Tyranny is Tyranny Whether Federal or State Government Mandated

Author Sheldon Richman made us think again, as we have in the past like so many others, government creates or manufactures the problem, the crisis, then sooner or later, government comes around with the solution to the problem, the crisis, the solution that leads to another problem or crisis which...

the government needs to solve.

But beware. This scenario doesn't only apply to the Federal Government and its current fix of the health care system's problems and crisis. But to the State Government as well.

One need only look at the State of Massachusetts. Ah yes, when Governor Mitt Romney supported the government's role in health care insurance for his state's citizens.

Romney doesn't support the Federal Government mandate, but it's A OK with Romney that the state of Massachusetts imposed a mandate.

Health Care delivery in crisis in the state of Massachusetts so along comes the State to fix it by imposing a what? A mandate?

Exactly. And other states would like no less than to re-claim or claim Tenth Amendment States Rights to do the same. States want to deny the Federal Government an imposition of a mandate for individuals to purchase health care insurance from a private provider, but not deny themselves that power.

If this isn't the height of hypocrisy, what is?

Tenth Amendment

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

But oops, look at that, in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, people is not even capitalized as is United States and as is States/States respectively.

We've been wondering when do the people, yes not even a capital P in people in the U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment, reserved powers - kick in?

When do the people get to claim power not delegated to the United States and not delegated to the States respectively?

That's right, the people are not capitalized, and so what powers do the people really have reserved to them?

Shouldn't the people have been listed first in the Tenth Amendment?

Shouldn't the Tenth Amendment read:

The people retain all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, any powers not so delegated are reserved to the people.

It should have been written that way and then we wouldn't have any claim by Federal or State governments that they can mandate anything on any individual.

We're wondering when do the people stand up and fight for themselves as a legal body mentioned at least with a lower case people in the Constitution.

When do the people fight for themselves as individuals.

Individuals with a right to privacy, a right to self-protection via any means, a right to protect themselves from a Tyrannical Government whether Federal or State?

When do the people get to exercise any power to claim a power to form their own health care system and their own methodology of health care delivery without having to fill out any not a single government form that asks anything about the status of their health care insurance?

Another development to consider is the exemption provided in the Reconciliation Act applicable to members of one religious sect or another. While names are not mentioned in the bill, analysis shows the exempted may be individuals belonging to an Amish or Muslim sect.

When will individuals act to secure their own liberty from Federal and State intrusive government which doesn't give one thought to an individual's privacy unalienable privacy rights?

Net the Truth Online

The Goal Is Freedom | by Sheldon Richman
Wishful Thinking on Health Care

No one knows exactly what was passed.
Posted March 26, 2010

How an issue is framed is crucial to how it is decided. Advocates of the package of health insurance regulations, taxes, and mandates known as ObamaCare managed to frame the issue as “reform versus the status quo.” But to call the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan (OPR) “reform” is to beg the question by assuming precisely what needs to be proved: namely, that the legislative package would actually reform — that is, improve — the medical system. Therefore the debate should have been not whether reform is desirable – real reform (improvement) is always desirable — but whether OPR is really reform.

A better framing of the issue would have been: real reform versus the status quo on steroids, for in the end OPR is little more than what Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal calls a “doubling down on the system’s existing perversities.” For example, under OPR everyone will be forced to become a customer of the health insurance industry that the ruling political class just spent a year demonizing, and that industry will reap billions in taxpayer subsidies. Moreover, demand for medical services will be further insulated from true costs. That is already the source of so much of what’s wrong today.

Let’s look at the newly signed law from four perspectives: moral, fiscal, economic, and political...

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/wishful-thinking/

PA Election Flawed with Un-purged Deceased

Do we know for sure whether or not the state's database of voters, called the SURE system, will contain the names of deceased persons remaining on the local listing of voter registration rolls? Some 67 counties make up the state, each with its own voter registration list. Among those 67 counties how many have conducted any review of their voter registration list prior to the upcoming 2010 May Primary, and how many have followed procedures for voter removal of at the very least the names of the deceased?

If a county's voter rolls contain the names of just a handful of deceased who would be disqualified from voting, of course, one would think, and a few of the deceased names show up on nomination petititions of candidates prior to the cut-off date for challenging such petititions, isn't the upcoming election 'flawed' from the get-go?

In the majority of candidate nomination petitition filings, there has been no challenge filed by either citizen-voters or opposing candidates in the Primary.

It's interesting to find that a few such filings have been made, but these unfortunatley are more geared to removing the eligibility status of the candidate from being on the Primary ballot than on finding the inaccuracies of the county's voter registration list!

The voter registration list then becomes a mere political game and is never challenged for being inaccurate and potentially posing an avenue to voter fraud and election fraud if ballots are cast by absentee or at the polling place using the name of a deceased person remaining on the local/state listings.

List of challenges to nomination petitions

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28526929/2010-Petition-Objections-Cases

Net the Truth Online

U.S. Supreme Court refuses Fairchance candidate's case
By The Tribune-Review
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of a failed candidate who alleges impersonators may have voted in place of dead voters in Fayette County.

In an decision posted Monday, the court denied Robert "Ted" Pritchard Sr.'s petition to hear his case alleging voter fraud.

The court's refusal to hear the case marks the latest loss in a series of court battles the Fairchance man has waged since having run unsuccessfully for constable and district judge last year.

Pritchard took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in December upheld a lower court's dismissal of his lawsuit. Pritchard had sought emergency motions to stay the election results of the May primary and November general election.

Pritchard had alleged that Fayette County failed to purge voter registration lists, resulting in impersonators possibly voting in place of deceased voters.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_673140.html

Unprecedented Unconstitutional Mandate on Individuals

Twelve state attorneys general, all of whom are Republican, have already filed suits to block the health care billon the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional. Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill. On Wednesday, Virginia's GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell will sign the bill into the state's law, making it illegal for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare/obama-sign-health-care-bill-law-republicans-challenge/story?id=10176898

Obamacare Bill: A Declaration of War
David Horowitz FrontPage Magazine

...The people of this nation are still sovereign, and their voice will be heard. Last night’s vote was lost but it is not the end of the battle.

It is the beginning.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/22/obamacare-bill-a-declaration-of-war/

Main-Scheme Press Failed Americans

It's our opinion the so-called mainstream Press just turned itself into the Main-Scheme Press with how this health care 'reform' vote came to be done in a reconciliation bill vote.

2,400 pages. Where was it? Main-Scheme Press where was it? The final version was never online because Pennsylvania Ardmire said last week he did not have the actual reconciliation bill available to him before he was about to vote in a few days.

Where were the headlines proclaiming neither the Democratic White House or the Democratic Congress had kept the details to themselves.

The online newsworthy item to make it out to the public? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Congress would have to pass the bill before people knew what was in it... she continued because the bill was in a fog of misinformation.

Well how can there be any accurate information if the entirety of the bill isn't published and available online for interested reviewers? Let alone for legislators?

And what misinformation?

Double counting Medicare savings? To gain the revenue neutrality presented as Yes we can do this without breaking the budget?

Congress had just prior to this vote adopted a more expansive debt ceiling.

so that's not telling us anything, right?

Individuals will be mandated to purchase health care insurance?

Is that misinformation?

And where were the headlines the dasterdly insurance companies are not prevented in this bill from raising costs down the road?

Nowhere. But now the reconciliation bill, let's be clear what was passed - a reconciliation - has been passed - now Lawrence O'Donnell is OK with stating the insurance companies are not prevented from raising costs to the consumer.

The Main-Scheme Press should go down in history as the most inadequate in the history of our nation.

It's timefor something new.

All of us versus them.

Net the Truth Online

O"Donnell: Reform Vote Against Polling Majority of Public

Straight from Lawrence O'Donnell: the Health Care Vote by the House was a vote against the polling majority of the American Public. (Morning Joe, Monday, March 21, 2010. Quite an interview with O'Donnell. Get the transcript. The tax increases oh what tax increases, says O'Donnell. It depends on what and how you're looking at the bill (and the figures).

The majority of the American public polled against the bill? Who'd have known with the Main-Scheme Press.

That's right. A majority of us. That's right. Remember us. The owners of this country.

But headlines before today's rarely revealed much if anything that was in the bill. Why not? The bill wasn't available? It wasn't public, yet? Since when has that stopped the former american Press from getting the scoop?

Since they all started cavorting with the White House way back before President Obama at White House off-limits to the public parties, conferences, and galas.

Today headlines scream the ayes have it.

Yes. Yes. Yea. Yah = 219 of them.

Some reports say the reconciliation bill will be sent directly to President Barack Obama for his signature.

Others insert the Senate will have its say. The Senate Parliamentarian may have a say or rather advice as well.

Phyllis Schlafly says with this vote the myth of the Pro-Life Democrat is exposed.

In our opinion, that's not all that's been exposed.

Read President Barack Obama's message to us Yes We Can has been his message all along - his goal is yes we can - do whatever we want as a majority in Congress with the White House and Democratic majority.

What he won't say is how. And how is as important as it's done.

Obama's message - yes we can - to us and yes we did sign up to receive these long ago back before the Primary of 2008.

Read it, and read it again.

Net the Truth Online

Citizen --

For the first time in our nation's history, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform. America waited a hundred years and fought for decades to reach this moment. Tonight, thanks to you, we are finally here.

Consider the staggering scope of what you have just accomplished:

Because of you, every American will finally be guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage.

Every American will be covered under the toughest patient protections in history. Arbitrary premium hikes, insurance cancellations, and discrimination against pre-existing conditions will now be gone forever.

And we'll finally start reducing the cost of care -- creating millions of jobs, preventing families and businesses from plunging into bankruptcy, and removing over a trillion dollars of debt from the backs of our children.

But the victory that matters most tonight goes beyond the laws and far past the numbers.

It is the peace of mind enjoyed by every American, no longer one injury or illness away from catastrophe.

It is the workers and entrepreneurs who are now freed to pursue their slice of the American dream without fear of losing coverage or facing a crippling bill.

And it is the immeasurable joy of families in every part of this great nation, living happier, healthier lives together because they can finally receive the vital care they need.

This is what change looks like.

My gratitude tonight is profound. I am thankful for those in past generations whose heroic efforts brought this great goal within reach for our times. I am thankful for the members of Congress whose months of effort and brave votes made it possible to take this final step. But most of all, I am thankful for you.

This day is not the end of this journey. Much hard work remains, and we have a solemn responsibility to do it right. But we can face that work together with the confidence of those who have moved mountains.

Our journey began three years ago, driven by a shared belief that fundamental change is indeed still possible. We have worked hard together every day since to deliver on that belief.

We have shared moments of tremendous hope, and we've faced setbacks and doubt. We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right -- and actually create the change we believe in.

Tonight, thanks to your mighty efforts, the answer is indisputable: Yes we can.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

PA Petition challenge withdrawn others remain

Candidates challenge opponents' petitions
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak draws criticism for contesting names on a rival's ballot in their U.S. Senate race.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
With the May 18 primary in Pennsylvania two months away, some can didates for U.S. Senate, governor, Congress and the state House got a taste of the competition Wednesday when their ballot petitions were contested.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/12688773078940.xml&coll=1

Listing of challenged and challengers to nomination petitions

via grassrootspa.com

Petition filed to remove Meehan from the primary election ballot
Published: Thursday, March 18, 2010

By PAUL LUCE
pluce@delcotimes.com

Patrick Meehan, the GOP candidate for the 7th Congressional District, should be tossed off the primary election ballot, according to a petition filed Tuesday in Commonwealth Court by four area Republicans.

The petition alleges Meehan’s nomination papers are riddled with fraud, resulting in less than the mandatory 1,000 valid signatures needed for him to remain viable.

Meehan, a former U.S. attorney and Delco District attorney who prosecuted voter fraud cases during his term in the Media Courthouse, called the allegations “a charade” from the campaign of his likely Democratic opponent, state Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-161 of Swarthmore.



http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/03/18/news/doc4ba19ae815fde759258706.txt

A petition challenge reportedly filed by a Dan Onorato supporter against Democratic gubernatorial rival Joe Hoeffel has been withdrawn, administrators with the Commonwealth Court said Wednesday.

A review of the petition-challenge list in the court’s Harrisburg offices showed Hoeffel’s nomination had been formally challenged Tuesday but removed a day later. The documents showed Hoeffel’s name had been crossed out.

Even if it had remained, the chances of knocking Hoeffel off the ballot appeared slim. The Montgomery County commissioner said he had filed 7,632 signatures from 33 counties – gubernatorial candidates need to file only 100 signatures from 10 counties and 2,000 total.

http://www.politicspa.com/politicspa-challenge-to-hoeffels-nomination-petition-withdrawn/8287/

We were surprised anybody filed a challenge to the nomination petitions of any candidate seeking the nomination for Governor of PA. High stakes indeed.

Nomination petitions for Primary Election for Governor according to information require some specific regulations and requirements for gathering of signatures.

Among those requirements is a 10-county minimum requirement for the gathering of at least 100 of the 2,000 signatures needed to qualify for a spot on nomination ballot in the "Party" Primary.

In the case of candidate Hoeffel's nomination petitions, as reported, an even wider county base of signers was obtained - some 33 counties!

There are 67 counties in PA. so half the counties in PA at least some 7,632 names in 33 counties would have been highlighted by an opponent challenging the petitions for review.

we wonder if our county was included among the Hoeffel 33? don't you? And if you don't why not?

Granted, the process wouldn't have been easy. The Onorato supporter would have had to give specific reason for disqualification of a 'challenged' voter's status to sign the Democrat petition.

Not to besmirch the Hoeffel campaign, but including it among all other campaigns, especially those for Governor, it's likely in a 33-county spread, some signers are ineligible. And it's more than likely in a 67 county review.

Ineligible names remain on voter registration rolls across Pennsylvania, and in fact, it's a no brainer, across states in the United States.

Whether there would have been enough rejections of names on the nomination petititons of Hoeffel to have Hoeffel's name thrown off the Democratic Primary Ballot would have been answered after the process took place.

What would such a review of some 7,000 plus names from a 33-county voter registration database for PA have revealed?

We'll never know now.

How accurate is the state database?

How accurate are each of the voter registration rolls in the 33 counties?

The 67 PA counties?

Unanswered questions year after year.

And with that, who can really trust that the winner (gaining the most votes cast at the precinct and via absentee ballots) is the true winner? A winner in a Primary Election wherein unless there's a special election occuring at the same time, or a Constitutional amendment or a referendum question on the Primary Ballot, independents and Third Party registered voters are excluded from participation.

Such Party challenges to nomination petitions are not rare in PA, that's why the canard to challengers - you're trying to kick me off the ballot and do an end run around the voters - has historically been accepted as politically motivated.

And we find with this withdrawal and with others like it - the same can be said - stopping the challenge once begun on the basis of potentially ineligible or disqualified names on nomination petitions is as politically motivated.

Why not carry out the process and prove the ineligibility of names for whatever reason?

It might reveal some of the same names on the challenged petition are also on the challenger's petition?

The same potentially ineligible names?

It's also rare for anybody to challenge names of voters who've requested and returned absentee ballots, or the residency or eligibility status of voters showing up at the polls.

On behalf of voters in their district of election or appointment, Judges of Election are placed in a position of at the least sanctioning every voter's name who walks in the door and is noted as being on the county voter rolls.

Judges and pollworkers are required to compare signatures of voters at the time of entry and signing the precinct poll book.

How this can be accomplished with any degree of believability becomes another unanswered question when - and it happens - signatures are missing, illegible, or mere scrawls on the county voter registration signature card/digitalized image of a signature block.

Even county commissioners who are aware there are potential ineligibles on the voter listing (for being deceased, or having moved out of the jurisdiction, or signature missing in the county voter registration database) will not challenge a name on the voter registry or use their constitutional ability to review the voter registry.

A voter can also challenge the eligibility status of another registered voter, but this is rare as well.

Net the Truth Online

PoliticsPA: Challenge to Hoeffel’s nomination petition withdrawn
By Alex Roarty
PoliticsPA Staff Writer
roarty@politicspa.com

A petition challenge reportedly filed by a Dan Onorato supporter against Democratic gubernatorial rival Joe Hoeffel has been withdrawn, administrators with the Commonwealth Court said Wednesday.

A review of the petition-challenge list in the court’s Harrisburg offices showed Hoeffel’s nomination had been formally challenged Tuesday but removed a day later. The documents showed Hoeffel’s name had been crossed out.

Even if it had remained, the chances of knocking Hoeffel off the ballot appeared slim. The Montgomery County commissioner said he had filed 7,632 signatures from 33 counties – gubernatorial candidates need to file only 100 signatures from 10 counties and 2,000 total.

The Onorato campaign, in a statement, said one of its supporters was simply doing his due diligence to help the Allegheny County Executive’s run for governor.

“Every competent campaign checks their opponents’ petitions and challenges any questionable ones to defend itself,” said spokesman Brian Herman. “Based on the obvious motive and opportunity for one particular candidate to remove the only other candidate who shares his base, one of my supporters filed a legitimate challenge.


http://www.politicspa.com/politicspa-challenge-to-hoeffels-nomination-petition-withdrawn/8287/

Should Republicans Stop Demon Pass? No. States should

We think not. Please let the meaneuver go through. We need this to go forward and we need the Democrats to be returned to Congress in overwhelming numbers.

We need 40 more years of the Democrats in the majority after they were in the minority about 12 years and only recently swept into the White House, Senate with for an all too brief time, a veto-proof majority, and in the House of Reps.

Stay out of the transformation of America, Republicans.

We need this shot in the arm to keep our addiction to Mommy/Daddy government going.

The states, that is another question. Should states Stop Demon Pass?

Yes, they can. And they should.

Every single one of them should file whatever nullification paperwork is necessary to deem this law null and void - it is unconstitutional for the federal government to order individuals to purchase anything no matter from whom or what entitity.

Net the Truth Online

Deficit Reduced CBO Says Demon Pass Arriving Next

Very soon, the Demon Pass meanuever will be used by the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives to adopt a Health care Reform something a Bill, a reconciliation of the 'budget' between House and Senate. Yes we can.

Congressional Budget Office numbers' crunch is done and we are giddy over these numbers.

The health care reform legislation will cost 940 billion and be offset by as much making it budget neutral.

The reconciliation bill that may not be the one PA Rep. Ardmire said on Hannity Wednesday he hadn't seen what was in it, well it or something is up...

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

Obama Yes We Can Use Deem to Change Status Quo

Think about this. From the audience you face a President of the United States of America giving a speech.

Former President Barack Obama.

He says his Presidency technically started upon his swearing in January, 2009, but his Presidency really began the day the House of Representatives majority of Democrats used a particular parliamentarian procedure to pass Health Care reform.

Deeming, President Barack Obama claims announced to the world how he as President always believed would be the route to the kind of change necessary to transform America.

He tried to work with the opposing party, the Republicans, so too did Congressional leaders, House Speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid. But they were the Party of No.

He recalls the day the House of Representatives used the technique known as "Deeming" and he was always a supporter of this and any other techniques to get good bills passed when you face a reluctant opposing political party.

He recalls the people had their say after the Senate's acceptance of the reconciliation bill that resulted and as a result not only did Americans get the health care reform they clamored for, the Democratic Party was returned to the majority with a few more to spare.

The voters confirmed the process worked. And they are still confirming after the Democrats have used the Deem and Pass exclusively since and they - we - remain the majority party in the House of Representatives with a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

After the hour's worth of former President Barack Obama's speech, Mr. Obama took no questions from the audience since he needed to meet former First Lady Michele Obama at her campaign headquarters.

All he said was Stay with us, return us to the White House and vote Yes we can for Michele Obama for President of the United States.

Thank you Health be with you and God Bless America

The "Deem Team" In Your Face at the Doctor's Office

Poster PeteP at the Volokh Conspiracy comments on the article: Would Deem and Pass Survive Judicial Review?

PeteP says:
One thing is sure — it WILL be challenged in court, repeatedly. The AG of Virginia even sent Pelosi a letter today ( basically ) stating that he would challenge it.

So, the political question is — Do the Dems want to risk that ongoing headline for months and months ?

The Deem Team should be scared — very scared !

Another thing is for sure — anyone who’s not totally confused by all this hasn’t been paying attention :-)

Quote

March 17, 2010, 5:58 pm

http://volokh.com/2010/03/17/would-deem-pass-survive-judicial-review/

Clever. The Deem Team!

And we answer the question, Yes, the Dems will chance whatever headlines come about because the Democrats have one goal in mind with the majority power they hold now.

They have always wanted big government to take care of you.

And they will get this health care insurance 'reform' bill passed as law every which way they can.

And as Nancy Pelosi stated, then Americans, then, you will know what is in it.

Guess this isn't what's in it now, right?

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

Tonight, Wed. March 17, 2010, Congressman Altmire D-PA said on Hannity he did not have the final version of what is in the "reconciliation."

Obviously, if he doesn't have it, the link provided by the House Budget Library is not the final version of the Reconciliation bill.

Search results

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS349&q=deem+and+pass+history&aq=3z&aqi=l1g-z3g7&aql=&oq=deem+&gs_rfai=

Net the Truth Online

Would “Deem & Pass” Survive Judicial Review?
Jonathan H. Adler • March 17, 2010 5:45 pm

Politico reports that quite a few constitutional experts, in addition to Stanford’s Michael McConnell and Yale’s Jack Balkin, believe the so-called “Slaughter Solution” (aka “Deem and Pass”) could present a thorny constitutional question. McConnell thinks it’s clearly unconstitutional; Balkin believes its constitutionality depends on its final form.


http://volokh.com/2010/03/17/would-deem-pass-survive-judicial-review/

Adam Sullivan says:
Confused: I’m a bit confused by this deem and pass discussion.Liberal blogs have noted that there will be a vote by the house, which is why we keep seeing articles every day on who in the house will vote which way.How is that vote being discussed not sufficient?I’m not saying it is.I’m just honestly confused by all of this.

It is that the “vote” is on a rule and not the bill itself. If you look up Pelosi quotes and Slaughter quotes from last week you will find that they explicitly crafted the rule to give wavering members of the house an excuse of “I voted for the rule and not the bill, and the Senate tricked me on reconciliation” to tell voters in November.

The rule is supposed to have a scheme wherein the Senate bill is passed conditionally on the Senate accepting the House terms on reconciliation via reconciliation. That way there is no debate in the Senate and they can pass it by simple majority and prevent filibuster.

We are all waiting on the particulars of the rule itself and what the reconciliation terms are.

Quote

March 17, 2010, 6:21 pm

http://volokh.com/2010/03/17/would-deem-pass-survive-judicial-review/

PA: Supervisors Decline Regional Police Want Sen. Ward Option

It couldn't be any more clear. South Union Township supervisors have rejected to consider combining with other municipalities to form a 'regional police force.'

Instead, the supervisors have put their support behind Pennsylvania state Senator Kim Ward's legislative proposal.

It could not be any more clear than that, despite what might be said about the supervisors of South Union township being free-loaders by not forming their own police force, or participating in a regional police force, the supervisors consider the PA state police system of providing protection locally with a few tweaks to the numbers provided and availability and training adequate for their small township.

It's their decision to make on behalf of their own constituents who elected them into office and can de-select them come the next election.

There's the local newspaper hosting a series of crime forums but without benefit of any viewpoint opposite of the viewpoint of favoring a 'regional police force' initiative as offered 'for conversation and discussion' by state Representative Timothy Mahoney (D-51st)

What is the benefit of hosting one of a series of forums to consider the possibilities of dealing with local crime when entitling the one forum "regional police force" and having all of the panelists in some measure being supportive of only the regional police force and by the way, not inviting such as state Senator Kim Ward onto the panel?

What an oversight, right?

Don't invite a sponsor of a key piece of legislation to the panel discussing state and local police forces and regionalization to talk about another approach which does not include regionalizing police forces.

an approach that has already been indicated to be among the primary consideration of South Union Township supervisors.

And potentially North Union Township supervisors.

and potentially other similar sized or even smaller municipalities.

But it is obvious from how the forum was billed from the get-go "regional police force" and the comments of state Representative Timothy Mahoney, that the only thing to be discussed was the regional police force.

and the initial state legislation proposed to slap an additional fee on communities without their own local police force or participating in a regional police force.

Mahoney said that the forum Thursday was an attempt to get people talking about regionalization as a means to provide better police coverage for Fayette County residents, noting that Fayette County now leads the state in unemployment rate, violent crime rate and poverty rate.

“For elected officials … I think it is time for us to take the blinders off and start looking around for how to change,” Mahoney said, adding that the current legislation at the state level would not suit the county’s needs and would end up costing the taxpayers more money without providing any additional state police coverage.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/february/26/regionalized-policing-discussed.html

Isn't it lying when other options are not even considered? Senator Kim Ward's bill for instance has been on the table for a couple of months before the forum, yet she isn't invited?

And isn't it with-holding information and thus also lying when one doesn't have a produced study which outlines in detail the so-called cost-savings of a regional police force versus a municipality choosing to opt into something along the lines of Sen. Kim Ward's legislation?

Sad.



Net the Truth Online

South Union supervisors ponder police protection options
March 03, 2010 01:54 AM TEXT SIZE By: REBEKAH SUNGALA
Herald Standard

South Union Township supervisors said Tuesday they are continuing to research all available options regarding police protection and said state legislators need to worry more about increasing state police and less about regional police.

Supervisor Robert Schiffbauer said he doesn't appreciate legislators claiming that local leaders aren't doing their job and said it's the people in Harrisburg who have failed to provide ample police protection.

"We have legislators accusing us of not doing our jobs. But we're accusing them of not doing their jobs in Harrisburg," he said.

Discussion regarding police coverage came to the forefront after legislators proposed House Bill 1500, which would force municipalities without local police departments to pay for state police coverage. The proposed legislation would cost South Union Township over $1 million a year.

The question of regional police came under fire after state Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Township, proposed forming a countywide regional police department in response to House Bill 1500.

At Tuesday's meeting, Schiffbauer held legislators to task for the state police shortage...

...Schiffbauer said the township supports a Senate Bill proposed by state Sen. Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland, that would allow municipalities to pay $90,000 a year to have a state trooper assigned to patrol the respective municipality.

The bill, according to Schiffbauer, would give municipalities an option if they feel they need more police coverage than the state police are currently offering and said the bill doesn't mandate the municipalities to pay for extra coverage.

Schiffbauer said the bill would help municipalities who can't afford to contract with the state police by freeing up troopers to patrol the areas without a contracted trooper on duty.

In addition, Schiffbauer spoke out against any legislation that would have troopers assigned to the state's casinos.

The legislation would have more than 150 troopers patrolling casinos, according to Schiffbauer.

"It's a shame we're going to have more state troopers in the casinos than we're going to have out on the streets," he said.

Schiffbauer said legislators need to be worried about public safety and police coverage, but that they should be worried about increasing state police protection and getting more troopers out on the roads and not concern themselves with pushing the idea of regional police.

Supervisors Chairman Thomas Frankhouser said forming a local or regional police department could actually decrease the number of state police assigned to the Uniontown area.

Frankhouser said the state police are the best and that township residents deserve to have the best available protection.

"In my opinion, there's no comparison," he said.

Supervisor Rick Vernon said the township cannot support any legislation that does not increase, and could potentially decrease, the number of state police for the area.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/march/03/south-union-supervisors-ponder-police-protection-options.html

While the majority of people attending a meeting to discuss regionalized policing agreed that Fayette County residents need to address police coverage and police needs, not everyone is willing or agreeable on how to fund it.

The forum, the second in a series of workshops designed to discuss topics related to crime in Fayette County by the Herald-Standard, in conjunction with Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Campus, was held Thursday evening at Penn State Fayette.

After opening remarks from panelists John D. Hartman, chief of the Southwest Regional Police Department; Dr. Lawrence N. Driscoll, a professor in the Administration of Justice Department at Penn State Fayette; and state Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp., the trio fielded more than an hour of questions from about 60 residents and local municipal leaders gathered at the event.

According to Driscoll, there are basically five options facing the county in coming years for continued law enforcement, including contracting out services to neighboring police departments, supporting one of the three proposed bills in state legislature for taxation or charges for state police coverage, attempt to form regionalized police forces, create individual police forces or simply do nothing.

“It (regionalized policing) is extremely time consuming and it is extremely complex,” Driscoll said. “It is important to the area and, to be quite honest, probably overdue.”

Hartman, who is chief of the only regional police force in Fayette County, said that his department provides police services for five municipalities, including Belle Vernon, Newell, Long Branch inside Fayette County and Coal Center and Cokeburg in Washington County.

“This issue has been very contentious,” Hartman said. “It appears to me that people are in a pitched battle over this issue and I really don’t understand it. Police departments are not competing…we are there to serve and protect.”

Hartman said that his own department was created out of economic necessity and has grown over the last decade as municipal budgets have tightened.

Mahoney said that the forum Thursday was an attempt to get people talking about regionalization as a means to provide better police coverage for Fayette County residents, noting that Fayette County now leads the state in unemployment rate, violent crime rate and poverty rate...

...The forum Thursday was part of “CSI: Fayette County — Crime Subjects Investigated.”

CSI: Fayette County is a sequence of seminars throughout the year that will address crime in Fayette County in an effort to inform area residents about how to avoid becoming a victim, educate residents on their role in crime prevention and discuss topics relevant to crime and criminal activity in the county.

Future sessions are planned to cover a wide variety of crime-related subjects.

Panelists will include law enforcement officials, educators, newspaper representatives and other local experts on crime-related topics. Additionally, at each forum, organizers will try to include some type of interactive demonstration to help engage public interest, whether it is a training exhibition by a K-9 officer, a demonstration on the use of Taser guns or discussions on specific crime topics that include visual materials or interactive aids, etc.

The forums will be held throughout the year, averaging one every two months.



http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/february/26/regionalized-policing-discussed.html

President Obama Admits Smoking Won't Quit Save Tax $

It's no wonder President Barack Obama has chosen to pursue elected office over employment in the private sector as he continues on his course of choosing to smoke.

All of his medical bills are covered by the taxpayers. Whether in Chicago government as a state Senator, Congress as a U.S. Senator, and now as President, Barack Obama has had his health care insurance funded in part or in whole by the taxpayers of his state of residence, and now by U.S. taxpayers.

Not one Democrat(ic) lawmaker has said, Mr. President, stop smoking, stop today, right now, cold turkey, for the good of the well - the rest of us in the same pool as you are. The government pool.

Understand they will never do that. Never. The Democrat(ic)s will never call out President Barack Obama.

Who believes if former President George H.W. Bush or former President George W. Bush had proposed mandated health care insurance coverage for all while choosing to continue a habit of smoking they would not be blasted for the hypocricy?

By members of their own party, Republican, and members of the Democrat(ic) Party.

You don't have blinders on, right? You're seeing the game clearly for what it is, right? Those with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. That's a goal of the Democrat(ic) proposal for health care insurance coverage for all, mandated to be purchased by all. So is lowering costs for the insurance, right?

It's a ruse that costs can be lowered for all when the healthy have to pay more to help pay for those who are unhealthy because all will be in the same "high-risk" pool.

That's the Democrat(ic) plan.

to put everybody - state by state - of course - in the same pool of insured.

Now this works in government for the insured because the taxpayers are paying for the coverage. There's no incentive for President Barack Obama to quit his habit which only adds to the cost of health care coverage for himself and for the other government employees in the same pool.

The healthy government workers are in the same pool as unhealthy (if not now down the road surely as it is known smoking causes a host of problem health conditions) President Barack Obama but why should they care if premiums go up because of President Barack Obama down the road when he's deemed to be unhealthy?

And will we ever ever ever be told President Barack Obama has developed lung cancer?

Of course not.

The same could be said regarding former Vice President Dick Cheney. It was known he had heart problems going into the campaign for the Vice Presidency. Yet did we ever see Mr. Cheney go on a full fledged weight reduction program? Did Vice President Dick Cheney ever lose a decent amount of weight while VP so the cost of health coverage might go down?

How about former Vice President Al Gore? My goodness during his Vice Presidency the man ballooned up to a weight that could only be considered grossly obese to the point one had to wonder whether he'd become bed-ridden. The beard later after he lost his bid for the Presidency did not hide the fact of his poor health condition.

Where do the currently un-insured fit in? some may have pre-existing conditions and some may not. How many are currently uninsured, and who are they?

According to President Barack Obama in his statement during the Health Care Summit with Republicans sitting by listening, President Obama noted a figure of 30 million uninsured in the United States.

Meanwhile a few days later, a Democrat(ic) Congresswoman um guess who stated 47,000 uninsured. (Nancy Pelosi)

Which is it?

And why didn't Rep. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, for goodness sake, stop the President and give the number she believes is more accurate?

These people ask us all to believe they are going to fix the 'broken' health care insurance coverage system all the while they can't even get the numbers of uninsured down to an accurate factuality.

Who are the uninsured? Few will lump in the illegal aliens remaining in the country either working with social security numbers (also illegally obtained) or not working, or employed without social security numbers.

How will the mandated health care insurance coverage be managed when at the least some 22 million assumed to be not covered are illegal aliens?

High risk pools according to a WND TV report will have to spread the cost of covering those with pre-existing conditions among - guess what sit down before you fall if you haven't already guessed - the "healthy."

That's right. Those who take care of themselves, don't drink to excess, don't smoke, don't do drugs, maybe exercise weekly, eat propertly and are not overweight, will be paying for the pool of those with pre-existing conditions no matter how those conditions occurred.

The obesitity problem alone in this courntry has skyrocketed to out of sight proportions. People cannot stop eating the wrong kinds of foods, nor can people stop eating excessivily.

type 2 diabetes has grown into the single largest health care problem in the country.

Type 2 Diabetes involves the development of "insulin resistance" a condition that can be reversed.

Yet people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes continue to consume the foods with the bad carbs and sugar laden foods and they are not going to stop consuming these foods to belong to a "low risk" pool where costs would naturally be lower in cost than a "high-risk" pool.

No these people will not change their habits and will not beat their "addictions" to food or drugs or alcohol so they can pay less for health care insurance.

They will be enabled to continue their poor habits because the "high risk pools" will be paid for by sharing costs from the higher premiums for the "healthy" to pay for them!

Is this not insanity?

Why not put all of the smokers for instance in their own health care insurance pool?

President Barack Obama should be the first to step up. When their health care insurance coverage costs skyrocket, and they have to pay for it themselves, not have somebody else - taxpayers or healthy - pay for them - how soon will they stop smoking?

Texas Primary Today

Debra Medina's polling numbers dropping. Governor Rick Perry, incumbent, polling at 47 percent. Kay Bailey Hutchinson at 26 percent.

If noone gets 51 percent of the vote today, the top two will have a run-off in six weeks.

Recall, Sarah Palin endorsed Gov. Rick Perry.

We can't help but continue to wonder who controls which Tea Party?

Net the Truth Online

glenn beck's interview of Debra Medina vs glenn Beck's interview of Sarah Palin (after Palin's omment it was fair game to question production of President Barack Obama's birth certificate made the internet news)

Beck interviews Debra Medina

http://politifi.com/news/Glenn-Beck-outs-Texas-TeaParty-gubernatorial-candidate-Debra-Medina-as-a-911-Truther-200636.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=glenn+beck+interview+debra+medina&btnG=Search&hl=en&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS349&sa=2


http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/11/heartache-tea-party-candidate-in-texas-a-911-truther/

Beck interviews Sarah Palin

ah move on nothing to see from Beck, he doesn't ask Palin about her comments

Sarah Palin Gets On The Birther Bandwagon Then Gets Off (Update)
by Colby Hall | 7:25 am, December 4th, 2009

In an interview with conservative talk radio host Rusty Humphries yesterday, Sarah Palin was asked if she would get behind the “Birther” controversy and her response is sure to raise some eyebrows. When asked if she “would make the birth certificate an issue if (she) ran?” Palin called the conspiracy theory a “fair question.” She also compared it to the “weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about, that Trig isn’t my real son.” Update – Palin clarified her position via her Facebook page.

The birth certificate controversy centers around Barack Obama’s legitimacy as President because he hasn’t proved he was born in the U.S. Though this theory has been debunked by numerous sources, Palin appears to believe it to be a legitimate issue. And while she never claimed that she would raise the issue, she made clear that she wouldn’t have to, because the public already is.

Palin also placed the birth certificate conspiracy theory in the same category as voting records, calling it “fair game” and adding that “the McCain-Palin campaign, didn’t do a good enough job in that area.” During last year’s election the McCain’s campaign claimed to have lookedinto the birth certificate question and, like every other serious examination, dismissed it...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/sarah-palin-gets-on-the-birth-certificate-conspiracy-bandwagon/

Tea Party (Strategerists) Shows Odd Behavior

What to make of the Tea Party Movement is getting more and more like watching Dr. Jekkyl turn into Mr. Hyde, or like watching a chamelion change its color to suit its environment.

During her campaign for Governor of Texas, Debra Medina has offered her positions on a variety of issues with no variation from certain key principles related to state government and national government. Medina rejects the Federal Reserve system in the same vein as Ron Paul, adheres to the Austrian school of economics, in the same vein as Ron Paul, opposes super-corporatist wars a la, well not Sarah Palin, but Ron Paul.

Yet there's the Tea Party Movement on the national level - a meeting of organizers nationwide, from various states - embracing Sarah Palin as the keynote spokesperson at the first national Tea Party Convention.

And Sarah Palin had already endorsed incumbent Governor Rick Perry for re-election.

while it's interesting to question why Palin endorsed Perry and not Medina, one would think Medina would if offered an endorsement from Palin, outright reject it.

Meanwhile in another part of Texas, that represented by Ron Paul, Tea Party members are mounting challengers to Dr. Ron Paul.

Imagine, Paul's campaign a couple of years back initiated the Taxed Enough Already slogan in rallies and across the Internet, held 'protests' of increases in taxation and unconstitutional spending for months, and as soon as the limited government refrain started to widen and pull in other than libertarians, organizers who have more conservative than Paul's brand of libertarianism pack the Tea Party National with Sarah Palin and Palin supporters.

Including Joseph Farah of World Net Daily.

Who are these organizers and members across the country?

They accept Sarah Palin without knocking her on her neo-conservatism, spending unlimited on 'national security' and maintaining the infrastructure for the Patriot Act to reign and yet they may be accepting Debra Medina over Perry who is endorsed by Sarah Palin.

Meanwhile, they may reject Ron Paul, yet may accept Paul's son, Rand, there in Kentucky. Rand Paul was endorsed by Sarah Palin.

The odd situation with the Palin endorsement of Rand Paul - Rand Paul made "overtures" to the Palin camp and the endorsement followed.

Can a libertarian ride Tea Party disaffection to victory in a Republican primary?

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00010/

Meanwhile, is Palin endorsing Ron Paul? It doesn't look like it.

It's a bit scary to watch this going on. Brings back memories of Ross Perot who riled everybody up to such a pitch had he remained a candidate for President, he might have beat both unknown Bill Clinton, and known George H.W. Bush.

Years later, it was learned Perot had connections with none other than a major Trilateralist. Who knows to this day whether Perot himself is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations?

Who are these people, what are their core principles, what are positions on abortion, war, the Federal Reserve, economics, constitutional vs. unconstitutional spending at any level of government and so forth and so on.

Why lean to Sarah Palin on the one hand and Debra Medina who has got to be careful how far she is willing to be pulled to the Palin populist factor.

Rand Paul didn't have a qualm seeking out Palin's support even though he's supposed to be well versed in Constitutional issues, he's obviously accepted Palin who didn't even know the job requirements for Vice President, let alone appear to understand the meaning of the Constitution's basic foundational principle with regard to war.

Congress declares war, that's what's in the Constitution.

Yet Palin referenced in comments during a Chris Wallace interview the President (referring to President Obama) can 'decide to declare war' on Iran and in so doing the President (referring to President Obama) not only should 'do so' but would show strength by so doing!

See our analysis of Rand Paul and his campaign for the U.S. Senate

Thursday, February 11, 2010
Rand Paul Foregoing Principles for Base Republican Support?

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2010/02/rand-paul-foregoing-principles-for-base.html

Be wary of the Texas4Palin site which closes down discussion-forum on any topic not considered Palin-pro.

Sunday, November 15, 2009
Rand Paul has asked Sarah Palin to campaign for him

Josh Painter said...
Okay folks, both sides have weighed in, and I'm cutting off comments on this post. Texas for Sarah Palin is a blog, not a discussion forum. I suggest that any parties who wish to continue the debate, take it to a political forum, please.

This blog is about Sarah Palin. She should be the topic for any discussion. The comments here have clearly gone off topic.

http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2009/11/rand-paul-has-asked-sarah-palin-to.html

We personally don't believe we have ever witnessed anything like the make-up of the Tea Party in our political lifetimes, spanning some 20 years and counting.

Meanwhile, find how different or similar are the positions of the following:

On War with or without Congress declaring war

Debra Medina

Sarah Palin

Rick Perry

Kay Bailey Hutchinson

Scott Brown

Ron Paul

Rand Paul

clip

Debra Medina, new star of America's right, is firing up the race for Texas governorDebra Medina of the Tea Party movement is making a Sarah Palin-like impact with policies stressing property rights and gun ownership

...When Medina breezed into Lytle's community hall the locals found themselves confronted with a Texan version of Sarah Palin. She wore a sharp scarlet skirt suit, librarian-style glasses and a puffed-up hairdo. More than 60 Lytle residents had gathered to meet her, a hefty turnout on a weekday at 11am for a Republican primary election in the race to be Texas governor. Medina has become a political phenomenon in Texas. Emerging as a genuine star of the rightwing populist Tea Party movement, she delivers a fiery message of slashing taxes and the abolition of almost all forms of federal government, and issues dire warnings that President Obama is taking America down a slippery slope to Soviet-style communism.

It's working. Previously unheard of by the vast majority of Texans, Medina has set the race for governor on fire, upsetting the primary contest between the incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Those gathered to see Medina in Lytle loved her. Young and old, men and women, Latino and white, listened with rapt attention as she outlined her agenda and asked them to back her in this week's first round of voting. If she can beat Hutchison into second place, she can secure a runoff against Perry. That would raise the possibility – distant but real – of a Tea Party activist capturing the government of the second biggest state in America. The Tea Party movement would have gone from being a bunch of ragtag protesters to heading one of the largest single economies in the world. "If we can change politics as usual in Texas, then we can change politics as usual across America. This is not just about Texas, but about changing the whole country," Medina told the Observer before addressing her supporters in Lytle...

...She began her stump speech again, still wearing the outfit she had in Lytle. But when it comes to speeches Medina is no Sarah Palin. She has no need to write on her hand to remember her talking points. Instead her speech was a complex walk through her extreme anti-government philosophy, citing sources as varied as the Austrian school of economics, St Augustine and modern French philosophers. She said she wanted to get rid of property taxes and allow Texans to do whatever they wanted with anything they owned, whether that was dig for oil or build an extension. There was, she said, no constitutional basis for a federal Department of Education or an Environmental Protection Agency or the Federal Reserve. Texas should assert its rights almost as a nation-state, controlling over its own National Guard units. The disdain for government was visceral. The American way, she said, was simple. "There are two rights essential to freedom: private property and gun ownership."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/28/tea-party-debra-medina-texas