• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Pelosi: It's "Very Fair" to Jail People For Not Bu

Larrry

Well-known member
If they jailed people for being idiots Pelosi would spend the rest of her life in solitary confinement....


KOMO-TV: Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail who don’t buy health insurance?

Pelosi: .. "the legislation is very fair in this respect."
Ironically, if you go to jail you'll get free health care....

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/11/pelosi-its-very-fair-to-jail-people-for-not-buying-health-insurance.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Larrry said:
If they jailed people for being idiots Pelosi would spend the rest of her life in solitary confinement....


KOMO-TV: Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail who don’t buy health insurance?

Pelosi: .. "the legislation is very fair in this respect."
Ironically, if you go to jail you'll get free health care....

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/11/pelosi-its-very-fair-to-jail-people-for-not-buying-health-insurance.html

The ones needing to be jailed are the ones in office in Washington plain and simple. Sad thing is they are self policed like the fox guarding the chicken coop. :cry: :cry:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
What's it cost to keep someone in jail for a day?

Might just be cheaper to buy insurance for those not covered at present, but that's not the intention of the bill, is it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
What's it cost to keep someone in jail for a day?

Might just be cheaper to buy insurance for those not covered at present, but that's not the intention of the bill, is it?

Control and dominance is the goal. A society Dependant on the government is subjects under submission. :shock: :shock: :mad:
 

Einstein

Well-known member
they only did it to make the CBO numbers work. in my experience, when an appearent obstacle is confronted, people with less intelligence tend to make hasty decisions instead of considering all possibilities. this is how you know a true leader and is why Pelosi won't get re-voted in.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
The States Can Stop Obama
By Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.)
11-5-2009

By now we have all heard the clichés and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards!
The States can stop every bit of it! That's right, the individual States can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and "big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say "No!"
For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let's look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.
The last of these basic, foundational, principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the "creator." Let's be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of "balanced power." Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.
In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong!
The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself.
Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other."
So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere."
The point to remember here is; where do we define the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress It is NOT their responsibility, and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.
Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other..." What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances." The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.
So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!
In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, "The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program."
Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are
misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case.
Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.
-- Sheriff Mack
 

Einstein

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Betting she does not think it is fair to jail an illegal for being in our country illegally though :mad:

making the CBO numbers work is more important than any human being in jail or not in jail. she could care less about about jail populations. she knows her supporters are mostly gay and lesbians. it would be different if THEY went to jail but the odds are they will do what she wants so they can win in the long run.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I think Diebold must have elected Pelosi. I certainly hope she does not get re elected and maybe the people will wake up and throw out Reid as well.

For several months now, I've been looking at history, how Rome fell, Bible history, prophecy and just reading books written by occultists and others to see where we are going.

---------------------seems like Ayn Rand knew.............

A book was once written by the late Ayn Rand, a mistress to the erstwhile Illuminati hierarch, Phillipe Rothschild. The book is titled Atlas Shrugged, and it is a comprehensive plan and blueprint for world takeover in the last days. Rand wrote of this takeover in somewhat cryptic form for her master, Rothschild, at his behest. On page 413 she wrote the following words: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed."
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Also Human Events sent out emails saying that the states could "opt out" HOWEVER, they cannot opt out of paying for it....... what good is that???

Here are some of the things NOT being mentioned in the health care bill:

At this very moment, we are at a point of no return regarding health care in the United States. The Obama health care scheme does not have health care in mind at all. It is a clever system of control and micro-management of every human body in America. Here let it be noted that Mat Staver, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, recently compiled a comprehensive list that explains what the new Obama health care system will really do to oppress the American people. There are over one thousand pages in this health care bill so I can only print some of the provisions in this newsletter. Consider the following: Page 22- All self-insured employers will have their books audited. Page 29- Your health care will be rationed. Page 30- A Government committee decides what treatment and benefits you will receive. Page 50- Health care will be provided to all non-U.S. citizens, illegal or otherwise. Page 58- A National ID Health Care Card will be issued, and the Government will have access to individual's finances. Page 126- Employers must pay for health care for part-time employees and their families. Page 427- The Government mandates a program for orders for end of life; the Government has a say in how your life ends. Page 429- "Advanced care consultation" may include an order for end of life plans, an order from the Government. Page 429- The Government will specify which doctors can write an end of life order. (10) There are so many other oppressive mandates that would make the United States worse than Soviet Russia and Red China ever were. Only God can help us; we are at the point of no return!

Another outrageous fact about the new health care bill, is that it would require everyone to buy into it or be fined up to $3800. (11) Conspiracy and treason is manifesting everywhere in Washington, D.C., and the reports of nefarious activity are constant. On September 23rd, 2009, Republicans tried to bring forth an amendment that would force the Senate Finance Committee to wait seventy-two hours before voting on the Health Care Reform Bill. The three days were needed to read and review the proposal, but this request for seventy-two hours was blocked by Obama's Democrat stooges. (12) On October 1st, 2009, the Republicans tried to introduce restrictions on abortion in Obama's Health Care Bill, which allows for full payment for abortions with no restrictions. The Republican effort was quickly defeated, and in response to this effort, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put the Senate on notice that they "must move quickly to pass this bill." (13) On September 30th, 2009, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley stated the following: "The current law and the Health Care Bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits." The effort to block illegal immigrants from health care was also defeated, and the new law eliminates any requirement for ID if you are illegally residing in the United States. (14)

10. Report by Mat Staver, Liberty University School of Law.
11. Associated Press, Sep. 8, 2009, by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Washington, D.C.
12. Washington Times, Sep. 23, 2009, by Jennifer Haberkorn & Kent Rowland, Washington, D.C.
13. Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 2009, Washington, D.C.
14. The Hill, Sep. 30, 2009, by Jeffrey Young, Washington, D.C.
 
Top