other people to you. Do you want your health care administered by the IRS under the Department of the Treasury? If you like how the IRS determines deductions and hunts down taxpayers for missing payments, you will love how they determine benefits and demand premiums.

Imagine another 111 bureacracies that only ultimately must listen to the Secretary of the Treasury - another "service" of which is the IRS.


This huge bill was not created because of a lack of ideas from Republicans in readable segments with alternative bills. It is inspite of them. The Democrats do not fight corruption. They reward it with trillions of dollars in pork. Medicare is failing, but wait until they make it look like ACORN.

The REPUBLICAN Affordable Health Care For America Act would be MAKING HEALTH Care Affordable For EVERY AmeriCAN.

Besides the connection to all of H.3932 above, there are connections for detailed summaries and a comprehensive list of tax hikes at the end.

Just to start with, you can start and listen to the videos at the end while you read the this:


Affordable Health Care for America Act Section by Section Analysis

Detailed Summary of Affordable Health Care for America Act

AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM has checked this for new taxes and found a:

COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ALL TAX HIKES IN HOUSE GOVERNMENT HEALTH BILL

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a singleemployee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped). Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services. Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act.

Jobs Creation Act Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

OTHER ISSUES:

Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government

Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions


Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase—and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion


Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at theHULewin GroupUH, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage

Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care


Page 255—Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits

Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central HUpromiseUH of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign

Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an HUanalysisUH by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—Uwith minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts

Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs

Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage

Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000

Page 1174—Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “UWe will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the HouseU,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000

Republican Response to Democrat Health Care Bill-10/29/09



SenJohnCornyn
Sen. Cornyn's Floor Speech on the Pelosi Health Bill and its Impact on Jobs



John Boehner quoting NTUF blog on the wording of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act

Documenting Democrats' Double Talking and Double Think

national debt

March 16, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S2237

Are we supposed to believe what Obama says NOW or what he said on 3/16/06?

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion......................................................

http://www.gpo.gov/.../pdf/CREC-2006-03-16-pt1-PgS2236.pdf

Are we supposed to believe what Reid says NOW or what he said on 3/16/06?

"Mr. REID: ........If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today, and more than $3 trillion dollars over the last 5 years, is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they believe more debt is good for our economy. How can the Republican majority and this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars of new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it is fair to force our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes? That is what will have to happen. Why is it right to increase this Nation's dependence on foreign creditors? They should explain this.
   Maybe they can convince the public they are right. I doubt it, because most Americans know that increasing the debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the baby boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.
   Again, on debt--Thomas Jefferson. These are his words:
   And to preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty--or profusion and servitude.
   That was President Thomas Jefferson.
   Democrats will not be making arguments to support this legislation which will weaken our country. The President often speaks of personal responsibility. In a speech before African-American leaders earlier in his administration, the President stated that a President is judged not by the words he speaks but by the work he leaves behind. By that benchmark, the President and this Republican-controlled Congress will not be judged kindly with respect to the stewardship of our Nation's finances.
   We are being asked to do what should not be asked of us, to increase the debt to almost $9 trillion. I hope everyone walking down to these desks today will understand what they are doing, what they are doing to our country. On this side of the aisle, we know.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-03-16/pdf/CREC-2006-03-16-pt1-PgS2225-5.pdf

September 9, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESSON HEALTH CARE

U.S. Capitol Washington, D.C.

Are we supposed to believe what Obama says NOW or what he said on 9/9/09?

  First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future.  (Applause.)  I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.  And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.  (Applause.)  Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.  (Applause.)  I will not make that same mistake with health care.  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care

My experience with the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," AKA "Obamacare."

I have to say this "ACA" is less reputable for its claim of making health care affordable. Here is the scam of Obamacare.

 In my case, I was paying a $750 deductible and about $750 a month for insurance. Since my Providence healthcare is mandated to comply with the ACA, now I have a $2,500 deductable with my $750 a month insurance premium.

THEREFORE, I am going to have to pay an extra $1750 a year to get the same benefits. Not only that, but my costs at least doubled after the requirement that my insurance company was forced to accept members who had prior conditions and did not see fit to pay for insurance BEFORE they got sick.

Further, there is too much talk about data bases being combined to assure me my information will not be abused and my privacy violated just to prove compliance with the federal government and its various bureaucracies; starting with the IRS and the 100s of other committees created by this law.

I am John Lloyd Scharf, born 1951, and, because of cost increases imposed by Obamacare, have had to lose part of my benefit to take it at 62 instead of 66, when I would have been fully eligible for 100% of my benefits instead of 70%.


national debt

Furloughed Workers List

Democrats ignoring Obama's promise to veto Obamacare adding to the deficit in 2009 and now.

https://twitter.com/LeftsideAnnie/status/384117823280148481

Obama's claim of 8:45PM, September 9, 2009

TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH CARE

"First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future.  (Applause.)  I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period." 

As Senator, Obama sponsored the PayGo or Sequester Process

110TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 10 To reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement and reduce budget deficits by strengthening budget enforcement and fiscal responsibility. JANUARY 4, 2007 Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SALAZAR, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. KERRY, Mr. HARKIN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. OBAMA, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester

(July 12, 2011):

They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.

“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.

“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”

“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.

(July 26):

At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. 

“We have an idea for a trigger,” Lew said.

“What’s the idea,” Reid asked skeptically. 

“Sequestration.”

Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling.

“A couple of weeks ago,” he said, “my staff said to me that there is one more possible” enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”

Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.

What would the impact be?

They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan. Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.

“This is ridiculous,” Reid said.

That’s the beauty of a sequester, they said, it’s so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.

“I get it,” Reid said finally. 

This is the third reference to the White House putting together the plan for sequester. Granted, they are using language from a congressional law from a quarter-century earlier, but that seems a thin reed on which to say this came from Congress. In fact, Lew had been a policy advisor to then House Speaker Tip O’Neill from 1979 to 1987, and so was familiar with the law.

Republicans agreed to the White House proposal for a sequester.Republicans had to work through the night to understand the White House proposal.

BREAKING: The House will consider a bill this afternoon to delay #Obamacare by one year as well as keep the government running, repeal the medical device tax, and make sure that our military is paid in the event of a government shutdown.

Congressman Doug Lamborn

Then and now - Obama on ACA increasing the Deficit/Debt Limit and Democrats threatening a debt default.

OBAMA THREATENING TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT FOR OBAMACARE AFTER PROMISING NOT TO INCREASE DEFICIT WITH OBAMACARE  AND THEN BLAMING THE REPUBLICANS

September 9, 2009 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH CARE: And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.


 "We have not seen this in the past that a budget is contingent on us eliminating a program that was voted on, passed by both chambers of Congress, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, is two weeks from being fully implemented, and that helps 30 million people finally get health care coverage. We've never seen that become the issue around a budget battle. And so that's right now the primary roadblock to resolving the budget. "What's worse, that same faction has said, if we can't succeed in shutting the government down and leveraging that to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, we may be prepared to let the government default on our debt."

Banned On Facebook - Political Comment on "Breitbart- One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened" Page

“You foolish American Infidels! Obama isn’t coming for OUR guns! Only yours! He is ARMING us for the JIHAD! See you soon!”  was at the base of a picture of Ali Beheshti, posing with a gun in this Metropolitan Police photo, who admitted conspiracy to endanger life. This was posted by a user on the Facebook page of Breitbart- One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened. 

ALL of the administrators of that page were logged out for violating the Terms of Service because one of their members uploaded a picture that offended the delicate sensitivities of al Qaeda terrorists. 

Ali Beheshti once paraded his baby in an 'I love Al Qaeda' hat. Now he has been sentenced to four and a half years for firebombing the home of the publisher of a novel about Mohammed. You have to wonder how this terrorist, who looks like actor Dominic Purcell with a beard, was able to get a handgun in the United Kingdom. 

However, most of all, why does Facebook allows a Jihadist Facebook named Fuck Israel
 
to publish violent comments against Israelis while banning an image that is actually a political statement about the Obama Administration. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198111/If-choose-live-country-live-rules-says-judge-jails-Muslim-extremists-arson-attack-publishers-home.html#ixzz2fPDF6PqS 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Right to Firearms for Self Protection - Resource for Arguments

Second Amendment Foundation Court Cases
 http://www.2ndamendmentcourtcases.com/ http://www.facebook.com/notes/second-amendment-foundation/second-amendment-foundation-saf-gun-rights-legal-actions/10152404093150247

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER www.law.cornell.edu Weapons for war are what were intended by the Second Amendment. It was for assault weapons; not hunting rifles. You cannot regulate a right without losing it. It should be common knowledge the Supreme Court is on our side in this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html/07-290.ZO.html

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." District of Columbia v. Heller | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law www.oyez.org For the first time in seventy years, the Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws,,, The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290#opinion 

SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. 
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm 

After Heller, the federal government cannot prohibit the possession of handguns in the home. This case raises the question of whether the same restriction applies to state governments. McDonald argues that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states should not be able to infringe. Chicago argues that states should be able to tailor firearm regulation to local conditions. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of states to regulate the possession of handguns in their jurisdictions and could have far-reaching effects on long-held conceptions of federalism. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521 

Any civil or military agent of the Obama Administration who follows an illegal order will be subject to criminal penalties and civil law. Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the President of the United States does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" which allow him to ignore a law passed by the United States Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_v._Barreme 
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/6/170/case.html 

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's interim provision commanding the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

Printz v. United States - 521 U.S. 898 (1996) Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers' backgrounds, note following 18 U. S. C. § 922, and command the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, § 922(s). Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions' constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background-check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background-check system in place. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the interim provisions unconstitutional. (e) Contrary to the contention of JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent, the Brady Act's direction of the actions of state executive officials is not constitutionally valid under Art. I, § 8, as a law "necessary and proper" to the execution of Congress's Commerce Clause power to regulate handgun sales. Where, as here, a law violates the state sovereignty principle, it is not a law "proper for carrying into Execution" delegated.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/case.html

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

PARKER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [prior to DC vs Heller] http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E23F1D1340E39A99852574400045380B/$file/04-7041a.pdf http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0557.htm

On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed Castle Rock v. Gonzales on the grounds that there was no constitutional right to police protection.
http://mises.org/daily/5651

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that Jessica Lenahan could sue the Castle Rock, Colorado, police department for its refusal in 1999 to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. The American courts had dismissed her case.
http://mises.org/daily/5651

The town of Castle Rock, Colorado and its police department could not be sued under 42 USC §1983 for failure to enforce a restraining order against respondent's husband, as enforcement of the restraining order does not constitute a property right for 14th Amendment purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

Respondent filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.... ... (a) The Due Process Clause’s procedural component does not protect everything that might be described as a government “benefit”: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person … must … have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.htm

████████████████████████████████████████

JULY 15, 1991: Clarence Thomas, judging from his speeches and scholarly writings, seems instead to believe judges should enforce the Founders' natural law philosophy -- the inalienable rights "given man by his Creator" -- which he maintains is revealed most completely in the Declaration of Independence. He is the first Supreme Court nominee in 50 years to maintain that natural law should be readily consulted in constitutional interpretation.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/15/opinion/clarence-thomas-and-natural-law.html

“As Sheriff of Malheur County Oregon, I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Oregon,” Wolfe said. “I cannot and will not stand idly by while the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this great country are violated by misguided government officials.” http://www.argusobserver.com/news/malheur-sheriff-joins-fray-over-guns/article_d17be314-6198-11e2-9ef3-0019bb2963f4.html 

Gun Control in Colonial New England http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/GunControlColonialNewEngland.PDF 

FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm ‎

(Data are for the U.S. and are final 2009 data; For the most recent preliminary data see Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011 [PDF - 1.7 MB]) 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Age Group Highlighting Violence-Related Injury Deaths, United States – 2010 http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf 

ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN *Gary KleckMarc Gertz 
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm 

United States — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states 

UNODC Homicide Statistics 
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html 

Annexe 4. The largest civilian firearms arsenals for 178 countries (ranked by averaged rate of civilian ownership, guns per 100 people) http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf 

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf 

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.htm 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook 

The city violent crime rate for Kennesaw in 2010 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 85.16% and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the national property crime rate average by 46.46%. In 2010 the city violent crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the violent crime rate in Georgia by 85.15% and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the property crime rate in Georgia by 56.74%. 
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html 

Crime Statistics Report (U.S. Crime Rates) [by State and then city] http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/ 

Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011 Agency: Department of Homeland SecurityOffice: Immigration & Customs EnforcementLocation: ICE-OAQ-MS This announcement is being placed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) paragraph 5.207. It is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items. 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation and proposals are being requested. See attachments for complete details.
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0 

Natural Right To Bear Arms For Self Protection [Photo Album] http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151143565126457.495715.637766456 

MY PERSONAL ARGUMENT ABOUT BLAMING OBJECTS 
If you kill someone with a car,it is not in the federal crime statistics. I cannot think of a more violent crime. More people are killed by motor vehicles than all those involving firearms. Blunt objects did kill more than rifles in the FBI stats. Drunk drivers killed more than hand guns. If you re looking for the number one killer under 44, it is motor vehicles. Hand guns killed 6,220. 

ALL firearms killed 8,583 Drunk drivers killed 10,136 If you kill someone with a firearm other than justifiable homocide, you will be charged with a felony and never legally possess one again. If you kill someone with a motor vehicle, IF you are charged with a felony, you will never be able to possess a firearm, but you will in all likelihood be driving again in less than 10 years. 
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8http://www.madd.org/blog/2012/december/2011-State-data.html 

We DO Need Large Capacity Magazines misconceptions/preconceived notions about the nature of terminal ballistics and what really happens in a gunfight: People die immediately upon being shot. It is easy to shoot a moving person. You will face only a single attacker. http://jerkingthetrigger.com/blog/2013/02/06/we-do-need-large-capacity-magazines/ 

Fees Charged by NICS PC For States
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/NICS_POC_States.pdf 

You never need to demostrate a need for a right, but rights are there to fullfil needs. There is no justification for limiting magazine size. An example is given from North Carolina 
One Bullet Can Kill, but Sometimes 20 Don’t, Survivors Show - New York Times 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html 

When major organs — the heart and brain especially — and blood vessels are avoided, the chances of survival are good, they said. The catch, of course, is that there is no science to preventing a bullet from hitting a vital part of the body. This one is from Georgia: A Georgia mother shot an ex-convict six times to protect her and her children after he apparently forced his way into the family’s home..... The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater, who has arrests dating to 2008 and was released from jail in August, was still conscious.“The guy’s face down, crying,” the sheriff said. The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again. 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/06/georgia-mom-home-alone-with-kids-shoots-ex-con-intruder/ 

Deputies found Slater bleeding profusely in a neighbor’s driveway. “I’m dying. Help me,” he told them, according to Chapman. Slater was transported to Gwinnett Medical Center and is expected to survive, the sheriff said. ...Slater has six other arrests in Gwinnett dating back to 2008, according to jail records.... 
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman said the suspect, Paul Ali Slater, is now “walking and talking” after recovering for more than a month at Gwinnett Medical Center. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (http://bit.ly/WfI2HC) that bullets punctured his lungs, liver and stomach. He faces aggravated assault and burglary charges. http://valdostadailytimes.com/todays-top-stories/x2056613562/Man-shot-by-Ga-mom-in-home-invasion-recovering-from-wounds

WHY DO WE NEED FULLY ARMED CITIZENS? EXAMPLE: 
Battle of Athens (1946) The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htmhttp://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

GUN CONFISCATION IS NOT JUST A FEAR; IT IS A STATED GOAL
Dianne Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban all guns,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13603: President Obama has Overstepped His powers by Appropriating Money

Obama has usurped the powers of Congress by taking out loans. Only Congress has the power to do that under the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 gives Congress the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" explicitly. In Amendment X (1791)states,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Therefore, unless a power is delegated to the President, he does not have that power, but Congress does. This Executive Order 13603 has no authority to borrow, under the Constitution. Executive Order 13603 of March 16, 2012 National Defense Resources Preparedness

Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Mem's Political Scrapbook: Once Again The Wingnuts Never Let FACTS Get In The Way Of A Conspiracy Theory!

Mem's Political Scrapbook: Once Again The Wingnuts Never Let FACTS Get In The Way Of A Conspiracy Theory!

It is a BOGUS MEMO from Mother Jones. No phone or email is listed. There is no Alex Cross listed. There is no Alex Cross listed for that office:

http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmclegalasst/Pages/USHouseofRepresentativesLiaison.aspx

Open Letter and Email To President

As you are the holder of record, I am requesting copies of the pictures of the body of Osama bin Laden. The claim of incitement is no excuse to violate the US Freedom of Information Act.

FOIA carries a presumption of disclosure; the burden is on the government - not the public - to substantiate why information may not be released. You have made no such case under any of the exemptions.

Feel free to go to the Whitehouse Email Contact Form here to make the same demand to the President to obey the law of the land.

THIS WAS THE AUTO-RESPONSE:
Thank You!

Thank you for contacting the White House.

President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible Administration in history. That begins with taking comments and questions from you, the American people, through our website.

Our office receives thousands of messages from Americans each day. We do our best to reply to as many as we can, but please be aware that you may find more information and answers to your questions online. To follow news and learn more about President Obama's plans for winning the future, you can sign up for updates from the White House, read the White House Blog, or listen to White House podcasts.

For an easy-to-navigate source of information on Federal government services, please visit: www.USA.gov.

The US is a republic, not a democracy. Even Corporations at least give you a proxy vote.

U.S. Treasury: China Has Decreased Its Holdings of U.S. Debt | CNSnews.com
It looks like a smart move by China. I cashed my US bonds in as well. I had to pay nearly $10k extra in taxes on the interest.It's a republic, not a democracy. If I cannot vote on the issues I see no reason to have an investment. Even private corporations give you a proxy vote.

TV Ad: Barack Obama's Legacy of FAILURE - Repost to all social networks.

Gates calls for limited role aiding Libyan rebels - Yahoo! News

Gates insisted there will be no U.S. military ground forces in Libya "as long as I am in this job."


Gates calls for limited role aiding Libyan rebels - Yahoo! News

END WAR: Kucinich On Obama Doctrine Goes Beyond Constitution, War Powers...

Facebook Team is hopeless and helpless.

I tried to gain the assistance in the matter below: To: The Facebook Team appeals+jgnjjxe@support.facebook.com
Sent: Thu, March 17, 2011 11:45:27 AM
Subject: Getting Blank Page instead of Facebook
I am not disabled. I have checked and did not get a notification.
I note that even looking at Facebook results in a blank page.
I have used "In Private Browsing" to get to the login page to show up.
Otherwise, it does not show.
I have pinged your site to see if it is running.
Others in my house are able to log on.
As soon as I identify myself, I get a blank page again.
Is it possible your site has been hacked to send my account to a blank page?

========================================
This was their response:
Hi John,
Thanks for your email. We are sorry to hear that you are experiencing these issues with our site. Unfortunately, we do not offer functionality or technical support from this email alias. Please refer to our Help Center for answers to common questions, solutions to technical issues, and feedback from other Facebook users. You can reach the Help Center (http://www.facebook.com/help.php) by selecting "Help" at the bottom of any Facebook page.
Thanks for contacting Facebook,
Jill
User Operations
Facebook
=====================================
I wonder if FB Advertizers know about this level of "service" that FB provides.

WANTED FOR ESPIONAGE: Julian Assange

The claims of the value of transparency would have a lot more believeability if those who did it always gave their name, home address, home phone number, and social security number to you. Those on FaceBook who make these rash claims seem to lack a profile picture of their and are not willing to expose their Faceebook information to the public.

Over 77,000 Afghans who have been helpful to their nation and ours have had their names revealed on the Net to al Qaida and the Taliban. Their information has put them in jeopardy and many of them will die for Assange's WikiTerrorism. Too bad those minimizing and justifying are not being subjected to the same dangers as they are as a learning experience.  Even the Huffington Post had to look at this way:
 
The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and three other groups have sent a series of e-mails to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange calling for the names of Afghan civilians to be removed from the 77,000 classified military documents published by the online whistle-blower last month.

"There was no consideration about civilian lives," Nadery said, noting a rise in assassinations of Afghan civilians seen as government collaborators.
The Pentagon told Julain Assange his actions risk the lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan citizens and could possibly undermine military operations against extremists in Afghanistan.

Members of the Taliban were studying the documents to retaliate against any informants cooperating with the U.S. military long before Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission spokesman Nadery said, "There was no consideration about civilian lives," after noticing a rise in assassinations of Afghan civilians seen as government collaborators.

In Presidential Order 12958 it is clear Julian Assange is in violation in, Part 1. Original Classification, Sec. 1.1. Classification Standards that: (b) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.(c) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, a ten year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine are the sanctions, "(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy."

Interfering with military operations and supporting America's enemies during wartime,  promoting  insubordination  in the military, or interfering with with military recruitment are prohibited .

In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States the act did not violate the free speech rights of those convicted under its provisions. While a great deal of caselaw on free speech has evolved since then, the key feature of the US Code is those involved intend or know "... information is to be used to the injury of the United States..." That the names of Afghan individuals who have been allies of the US were revealed, injuring US military and diplomatic mission there, is a fact. In the text of the US Code, the onus is put on those who released the information to prove they did not intend that.

As it now stands, the duty of the Attorney General is to seek indict Julian Assange and seek his extradition. Like so many other failure to uphold the law by the Obama Administration, the prospect of that happening, however, is unlikely.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2010/intell-100814-voa01.htm

Espionage, Assange, and Classified Documents

Assange forced the release of the names of Afghan civilians over the objections of the Pentagon, several human rights groups, and those working with him. That was one of the causes of the split with Wikileaks by major members of his staff. He had a deadline to meet with a magazine he gave exclusive rights to. From what is now being said, he has sanitized it afterwards.... too late for anything, except to cover his tracks.

There will be no new dimension in the release of classified documents. There will be a revetting those who handle classified documents, the increased compartmentalization of access, and the policies/laws regarding compromising those documents. It could be draconian, but it will be thorough.

Democracy Versus the Tyranny of Assange and Manning

DEMOCRACY: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

We do not elect the agents to the Cabinet level of executive office. Little can be said that is good about elected officials, either:

Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.-Patrick Henry

If issues were decided by the people, they would be done in referendum, initiatives, and recall votes.

However, when it comes to stealing US classified documents, no spy or "journalist" was elected to be our gatekeeper of that national treasure. When individuals decide to release critical information without authorization, it is rule by one - a tyranny. Neither Julian Assange nor Pfc. Bradley Manning had the right to sell, distribute, nor even possess our national secrets without our permission.

At this point, all proceeds from the sale of the property of the citizens of the US should be confiscated, regardless of who fenced our property.

ALL profits earned by Assange for selling the property of the US people, their secrets, should be confiscated. Any income from sales in the US through publishers or distributors should be confiscated. No criminal should be allowed to benefit from his crime