And I don't believe the "Misspoken" Oath of Office was a mistake.

If it could proven in a court of law President Obama was never Constitutionally sworn in, there is a possibility any bill or executive order he signed would be considered Unconstitutional in a court of law.

I believe the politically motivated Justice is JUST that ruthless.

Roberts, Obama jumble presidential oath of office (click title to entry - thank you)

By Jeremy Pelofsky

JANUARY 20, 2009

WASHINGTON – It was merely a formality and it’s probably a few phrases that both Barack Obama and Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts have practiced several times, but the leader of the Supreme Court may have been just a tad nervous when he got one word of the presidential oath of office a little out of order....

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will eliminate wasteful expenditure.

Companies are seeking better ways to 'self-fund' their health insurance to their employees. They are eliminating brokerage costs.

Let's face it, any employer that self-funds is guaranteed 15% over what is paid for the health cost of their employees.  

15%.  That is nothing to scoff at and they are quickly realizing 'self funding' is a good idea and provides for solvency of their company while providing vital care to their employees.

There is nothing "W"rong with that commerce.  NOTHING.


Besides employers being able to tailor their heath insurance plans for their employees, the states still have rights.  They will be able to conduct their own exchanges according to their own standards within the federal laws setting up minimum requirements.  So the ideas the states are being removed from the process of taking care of their citizens is ridiculous.  The State Exchanges will have more opportunity to provide for their citizens than ever before.  The real role of the HSS Secretary is collecting data to assist in the improvement of our health care system to reduce costs while maintaining quality care.  The federal government is not controlling the States in regard to their exchanges.  

...“The savings are greatest in states (click title to entry - thank you) with a lot of mandates, such as Washington, which has 40 coverage requirements for insured benefit plans,” said James Rivetts, president of insurance consultant JLR & Associates L.L.C. in North Bend, Wash. “If you go self-insured, you don't have to capitulate to those mandates.”

Another provision in PPACA that sets new minimum medical loss ratio requirements for insurers also is likely to drive more middle-market employers to self-funding, experts say, because it will shed light on how much brokers' commissions have been contributing to premium costs.

Beginning this year, insurers must spend at least 85% of every premium dollar collected from groups of 100 or more on medical care, leaving only 15% to cover their overhead costs, including broker commissions. In response, some insurers have ceased paying brokers commissions, forcing these intermediaries to seek compensation directly from insurance buyers. In some cases, brokers are offering to help employers transition to self-funding after their clients learn their brokers' compensation has been growing commensurate with their increasing premium charges....

"SiCKO" is about the blatant misuse of commerce in the USA that allowed the murder of Americans for profit.

During the entire course of this documentary the viewer sees a reality that is validated over and over and over again whereby corporate health insurance companies never even practiced "habeas corpus."


Habeas Corpus is called upon in death sentence cases as understanding that the USA Constitution recognizes every citizen has a right to their body.  


The people who lost their lives for corporate profits didn't even have a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers before they were sentenced to death for the profit of private health insurance companies.


The Affordable Care Act was a culmination of the disaster that is the Health Insurance Industry.  It is about saving lives, not about commerce.  It is about habeas corpus.  It is about knowing, regardless of the injustices of living on the body, there will be a way to seek treatment and receive care.  


The Affordable Care Act is not about JUST the uninsured, it is about protecting the entire population of the USA from exploitative corporations that seek profits with justification of the end of a human life. 


That is not what the Roberts Court will see or consider.  They will look at Plaintiff's version of The Affordable Care Act and seek to defeat the protections of human life in the USA under the 'idea' that the federal government has over reached its authority under the USA Constitution.  


Really.

This is a child's map of The Thirteen Original Colonies. Name them.

The names are assigned to each state.  Within that understanding is the fact there exists STATES RIGHTS.


The plaintiffs opposing The Affordable Care Act under the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of The Commerce Clause is stating the STATES are negated in their powers by the federal government.


Does it sound like a Republican Dreamscape?  


Of course.


States Rights is where Republcans like to remain non-committal about any laws that serve the best interest of all the people of the country.  Romney has already stated the health care insurance problem is a matter of States Rights.  They are ready.  This is their thing.


The argument below regarding the first bank of the nation was about a far smaller nation than the one we have today.  Every state of the smaller USA has far less people to worry about and yet still there were those that found the Federal Government was necessary and proper to institute policies that would work for the country.  


Those that saw a strong and effective central federal government authority wanted to move the nation forward as it was still young.  Moving the nation forward in unity was important to many people and the opposition to that thought was that the USA would end up with a President that was a faux king with overpowering authority.


That is why the opposition existed to any strong central authority.  We know today that when a federal law is neglected as in the case of Civil Rights there are states that simply will ignore the citizens and maintain the status quo regardless of the harm to those that live within the borders of that state.  They do so without moral reasons.


It is the power of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" that prevents injustice across this country in many, many instances.  The experience of Civil Rights is systemic throughout the USA.  The ONLY reason States should be allowed to exist is to maintain the UNIQUE qualities they have due to their geography and cultures.  In other words, the Mississippi River runs along and through many states.  There are different economic interests and cultural interests in every state.  The States have a right to defend those differences and maintain their interests.


BUT.


When the country has problems that are systemic the federal government needs to act and bring equity to all people experiencing the same problems.  That is the OBLIGATION of the federal government.


The argument the Plaintiffs to The Affordable Care Act is making is to dummy down the functions of the federal government and try to erase the very real lives of Americans that would have benefited from this very law.

One of the arguments the Plaintiffs like to make is the fact that there are ONLY 50 million Americans uninsured.


ONLY 50 million.


The child in this picture to President Obama's right had a dead mother due to the fact she did not have the benefit of the health insurance she needed to live.


This is not textbook legislation, it is not a toy anyone should be playing with, it save lives and that is what the Robert's Court dearly does not care to hear.

Of the Commerce Clause it is the "Necessary and Proper" Clause that is most in contention here.

First Bank of the United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Independence National Historical Park Collection)


...Hamilton's proposal to charter a national bank was severely attacked in Congress on constitutional grounds. The opposition was led by James Madison, who was becoming increasingly hostile to Hamilton's program. Although the two men had supported strong national government in the convention and had worked together to secure ratification of the Constitution, neither their constitutional philosophies nor their economic interests were harmonious. Hamilton wished to push still further in the direction of a powerful central government, while Madison, now conscious of the economic implications of Hamilton's program and aware of the hostility which the drift toward nationalism had aroused in his own section of the country, favored a middle course between centralization and states' rights....

The Commerce Clause is where the plaintiffs believe they have a right to defeat an individual mandate.

This is from Wikipedia.

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause has depended on the Supreme Court's reading. During the John Marshall era the Commerce Clause was empowered and gained jurisdiction over several aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the William Rehnquist court era the Commerce Clause was restricted, thereby allowing states more control over business conducted within its borders....

This is the argument of the political right wing.

...With our brief we maintain that the "individual mandate" provision of Obamacare, which requires every American citizen to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional - whether considered under Congress' commerce power or taxing power:

Petitioners are trying to defend a provision in an act passed by Congress that exceeds its enumerated powers. Though Congress enacted this provision under the Commerce Clause, Congress' power under the clause is not broad enough to compel Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing a particular product. Though Petitioners try to rescue the provision by arguing that it is valid under Congress' taxing power even if it is invalid under Congress' commerce power, a provision of an act that is not a tax may not be construed as a tax merely to save it from being declared unconstitutional...

Decided Nov. 9, 1942. (click here)

WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

This is the Commerce Clause at work.  The Robert's Court loves the Commerce Clause.  If they could do nothing else except play all day with the Commerce Claus they will.  Alito and Roberts have made their careers on the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause shut down farmers growing wheat.  In other words, the farmers were prohibited from making a living growing wheat.  If anyone thinks there isn't an individual mandate in that they are crazy.  Every 'free market' farmer was shut down.  The government didn't care about their personal outcomes they wanted them to stop growing wheat.  They didn't care if they went broke, lost their farms, the US Government said no more wheat and they won the case in the US Supreme Court.

Now.  The Affordable Care Act ONLY fines the USA citizen as a function of THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE $750.00 for not having insurance under the law.  It does not jail them, it does not penalize them in any way except to fine them $750.00 annually under the collection services of the IRS.  Now, I don't know about you, but, when the IRS collects money from people it is a TAX.  I don't recall the IRS collecting anything else besides taxes. The IRS collects fines all the time.  All the time.

So, the idea that ACTUAL events in the lives of Americans do not enter into any court decision and it is all textbook and removed from the reality of REAL APPLICATION is hideous.  To believe the fines for not having health care in the reality of the cost to the country and those that actually have health care is not a tax is stupidity.

The Affordable Care Act is appropriate and necessary in the lives of Americans and the fines levied as a means to encourage people to purchase insurance, especially once the State Exchanges are established is a pittance to the actual cost to the nation of the uninsured, including the human capital of maintaining LIVING CITIZENS.

The only item in contention of The Affordable Care Act within the plaintiffs of the Eleventh Circuit decision is the individual mandate.

The entire of the law stands in any decision.  The only aspect of the law SCULPTED out by the plaintiffs is The Individual Mandate and their TALKING POINT is that without it the Affordable Care Act will fail.  That isn't true.  This is a politically motivated lawsuit.


In a split decision, a three-judge panel on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the health care law’s individual mandate exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause powers and is therefore unconstitutional. However, unlike the district court ruling preceding this case, the judges found the mandate to be “severable” and thus holds that the rest of the law can stand.

In a joint opinion, Judges Joel Dubina — a Reagan appointee elevated to the circuit court by George H.W. Bush — and Frank Hull — a conservative Clinton appointee — “concluded that the individual mandate exceeded congressional authority under Article I of the Constitution because it was not enacted pursuant to Congress’s tax power and it exceeded Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

In a blistering dissent, Judge Stanley Marcus, also a Clinton appointee but a Republican originally nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, intimated that his colleagues were legislating from the bench...

Below is an article from "The American Spectator."  The article is completely anchored in political ideology.  The American Spectator advocates the Free Market and Small Government.  Of course, they don't really define what a free market is and how small government is good for the COUNTRY, but, I can guess they mean a completely unregulated market and NOT a free market.  There is a very big difference in that.  We have witnessed enough of an unregulated market.  Small government is to be limited to military activities at the federal level and allow the private sector to conduct all TRADITIONAL government activities.  Small government is what facilitates exploitative activity by an unregulated market.  

So, The American Spectator unequivocally do not contradict itself.  Not at all, it is just that their principles or ideologies if you will are VERY BAD for the Middle Class as they cannot defend against the onslaught of oppressive business practices.  We know that is a fact and we know because we have lived it.

..The ruling wasn't unanimous, however. Judge Stanley Marcus, whom Bill Clinton appointed to the Eleventh Circuit in 1997, wrote a rather querulous dissent. Marcus claims that the individual mandate regulates "quintessentially economic conduct," but neglects to explain how not engaging in a transaction constitutes such activity. Like many supporters of the mandate, he sidesteps the Constitution and reverts to an economic argument involving "the shifting of substantial costs from those who do not pay to those who do." In the end, however, Judge Marcus concedes he has no Supreme Court ruling upon which to hang his hat: "[I]t is surely true that there is no Supreme Court decision squarely on point dictating the result that the individual mandate is within the commerce power of Congress…"

What Judge Marcus does in his dissent is to realize the impact the lack of government legislation of the Health Care Mandate has on the citizens.  He APPLIES the outcome of a law to his decision.  It is not textbook, nor is it interpreted by words on a page.  His dissent was made through his understanding of the APPLICATION of the law.

The Sixth Circuit upheld The Affordable Care Act and it is those courts that need more attention than the 11th Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit Court sees cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The Obama administration prevailed Wednesday in the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law as a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (click here) held that it was constitutional for Congress to require that Americans buy health insurance.

The ruling by the Cincinnati court is the first of three opinions to be delivered by separate courts of appeal that heard arguments in the health care litigation in May and June. Opinions are expected soon from panels in the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., and the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

Lawyers on both sides of the case widely expect the Supreme Court to take one or more of the cases, perhaps as soon as its coming term, which starts in October. The speed of the Sixth Circuit ruling could help ensure that timing.

The opinion was the first not to break down strictly along seemingly partisan lines. In the 2-to-1 ruling, a judge appointed by a Republican president joined one named by a Democrat to write the majority opinion....

By the way, let me make something clear.

If one is gunning for me?  


Yes?


This is me.  This is a DMV photo so everyone knows it is real.


I still have that pink shirt, too.  It is warm and I like wearing it in the winter especially if I am out on a hike ALONE in the forest.


Don't forget that face.  I am the one you are looking for.  I am always unarmed.  I don't believe in firearms as a method to civil peace within any country.  I am not a hunter.  I like farmers and organic ones, too.  Just don't believe in it.  When I say nothing bothers me or surprises me, I mean it.  God as my witness.


Intimidation won't work.


I love my country and there are profoundly things "W"rong with it.  The injustice is my name and to whatever end it takes me to end it I will always be there with a nonviolent agenda.

UPDATE: Tornado watch extended (click here)

February 19, 2012 02:18:43 PM

NEWS HERALD STAFF REPORT

The National Weather Service has extended a tornado watch for the Florida Panhandle until 3 a.m. Sunday.

In addition to the Panhandle and Big Bend of Florida, 21 counties in Georgia are in the watch area.

An earlier version of this story is posted below:

The National Weather Service has issued a tornado watch for Bay County and nine other counties effective until 9 p.m. Saturday.

Counties included are Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Liberty, Walton and Washington....

New Orleans under tornado and flash-flood watches until 3 p.m. (click here)

The National Weather Service issued a severe thunderstorm warning, a tornado watch and a flash-flood watch for Southeast Louisiana and parts of Mississippi.

Severe thunderstorms were moving through the Bogalusa area just after noon and meteorologists detected damaging winds in excess of 60 miles per hour and a line of thunderstorms west of Bogalusa capable of producting quarter-size hail....

In Southern states, tornado season is typically from March to May. In the Southern Plains, it lasts from May to early June. On the Gulf Coast, tornadoes occur most often during the spring. And in the Northern Plains, Northern states and upper Midwest, peak season is in June or July.

D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT

The actual PDF of the lame complaint can be found at the entry to this link.

The time is now for ENERGY independence, not, oil independence.  Oil is far to costly after Peak Oil was realized in 2005, the year of Katrina.

The article below wants to instill fear of the Middle East and the loss of imported oil.  That is suppose to interpret into a loss of military strength.  Hm.

Time is now for oil independence (click here)

By Troy Carter and Charlie Cromwell

Posted: Monday, November 14, 2011 8:23 am

...A recent Pew Charitable Trust study noted that the Department of Defense ("DOD") is responsible for nearly 80 percent of the U.S. government's energy consumption. Shockingly, foreign oil constitutes nearly three-fourths of the DOD's annual $15.2 billion dollar energy bill. Our military's dependence on foreign oil is absolutely a matter of national energy security and domestic economic policy.

A war cannot be won without fuel, and our military's reliance on foreign petroleum leaves us vulnerable. As combat veterans in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have seen first-hand the harm caused by our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The DOD must forward deploy soldiers to conflict regions overseas to protect our foreign oil interests. In addition to the inherent danger many of these regions pose to our troops, they limit the number of forces available for more important deployments elsewhere....

This is the C-17 Globemaster.  One of the largest cargo jets in the US Air Force.  It is big and heavy and uses significant amount of fuel.

Well, guess what?

...The Air Force (click here) has approved a blend of jet fuel and plant-based fuels to work with an aircraft for first time.

The certification, announced yesterday, covers the C-17 Globemaster III, a transport aircraft made by Boeing and used for moving troops and cargo.

The Air Force tested a blend of up to 50 percent of biofuel, called hydrotreated renewable jet fuel, and JP-8 jet fuel, and found no degradation in performance for pilots....

I have said it before and I will say it again, the USA will never be undone.  The USA military has been in research regarding home grown Mid-Western fuels for a long time.  They have been way ahead of the potential threat of oil shortages.  I am I worried about a disabled military?  Not in the USA, I am not.

The case against the Affordable Health Care law and its so called "individual mandate"

Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067

D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through Attorney General, STATE OF SOUTHCAROLINA, by and through Attorney General, STATE OF NEBRASKA, by and through Attorney General, STATE OF TEXAS, by and through Attorney General,STATE OF UTAH, by and through Attorney General, et. al....


...is joined by all the opposing parties under the Eleventh Circuit Court.  This is the Docket Number the Supreme Court will seek to dummy down the 'knowledge base' that will ultimately lead to political outcomes.


This lawsuit and the decision by the Robert's Court to hear it before the November elections is a political lawsuit.  It has not basis, but, will be heard because the Robert's Court likes to reinterpret the US Constitution void of the reality that surrounds legislation.  


It is politically clever and we all know the political preferences of at least five members of this court as them make no mistakes in allowing the public to know exactly where they spend time with cronies.  


The Robert's Court is corrupt and its only excuse is that they are too lazy to actually apply the Constitution to the USA in the year 2012 or in the case of The Affordable Care Act 2009.  It is far easier to render a 'textbook' decision from the bench then to actually apply oneself in understanding the reason for the legislation in the first place, as in the Montana law, and how every generation does not have to relive the mistakes of the past.

...How long will the Bakken oil boom last?

Tom Richmond, administrator of the Montana Board of Oil and Gas, has been asked that question many times. Sure enough, it came up again Tuesday at the tail end of his detailed presentation on the state of Montana's oil and gas industry.

"There are always cycles in this industry," Richmond said, mentioning that Montana's first oil wells began producing about a century ago. "The safest thing I can say is that I expect the industry to be around a whole lot longer. There are a lot of reserves in the Bakken and certainly there are a lot of reserves in Montana," that will receive attention in years to come, he said....

Entertain this thought...

...the so called conservative Robert's Court is actually practicing dummy down interpretation of the Constitution.


...imagine erasing 'worldly knowledge' from Constitution interpretation.  In the case of Citizen's United a glaring example of 'dummying down the court' is more than evident.

...The U.S. Supreme Court blocked (click title to entry - thank you) a century-old Montana ban on corporate campaign spending, signaling the justices may reinforce a 2010 ruling that allowed companies to donate unlimited amounts to influence elections.

The high court yesterday put the Montana law on hold until it announces whether it will review the measure, which is being challenged by two nonprofit corporations and a family-owned business.

The case would test the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision, which divided the court 5-4 along ideological lines, allowed corporate spending as long as companies don’t directly coordinate with candidates.

Two justices who dissented in the 2010 case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, called on the court to reconsider it. The appeal in the Montana case “will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway,” Ginsburg wrote for the two....

I remember an interview Sandra Day O'Conner did about some of her decisions and I if I am not mistaken Justice Ginsburg made the same if not similar statement, (I am paraphrasing) "A good decision is based on understanding the country and how a decision effects lives."

What the justices were referring to is that not all decisions are academic.  The decisions the Supreme Court makes has to be tempered with the understanding the lives of citizens will be effected by those decisions and how that interprets in 'the real world' matters.

Why is the Montana decision regarding Citizen's United grossly remarkable to the directive that Supreme Court decisions are being dummied down and I do mean intentionally,  Because what the majority of the Robert's Court stated to justify their idiocy was that there was no way of knowing if corporate monies were actually going to corrupt the political system.

In fact there was.  There was a very long history of how commercialization ruined democracy in Montana.  The reason the Montana law was written in the first place is because Standard Oil OWNED AND OPERATED Montana.  Not just the gas stations and oil fields, but, the state government.  They leveraged their profits by owning the state government.

Sunday Night

"Dummy" by Emma Roberts

I couldn't catch a ride, I tried so I was walkin'
(started) raining when you called to tell me
You were flaking out again
I only had a buck (not enough to get a latte)
So I sat down at a table and I thought about you instead
I'd have to be a fool to believe every word you said

And I don't wanna be your dummy
I cut the strings and I'm free hunny
I don't want your fast-life or your money or your time
So stuck on yourself its funny
Hanging with you feels so crummy
So I don't wanna be your dummy
Da dummy da dummy

We were walking through the mall
with all the carbon copies
Your showing off screaming on your sell phone
I wonder why I didn't see it then
You spend hours and hours trying to make your hair look sloppy
You spend hundreds of dollars on a tee-shirt you wear

For the week its "in"
Now that were apart I wonder if you miss a thing

And I don't wanna be your dummy
I cut the strings and I'm free hunny
I don't want your fast-life or your money or your time
So stuck on yourself its funny
Hanging with you feels so crummy
So I don't wanna be your dummy
Da dummy da dummy

And if your asking then the last thing
I wanna be is a puppet on a string
You're unbelievable- its inconceivable
If you think I'll let you make a fool of me

And I don't wanna be your dummy
I cut the strings and I'm free hunny
I don't want your fast-life or your money or your time
So stuck on yourself its funny
Hanging with you feels so crummy
So I don't wanna be your dummy
This dummy's no dummy

I apologize for the last posting.

The one about 'clearly politically motivated.'  I removed it.  Believe nothing bothers me or surprises me.  Not a thing.


Seriously.


The site was hacked and it was posted by an unknown entity, my guess, Rove and his multi-billionaire club at American Crossroads.


Any of that mess only makes sense it would be him. He had and probably still maintains clearance credentials that would allow him undo access to places he shouldn't.


Regardless, given that fact, they are sincerely annoyed by the movement and THE TRUTH.


One might pay attention to other blogs that support the movement toward returning the USA to its constitutional authority. The Michael Moore site has a server problem.  I guess they couldn't cause a problem with Google's Blogger so they simply made an unauthorized entry as I protect the site from nasty comments and do not accept them with my postings.  


I did for a while and there was no sincere discussion, but, simply nasty comments, so anyone reading this blog doesn't need to read insulting behavior that has no purpose and absolutely nothing to say.


Onward and upward.  If entries seem 'out of character' from here on, they probably are for a reason.