Walkouts, Bank Boycotts and Recalls: Wisconsin Protests Intensify As Union-Busting Legislation Pushed Through State Assembly
Democracy Now
Democracy Now! reports from the streets of Madison, as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker prepares to sign legislation that will strip away the collective bargaining rights of most public employees. On Thursday, more than 1,000 Madison students walked out of classes; firefighters called for a boycott of a bank with ties to Walker; and the AFL-CIO pushed for the recall of Republican senators. More than 100,000 people are expected to fill the streets of Madison on Saturday.
To Watch/Listen/Read
Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Trip Gabriel: Teachers Wonder, Why the Scorn?
Teachers Wonder, Why the Scorn
by Trip Gabriel
The New York Times
The jabs Erin Parker has heard about her job have stunned her. Oh you pathetic teachers, read the online comments and placards of counterdemonstrators. You are glorified baby sitters who leave work at 3 p.m. You deserve minimum wage.
“You feel punched in the stomach,” said Ms. Parker, a high school science teacher in Madison, Wis., where public employees’ two-week occupation of the State Capitol has stalled but not deterred the governor’s plan to try to strip them of bargaining rights.
Ms. Parker, a second-year teacher making $36,000, fears that under the proposed legislation class sizes would rise and higher contributions to her benefits would knock her out of the middle class.
“I love teaching, but I have $26,000 of student debt,” she said. “I’m 30 years old, and I can’t save up enough for a down payment” for a house. Nor does she own a car. She is making plans to move to Colorado, where she could afford to keep teaching by living with her parents.
Around the country, many teachers see demands to cut their income, benefits and say in how schools are run through collective bargaining as attacks not just on their livelihoods, but on their value to society.
Even in a country that is of two minds about teachers — Americans glowingly recall the ones who changed their lives, but think the job with its summers off is cushy — education experts say teachers have rarely been the targets of such scorn from politicians and voters.
Republican lawmakers in half a dozen states are pressing to unwind tenure and seniority protections in place for more than 50 years. Gov. Chris Christie’s dressing down of New Jersey teachers in town-hall-style meetings, accusing them of greed, has touched a populist vein and made him a national star.
Mayors are threatening mass layoffs, including in New York City and in Providence, R.I., where all 1,926 teachers were told last week they would lose their jobs — a largely symbolic gesture since most will be hired back.
Some experts question whether teaching, with its already high attrition rate — more than 25 percent leave in the first three years — will attract high-quality recruits in the future.
“It’s hard to feel good about yourself when your governor and other people are telling you you’re doing a lousy job,” said Steve Derion, 32, who teaches American history in Manahawkin, N.J. “I’m sure there were worse times to be a teacher in our history — I know they had very little rights — but it feels like we’re going back toward that direction.”
To Read the Rest of the Article
by Trip Gabriel
The New York Times
The jabs Erin Parker has heard about her job have stunned her. Oh you pathetic teachers, read the online comments and placards of counterdemonstrators. You are glorified baby sitters who leave work at 3 p.m. You deserve minimum wage.
“You feel punched in the stomach,” said Ms. Parker, a high school science teacher in Madison, Wis., where public employees’ two-week occupation of the State Capitol has stalled but not deterred the governor’s plan to try to strip them of bargaining rights.
Ms. Parker, a second-year teacher making $36,000, fears that under the proposed legislation class sizes would rise and higher contributions to her benefits would knock her out of the middle class.
“I love teaching, but I have $26,000 of student debt,” she said. “I’m 30 years old, and I can’t save up enough for a down payment” for a house. Nor does she own a car. She is making plans to move to Colorado, where she could afford to keep teaching by living with her parents.
Around the country, many teachers see demands to cut their income, benefits and say in how schools are run through collective bargaining as attacks not just on their livelihoods, but on their value to society.
Even in a country that is of two minds about teachers — Americans glowingly recall the ones who changed their lives, but think the job with its summers off is cushy — education experts say teachers have rarely been the targets of such scorn from politicians and voters.
Republican lawmakers in half a dozen states are pressing to unwind tenure and seniority protections in place for more than 50 years. Gov. Chris Christie’s dressing down of New Jersey teachers in town-hall-style meetings, accusing them of greed, has touched a populist vein and made him a national star.
Mayors are threatening mass layoffs, including in New York City and in Providence, R.I., where all 1,926 teachers were told last week they would lose their jobs — a largely symbolic gesture since most will be hired back.
Some experts question whether teaching, with its already high attrition rate — more than 25 percent leave in the first three years — will attract high-quality recruits in the future.
“It’s hard to feel good about yourself when your governor and other people are telling you you’re doing a lousy job,” said Steve Derion, 32, who teaches American history in Manahawkin, N.J. “I’m sure there were worse times to be a teacher in our history — I know they had very little rights — but it feels like we’re going back toward that direction.”
To Read the Rest of the Article
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tennessee State Senator Bill Ketron and Representative Judd Matheny: Feet Washing and Islamic Prayer Are "Treasonous"
Tennessee: Feet Washing and Islamic Prayer Are "Treasonous"
by Robin Marty
Care2
In a sign that the fear of "sharia law" has become utterly ridiculous, a new bill in Tennessee will make any Islamic ritual a jailable offense.
Ketron is from Murfreesboro, the site of the mosque that has been plagued with vandalism and arson, and where opponents to the mosque claimed the Islamic faith wasn't a "real religion."
To Read the Rest
by Robin Marty
Care2
In a sign that the fear of "sharia law" has become utterly ridiculous, a new bill in Tennessee will make any Islamic ritual a jailable offense.
Via USA Today:
A proposed Tennessee law would make following the Islamic code known as Shariah law a felony, punishable by 15 years in jail.
A bill introduced by Tennessee state Sen. Bill Ketron ... and Rep. Judd Matheny calls Islamic code a danger to U.S. security.
State Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and state Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, introduced the same bill in the Senate and House last week. It calls Shariah law a danger to homeland security and gives the attorney general authority to investigate complaints and decide who's practicing it.
It exempts peaceful practice of Islam but labels any adherence to Shariah law — which includes religious practices such as feet washing and prayers — as treasonous. It claims Shariah adherents want to replace the Constitution with their religious law.
A dozen other states are considering anti-Shariah bills, and there's a federal lawsuit in Oklahoma over one.
Imam Mohamed Ahmed of the Islamic Center of Nashville on 12th Avenue South said Islam teaches its followers to obey the law of the land. Shariah law, he said, teaches moral values.
"What do you mean, really, by saying I can't abide by Shariah law?" he said. "Shariah law is telling me don't steal. Do you want me to steal and rob a bank?"
Ketron is from Murfreesboro, the site of the mosque that has been plagued with vandalism and arson, and where opponents to the mosque claimed the Islamic faith wasn't a "real religion."
To Read the Rest
Thursday, February 10, 2011
U.S. Rep. Pete Stark Sponsors: National Darwin Day Resolution -- SCA Urges Support for Recognizing ‘Science in the Betterment of Humanity’ on Feb. 12
U.S. Rep. Pete Stark Sponsors: National Darwin Day Resolution
-- SCA Urges Support for Recognizing ‘Science in the Betterment of Humanity’ on Feb. 12
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) announced today the introduction of H. Res. 81, calling for the designation of Feb. 12, 2011, as Darwin Day in order to recognize the work of Charles Darwin and the importance of science in the advancement of humanity.
Rep. Stark, the American Humanist Association’s 2008 Humanist of the Year, collaborated with the AHA, a Secular Coalition member organization, to produce the resolution.
“Darwin’s birthday is a good time for us to reflect on the important role of science in our society,” Stark said. “It is also a time to redouble our efforts to ensure that children are being taught scientific facts, not religious dogma, and to fight back against those who seek to undermine the science of climate change for political ends.”
The resolution recognizes the importance of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, which is further supported by the modern understanding of genetics. The advancement of science and the academic integrity of the nation’s education system are singled out in the resolution as needing protection from those who are unconcerned with the adverse impacts of climate change and who are intent on the teaching of creationism, respectively.
A recently published survey in the journal Science found that only 28 percent of biology teachers present evidence for evolution as recommended by the National Research Council, while 13 percent “explicitly advocate” creationism.
The Secular Coalition firmly supports this resolution and urges anyone who supports the advancement of science of reason to call or email his or her U.S. representative and ask that the representative vote in favor of H. Res. 81. You can read the entire resolution here.
To contact your representative using the AHA's Action Center, please click here.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) announced today the introduction of H. Res. 81, calling for the designation of Feb. 12, 2011, as Darwin Day in order to recognize the work of Charles Darwin and the importance of science in the advancement of humanity.
Rep. Stark, the American Humanist Association’s 2008 Humanist of the Year, collaborated with the AHA, a Secular Coalition member organization, to produce the resolution.
“Darwin’s birthday is a good time for us to reflect on the important role of science in our society,” Stark said. “It is also a time to redouble our efforts to ensure that children are being taught scientific facts, not religious dogma, and to fight back against those who seek to undermine the science of climate change for political ends.”
The resolution recognizes the importance of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, which is further supported by the modern understanding of genetics. The advancement of science and the academic integrity of the nation’s education system are singled out in the resolution as needing protection from those who are unconcerned with the adverse impacts of climate change and who are intent on the teaching of creationism, respectively.
A recently published survey in the journal Science found that only 28 percent of biology teachers present evidence for evolution as recommended by the National Research Council, while 13 percent “explicitly advocate” creationism.
The Secular Coalition firmly supports this resolution and urges anyone who supports the advancement of science of reason to call or email his or her U.S. representative and ask that the representative vote in favor of H. Res. 81. You can read the entire resolution here.
To contact your representative using the AHA's Action Center, please click here.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Impressive 3 Minute Speech From a Young Iowan on the Strength of His Family
Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives. Wahls has two mothers, and came to oppose House Joint Resolution 6 which would end civil unions in Iowa.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Nick Baumann: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape
The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape
by Nick Baumann
Mother Jones
...
"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.
As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.
The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."
"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.
"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."
To Read the Entire Article
by Nick Baumann
Mother Jones
...
"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.
As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.
The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."
"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.
"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."
To Read the Entire Article
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Reporters Without Borders: Wikileaks Hounded?
Wikileaks Hounded?
Reporters Without Borders
...
This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.
Meanwhile, two Republican senators, John Ensign and Scott Brown, and an independent Lieberman, have introduced a bill that would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence agency informants. This could facilitate future prosecutions against WikiLeaks and its founder. But a criminal investigation is already under way and many U.S. politicians are calling vociferously for Assange’s arrest.
Reporters Without Borders can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.
We stress that any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.
Reporters Without Borders would also like to stress that it has always defended online freedom and the principle of “Net neutrality,” according to which Internet Service Providers and hosting companies should play no role in choosing the content that is placed online.
To Read the Entire Statment
Reporters Without Borders
...
This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.
Meanwhile, two Republican senators, John Ensign and Scott Brown, and an independent Lieberman, have introduced a bill that would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence agency informants. This could facilitate future prosecutions against WikiLeaks and its founder. But a criminal investigation is already under way and many U.S. politicians are calling vociferously for Assange’s arrest.
Reporters Without Borders can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.
We stress that any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.
Reporters Without Borders would also like to stress that it has always defended online freedom and the principle of “Net neutrality,” according to which Internet Service Providers and hosting companies should play no role in choosing the content that is placed online.
To Read the Entire Statment
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
George Lakoff: HUD Is Trying to Privatize and Mortgage Off All of America's Public Housing
Below the Radar: HUD Is Trying to Privatize and Mortgage Off All of America's Public Housing
by George Lakoff
TruthOut
The Obama administration's move to the right is about to give conservatives a victory they could not have anticipated, even under Bush. HUD, under Obama, submitted legislation, called PETRA, to Congress that would result in the privatization of all public housing in America.
The new owners would charge ten percent above market rates to impoverished tenants, money that would be mostly paid by the US government (you and me, the taxpayers). To maintain the property, the new owners would take out a mortgage for building repair and maintenance (like a home equity loan), with no cap on interest rates.
With rents set above market rates, the mortgage risk would be attractive to banks. Either they make a huge profit on the mortgages paid for by the government, or, if the government lowers what it will pay for rents, the property goes into foreclosure. The banks get it and can sell it off to developers.
Sooner or later, the housing budget will be cut back and such foreclosures will happen. The structure of the proposal and the realities of Washington make it a virtual certainty.
The banks and developers make a fortune, with the taxpayers paying for it. The public loses its public housing property. The impoverished tenants lose their apartments, or have their rents go way up if they are forced into the private market. Homelessness increases; government gets smaller. The banks and developers win. It is a Bank Bonanza! The poor and the public lose.
And a precedent is set. The government can - privatize any public property: Schools, libraries, national parks, federal buildings - just as has begun to happen in California, where the right-wing governor has started to auction off state property and has even suggested selling off the Supreme Court building.
To Read the Rest of the Editorial
by George Lakoff
TruthOut
The Obama administration's move to the right is about to give conservatives a victory they could not have anticipated, even under Bush. HUD, under Obama, submitted legislation, called PETRA, to Congress that would result in the privatization of all public housing in America.
The new owners would charge ten percent above market rates to impoverished tenants, money that would be mostly paid by the US government (you and me, the taxpayers). To maintain the property, the new owners would take out a mortgage for building repair and maintenance (like a home equity loan), with no cap on interest rates.
With rents set above market rates, the mortgage risk would be attractive to banks. Either they make a huge profit on the mortgages paid for by the government, or, if the government lowers what it will pay for rents, the property goes into foreclosure. The banks get it and can sell it off to developers.
Sooner or later, the housing budget will be cut back and such foreclosures will happen. The structure of the proposal and the realities of Washington make it a virtual certainty.
The banks and developers make a fortune, with the taxpayers paying for it. The public loses its public housing property. The impoverished tenants lose their apartments, or have their rents go way up if they are forced into the private market. Homelessness increases; government gets smaller. The banks and developers win. It is a Bank Bonanza! The poor and the public lose.
And a precedent is set. The government can - privatize any public property: Schools, libraries, national parks, federal buildings - just as has begun to happen in California, where the right-wing governor has started to auction off state property and has even suggested selling off the Supreme Court building.
To Read the Rest of the Editorial
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Bill Moyers Journal: John Nichols & Terry O'Neill on Health Care Reform
John Nichols & Terry O'Neill on Health Care Reform
Bill Moyers Journal
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is now law — but the battle over health care reform is far from over. Already at least 14 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits in state courts charging that the mandate for individuals to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. The Republican Party has vowed to make health care reform the central issue in their bid to gain Democratic seats in the mid-term elections. Stalwart advocates of a single-payer system are also unhappy with the outcome — calling the bill "a false promise of reform" and "wimpy."
John Nichols of THE NATION and Terry O'Neill of the National Organization of Women (NOW), have looked over the final legislation and made their assessments. Nichols suggests that while the act is deeply flawed, it has moved the national conversation to a new, more positive, place. No longer is there a question about whether to reform health care, but how to reform it — and it is very difficult, notes Nichols, to move backward along that path:
Terry O'Neill is not as sanguine: "My organization looked at the entire bill at the end of the day when it was passed. And we concluded that on balance, despite the good things that are in the bill, the bill actually is bad for women." As part of a deal to win pro-life Democratic votes, President Obama signed an Executive Order which "requires adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services." According to O'Neill and other pro-choice groups, it is, in fact, an extension of the Hyde Amendment (which originally only applied to Medicaid funds) and "A Tragic Setback for Women's Rights."
But the blanket restriction on use the federal funds for abortion services is not the only problem O'Neill sees with the bill. She notes that it also does not ameliorate gender and age bias in insurance coverage and delivers 32 million new customers to the insurance industry.
John Nichols
John Nichols, author and political journalist has been writing the "Online Beat" for THE NATION magazine since 1999. Nichols also serves as Washington correspondent for THE NATION, as well as the associate editor of the CAPITAL TIMES, the daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin and a contributing writer for THE PROGRESSIVE and IN THESE TIMES.
Along with fellow author Robert McChesney, Nichols co-founded the media-reform group Free Press. Nichols has also authored several books, including JEWS FOR BUCHANAN, which analyzed the recount vote of 2000, and DICK: THE MAN WHO IS PRESIDENT, his best-selling biography of Vice President Dick Cheney. Nichols most recent book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT, argues that impeachment is an essential instrument of America's democratic system.
Terry O'Neill
Terry O'Neill, a feminist attorney, professor and activist for social justice, was elected president of NOW in June 2009. She is also president of the NOW Foundation and chair of the NOW Political Action Committees, and serves as the principal spokesperson for all three entities.
A former law professor, O'Neill taught at Tulane in New Orleans and at the University of California at Davis, where her courses included feminist legal theory and international women's rights law, in addition to corporate law and legal ethics. She has testified before committees in the Maryland House of Delegates and has written federal amicus briefs on abortion rights for Louisiana NOW, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.
O'Neill worked on such historic campaigns as Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and the campaign leading to the election of Louisiana's first woman U.S. senator, Mary Landrieu.
To Listen/Watch the Episode and to Access More Resources
Bill Moyers Journal
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is now law — but the battle over health care reform is far from over. Already at least 14 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits in state courts charging that the mandate for individuals to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. The Republican Party has vowed to make health care reform the central issue in their bid to gain Democratic seats in the mid-term elections. Stalwart advocates of a single-payer system are also unhappy with the outcome — calling the bill "a false promise of reform" and "wimpy."
John Nichols of THE NATION and Terry O'Neill of the National Organization of Women (NOW), have looked over the final legislation and made their assessments. Nichols suggests that while the act is deeply flawed, it has moved the national conversation to a new, more positive, place. No longer is there a question about whether to reform health care, but how to reform it — and it is very difficult, notes Nichols, to move backward along that path:
For 100 years...we tried to take this vacant site and dig a hole, put a foundation, and start some construction. That's what's happened. The fact of the matter is it's best to understand the health care legislation that was passed on Sunday as the beginning of a construction project. And that's why some people fought so hard against it, because they understood. Once you begin that project, it is very unlikely that we're going to fill the hole in, tear down all the construction.
Terry O'Neill is not as sanguine: "My organization looked at the entire bill at the end of the day when it was passed. And we concluded that on balance, despite the good things that are in the bill, the bill actually is bad for women." As part of a deal to win pro-life Democratic votes, President Obama signed an Executive Order which "requires adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services." According to O'Neill and other pro-choice groups, it is, in fact, an extension of the Hyde Amendment (which originally only applied to Medicaid funds) and "A Tragic Setback for Women's Rights."
But the blanket restriction on use the federal funds for abortion services is not the only problem O'Neill sees with the bill. She notes that it also does not ameliorate gender and age bias in insurance coverage and delivers 32 million new customers to the insurance industry.
John Nichols
John Nichols, author and political journalist has been writing the "Online Beat" for THE NATION magazine since 1999. Nichols also serves as Washington correspondent for THE NATION, as well as the associate editor of the CAPITAL TIMES, the daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin and a contributing writer for THE PROGRESSIVE and IN THESE TIMES.
Along with fellow author Robert McChesney, Nichols co-founded the media-reform group Free Press. Nichols has also authored several books, including JEWS FOR BUCHANAN, which analyzed the recount vote of 2000, and DICK: THE MAN WHO IS PRESIDENT, his best-selling biography of Vice President Dick Cheney. Nichols most recent book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT, argues that impeachment is an essential instrument of America's democratic system.
Terry O'Neill
Terry O'Neill, a feminist attorney, professor and activist for social justice, was elected president of NOW in June 2009. She is also president of the NOW Foundation and chair of the NOW Political Action Committees, and serves as the principal spokesperson for all three entities.
A former law professor, O'Neill taught at Tulane in New Orleans and at the University of California at Davis, where her courses included feminist legal theory and international women's rights law, in addition to corporate law and legal ethics. She has testified before committees in the Maryland House of Delegates and has written federal amicus briefs on abortion rights for Louisiana NOW, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.
O'Neill worked on such historic campaigns as Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and the campaign leading to the election of Louisiana's first woman U.S. senator, Mary Landrieu.
To Listen/Watch the Episode and to Access More Resources
Best of the Left #364: Delusions of fascism, journalism and grandeur (Media)
#364 Delusions of fascism, journalism and grandeur (Media)
Best of the Left
Act 1: Glenn Beck’s Nazi Tourette’s – Daily Show
Song 1: Better be quite now – Elliott Smith
Act 2: The power of conservative media – Young Turks
Song 2: Everything In Its Right Place – Radiohead
Act 3: Dissecting NBC report on financial reform – Jimmy Dore
Song 3: Too much information – Duran Duran
Act 4: Bernie Goldberg fires back – Daily Show
Song 4: Knock yourself out – Jon Brion
Act 5: Fox News spins net neutrality – Young Turks
Song 5: So much more – Marc Robillard
Act 6: Jon Meacham on sale of Newsweek – Daily Show
Song 6: Who will buy – Oliver Twist
Act 7: Goldman defended in the media – Counterspin
Song 7: You’re a wolf – Sea Wolf
Act 8: Glenn to the mountaintop – Colbert Report
To Listen to the Episode
Best of the Left
Act 1: Glenn Beck’s Nazi Tourette’s – Daily Show
Song 1: Better be quite now – Elliott Smith
Act 2: The power of conservative media – Young Turks
Song 2: Everything In Its Right Place – Radiohead
Act 3: Dissecting NBC report on financial reform – Jimmy Dore
Song 3: Too much information – Duran Duran
Act 4: Bernie Goldberg fires back – Daily Show
Song 4: Knock yourself out – Jon Brion
Act 5: Fox News spins net neutrality – Young Turks
Song 5: So much more – Marc Robillard
Act 6: Jon Meacham on sale of Newsweek – Daily Show
Song 6: Who will buy – Oliver Twist
Act 7: Goldman defended in the media – Counterspin
Song 7: You’re a wolf – Sea Wolf
Act 8: Glenn to the mountaintop – Colbert Report
To Listen to the Episode
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Liz Goodwin: Arizona legislature bans ethnic-studies programs
(Arizona continues its slide into racist paranoia... )
Arizona legislature bans ethnic-studies programs
by Liz Goodwin
Yahoo News
Just a week after signing the country's toughest immigration bill into law, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer now must decide whether to endorse another bill passed by her state legislature — one that outlaws ethnic-studies programs in public schools.
The bill forbids Arizona schools from using any curriculum that promotes "the overthrow of the United States government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people." It also disallows any curriculum that's "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" or that seeks to "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
Arizona's superintendent for public instruction, Tom Horne, has said he's backing the measure because ethnic-studies programs encourage "ethnic chauvinism"; he's also suggested that such programs could breed secessionist sentiment among Hispanic students.
Republican state Sen. Jack Harper also voted for the bill, saying that certain Hispanic-themed ethnic-studies programs are "trying to say that somebody who came to this country illegally is somehow oppressed. That's crazy stuff."
But the legislation's opponents say that, if the bill is signed into law, the state, not the targeted programs, would be promoting a politicized curriculum. Democratic state Sen. Linda Lopez says the bill would target a Mexican-American studies program used in her home district of Tucson. She offered an amendment — which the legislature approved — mandating that Arizona schools adopt curricula that include discussions of incidents of genocide such as the Holocaust, so that such material would not be considered as promoting "ethnic resentment."
In another controversial shift in state education policy, the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Arizona Department of Education has begun telling principals to remove teachers who speak English with an accent from classes with students who are still learning English. Some school officials are complaining that the move will remove experienced teachers from classrooms that need them. Margaret Dugan, the state's deputy superintendent of schools, told the Journal the request is "politicizing the educational environment."
"Teachers should speak good grammar because kids pick up what they hear," Johanna Haver, an adviser to Arizona educators, told the Journal. "Where you draw the line is debatable."
The Education Department permits teachers who don't meet fluency standards to take classes to improve.
Link to the Article and More Resources
More on Jan Brewer and Arizona:
Arizona Governor Takes Away State Domestic Partner Benefits Says 'God Has Placed Me in This Powerful Position'
Arizona legislature bans ethnic-studies programs
by Liz Goodwin
Yahoo News
Just a week after signing the country's toughest immigration bill into law, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer now must decide whether to endorse another bill passed by her state legislature — one that outlaws ethnic-studies programs in public schools.
The bill forbids Arizona schools from using any curriculum that promotes "the overthrow of the United States government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people." It also disallows any curriculum that's "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" or that seeks to "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
Arizona's superintendent for public instruction, Tom Horne, has said he's backing the measure because ethnic-studies programs encourage "ethnic chauvinism"; he's also suggested that such programs could breed secessionist sentiment among Hispanic students.
Republican state Sen. Jack Harper also voted for the bill, saying that certain Hispanic-themed ethnic-studies programs are "trying to say that somebody who came to this country illegally is somehow oppressed. That's crazy stuff."
But the legislation's opponents say that, if the bill is signed into law, the state, not the targeted programs, would be promoting a politicized curriculum. Democratic state Sen. Linda Lopez says the bill would target a Mexican-American studies program used in her home district of Tucson. She offered an amendment — which the legislature approved — mandating that Arizona schools adopt curricula that include discussions of incidents of genocide such as the Holocaust, so that such material would not be considered as promoting "ethnic resentment."
In another controversial shift in state education policy, the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Arizona Department of Education has begun telling principals to remove teachers who speak English with an accent from classes with students who are still learning English. Some school officials are complaining that the move will remove experienced teachers from classrooms that need them. Margaret Dugan, the state's deputy superintendent of schools, told the Journal the request is "politicizing the educational environment."
"Teachers should speak good grammar because kids pick up what they hear," Johanna Haver, an adviser to Arizona educators, told the Journal. "Where you draw the line is debatable."
The Education Department permits teachers who don't meet fluency standards to take classes to improve.
Link to the Article and More Resources
More on Jan Brewer and Arizona:
Arizona Governor Takes Away State Domestic Partner Benefits Says 'God Has Placed Me in This Powerful Position'
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Rachel Maddow: Racist Roots of Arizona Law
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
9500 Liberty (USA: Eric Byler and Annabel Park, 2009)
Full report on the documentary 9500 Liberty: 9-11 Not the Same as 7-11
Also check out:
Change: "Arizona: One Step Closer to a Police State"
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Seeing Red Radio: Health Care & Financial “Reform”, Stop-Loss Hip-Hop, E. Jerusalem Building Boom and Arizona 2.3
Health Care & Financial “Reform”, Stop-Loss Hip-Hop, E. Jerusalem Building Boom and Arizona 2.3
Seeing Red Radio
Obama’s recently passed Health Care “Reform” Bill, and Christopher Dodd’s proposed Financial “Reform” legislation most recently exemplify the pro-corporate credentials of the Democratic party, solidifying their place as the US ruling class’ Team B. We then offer the hip-hop song that got Spc. Marc Hall imprisoned and facing a court martial, when he dared to call out the US Army’s disingenuous “stop-loss” policy, which forces members of the US Army to remain in the service beyond their contracted enlistments. We expose the the full extent of Israel’s plans for East Jerusalem, which seeks to effectively alter “facts on the ground”, and displace any hope of the “Peace Process”. We highlight the proposed legislation in Arizona which if passed will make every undocumented worker in the state a criminal “trespasser”. Lastly, we feature a day in Revolutionary History, March 25th, and remember the horror of one of America’s worst industrial disasters, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.
Music:
Henry Geddes – Waiting for a State of Siege
Destroy Babylon feat. DXA – Shadow Army
Marc Hall – Stop Loss
David Rovics – Building a Wall
Ska P – Intifada
Immortal Technique – The Poverty of Philosophy
Background Music by T.P. Orchestre Poly-Rythmo de Cotonou
To Listen to the Episode
Seeing Red Radio
Obama’s recently passed Health Care “Reform” Bill, and Christopher Dodd’s proposed Financial “Reform” legislation most recently exemplify the pro-corporate credentials of the Democratic party, solidifying their place as the US ruling class’ Team B. We then offer the hip-hop song that got Spc. Marc Hall imprisoned and facing a court martial, when he dared to call out the US Army’s disingenuous “stop-loss” policy, which forces members of the US Army to remain in the service beyond their contracted enlistments. We expose the the full extent of Israel’s plans for East Jerusalem, which seeks to effectively alter “facts on the ground”, and displace any hope of the “Peace Process”. We highlight the proposed legislation in Arizona which if passed will make every undocumented worker in the state a criminal “trespasser”. Lastly, we feature a day in Revolutionary History, March 25th, and remember the horror of one of America’s worst industrial disasters, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.
Music:
Henry Geddes – Waiting for a State of Siege
Destroy Babylon feat. DXA – Shadow Army
Marc Hall – Stop Loss
David Rovics – Building a Wall
Ska P – Intifada
Immortal Technique – The Poverty of Philosophy
Background Music by T.P. Orchestre Poly-Rythmo de Cotonou
To Listen to the Episode
Friday, April 02, 2010
John Nichols: Socialism? Not Quite, Say the Socialists
Socialism? Not Quite, Say the Socialists
by John Nichols
Common Dreams
...
What seriously surprises her is that the health-care reform legislation that's been passed by Congress would be characterized by anyone who knows anything about economics or politics or history as "socialist."
"I'm afraid it's not socialized medicine," she says of the plan, which maintains private health-insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and nursing homes - most of which saw their stock values rise after the legislation was enacted.
Indeed, the Socialist Party stands in opposition to President Obama's approach.
"This is not a healthcare reform bill," says Socialist Party USA co-chair Billy Wharton, "It is instead a corporate restructuring of the American healthcare system designed to enhance the profits of private health insurance companies disguised with the language of reform"
As the Socialists note:
Wharton argues, as would any self-respecting Socialist, that "public funds would be better spent in creating a national single-payer system. Democratic socialists see such a system of open access to care as one part of a larger transition toward making health-care a guaranteed human right for all."
That's a far cry from anything the Democrat in the White House has proposed. Indeed, as Wharton wrote in his recent Washington Post piece -- titled "Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know" -- "The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neo-liberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies."
So Myrtle Kastner is amused, and perhaps a little thankful to Limbaugh, Beck and the others who keep talking about "socialism." She's hoping that young people, in particular, will want to learn more.
And what will she tell them?
"I know they call Obama's plan ‘socialist,'" says Kastner. "But if the point is to make sure everyone has health care and that costs are kept down, Socialists really could have come up with something better."
To Read the Entire Article
More:
Bill Wharton: Obama's No Socialist, I Should Know
by John Nichols
Common Dreams
...
What seriously surprises her is that the health-care reform legislation that's been passed by Congress would be characterized by anyone who knows anything about economics or politics or history as "socialist."
"I'm afraid it's not socialized medicine," she says of the plan, which maintains private health-insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and nursing homes - most of which saw their stock values rise after the legislation was enacted.
Indeed, the Socialist Party stands in opposition to President Obama's approach.
"This is not a healthcare reform bill," says Socialist Party USA co-chair Billy Wharton, "It is instead a corporate restructuring of the American healthcare system designed to enhance the profits of private health insurance companies disguised with the language of reform"
As the Socialists note:
The bill passed by the House (March 21) would mandate all Americans to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine. It would also create health insurance exchanges, an idea crafted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, where people would purchase insurance from private companies. Those not eligible for Medicaid but who still could not afford to purchase insurance would receive public funds from the federal government to purchase bare bones coverage insurance plans from private insurers.
(Socialists) opposes this restructuring on the grounds that the mandates allow private insurers to use the coercive power of the state to enhance their private profits. Insurance credits will serve as a public subsidy to private companies. It is yet another case of public money that could be used for necessary social programs being funneled towards companies that engage in practices that are abusive and detrimental to the overall society.
Wharton argues, as would any self-respecting Socialist, that "public funds would be better spent in creating a national single-payer system. Democratic socialists see such a system of open access to care as one part of a larger transition toward making health-care a guaranteed human right for all."
That's a far cry from anything the Democrat in the White House has proposed. Indeed, as Wharton wrote in his recent Washington Post piece -- titled "Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know" -- "The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neo-liberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies."
So Myrtle Kastner is amused, and perhaps a little thankful to Limbaugh, Beck and the others who keep talking about "socialism." She's hoping that young people, in particular, will want to learn more.
And what will she tell them?
"I know they call Obama's plan ‘socialist,'" says Kastner. "But if the point is to make sure everyone has health care and that costs are kept down, Socialists really could have come up with something better."
To Read the Entire Article
More:
Bill Wharton: Obama's No Socialist, I Should Know
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Glenn Greenwald: Excessive bipartisanship and other matters
Excessive bipartisanship and other matters
By Glenn Greenwald
Salon
One of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough bipartisanship. The opposite is true: many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis -- the most destructive political act of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, was fully bipartisan, as were most of the post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and other Bush-era initiatives-- and, at least in certain areas, the harmonious joining together of Republicans and Democrats continues unabated:
A mountain of evidence has emerged over the last several years documenting pervasive, systematic abuse of the Patriot Act powers. The proposed safeguards were extremely modest and would have provided minimal oversight on how those powers were exercised. Leading Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein spent all years ensuring that the proposed reforms were weakened to the point of virtual meaningless. But as weakened as they were, "some Republican senators objected" and might have called Democrats "soft on terror," so that was the end of that. The domestic surveillance law that Democrats spent years assailing as dangerously overbroad when out of power is renewed in full now that they are in power. That's the Beauty of Bipartisanship, and the last thing we need is more of it.
To read the rest of the post and to access hyperlinked resources
By Glenn Greenwald
Salon
One of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough bipartisanship. The opposite is true: many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis -- the most destructive political act of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, was fully bipartisan, as were most of the post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and other Bush-era initiatives-- and, at least in certain areas, the harmonious joining together of Republicans and Democrats continues unabated:
Senate votes to extend Patriot Act
Democrats retreat from adding new privacy protections to the law
The Senate voted Wednesday to extend for a year key provisions of the nation's counterterrorism surveillance law that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month.
In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act.
The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House. . . .
Supporters say extending the law enables authorities to keep important tools in the fight against terrorism. It would also give Democrats some cover from Republican criticism that the Obama administration is soft on terrorism. . . . Some Democrats, however, had to forfeit new privacy protections they had sought for the law. . . .
"I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I understand some Republican senators objected."
A mountain of evidence has emerged over the last several years documenting pervasive, systematic abuse of the Patriot Act powers. The proposed safeguards were extremely modest and would have provided minimal oversight on how those powers were exercised. Leading Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein spent all years ensuring that the proposed reforms were weakened to the point of virtual meaningless. But as weakened as they were, "some Republican senators objected" and might have called Democrats "soft on terror," so that was the end of that. The domestic surveillance law that Democrats spent years assailing as dangerously overbroad when out of power is renewed in full now that they are in power. That's the Beauty of Bipartisanship, and the last thing we need is more of it.
To read the rest of the post and to access hyperlinked resources
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Misleading, Fear-Mongering Emails, Pt. 1: Constitutional Lawyer Has Read The Entire Healthcare Bill
(Fact Check debunks this email in their report "Health Care Overhaul: Constitutional?".)
A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish. This is stunning!
Please take the time to read this and forward it out as you see fit.
Thanks--
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.
I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.
Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into
oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.However that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
AFTER HAVING READ THIS, PLEASE FORWARD.....
If you don't care about our constitution, or your rights under it, just do nothing.
WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish. This is stunning!
Please take the time to read this and forward it out as you see fit.
Thanks--
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.
I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.
Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into
oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.However that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
AFTER HAVING READ THIS, PLEASE FORWARD.....
If you don't care about our constitution, or your rights under it, just do nothing.
WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)