The Smoking Argus

WASHINGTON D.C. – In his weekly address President Obama says Congress will schedule a final vote on reform which according to the President, will give families and businesses more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. President Obama feels that after nearly a year of debate, as well as a seven-hour summit with Democrats and Republicans the time for discussion is over and instead will pursue passage of his agenda without support from Republicans in Congress or the American people. However, with most scientific polling data indicating the American people are still not prepared to support further government largess into the health care industry, President Obama may be marching his fellow Democrats to a bloodbath in the 2010 fall elections.  [FULL TRANSCRIPT]

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: What Health Reform Will Deliver – This Year TRANSCRIPT (PDF 44KB)

Source(s): The White House Briefing Room • The Official White House YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – Hello, I’m Dr. Tom Coburn, a practicing physician from Oklahoma and a member of the United States Senate.

This week I had the opportunity to join President Obama and my Democrat and Republican colleagues for a summit on health care. We had a respectful and constructive discussion.

While we listened to one another, I’m concerned that the majority in Congress is still not listening to the American people on the subject of health care reform. By an overwhelming margin, the American people are telling us to scrap the current bills, which will lead to a government takeover of health care, and we should start over. FULL TRANSCRIPT

Related Material(s)
	G.O.P. Weekly Address, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma Healthcare TRANSCRIPT (PDF 43KB)

Source(s): Republican National Committee • GOP Weekly Address YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT/WASHINGTON D.C. – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama said that the nation cannot lose the current opportunity to finally enact meaningful health care reform. At Thursday’s meeting on reform, both sides were able to find several areas of agreement, but there were some differences. While the President is willing and eager to move forward with members of Congress from both parties, American families and businesses cannot afford to wait another generation for reform. READ FULL TRANSCRIPT

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: Washington Must Use This Opportunity to Enact Health Reform TRANSCRIPT (PDF 42.5KB)

Source(s): The White House • The White House YouTube Channel

Wire Report

William F. Shughart II – Senior Fellow, The Independent Institute

William F. Shughart II is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute and the Frederick A. P. Barnard Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Mississippi. A former economist at the Federal Trade Commission, Professor Shughart received his Ph.D. in economics from Texas A & M University, and he has taught at George Mason University, Clemson University, and the University of Arizona. Professor Shughart is Editor in Chief of Public Choice, past President of the Public Choice Society, President-elect of the Southern Economic Association, Associate Editor of the Southern Economic Journal, and Book Review Editor for Managerial and Decision Economics. His books include Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination; The Elgar Companion to Public Choice: The Organization of Industry; Antitrust Policy and Interest-Group Politics, Modern Managerial Economics (with W. Chappell and R. Cottle); Policy Challenges and Political Responses: Public Choice Perspectives on the Post-9/11 World (with R. Tollison); The Political Economy of the New Deal (with J. Couch); The Causes and Consequences of Antitrust (ed. with F. McChesney); and The Economics of Budget Deficits (with C. Rowley and R. Tollison). A contributor to numerous other books, Professor Shughart is the author of more than 100 articles for scholarly journals and his popular articles have also appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Oklahoman, San Francisco Chronicle, Investor’s Business Daily, San Jose Mercury News, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Examiner, Kansas City Star, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Washington Times, Detroit Free Press, Clarion-Ledger, Vision Hispana, National Post, Providence Journal, and many other publications.

Put a New Tax in Your Pipe and Smoke It.

(Wire/Ind.Inst.) – I am a college professor. My job description therefore requires that, among other things, I wear a tweed sport coat with leather elbow patches, grow a beard, spend two days a week in the classroom, and smoke a pipe.

H.R. 4439 Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010 (PDF 156KB)

That last essential trait is now under attack. A bill before Congress proposes to increase the federal excise tax on pipe tobacco, making it equal to the recently enacted tax on loose cigarette tobacco purchased by smokers who “roll their own.” If passed, the bill would tax pipe tobacco at nearly $25 per pound, an increase of 775 percent over the current level.

Tobacco smoking is bad for one’s health. To my knowledge, however, no scientific studies have been conducted showing that pipe smokers (or cigar smokers, for that matter) have shorter lives than nonsmokers. There certainly is no evidence that nonsmokers who are exposed to environmental pipe or cigar smoke are harmed by it. Indeed, every person who smells the ambient odor of my pipe says that they are reminded of their fathers or grandfathers.

So, why are pipe smokers selectively being targeted by Washington? The answer is political opportunism. The federal government has been on a spending binge since George W. Bush occupied the White House. Over the past nine years, America’s taxpayers have been burdened with unprecedented expansions in the federal budget to finance new educational mandates (“No Child Left Behind”), new healthcare initiatives (Medicare Part D, to pay for granny’s meds), two wars on terrorism (Iraq and Afghanistan), failed economic “stimulus” plans and the bailouts of irresponsible financial institutions.

With annual budget deficits now running at $1.4 trillion, Washington is desperate for revenue enhancements (i.e., new sources of tax revenue). Rather than increasing taxes on a broad basis, which predictably would elicit broad-based opposition from already overburdened taxpayers, it is politically expedient to single out minorities who cannot bring effective power to bear in the legislative marketplace. And so we have seen proposals to tax those who have sacrificed wages in return for generous, “Cadillac” health-insurance plans, to tax the consumers of junk food and carbonated soft drinks, and to tax transactions in common stocks.

It is naïve to think that our elected representatives are attentive to the public’s interests. What presidents and the members of Congress do in practice is to transfer wealth to the special interests that are critical to their re-election prospects. It is therefore not surprising that they finance those wealth transfers by taxing groups that are not important to them electorally.

And so the tax burden falls most heavily on anyone, anywhere who is politically impotent, especially if they can be portrayed as the consumers of products that, on the flimsiest of scientific evidence, harm themselves or impose costs on others.

That mindset unleashes the nanny state to run amok. Pipe and cigar smokers are no threat to the public’s health. Even if smoking a pipe or a cigar harms the consumers of those products, that harm is borne privately and thus is not an issue of public policy concern.

But it unfortunately is if tax policy is predatory, with the aim at raising revenue from any group that cannot marshal effective political opposition to it. Perhaps it is time to add pipe tobacco, junk food and soft drinks to the agendas of the tea parties now being organized to oppose a government that is everywhere more intrusive.

Copyright 2010 The Independent Institute

Wire Report

Andy Worthington – Journalist/Author
	Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press) and serves as policy advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation. Visit his website at: www.andyworthington.co.uk.

(WIRE FFF) – Last Tuesday, a little-known court — the Court of Military Commissions Review — convened to hear appeals in the cases of the only two men sentenced in the military commission trial system established by Congress in 2006, after the first version, conceived by Vice President Dick Cheney and his close advisors in November 2001, was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court.¹

The two men in question — Salim Hamdan and Ali Hamza al-Bahlul — were tried and convicted in 2008, but whereas Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden, had the major charge against him (conspiracy) dismissed by a military jury in August 2008, and was sentenced to serve just six months for providing material support to terrorism², al-Bahlul, who made a video promoting al-Qaeda and is regularly described as al-Qaeda’s “media secretary,” was convicted of conspiracy, solicitation of murder, and providing material support to terrorism, and received a life sentence in November 2008.

Under consideration are two specific questions: firstly, whether providing material support to terrorism is a valid basis for conviction in a war crimes court; and, secondly, whether al-Bahlul’s trial was unfair because he was denied the right to represent himself.

On the first point, lawyers have always maintained that providing material support to terrorism is not a valid war crime. In an email exchange last week, Lt. Col. David Frakt, who represented al-Bahlul before his trial, explained, “It has always been my position that material support to terrorism was a fabricated war crime that was not traditionally triable in a military commission as of the time of Mr. al-Bahlul and Mr. Hamdan’s affiliation with al-Qaeda, but rather was illegally retroactively applied to them several years after the fact.”

As Lt. Col. Frakt also mentioned, the problems with the material-support charges had been advanced by Hamdan’s attorneys in a pre-trial motion to dismiss the charge back in February 2008, when they also attempted to dismiss the conspiracy charge for the same reason. On July 16, the judge in Hamdan’s case, Army Capt. Keith Allred, rejected the motion to dismiss on ex post facto grounds, finding that “conspiracy and material support for terrorism have traditionally been considered violations of the law of war,” as Human Rights First explained in a summary of Hamdan’s case.³

Assist. Attrny. Gen. David S. Kris Statement to Comm. of Armed Srvcs U.S. Senate July 7, 2009 (PDF 61KB)

However, as Lt. Col. Frakt described it, Allred indicated that it was “a very close issue. Although he acknowledged that the crime of material support to terrorism had never been the subject of charges in a military commission before, he reasoned that similar conduct, essentially being part of an armed insurgent group committing war crimes against civilians, had been treated as a war crime in the past, such as during the U.S. Civil War. He argued that Congress was merely providing a new name to conduct that had always been treated as a law of war offense triable by military commission.”

Significantly, Lt. Col. Frakt added, “What Captain Allred ignored is that what Mr. Hamdan was charged with was essentially serving as a personal driver and servant to Osama bin Laden and there was no indication of involvement in any war crimes, against civilians or otherwise.”

Even more significantly, when the Obama administration and Congress revived the Commissions last summer, David Kris, a senior Justice Department official in the National Security Division, testified that the Justice Department had concluded that material support to terrorism was not a traditional war crime and should be removed from the new version of the Military Commissions Act. As Kris explained:

“While this is a very important offense in our counter-terrorism prosecutions in Federal Court … there are serious questions as to whether material support for terrorism or terrorist groups is a traditional violation of the rules of war … our experts believe that there is a significant risk that appellate courts will ultimately conclude that material support for terrorism is not a traditional law of war offense, thereby reversing hard-won convictions and leading to questions about the system’s legitimacy.”

David S. Kris
U.S. Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
National Security Division

As Lt. Col. Frakt explained to me, despite Kris’ concerns, “Congress rejected this sound advice and included material support to terrorism in the revised 2009 MCA, possibly in part because I advised CongressNov when I testified that if they removed this crime from statute there would be very few detainees left to prosecute.”

Noticeably, Kris was more enthusiastic about retaining the conspiracy charge, but as I explained in an article in November, “this, too, is fraught with problems. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the case in which the Supreme Court shut down the Commissions’ first incarnation, Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion in which he was joined by three other justices, made a point of mentioning that ‘conspiracy’ has not traditionally been considered a war crime.”

In Hamdan’s case, a successful appeal on the material support charge would have little practical effect, as he is already a free man⁴ (although Charles Schmitz, who served as his interpreter during proceedings at Guantánamo, told the Wall Street Journal that it was “important to him to clear the conviction,” because “In Yemen, they look at him as a criminal. He’s been tainted.”).⁵

To be honest, a successful appeal on the material support charge would mean little to al-Bahlul either, although, it would, of course, fulfill the Justice Department’s own fears about including it in the new legislation, especially as the Obama administration has already announced its intention of using it against several prisoners currently held at Guantánamo.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether material support and/or conspiracy survive an appeal, but in court last week, lawyers for al-Bahlul pushed both points. As the Wall Street Journal described it, Michel Paradis, representing al-Bahlul, argued that the charges on which al-Bahlul was convicted “weren’t traditionally considered war crimes under international law, and thus Congress in 2006 couldn’t retroactively make them so. International law strongly discourages viewing conspiracy as a war crime. Providing material support for terrorism, while a domestic U.S. crime since the 1990s, has never been considered a war crime.”

Ingeniously, the lawyers also argued that al-Bahlul’s production of propaganda material for al-Qaeda should have been protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech. One of his attorneys, Mike Berrigan, told reporters, “Mr. al-Bahlul’s conduct in making this documentary — his prosecution for that conduct — was a violation of the U.S. First Amendment. Not that Mr. al-Bahlul had particular First Amendment rights, but the constitutional restrictions on the U.S. government prosecuting someone for speech made the prosecution itself illegal. Mr. al-Bahlul’s conduct in making that documentary does not come close to the standard of inciting violence that can be criminalized.”⁶

The prosecution disagreed, of course, and Navy Capt. Edward White, who argued for the government at the appeal, stated, “Our position was that, as an enemy combatant waging war against the United States from abroad, he does not have First Amendment rights. He crossed the line into criminally, soliciting other people — inducing, enticing, encouraging, persuading them — to commit war crimes.”

Beyond all these claims, however, the most disturbing aspect of al-Bahlul’s conviction is the nature of his trial, and what Lt. Col. Frakt described to me as his “best hope” is that the Court of Military Commission Review will recognize that the one-sided trial, in which he refused to mount a defense, was fundamentally unfair — or, as Lt. Col. Frakt put it, the judge’s “denial of his right to self-representation essentially denied him of a fair trial because the judge knew that he would not allow me to represent him.”

This was indeed what happened. Al-Bahlul sought strenuously to represent himself, but although his request was granted by Army Col. Peter Brownback, his first judge in the revived Commissions, Brownback was then involuntarily retired from the Army, and the new judge, Air Force Col. Ronald Gregory, revoked al- Bahlul’s pro se status (his right to represent himself).

As I explained at the time, after Maj. Frakt (as he was at the time) announced that al-Bahlul was boycotting the trial, because he wished to represent himself, and did not wish to be represented by a military lawyer, Frakt then asked to be relieved, noting that he was obliged to respect his client’s wishes. When Col. Gregory refused, he declared that he too was unable to participate. “I will be joining Mr. al-Bahlul’s boycott of the proceedings,” he said, “standing mute at the table.” He then refused to answer any further questions from Col. Gregory, even though the judge attempted to argue that he was “obliged to participate,” before conceding that it was not in his power to force him to do so. As Lt. Col. Frakt described it to me last week, Col. Gregory’s actions “ensured there would be no defense at all in the final military commission trial of the Bush era.”

Lt. Col. Frakt also explained that, although appeals are automatic in the Commissions unless waived in writing, the only reason that al-Bahlul failed to waive his right to appeal in writing was because he “refused to accept any papers from his lawyers or the court.” As Frakt described it, “Mr. al-Bahlul made it plain to me that he did not wish to appeal any conviction and he categorically refused to meet with his appointed appellate counsel to discuss any possible grounds for appeal.”

Lt. Col. Frakt was full of praise for the lawyers attempting to defend al-Bahlul, even though they “were hampered by the fact that I did not preserve any issues for appeal (other than the self-representation issue) because I did not speak during the entire trial.” He noted that they “managed to find a way to raise a number of interesting and important issues that strike at the core of the legitimacy of the military commissions,” but in the end, what is most noticeable about al-Bahlul’s case is how he remains in a position of extraordinary isolation at Guantánamo.

Not only is he imprisoned, alone, to serve out his life sentence, but as Lt. Col. Frakt explained, “it remains a mystery what will happen to Mr. al-Bahlul. Although he is serving a life sentence, under current U.S. law, he can’t be transferred out of Guantánamo to a prison on the mainland because detainees can only be transferred to the U.S. to face trial.”

Unless he is to stay in Guantánamo, as the prison slowly empties around him, until, perhaps, he is the only prisoner left, it seems, as Lt. Col. Frakt also explained, that “special legislation will be required” to enable him to leave Guantánamo, even if it is just to resume his life sentence elsewhere.

Lost in the system, essentially, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul is another example of the way in which justice at Guantánamo never progressed much beyond an ad hoc system full of holes, and, whatever the outcome of these appeals, it should give the Obama administration some salutary reminders as to why the commissions remain an unsuitable system for any kind of credible trial.

© 2001-2010 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Source(s): ¹HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 05–184. Argued March 28, 2006—Decided June 29, 2006 • ²The UK Guardian “Profile: Salim Ahmed Hamdan” by Mark Tran published Tuesday, June 5th, 2007 • ³Human Rights First, “In the Courts: The Case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan” • ⁴The Star “Bin Laden’s Driver Talk” by Michelle Shephard, published Monday, August 17, 2009 • ⁵The Wall Street Journal “White House Defends Use of War Crime Tribunals” by Jess Bravin • ⁶Voice of America “US Military Panel Hears 1st Guantanamo Appeal” by Michael Bowman, published January 26, 2010

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – As the health insurance reform debate enters into its final stages in Congress, the President denounces the desperate and deceptive last-ditch efforts of the health insurance companies to derail it. October 17, 2009. (Public Domain)

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: Taking the Insurance Companies Down the Road TRANSCRIPT (PDF 16.7 Kb)

Source(s):

Wire Report

Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies

As director of information policy studies, Jim Harper focuses on the difficult problems of adapting law and policy to the unique problems of the information age. Harper is a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. His work has been cited by USA Today, the Associated Press, and Reuters. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CBS, and MSNBC, and other media. His scholarly articles have appeared in the Administrative Law Review, the Minnesota Law Review, and the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Recently, Harper wrote the book Identity Crisis: How Identification Is Overused and Misunderstood. Harper is the editor of Privacilla.org, a Web-based think tank devoted exclusively to privacy, and he maintains online federal spending resource WashingtonWatch.com. He holds a J.D. from UC Hastings College of Law.

CATO- Thanks to the push for a more transparent Congress, we’re getting a better look at what new health care regulations might shape up to be. Alas, not a very good look: with weak justifications, the Senate Finance Committee is working on a strange “plain language” description of the bill, and apparently not planning to read or release the final language¹.

I’ve found something worth noting, though, in each of the bill versions I’ve seen. The Senate Finance Committee’s Rube Goldberg plan for health care in America has a provision establishing paragraph talking about “Eligibility Verification.”

If you want to access the “state exchanges” or collect the federal tax credits created by the bill, your eligibility will have to be verified. Here’s what it says:

Eligibility Verification. In order to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing the state exchanges or obtaining federal health care tax credits, the Chairman‘s Mark requires verification of the following personal data. Name, social security number, and date of birth will be verified with Social Security Administration (SSA) data. For individuals claiming to be U.S. citizens, if the claim of citizenship is consistent with SSA data then the claim will be considered substantiated. For individuals who do not claim to be U.S. citizens but claim to be lawfully present in the United States, if the claim of lawful presence is consistent with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data then the claim will be considered substantiated. Individuals whose status is expected to expire in less than a year are not allowed to obtain the tax credit. Individuals whose claims of citizenship or lawful status cannot be verified with federal data must be allowed substantial opportunity to provide documentation or correct federal data related to their case that supports their contention.

CHAIRMAN’S MARK
AMERICA’S HEALTHY FUTURE ACT of 2009
Page 27

Translation: Every American who wants to access a “state exchange” or get the tax credits in the bill would have to submit data about themselves to the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security for verification. If you don’t do it, no exchanges or tax credits. If your data doesn’t match, no exchanges or tax credits, unless you can convince SSA or DHS bureaucrats that you are who you say you are.

If you’re one of the millions of people about whom the Social Security Administration has bad data, plan to spend long hours waiting in line to plead with indifferent federal bureaucrats for health care access. When attacks and complications on the verification system break down, they’ll move to “strengthen” the system. Get ready to dig up your birth certificate—they’ll want to scan it into their computers—plan to be photographed and fingerprinted, and get ready to stand in line for your national ID card.

Related Materials
	Chairman’s Mark – America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 (PDF 1.53 Mb)

Source(s): ¹Washington Examiner “Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online” by: Susan Ferrechio, Published Oct. 6, 2009

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) discusses health care reform legislation in the Weekly Republican Address.

Sen. LeMieux notes, “Right now Senate Democrats and White House officials are behind closed doors crafting their final health care overhaul proposal. While the Democrats in Congress have no provided the actual language of their proposed law, we do know enough for Americans to be concerned.”

Sen. LeMieux points to some serious concerns with the bill: “We know it takes nearly $500 billion out of Medicare funding for seniors and requires our states to shoulder billions more in health care costs, which they can ill-afford to do.”

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	GOP Weekly Addrerss: Remarks of Senator George LeMieux Florida TRANSCRIPT (PDF 15 Kb)
	Supplemental Remarks by Senator Mitch McConnell of kentucky TRANSCRIPT (PDF 16.8 Kb)

Source(s): Republican National Committee • GOP Weekly Address YouTube Channel

Allison Bricker

The “Change We Can Believe In” sure keeps looking like more of the same.

EDITORIAL – In the aftermath of the September 11th Attacks, the United States Congress hurriedly passed, without reading, and the President signed, the three hundred and forty-two page behemoth known as the USA PATRIOT ACT. Thereby legislatively gutting any remnant of our inherent right to privacy as outlined in the fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politicians, such as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) sought to calm the fears of civil libertarians by attaching a ‘sunset’ clause so as to require the act’s repeal unless extended by the congress.

Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act first came up for review in 2005, a time in which the great color-guide of terror still readily flashed across television screens helping to keep the specter of terrorism at the forefront of the American psyche. Thus with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq entering their fourth and second years respectively, coupled with the security provided by term-limits, the 43rd Executive, George W. Bush, upped the paranoia level with forecasts of bad ‘gut’ feelings and propagandized news headlines in order to further secure the central authority’s new “legalized” tools of tyranny.

At the conclusion of the tireless fear mongering, the USA PATRIOT Act’s sunset portion was extended until December of this year. Thus, with the act set to expire yet again, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, who originally sought to counter worries over the act, opted to author S. 1629 the “USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009”, thereby pushing any hope of legitimate legislative relief out past 2013, conveniently also just beyond the 44th Executive, Barrack Obama’s reelection bid.

In addition, it is possible that the Congress may opt to deflect additional criticisms in whole by resorting to one of the most tired political maneuvers on the hill, renaming the PATRIOT Act entirely. One proposed alternative; “The JUSTICE Act”, extending even further a truly demented sense of irony embraced exclusively by the plutocratic oligarchs who delight in seemingly sex-like gratification by exerting control over the lives of others.

S. 1629 seeks to extend some of the most controversial of the act’s powers, among which are domestic warrantless wiretapping in conjunction with ‘National Security Letters’. The latter provides the ability to snoop through an individual’s home, bank, medical, and/or telephone records, ergo LIFE, without probable cause, notice, or permission. Once again, like ‘political manna from heaven’ old-media evening news headlines flash and proclaim the latest terrorist arrests, coincidentally providing a national pedestal for police-state plutocrats of ‘either’ party to claim a necessity in curtailing Constitutional restraints on the federal government in favor of catching vaguely defined ‘evildoers’.

More so, the reality of the matter is that with all the ballyhoo of “needing” these essential “tools” in order to win the ‘War on Terror’, the USA PATRIOT ACT has yielded few legitimate results. To the contrary, the powers granted to the Central Authority’s varied intelligence/police apparatuses have largely resulted in repeated and continued abuses of power.

Of the several hundred “sneak and peak” warrants executed under power decreed from the USA PATRIOT Act, only three were related at all to terrorism. The majority were used in investigations of illegal narcotics, to which, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, flippantly replied during testimony:

“I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases.”

David Kris
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice

Fellow readers, it is very alarming indeed that a piece of legislation sold and hence foisted upon us out of necessity in ‘combating terrorism’ elicits no surprise in its misapplication and utter violation of inherent liberties. Are we to now believe that the “War on Drugs” and “War on Terror” are one in the same; liberty be damned across the board?

This is just the latest example of the audacious and contemptuous behavior displayed by the wretches who clutch the reins of power. A power, which as expected and as we were warned, has like a cancer, spread throughout the seats of our government, and the American Republic.

Moreover, for those whom profess to cherish liberty, it must surely incite nausea to realize that many who were apprehended and branded as “persons of interest” or “terrorists” were quietly let go after the Central Authority failed to find any evidence of criminal activity; terrorism, drugs, or otherwise. Nevertheless, lives and reputations ruined wholly by mere suspicion/retribution by the state, i.e. Terrorism Theater.

It should also be noted that some of the innocent and unfortunate souls who fell victim to these wanton abuses of power were released with far less fanfare than the fist pumping “chicken-hawk”, tough on terror machismo displayed upon their capture. The ruined reputations viewed merely as “collateral damage” by a Central Authority who used the fallacious arrests like pawns in a chess match solely as a means to retain their pornographic lust of power over the common person.

It is most aptly apparent, that the representatives who inhabit the halls of our American government have failed to listen to our repeated injuries endured under such a repugnant “Act”. Let fall on deaf ear, our disdain over banker and auto manufacturer bailouts, continued torture through “Executive Order” vis-à-vis Rendition, and health care.

Instead, the banker beholden plutocrats attempt to label ‘We the People’ and our dissent as “un-American”, “Nazi”, “racist”. Let it be known that they shall disregard Liberty’s demands to repeal in its entirety, the USA PATRIOT Act at their own peril.

It may yet take actual Patriots to show these tyrants how to Act appropriately.

#DToM

Related Material(s)
	USA PATRIOT ACT, 2001 H.R. 3162 / P.L. 107-56 (PDF 377Kb) S.1692 – USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (PDF 239Kb)

The Smoking Argus

(OFFICIAL STATEMENT) – Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President’s speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President’s concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.

For decades the insurance industry has been lobbying for mandated coverage for everyone. Imagine if the cell phone industry or the cable TV industry received such a gift from government? If government were to fine individuals simply for not buying a corporation’s product, it would be an incredible and completely unfair boon to that industry, at the expense of freedom and the free market. Yet this is what the current healthcare reform plans intend to do for the very powerful health insurance industry.

The stipulation that preexisting conditions would have to be covered seems a small price to pay for increasing their client pool to 100% of the American people. A big red flag, however, is that they would also have immunity from lawsuits, should they fail to actually cover what they are supposedly required to cover, so these requirements on them are probably meaningless. Mandates on all citizens to be customers of theirs, however, are enforceable with fines and taxes.

Insurance providers seem to have successfully equated health insurance with health care but this is a relatively new concept. There were doctors and medicine long before there was health insurance. Health insurance is not a bad thing, but it is not the only conceivable way to get health care. Instead, we seem to still rely on the creativity and competence of politicians to solve problems, which always somehow seem to be tied in with which lobby is the strongest in Washington.

It is sad to think of the many creative, free market solutions that government prohibits with all its interference. What if instead of joining a health insurance plan, you could buy a membership directly from a hospital or doctor? What if a doctor wanted to have a cash-only practice, or make house calls, or determine his or her own patient load, or otherwise practice medicine outside the constraints of the current bureaucratic system? Alternative healthcare delivery models will be at an even stronger competitive disadvantage if families are forced to buy into the insurance model. And yet, the reforms are sold to us as increasing competition.

What if just once Washington got out of the way and allowed the ingenuity of the American people to come up with a whole spectrum of alternatives to our broken system? Then the free market, not lobbyists and politicians, would decide which models work and which did not.

Unfortunately, the most broken aspect of our system is that Washington sees the need to act on every problem in society, rather than staying out of the way, or getting out of the way. The only tools the government has are force and favors. These are tools that many unscrupulous and lazy corporations would like to wield to their own advantage, rather than simply providing a better product that people will willingly buy. It seems the health insurance industry will get more of those advantages very soon.

Thanks for calling this update, a new update is placed on this number (888) 322-1414 every Monday morning. The written text can be found on my website www.house.gov/paul under the heading Texas Straight Talk.

Thanks for calling.

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Representative Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk: Healthcare Reform is More Corporate Welfare TRANSCRIPT (49.1kb PDF)

Source(s): Online Office of Representative Ron Paul (TX) – Texas Straight Talk • MinnesotaChris