Feeds:
Posts
Comments

WorldNetDaily brings us news that a federal judge has ruled that the Secret Service illegally seized gospel tracts from The Great News Network.  The tracts are made to look like a million dollar bill, which does not exist.

Judge says seizing ‘Million Dollar Bill’ tracts illegal

Tactics against Ray Comfort message brought ‘disrepute’ to law enforcement


Posted: March 31, 2010
11:50 pm EasternBy Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A federal judge has ruled the seizure of thousands of Gospel tracts from a Texas ministry by U.S. Secret Service agents not only was illegal, it violated Fourth Amendment protections against an overbearing and intrusive government.

The decision yesterday by Judge Jorge Solis of the Northern District of Texas came in the long-running dispute over a tract deliberately made to look like a $1 million bill.

The Million Dollar Bill tract was created by evangelist Ray Comfort, who also is author of “Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution,” and “You Can Lead An Atheist to Evidence, but You Can’t Make Him Think.”

“The Million Dollar Bill, taken as a whole, poses no reasonable risk of deceiving an honest, sensible, and unsuspecting person,” the judge wrote. “First and foremost is the fact that the Million Dollar Bill purports to be worth a million dollars. There is no genuine currency in this amount.


“Million” Dollar Bill tracts

“More importantly, the amount the bill purports to be worth would lead any unsuspecting, honest, and reasonable person to become suspicious of the [bill’s] genuineness. Though many people would readily accept a one-hundred dollar bill without thinking there was a need to even give the bill a cursory examination, a reasonable and honest person would suspect that a bill purporting to be worth a million dollars is not genuine.”

Further, the judge ruled that the agents who confiscated 83 packets of the Gospel tracts from the Denton, Texas, offices of the Great News Network violated the U.S. Constitution.

Solis noted that the agents went to the office and confronted workers, demanding the tracts. The workers told the agents ministry leader Darrel Rundus was the only person who could give them permission to take the privately owned property. Rundus had said he would cooperate if the agents got a warrant or a court order, which they had chosen not to do.

According to the court’s opinion, the agents then threatened arrest if the workers did not cooperate.

“Agent [Mickey] Kennedy was not subtle in the manner by which he implied that he was taking the Million Dollar Bills with him no matter what – even if it meant arresting Mr. [Timothy] Crawford in the process. The facts and circumstances surrounding Agent Kennedy’s statements to Mr. Crawford on June 2, 2006, leave no doubt that Mr. Crawford believed he would be arrested if he did not retrieve the Million Dollar Bills from the closed closet in which they were hidden out of the agents’ sight,” the judge ruled.

“Agent Kennedy’s coercive tactics not only resulted in an unconstitutional search and seizure, it also resulted in bringing disrepute to the noble profession of law enforcement,” Solis wrote.

Further, the judge concluded that the agents involved in the seizure later “conspired together to cover up the actual events that took place at GNN’s office.

“Agents Kennedy and [Erin] Erdman persisted in covering up these events by being untruthful when they took the witness stand during the bench trial for this case,” the judge concluded.

WND contacted Secret Service offices in Dallas and in Washington, but no one would comment on the case.

Rundus told WND he was pleased with the outcome, and his attorney, Steve Crampton, said he was pleased with the ruling, given the stonewalling and coverup that appeared to have taken place throughout the government’s case.

“Hopefully, they will go back and rethink their big-picture strategy,” Rundus said.

The tracts at issue invite a recipient to answer the “million dollar question: Will you go to Heaven?”

The case was brought on behalf of the Great News Network, which was distributing the tracts. Crampton argued the case on behalf of the Florida-based non-profit legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel.

The tracts clearly state they are not legal tender and contain the Gospel message.

They are published by the Living Waters ministry of evangelist and author Ray Comfort, who says he has distributed millions over the years.

Rundus sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for violations of the Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unlawful search and seizure. The judge wrote that because he decided the tracts are not illegal, he didn’t have to reach a conclusion whether the statutory provisions the government alleged were being violated were constitutional.Rundus has reported the tracts are extremely effective. He uses them to share his faith with others. While the front of the tract has markings similar to paper currency, it states “This bill is not legal tender,” “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Department of Eternal Affairs.”

The judge noted those are among the indicators, along with the biblical quotations, that would tip off a “reasonable” person, along with the fact there is no such bill.

The dispute arose when a North Carolina bank brought the bill to the attention of local Secret Service agents. The agents contacted the Dallas office, which dispatched agents to the GNN ministry offices.

The confiscation drew local news coverage:

“There is no reasonable risk that an unsuspecting, reasonable, and prudent person would accept the Million Dollar Bill as genuine U.S. currency,” the judge wrote.

The judge noted that government attorneys repeatedly tried to convince the court that it could be mistaken for real currency when viewed from a distance. But the judge wondered who would figure a $1 million bill – viewed from a distance – was real.

“The problem with the government’s argument is that it is impossible to believe that any reasonable person would accept a bill purporting to be worth a million dollars under the circumstances counsel for the government tried to create. … Any person that would accept a bill purporting to be worth a million dollars without holding it or at least looking at it from closer than five-feet away is not a reasonable person,” he said.


The Barack Obama “million” dollar bill tracts

Besides the original million-dollar tract, Comfort also now offers tracts featuring caricatures of celebrities and the image of President Obama. Another has President Lincoln, with the amount of $1 trillion.

“An easy tract to give out with all the talk about ‘trillions’ of dollars in the news,” says the description.

The million dollar tract bears the message: “The million-dollar question: Will you go to Heaven? Here’s a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God’s name in vain? Jesus said, “Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart.” Have you looked with lust? Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That’s not God’s will. He sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for you. Jesus took your punishment upon Himself – ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.’ Then He rose from the dead and defeated death. Please, repent (turn from sin) today and trust in Jesus, and God will grant you everlasting life. Then read your Bible daily and obey it.”

A website called Prank Place says its currency for sale “looks and feels real. Great conversation tool. Our funny money and fake million dollar bills look just like real U.S. Currency. These are very high quality, designed by an incredibly talented artist. Our fake money make great gifts, additions to greeting cards, or even sales promotions and sales tools.”

Advertisements

CNSNews tells us that Rhode Island’s PUC bypassed an opportunity to purchase power from a proposed wind farm because it would be too expensive, 3x the cost of other energy sources.  This is part of the core problem with “green” technology, it’s too inefficient and too expensive.  With the Democrat’s socialist agenda on the rise, adapting such technologies now without giving them time to develop (read: cap-and-trade) would only seek to further the burden American taxpayers in a time when our economy is weakened and our Socialist overlords have just burdened us with European-style health care.

Too Expensive: Wind Power Contract Rejected by R.I. Public Utilities Commission

Wednesday, March 31, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) – The R.I. Public Utilities Commission on Tuesday rejected a contract that would have allowed Rhode Island’s largest electric utility to buy power from a wind farm that’s planned for the waters off the R.I. coast. It would have been the first project of its kind in the United States, the Providence Journal reported.

The three-member commission voted unanimously against the power-purchase agreement, saying the price of power agreed to by the two sides was too high and that the overall deal was not “commercially reasonable.”

According to the Providence Journal, “The crux of the proposed agreement was a sale price of 24.4 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly three times the price National Grid pays for energy from fossil-fuel fired power plants and nuclear facilities. Over the 20-year contract, the price would have escalated by 3.5 percent annually, so, by the final year, it would have been 48.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Combined with a 2.75-percent markup on clean energy that National Grid was allowed by Rhode Island law, it would have meant hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs to the state’s 480,000 ratepayers over two decades.”

Read report from Providence Journal and see Newspaper Roundup

Letter from the Capitol has a piece describing how Obamacare is just the first step in transitioning America’s citizens into paying a Value Added Tax (VAT) on goods on top of income tax in order to support our new Democratic Socialist future.  The last section on describing Obama’s impact on history is a lot nicer than I would have put it.

March 31, 2010

ObamaCare: Stalking Horse for VAT Taxation

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels says we must live “like good Europeans” as ObamaCare stifles choice & raises costs.  Which may explain why Fidel Castro called ObamaCare “a true miracle” and compared it to Cuba’s CastroCare….

Charles Krauthammer divines the true method behind ObamaCare’s fiscal madness: force adoption of a European-style Value Added Tax, creating a womb-to-tomb European Welfare State, with high taxes, high unemployment & high benefits allocated by government:

American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.

Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama’s triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan’s strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes — then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.

Obama’s strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast and then feed it. Spend first — which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.

And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.

As a substitute for the income tax, the VAT would be a splendid idea. Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing work. But to feed the liberal social-democratic project, the VAT must be added on top of the income tax.

One reason for a VAT is that, as economist Alan Reynolds writes, the administration’s plan to extract $1.2TR from rich taxpayers over the next decade will not work.  Such filers already pay over 50 percent of income taxes.  Reynolds explains:

President Barack Obama’s new health-care legislation aims to raise $210 billion over 10 years to pay for the extensive new entitlements. How? By slapping a 3.8% “Medicare tax” on interest and rental income, dividends and capital gains of couples earning more than $250,000, or singles with more than $200,000.

The president also hopes to raise $364 billion over 10 years from the same taxpayers by raising the top two tax rates to 36%-39.6% from 33%-35%, plus another $105 billion by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains to 20% from 15%, and another $500 billion by capping and phasing out exemptions and deductions.

Add it up and the government is counting on squeezing an extra $1.2 trillion over 10 years from a tiny sliver of taxpayers who already pay more than half of all individual taxes.

It won’t work. It never works.

The maximum tax rate fell to 28% in 1988-90 from 50% in 1986, yet individual income tax receipts rose to 8.3% of GDP in 1989 from 7.9% in 1986. The top tax rate rose to 31% in 1991 and revenue fell to 7.6% of GDP in 1992. The top tax rate was increased to 39.6% in 1993, along with numerous major revenue enhancers such as raising the taxable portion of Social Security to 85% of benefits from 50% for seniors who saved or kept working. Yet individual tax revenues were only 7.8% of GDP in 1993, 8.1% in 1994, and did not get back to the 1989 level until 1995.

Put simply, taxpayers alter their investment, tax & work strategies to minimize the impact of punitive levies.

Herb London warns of ObamaCare’s threat to liberty.  A WSJ 3/30 editorial explains what I missed last week; ObamaCare does not explicitly call for hiring 16,500 IRS agents.  The figure is a GOP extrapolation from the IRS budget, to derive an estimate of what will be needed to enforce compliance on the new levies; if the IRS is left at present levels of resources revenues will be lost.

A WSJ editorial last week offered emerging examples of diminished health care choice, already underway due to ObamaCare.  At NRO Rich Lowry warns that deteriorating finances will force choosing between guns and butter, and that Obama clearly will choose to preserve the latter.  Nobel economist Gary Becker’s WSJ interview presents an optimist, but one who fears, as in the old joke about optimism & pessimism, that his optimism may be unjustified.

A WSJ editorial notes major companies already writing down their asset values due to anticipated ObamaCare impact–$14B during 2010, according to one consultant.  Naturally, a senior Obama administration hack calls these “irresponsible” while California thug-Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hillbillies) plans an April 21 kangaroo-court show trial of major CEOs.  NRO’s Rich Lowry adds detail on Waxman’s efforts to muzzle companies hit by ObamaCare.

A WSJ editorial today describes just how outrageous this pressure is–companies are required by law to do what Waxman warns them not to do:

So the wave of corporate writedowns—led by AT&T’s $1 billion—isn’t caused by ObamaCare after all. The White House claims CEOs are reducing the value of their companies and returns for shareholders merely out of political pique.

A White House staffer told the American Spectator that “These are Republican CEOs who are trying to embarrass the President and Democrats in general. Where do you hear about this stuff? The Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative Web sites. No one else picked up on this but you guys. It’s BS.” (We called the White House for elaboration but got no response.)

In other words, CEOs who must abide by U.S. accounting laws under pain of SEC sanction, and who warned about such writedowns for months, are merely trying to ruin President Obama’s moment of glory. Sure.

Presumably the White House is familiar with the Financial Standard Accounting Board’s 1990 statement No. 106, which requires businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of their expected future retiree health liabilities. AT&T, Deere & Co., AK Steel, Prudential and Caterpillar, among others, are simply reporting the corporate costs of the Democratic decision to raise taxes on retiree drug benefits to finance ObamaCare.

Mark Steyn notes that one firm is heading for incorporation in Canada, no less–yes, CANADA:

In 2003, Washington blessed a grateful citizenry with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, it being generally agreed by all the experts that it was unfair to force seniors to choose between their monthly trip to Rite-Aid and Tony Danza in dinner theater. However, in order to discourage American businesses from immediately dumping all their drug plans for retirees, Congress gave them a modest tax break equivalent to 28 percent of the cost of the plan.

Fast forward to the dawn of the ObamaCare utopia. In one of a bazillion little clauses in a 2,000-page bill your legislators didn’t bother reading (because, as Congressman John Conyers explained, he wouldn’t understand it even if he did), Congress voted to subject the 28 percent tax benefit to the regular good ol’ American-as-apple-pie corporate tax rate of 35 percent. . . . I refer you to the decision last year by the doughnut chain Tim Hortons, a Delaware corporation, to reorganize itself as a Canadian corporation “in order to take advantage of Canadian tax rates.” Hold that thought: “In order to take advantage of Canadian tax rates”—a phrase hitherto unknown to American English outside the most fantastical futuristic science fiction.

Another little-noticed provision in ObamaCare: Money for long-term care will be automatically deducted from worker paychecks unless employees opt out; it is an estimated $146/month payment to give $75 daily care; some cost estimates peg the deduction at $240/month.  Cost at the lower figure is estimated at $100B.

Weekly Standard editor Matthew Continetti sums up what ObamaCare will do to Obama’s historical reputation:

The liberal line is that President Obama has secured his place in history by signing into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. And secured it he has. Henceforth Obama will be remembered as the man who accelerated America’s mad dash toward bankruptcy. He will be remembered as the leader who promoted a culture of dependency. He will be remembered as the figure who sacrificed a dream of national unity upon the altar of big government liberalism. It’s true: Obama is now a president of consequence. And almost all of those consequences are bad.

The fiscal picture was bleak before Obama made it worse. Government debt is 60 percent of the gross domestic product and climbing. The deficit is projected to remain above 4 percent of GDP for the next decade. The week before the president signed his health care reform into law, Moody’s warned that America’s AAA bond rating may be downgraded. The day before the signing ceremony, the nation learned that Warren Buffett is a safer investment than U.S. treasuries. One needn’t look across the Atlantic, where a penniless Greece is a supplicant to the IMF, to see our future. Look to California, where the economy is crippled by high taxes, high spending, and burdensome debt….

Gone is the charismatic young man who told the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston that there was no Blue America and no Red America, only the United States of America. All that remains is a partisan liberal Democrat whose health care policy bulldozed public opinion, enraged the electorate, poisoned the Congress, and set into motion a sequence of events the outcome of which cannot be foreseen.

This tarnished White House complains incessantly about the crises it inherited from its predecessor. Crises? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

The latest public health care horror show from the UK–presaging America’s ObamaCare future: nurses declining to bring a dying patient a glass of water.

CAN’T WAIT, CAN YE?

Bottom Line.  Coupled with America’s rapidly deteriorating financial position, ObamaCare is a massive, potentially fatal economic train wreck in the making.

Fox News brings us a story where “NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.”

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

By Blake Snow

– FOXNews.com

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”

Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates’ arguments that minor flaws in the “Climate-gate” data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion — that the Earth is getting warmer. But there’s a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.

“There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other’s results,” says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

“The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise,” said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies “are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations.”

Neither NASA nor NOAA responded to requests for comment. But Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, still believes the validity of data from NASA, NOAA and East Anglia would be in jeopardy only if the comparative analysis didn’t match. “I see no reason to question the integrity of the raw data,” he says. “Since the three organizations are all using mostly the same raw data, collected by the official weather agency of each individual country, the only issue here is whether the corrections done to the raw data were done correctly by CRU.”

Corrections are needed, Masters says, “since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years.” As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren’t any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.

“It would be nice if we had more global stations to enable the groups to do independent estimates using completely different raw data, but we don’t have that luxury,” Masters adds. “All three groups came up with very similar global temperature trends using mostly the same raw data but independent corrections. This should give us confidence that the three groups are probably doing reasonable corrections, given that the three final data sets match pretty well.”

But NASA is somewhat less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data earlier this month.

In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.

Of course, this doesn’t solve problems with NASA’s data, as the newest paper admits: “Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions,” a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that “90 percent of them don’t meet [the government’s] old, simple rule called the ‘100-foot rule’ for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we’ve got documentation.”

Still, “confidence” is not the same as scientific law, something the public obviously recognizes. According to a December survey, only 25 percent of Americans believed there was agreement within the scientific community on climate change. And unless things fundamentally change, it could remain that way, said Taylor.

“Until surface temperature data sets are truly independent of one another and are entrusted to scientists whose objectivity is beyond question, the satellite temperature record alone will not have any credibility,” he said.

The Alliance Defense Fund brings us news that they secured an agreement with Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, West Virginia to keep a disabled 40-year-old woman on dialysis after the hospital’s so-called “death board” “ethics board” determined to stop dialysis treatments over the objections of the family. This is just a glimpse of what is to come under Obamacare.

ADF-allied attorney secures agreement with hospital to extend vital care for 40-year-old woman

Family agrees to seek transfer to new medical facility by April 9 when hospital may discontinue life-sustaining treatment
Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 12:00 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020



MORGANTOWN, WV — An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney secured an agreed-upon court order Friday that extends care for a 40-year-old woman on dialysis at Ruby Memorial Hospital after the hospital originally said it would end treatment on March 27 against the wishes of the woman’s family.The hospital agreed to continue care while the family of Rebecca Bennett locates another medical facility willing to continue treatment. The family agreed that if the transfer does not occur by 5 p.m. on April 9, they will no longer oblige the hospital to continue dialysis treatment for the seriously disabled woman, but the hospital will still continue her other basic care. So far, another facility has not been found.

“A hospital should not be allowed to cease care for a family’s loved one when state law gives the family the right to make medical decisions in such circumstances. Becky’s family simply wants to honor their mother’s wishes,” said Jeremiah Dys, general counsel of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia and one of more than 1,600 attorneys in the ADF alliance.

“We were pleased to assist the family in securing this agreement; however, Becky seriously needs life-sustaining dialysis treatment beyond April 9,” Dys explained. “It’s our hope that another facility will be found that is willing to work with the family to give Becky a chance to fight for her life.”

Bennett went into a coma due to complications from diabetes. The hospital’s board of ethics decided that it would stop dialysis on March 27, despite the expressed objections of Sierra Kisner, a member of the family acting as her legal surrogate. ADF attorneys argued that the hospital’s decision violated West Virginia law, which gives the surrogate decision-making power and which requires the hospital to continue care or cooperate in obtaining a transfer. It does not allow the hospital to unilaterally determine that care will cease.

The complaint and motion for temporary restraining order in Kisner v. West Virginia University Hospitals was filed with the Circuit Court of Monongalia County Friday and led to the agreed order issued the same day.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

www.telladf.org facebook.com/AllianceDefenseFund twitter.com/AllianceDefense

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

WorldNetDaily tells us that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has brought a lawsuit against the passage of the health care bill H.R. 3590.

Physicians group sues over health-care law

Says it violates Constitution in several ways


Posted: March 29, 2010
11:09 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons became the first medical society to file suit to overturn the newly enacted health-care law.“If the [law] goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” said Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients. There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the [new law] becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”

The law requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. The AAPS says insurance-company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another.The group also charges violations of the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the provisions authorizing taxation.

AAPS asks the U.S. District Court to enjoin the government from promulgating or enforcing insurance mandates and require Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue to provide the court with an accounting of Medicare and Social Security solvency.

The group bills itself as “a voice for patient and physician independence since 1943.”

A post over at WorldNetDaily suggests that amnesty will be Obama’s next socialist objective, even in light of today’s killing of an Arizona rancher by a suspected illegal alien.

Next cramdown on taxpayers? It’s amnesty and it’s ba-a-ck!

But former congressman warns violence comes with illegals from south of border


Posted: March 29, 2010
8:58 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Tom Tancredo

A former member of Congress says last weekend’s shooting death of an Arizona rancher on his own land is what will happen more and more unless America takes back its own borders – even as President Obama makes promises that ultimately could reward those who break federal laws to gain entrance to the U.S.

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., now chairman of the Rocky Mountain Federation and co-chairman of TeamAmericaPac, told WND today, “Janet Napolitano lied and Rob Krentz died.”

He was referring to police reports in Arizona that said Krentz was found shot to death late Saturday on the Arizona ranch that had been run by his family for more than 100 years. Officers are investigating it as a homicide and believe he was shot with a 9mm gun allegedly stolen from a nearby ranch. He had radioed to his brother a reference to an illegal alien on his property before his radio went silent.

“I believe this,” Tancredo told WND. “Every single person who has worked so hard to keep those borders open, the president, in Congress and at every level of government – these people have blood on their hands.”

Obama’s latest promises on immigration came as Congress passed his unprecedented takeover of health care – the effective nationalization of some 17 percent of the nation’s economy.

“I have always pledged to be your partner as we work to fix our broken immigration system, and that’s a commitment I reaffirm today,” he said in a video message to open-borders supporters rallying in Washington the same day Congress approved “Obamacare.”

Read the details how the next election could be stolen, using amnesty, universal registration and a consolidated power grab!

Tancredo had been en route to the border area to visit Krentz and others who have been dealing first-hand with the impact of smuggling – both human and drugs – from Mexico across their land.

He said details about Krentz’s death remain sketchy, but the underlying cause of such violence isn’t a surprise to him.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists U.S. borders are secure, Tancredo said, but “the violence in Arizona is beginning to reach the level of some states in Mexico.”

“The violence is here. Our borders are not secure, they can never be secure unless you have the military there,” he said.

Tancredo said Democrats view illegal aliens as votes, and too many Republicans see the illegals as cheap laborers.

But he argued national boundaries are there for a reason, as are federal requirements to obtain immigration documentation through proper procedures. The consequences of not enforcing those laws are harsh, he warned.

“We will suffer, and people will die,” he said.

Border-enforcement advocates such as Vision America fear legislation that could grant a “path to citizenship” for millions of people who have broken federal law to enter the U.S.

“The system ‘broke’ when Washington stopped enforcing our immigration laws and winked at millions of illegals that streamed across our borders every year,” the group said. “Now, the president would ‘fix’ the problem by [making] millions of border-jumpers into citizens who doubtless will return the favor by becoming Democratic voters.”

Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., proposed legislation that apparently included amnesty. However, Graham suddenly dropped his support, saying instead that Obama should produce a bill and bring it before Congress if he wants the issue addressed.

Vision America said amnesty is critical to the Obama administration, because the “left is desperately in need of new voters who will march in lockstep to the drumbeat of big government. That’s why they’re eager to legalize an estimated 11 million illegal aliens (8 million of them potential voters), bestow citizenship on them and get them to the polls.”

Tancredo said  he has “no doubt whatsoever” that Obama’s next agenda item will be amnesty.

“Don’t forget, Barack Obama will do anything – anything – in order to make this country a better place in his socialist system,” Tancredo said.

WND previously reported on the violence that is an everyday occurrence in Mexico and which Tancredo said was becoming more present in southwestern American cities.

Drug-related bloodshed killed more than 4,400 people across Mexico in a year – a body count that could be compared to the U.S. military death toll in Iraq since March 20, 2003.

The Mexican crime syndicate deaths have been especially hideous. Bodies riddled with bullets is routine; one man was handcuffed and decapitated and his body was put in a plastic bag hanging from a bridge. His head was found in a nearby plaza. Drug criminals also murdered a 5-year-old boy by injecting acid into his heart.

Statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, several years ago documented that about 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens.

WND also reported when Eliseo Medina, the international executive vice-president of Obama-supporting Service Employees International Union, said, “We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters.”

During an appearance just months ago, he said, during the presidential election in November 2008, Latinos and immigrants “voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.”

“Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? Can you imagine 8 million new voters who care about our issues and will be voting? We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”

According to William Gheen, of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, the plan isn’t that complicated. Democrats will work to make all illegal aliens eligible for health care and citizenship to make them voters.

He said the 2007 amnesty proposal under President Bush failed but the new plan is on an aggressive path to the president’s desk.

Gheen warned the situation could become much worse than simply a huge number of new voters being groomed by one political party.

“We’re in the legalization phase [now],” he said. “In a reparations phase they would use minority voting blocs to extract exorbitant amounts of taxation out of taxpayers,” he said. “When that stone will give no more blood, then we expect it to go to the autonomy phase.”

That would be when concerns that southwestern United States could be reclaimed by Mexico could become reality.

Columnist Michelle Malkin reported on the Krentz death, and participants in her website forum were more than alarmed.

“The MSM and the politicians won’t care,” wrote one. “He was just an old white guy in the way of cheap labor and future Democratic voters.”

“If stuff like this is going on … I say ‘lock ‘n’ load,'” added another.

“As the Democrats prepare to take up immigration – aka, increase the roll of new Democrat voters – the media will continue abet the Left by ignoring the detrimental state of America’s southern border,” said a third.

Added another, “Obama hopes to welcome these people into our country with open arms. I predict, here and now, that illegal immigration will be one of Mr. Obama’s next big pushes, and it will be his political suicide.”

At the left-leaning Center for American Progress, however, a commentary praised the idea of “immigration reform,” and said such actions would “add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years.”

“In the program’s first three years, tax revenues would increase from $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion and generate enough new consumer spending to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the United States. The real wages of workers – U.S. born and immigrants – will also rise under comprehensive immigration reform,” the report claimed.

In a recent published commentary, Tancredo said, “Ordinary citizens didn’t buy it in 2005 when George Bush and the Republican Party establishment tried to sell amnesty. Grass-roots Republicans rebelled, and the Minutemen put a big media spotlight on the cross-border traffic in Arizona, Texas and California. Millions of Americans said, ‘First, secure the borders!’

“In 2006 and 2007, so-called bipartisan amnesty legislation was killed in Congress because ordinary Americans took the time to read it and demanded it be defeated,” he said.

“The upcoming amnesty battle in Congress will be brutal. In winning the health-care vote, Obama has tasted blood, and he likes it. Democrats in Congress may be willing to fall on their sword for amnesty after all, now that the November election looks like a disaster anyway.”

But he wondered “if the amnesty lobby will use the same dirty tricks and phony accounting to sell amnesty as they used to sell Obamacare.”

“The answer is yes. And they will play the race card again and again. If you oppose amnesty, you will be discredited as a bigot,” he warned.