Friday, February 25, 2011

A Politician Said The "Taxpayers Should Be Heard"

This is a first time in decades a politician said, "The taxpayer has a right to be heard." Then passes legislation that puts the taxpayer first and not a special interest group. Unbelievable!! It is a step.

Now, if all interest groups that pay taxes like all taxpayers were concerned taxpayers, then there would be no protesting and Scott Walker can balance the budget and help individuals keep their jobs everywhere, including public service jobs. Make sense?!? So, wouldn't it make sense to take special interests out of politics both union, non-union, and the classroom so politicians can do their job, under the Constitution, and take care of all people not just one group? Yes, I know this is a stretch. Is it possible?

If you think about it, the special interest unions (not all unions) protested against the taxpayers this week. Interesting thought.

Video Of The Week

Americas Governor, The Taxpayer Has A right To Be Heard

Article Of The Week

Wis. Passes A Bill Taking Away Union Rights

Michigan Public Employee Relation Act:
Public Sector Labor Laws And Its Consequences

Civics 101: Lesson For Elected Representatives

Other Union News

Public Unions Force Taxpayers To Fund Dems

Taxpayers Helped Fund Both Sides Of The Labor Negotiations

Finally, Hope For The Taxpayer

How Taxpayers Fund Politics

Friday, February 18, 2011

Governor Scott Walker In Wisconsin

Well, I think the world is on fire. The world is going crazy in the middle east and now here in the United States. Does anyone have a huge hose to put out all the fires? WOW!! Where to begin.....

America, take a close look. Wisconsin is a Forced Unionism State that is $3.7 billion in the budget hole. Mainly, because they spent to much and excepted too many loans from the Federal Government. This past November election voters voted in new legislatures to focus on balancing the budget. There is a bigger story. It is a very bold move by Governor Scott Walker to introduce and vote soon on Right To Work Legislation that focuses on possibly repealing collective bargaining in the state. This is unprecendented since Wisconsin is one of the first states to become a forced Unionism state. If this passes, then Wisconson becomes a Right To Work State.

All Governor Scott Walker wants to do is have the state goverment and public employees to pay, a small portion, into their benefits. That alone takes the burden off of the taxpayer. Some union groups just do not see it that way. As of today the taxpayers, pay Wisconsins salaries, pensions, and benefits. That is one of the reasons why Wisconsin is BROKE.

Do the people protesting really know why they are protesting? What is happening in Wisconsin is not going to be "sunshine and lollypops". This is going to get ugly because the United States is in a financial crossroads. There will be alot of missinformation in the news and on main street. Hopefully, individuals will continue to do their own homework and understand what Scott Walker is trying to accomplish. That is balancing the budget, since that is his job. The bill, Scott Walker is proposing, helps every single person keep their public service jobs. No one will have to lose their jobs under this bill. The union are saying, NO WAY. Fascinating.

Mark Mix from Right To Work Foundations explains in detail what is really happening within the state of Wisconsin with Unions.

For those who are still unsure of YOUR rights under Constitutional Law of the United States, the link is provided for you as well.

Videos Of The Week

New Right To Work Foundation Podcast: The Truth About What Is Happening In Wisconsin


Wisconsin Governor Walker Proposes Curbs On Union Benefits

Scott Walker Budget Question And Answer

Articles Of The Week

Rep. Ziegelbauer On The Truth Of What is Happening In Wisconsin

Jet Insiders Opinion On Unions Receiving $22,000 A Year In Benefits On The Back Of the Taxpayer

Haslam Proposal Could Wreck Teachers Union Monopoly On Education

Other Unions News

Wisconsin Vs Big Labor

Wisconsins Teachers Salary

Wisconsin State Government Salaries

16 Lawmakers Stay Away From Public Workers Bill

Wis. Gov: "I Took Bold Political Move On Budget"

Unions Concerns About Scott Walkers Bill

What Democrats Are Saying About Scott Walkers Bill

The Assault On The American Worker In Wisconsin Is Beginning

Friday, February 11, 2011

Elizabeth Warren And The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

What is happening in Egypt and abroad is important. This week I want to spend a little time on the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will be launched on July 10th of this year run by Elizabeth Warren.

I will never understand why we have to create a new agency to regulate the mortgage industry and derivatives market when the administration will not even take the time to address Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the GSE's where all the crisis began. It is the end user that will feel the regulatory effects even more. But I digress for a moment.

The Frank-Dodd Financial Overhaul Bill not only launches new regulation on the derivatives and the mortgage industry but it creates the new agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Clea Benson from Bloomsberg Business Week descibes a potential outcome of this new agency :

"FiSCA's members, largely regulated at the state level until now, handle about $106 billion a year in transactions for more than 30 million customers and are hoping to take even more market share from traditional banks. The new consumer agency, which has the power to write rules that would mandate repayment terms and force disclosures of loan costs, may determine whether they succeed or fail. Ed D'Alessio, general counsel for FiSCA, says the move to Washington was "necessary to meet the increased level of regulation that's coming down the pike."

While the Dodd-Frank law established the broad outlines of a new regulatory landscape, federal agencies are now writing at least 330 new rules governing everything from derivatives trading to the mortgage industry. Decisions being made at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, and other agencies will not just ordain how companies must act. They'll also determine which ones are dealt into moneymaking opportunities created by Dodd-Frank—and which are shut out."

I am more concerned about about the unintended consequences of all of the new regulation on the end user. What could happen to the homebuyers when they buy or sell property under all of the new regulation? This past week I found an article by Ric Thom from Note Investor, it was an interesting read

Be aware.

Videos Of The Week

Woodruff Interview With Elizabeth Warren

George Soros Time For US To Get Used To The New World Order

Article Of The Weeks

Far From Over: Battle Over Dood-Frank Implementation New Fault Line In 2011

Mortgage Market In The News

8 Keys To 2011s Mortgage Market

Making The Most Of Dodd-Frank

Dodd-Frank Hijacks Owner Financing

Lawmakers Raise Concerns About The Consumer Agency

Letter To Members Of Congress Calling For An Increase In Funding To The SEC And The CFTC

Davis Polk Summary Of Dodd-Frank Financial Bill

HR 4173 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act

Saturday, February 5, 2011

The Internet: The Debate Continues

The Internet: The Debate Continues

Three Sections:

1. Three bills working its way through Congress. HR96 keeps FCC regulation off the internet. S3480 creates a new agency and implements new regulation for the internet and potentially a kill switch. National Strategy For Trusted Identities creates a government national internet ID.

2. Government Media and Internet Blackout in many countries.

3. Debunking Net Neutrality advocates. One countries Net Neutrality is different from another country. The United States internet framework surpasses all countries.

Internet Legislation

HR96 - The Internet Freedom Act (protects Free Market Open Source Internet)

S3480 - Protecting Cyberspace As A National Asset Act (Creates a new Federal Agency and called by many the "Internet Kill Switch")

National Strategy For Trusted Identities In Cyberspace

Video Of The Week

Will Net Neutrality Save The Internet?
(What the internet looks like today without government regulation)

Articles Of The Week

Brown Spector Opinion on Subsidies, Net Neutrality, and Government Regulation

Net Neutrality Is Already Here, Regulation Open Sourced By Technology

Senate Internet Kill Switch Moves Forward,2817,2365709,00.asp

Senate Proposal Tries To Protect Cyberspace

Cyberspace Protection

International Internet and Media News

Internet Kill Switch

Regime Throws Information Blackout Over Egypt

China May "Seek To Control" The Internet US Report On Web Hijacking

Press Blackout In Tunisia

SSC Renews Press Blackout Case In Jordon

Internet Technology: A Tool For Political Change In Arab Countries

Net Neutrality In Other Countries

International Network Neutrality and Korea

Chile: First Country To Legislate Net Neutrality

What Net Neutrality Mean In Uzbejistan

Declaration Of The Committee Minister On Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality: Where Does India Stand

Friday, February 4, 2011

FCC And Net Neutrality

FCC In The News

Net Neutrality has been a hot topic this year. FCC, who does not have the authority to regulate the internet, is going to regulate it anyway through new Net Neutrality Rules this Dec 21st 2010 after Congress has gone home and the courts have shut down for the Holiday. Thanks to the hard work of Seton Motley of, he has created a detailed video summary of what Net Neutrality will mean to you and why you should care about what the FCC is doing. The video is below.

More importantly, there is a solution. There are many petitions pushing back against against the net Neutrality Rules. Since, we know FCC is going to push these new rules whether you like it or not, then this is what you can have Congress do in the first 60 days in session this January 2011 that will help stop the FCC.

Please feel free to copy, paste, modify, educate, and please forward on.............

Letter To Congress

It is my understanding that Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC is pushing Net Neutrality Rules, to address what he calls "Broadband Issues". Scott Cleland, Chairman of says,
"If the FCC changes the way it treats high-speed Internet, then everybody in the industry would sue. It would be like an 8.0 earthquake under the sector," he adds. "Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested (in broadband) in the belief that there'd be a market rate of return, not a regulated rate." .
A court decision back in April of this year sided with Comcast that the "FCC does not have the Authority under the current regulatory scheme to Regulate the internet."

Yet, without any Constitutional authority, the FCC, under the cover of darkness is going to regulate the internet whether we like it or not......

To preserve that the Free Market and Free Speech exists on the Internet, in the first 60 days of the new Congress on January 2011 support The Congressional Review Act,

"This is the text of the Congressional Review Act, a part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also called the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to review every new federal regulation issued by the government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, overrule a regulation."

Restrain the FCC's over-reaching authority, called "Net Neutrality", of the Internet. All you need is thirty senator signatures and it gets this issue to the floor. I know this can not be filibustered. Find 47 Republicans and 4 Democrats to support this and overrule FCC's regulation that will effect free speech and Free Market over the Internet within 60 days.

My friends and colleagues will be following this issue closely.

End Of Letter

Copy and paste Here (or modify)

Video of The Week

Seton Motley On Why You Should Care About Net Neutrality
(Detailed Summary of what can happen if Net Neutrality is implemented)

Article Of The Week

Congressional Review Act

The FCC Does Not Have The Authority To Regulate The Internet

Architectural Censorship And The FCC

Free Press Makes Two Million Mistakes On Net Neutrality

Courts Rule Against FCC's Comcast Net Neutrality Decision

FCC In the News

FCC Endorses Usage Based Internet Pricing

FCC Unveils Updated Net Neutrality Rules,2817,2373670,00.asp

FCC Wants To Test Public Value Of Every Public Broad Cast Station

FCC's Christmas Gift Net Neutrality

Wave Goodbye To Internet Freedom

Time To Shut Down The FCC

FCC To Propose Plans For Net Neutrality

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The Lochner Era

Before President Roosevelt's New Deal Era of 1937 to today, there was the Lochner Era.

During the Lochner Era, The Court System defended individual's rights against Government Encroachment.

The Supreme Court Case that sealed Lochner Era in history and is still debated in courtrooms and in universities today is Lochner vs New York.

Short Summary:
In Lochner vs New York, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a New York Law that limited the number of hours a baker could work. That is what a New York Legislature attempted. The court held that the "state had no reasonable ground for interfering with liberty by determing the hours of labor for individuals who are free to work as they choose." It found that the law interfered with freedom of contract. It did not serve as a valid police power, and it thus violated the fourteenth amendment's Due Process Claus because it took away property without a trial.

For three decades, the Lochner decision following 1905, almost two hundred state laws that regulated price, labor, and maximum or minumum hours were declared unconstitutional as violating the Due Process Claus of the fourteenth amendment. This decision serves as the yard marker in the ideological battle between the free market Natural Law orginalists and the New Deal regulatory state Positivists.
Below, you will find links that give different points a of view of the Lochner Case during Roosevelts New Deal Era.

What is the 1905 Liberty Of Contract?

Liberty Of Contract-Freedom of choice-is protected by the fourteenth Amendments Due Process Claus is called "Substantive Due Process." "Substantive" means that the fourteenth amendment safeguards more than ones procedural rights to due process under the law, and that any government attempts to legislate away one's natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is strictly prohibited. Put another way, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are themselves protected, not just the means or procedure that the government must use if it wants to take them away.

Lochner vs The People Of State Of New York

The Fourteenth Amendment

What is the Due Process Claus?

A review of some Lochner Case Debates After Roosevelts's New Deal Implementation

Abstract: Plessy VS Lochner: The Berea College Case

A Tale Of Two Lochners

David A Bernstein on Cass Susstein and The Lochner Era

1985: Columbia Review: Cass Susstein: The Lochner Legacy

2003: Bush Court Nominee That Wants to Roll Back The New Deal

2009: Justice Holmes And The Empty Constitution

2009: Overcoming Lochner in The 21st Century

What Is Natural Law? What Is Positivism?

To understand the root of the current debate today, lets take a look at Natural Law verses Positivism.

What is Natural Law?

Freedom comes by virtue of being created human, from our very nature, and holds that laws created by kings or legislatures are always secondary to Natural Law (Strict Constutionalist). Natural Law Theory teaches that because all people desire freedom from human restraint and because all humans yearn to be free, our freedoms must stem from our very humanity--and ultimately from our Creator of humanity, God. To understand natural law, you have to look at the Constitution ( and The Declaration of Independence
( together. The language of the Declaration Of Independence refers specifically to God Given Rights. Also written is Freedom of speech, religion, ideas, fortune, free independent states,and freedom from legislatures unwarrantable jurisdicition over us. (Just to name a few)
Our rights can not be legislated away . The only way our natural rights can be taken away is by a Jury following due process. Under Natural law, Legislatures have unwritten limitations imposed upon them, and those limitations prevent a legislature, no matter how one sided the vote and no matter how popular the legislation, from enacting a law that interferes from natural rights. When the people created legislatures, and when the states created Congress, they never gave these bodies the authority to interfere with natural rights.

Under Natural Law, the only legitimate goal of the Government is to secure liberty, which is the freedom to obey ones own free will and consciences of others whether you are an individual outside the government or working for Government.

What is Positivism?

Positivism (Loose Constutionalist) is the opposite of Natural Law. Under Positivism, the law is whatever those powers say it is, whether that decision is democratic or dictatorial in nature. Positivism demands that all laws be written down, and requires that there are no theoretical or artificial restraints (such as natural law) on the ability of government to enact whatever laws it wishes.
In this theory the majority always rules and always gets its way, since there are no minority rights to be protected--except whatever rights the majority might condescend to grant.

A Positivist believes, rights come from government, and Government can always repeal what it grants. The positivist would say that since the majority in a free society gives freedom, the majority can take it away. To a positivist, the governments goal is to bring about the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
Is there middle ground for the American people? Is there a way to get back to common sense laws? Based on laws and legislative policies passed in the past couple of years, there does not seem to be a middle ground. Hopefully, America will continue to take time to understand what laws can look like for themselves, their businesses, their family, and their communities.

Understanding Congressional Trickery And The Dead Shell Bill

What did happen this past week? What would have the Read The Bill Act and the One Subject At A Time prevented before the Lame Duck Session?

Continue to educate the new/old incoming Congress on the importance of supporting the Read The Bills Act and One Subject At A Time, let them know what both pieces of legislation would have prevented:

* The Read the Bills Act would've stopped the Special Rule process and would have:
- Publication of the entire bill online for 7 days so you could read it
- A public scheduling of the vote on the online calendar 7 days in advance so you would have time to comment
- A full, verbatim reading of the bill
* The One Subject at a Time would've blocked the use of the Dead Shell Bill scheme. It would have constrained Congress from:

- Expanding of the FDA with new regulatory powers, with 4,000 additional agents to swarm our farms and gardens
- Inserting broad, new FDA powers into something called the "Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010"
- Changing the name of that Dead Shell Bill to something as non-descriptive as the "Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011."
Remember, extending the current tax structure is not a tax cut. Allowing the Bush cuts to expire would be a tax increase and would make much things worse, but they are bad enough already.
Read Below
To Your Health,

Articles Of The Week
Budget Plenty Spending
Republican Tax Deal Proves They Haven't Learned Anything
Tea Party Backed Freshman Win Plum Committee Assignment
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011." (Part Of The Dead Shell Bill)
HR 3082: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Part Of The Dead Shell bill)

The Dead Shell Bill
The "food safety" bill did NOT die as it should have because House leaders used what I'll call a "Dead Shell Bill" to trick their way past their Constitutional and procedural problems. This "Dead Shell Bill," HR 3082, was . . .
* Dead in the sense that it was a numbered bill that was never going to reach a final vote.
* An empty Shell because the Congressional leadership removed its original contents.
In other words, the House leadership took a bill that hadn't reached final passage, but that had already jumped through a bunch of procedural hoops, deleted all its contents, and then poured new, unrelated content into it. In this particular case . . .
The Dead Shell Bill was something called the "Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act." Back in November of 2009 this defense bill was amended by the Senate and then sent back to the House. The Senate even appointed conferees to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions, but the House NEVER responded to the Senate's action. So the bill was just laying around dead, until . . .
House leaders picked it up and emptied it of its contents. They did this because . . .
New bills must go through a committee, while a Dead Shell Bill has the virtue of already having passed out of committee. This set up the next move . . .
The House leadership created a Special Rule to pass the Dead Shell Bill immediately, instead of starting over with a normal, parliamentary review procedure. The Special Rule is H. Res. 1755. House leaders hurriedly passed this Special Rule by a single vote.
Now, with the new Special Rule in hand Congressional leaders . . .
* Took the "food safety" bill that we've been fighting against and combined it with other unrelated, but sure-to-pass issues.
* They then poured all of this new content into the Dead Shell Bill -- the one that had once been a military appropriations bill.
* They also slapped a new title on the Dead Shell Bill, one so broad that it described none of the current contents.

Next came passage under the Special Rule. Here's how that worked . . .

1. HR 3082 would be considered "in order" immediately. That means it wasn't going to be assigned to a committee. It also meant that NO normal procedural measures would occur.
2. Reading was waived, of course.
3. No "points of order" would be permitted.
4. Only 40 minutes was provided for debate.
5. Amendments to the bill were not in order. The debate was strictly on final passage.

This Special Rule procedure moved race-car fast. There was no time for public comment. The Democrats had already heard enough from the likes of you, thank you very much.

* On Thursday afternoon, the Special Rule was introduced and considered read. 50 minutes later, it was passed.
* Then Congress passed the Dead Shell Bill by six votes, just 2 hours and 22 minutes after installing the Special Rule.
All of this is ironic, because outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised you back in 2006 that if you gave her party the majority they would . . .
* "Drain the swamp"
* Enact ethics reforms.
* Stop the practice of using your tax dollars to buy votes in Congress (earmarks and other forms of tax-funded bribery)
* End the Republican practice of last-second surprises -- bills crammed down our throat in the last hours before every recess -- the most infamous of which was the Medicare Prescription Drug bill.
Nancy Pelosi promised you, in a campaign document titled, "A New Direction for America," that . . .
* Procedural rules would be made available no later than 10 PM the night before a vote (page 24), not 50 minutes before.
* You would get at least 24 hours notice of a scheduled vote upon the final written version of a bill (page 24)
As you can see, this week -- the last month of Pelosi's Speakership -- those "Page 24" pledges were thrown out the window.
So here's what we need to do to change things. Please contemplate the fact that . . .
* The Read the Bills Act would've stopped the Special Rule process
* The One Subject at a Time would've blocked the use of the Dead Shell Bill scheme

What happened is infuriating. Many people on "our side" will be content to whine and complain about it. That's all they'll do. Others will blame it only on the Democrats while ignoring the fact that the Democratic leadership was using old Republican plays to do what they did. Still others will say that it's all hopeless, that we always lose so what's the point?
All of this is baloney. has proposed a realistic strategy to stop ALL of the things Congress just did.
The Read the Bills Act would've required . . .
* Publication of the entire bill online for 7 days so you could read it
* A public scheduling of the vote on the online calendar 7 days in advance so you would have time to comment
* A full, verbatim reading of the bill
This last point is sooo important. Sitting through the out-loud reading of the bloated Dead Shell Bill would have been too time-consuming for this lame-duck Congress. They never would have -- wait for it -- sat still for it! Instead, they would have passed the buck to the next Congress, which might well have ended the matter, permanently, because the new Congress will have its own agenda.
But it gets better. Our One Subject at a Time Act would also have constrained the Congress from . . .
* Expanding the FDA with new regulatory powers, with 4,000 additional agents to swarm our farms and gardens
* Inserting broad, new FDA powers into something called the "Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010"
* Changing the name of that Dead Shell Bill to something as non-descriptive as the "Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011."

Economic Liberty

When did the United States Supreme Court and Legal System change to work against economic liberty for an individual?

President Roosevelt had a huge reign in office. When the Supreme Court ruled against his New Deal his first term, his second term was when the real changes began. He effected economic liberty but he also opened up the floodgates to a welfare state and regulation society we know today by changing how the United States legal system makes decisions on cases.

In the link from the Future Of Freedom Foundation by Jacob Hornberger, look for these specific sections that made its historic "mark" on America:
1. West Coast Hotel vs Parrish Supreme Court Case
2. President Roosevelts "Court Packing" scheme
3. The one line in the supreme court case that reflects our present day court system
" Liberty under the Constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process."

Meaning: "A person is “free” whenever the state has the power to enact any legislation whose ostensible purpose is to protect the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people."

Ask these questions, Should a government create any law for the sake of creating another law on top of the other? Or do you create a court system that is guided by Constitutional principles that not only created the Rule of Law but helped put a check and balance on Congress and the American people who break laws?

There is no easy answer to this questions since we are a nation of laws on top of laws, thanks to President Roosevelt. It is certainly worth a good debate. Who knows where the debates may lead.

Article Of The Week

Economic Liberty And The Constitution Part 12

Economic Liberty In The News

Regulations Show Courts Have A duty To Protect Economic liberty

5 Businesses Fight against Laws and Policies

Minnesotta Fights For Economic Freedom

Texas Fights For Economic Liberty

Reason TV Raw Food Raid - The Fight To Eat What You Want

Businesses Must Fight For Economic Liberty

State Legislatures Introducing Right To Work Laws

Is it possible that some of the Forced Unionism states are finally understanding their rights? In 2009 and 2010, America took a closer look at forced union dues, forced unionism, pensions, and benefits that are effecting businesseses, states, and individuals. State legislatures are introducing Right To Work Laws in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Maybe,we may see new states convert from Forced Unionism States to Right To Work States. More importantly, I hope individuals are not only educating themselves but continue to educate each other, legislatures, and representatives.

Below there is an interesting article by Labor Union Reports called Death By A Thousand Papercuts. It will give some details on what Unions are planning on the federal level. This section stood out in the article:

"On Sept. 22, Labor’s Office of the Solicitor—which employs 400 attorneys to enforce the nation’s labor laws—issued a draft “operating plan” to dramatically increase pressure on employers. A source inside the department says the plan has been adopted." (Forcing unionism on non-union companies)

National Right To Work Act

National Right To Work Act Reintroduced By Rep Steve King

"Specifically, this bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to repeal the provisions in these Acts that permit employers, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that is a union security agreement, to require employees to join a union as a condition of employment, and require the payroll deduction of union dues or fees as a condition of employment."

Do You Know Your Rights On The State And Federal Level, As A Teacher, Or In A Business

Video Of The Week

Trumpka: "It Is Not about Wage Negotiations, It Is About Social Justice" (Socializing)

Articles Of The Week

Death By A Thousand Papercuts

Strained States Turning To Laws To Curb Labor Unions

States Legislatures Introducing Right To Work Laws

Incoming Michigan Governor Bouchard embraces Right To Work in a Non-Right To Work State

Management's Right To Manage

Indiana: House Speaker Bosma Concerned About 'Wedge Issues'

Wisconsin: Rep Vos May Introduce Right To Work Laws

Missouri: Lawmakers Introducing Right To Work Laws

Pennsylannia: Metcalf Introduces Legislation To End Compusulory Unionism

What Democrats In Congress Couldn't Do For Unions The NLRB Will

State By State Profile Of Teachers Unions

Articles Of The Week

Killing The Private Sector : What Democrats In Congress Couldnt Do For Union The NLRB Will

Unions Plan B

Results Compel Unions To Refocus

Unions Are Starting To Favor Canadian Style Elections

"The reduced voting period would allow unions to organize in secret for weeks or months and spring last-minute elections on unknowing employers, especially when no “agitated state” to spur on unionization exists. Most of these employers run smaller businesses without a legal department of their own, so they do not necessarily know the rules"

Unions In The News

Don't Pop The GM Cork Yet

Pasco Tyson Plant Worker Force Secret Ballot Vote To Remove Unwanted Unions From Workplace

WSJ: Girl Scouts And Union Activists

Maid Service From Unite Here

Union Bosses In Conflict With Members

Throwing Light On Class Size, Special Education

SEIU and Voter Fraud

Video Of The Week

Workers Blow Whistle On SEIU Voter Fraud!

Article Of The Week

Jerry Brown Clears Acorn From Voter Fraud Corruption

George Soros Secretary Of State Project Races

Voter Fraud News

SEIU's Illegal Fund Raising Scheme

Shady SEIU Fundraising

Nationwide Voter Fraud

AFL-CIO False Attacks Takes Aim Djou Ethnicity

BREAKING: Democrat Introduces Legislation to End Right-to-Work States
Posted By LaborUnionReport On October 4, 2010 (1:31 pm) In Big Labor, Congress, Midterm Elections

Back in June, we reported that California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) was circulating a letter to his fellow Democrats to introduce legislation to repeal “Right-to-Work” laws in 22 states. Now, with less than a month before the mid-term elections and five weeks before a lame-duck session in Congress, Sherman has introduced legislation to eliminate state Right to Work laws all across America.
Currently, there are 22 states in the U.S. that have laws where workers who are employed at companies that are unionized have a choice whether or not to join or pay the union. These states are known as Right-to-Work states.

On the other hand, in the 28 Non-Right-to-Work states (also called forced-dues states), it is legal for a union to negotiate a “union (income) security clause” that requires all workers covered by the union to pay the union does or ‘agency fees’ as a condition of employment. If the workers refuse to pay the union, under a “union (income) security clause,” the union can have them fired from their jobs.
As background, in 1947, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act with the Taft-Hartley Amendments which, among other things, gave states the right to establish “Right-to-Work” laws. Until the Taft-Hartley Amendments, from 1935 to 1947, private-sector workers in all 50 could be required to pay dues to a union or, if not, be fired from their jobs. The ability of states to have Right-to-Work laws is contained in a single paragraph within the National Labor Relations Act (Section 14 [b]), which states:
(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.

As a result of this one section being inserted into the 1947 amendments, states (through their legislatures) could determine whether or not to be a Right-to-Work state, or a forced-dues state.

Therefore, the removal of this one section would make all 50 states forced-dues states, giving unions the ability to have workers fired for not paying union dues or fees.

From Congressman Sherman’s website [emphasis added]:
Today, Congressman Brad Sherman announced the introduction of dramatic legislation that would eliminate so-called “right-to-work” laws, which was applauded by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Sherman has a strong record of supporting working men and women and earned a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO.

Right-to-work laws require unions to represent non dues-paying employees, thereby undermining the basic premise and promise of union membership and creating free riders – people who are exempt from paying their fair share. Right-to-work laws create different standards for union membership in different states. This results not only in confusion over the regulation of union membership, but also places a higher cost on worker representation in labor rights states.
“I do not believe that there should be a right to be treated unfairly or to endure unnecessary restrictions. Right-to-work laws strip unions of their legitimate ability to collect dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues to provide benefits to free riders who are exempt from paying their fair share,” said Congressman Brad Sherman. “These laws are harmful to states like California, which allows labor unions to organize, because now we have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”

“With the introduction of legislation banning so-called right-to-work, Congressman Sherman has once again demonstrated his strong commitment to working families,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. “Right-to-work laws undermine the economy and weaken workers’ ability to bargain for better working conditions, which translates into lower pay and fewer benefits for everyone.”
While Brad Sherman’s statement about workers in Right-to-Work states not having the right to organize is patently false (the National Labor Relations Act does not discriminate on workers’ rights to organize in a Right to Work state), he is accurate that his state of California has been losing jobs. However, there are a multitude of factors that have contributed to California’s demise—many of which were, ironically, caused by the unions that Sherman has so endeared himself.
Although Congressman Sherman introduced this legislation back in 2008, it had little chance of succeeding. However, with the mid-term elections and a lame-duck Congress following, the chances that Democrats (who are taking hundreds of millions from unions), it is possible the chances that Democrats could vote to end Right-to-Work states.

As a result, now is as good a time as any to get Democrats (in both Right-to-Work states and forced-union states) to state their positions on whether they support an end to workers’ right to work.

RTWF Fights For MOM Against Insidious Labor Scheme

Video Of The Week

Jack Welch, CEO Of GE, What He says About Craig Becker and Card Check

Union President Randi Weingarten Caught On Tape

Randi Weingarten And The Teachers Union Liberal Problem

Articles Of The Week

Exercise Your Right To Be Union Free

RTWF Fights For MOM Against Insidious Labor Scheme

Pam Harris's Story On Being Forced To Join A Union To Take Care Of Her Son

AFL-CIO Prez Trumpka We Need To Establish Popular Control Over Private Corporations

Wall Street Journal: Becker Legislating Card Check By Fiat

More Unions In The News

Appeals Court Again Dismisses Daycare Union Suit
(Forced Union dues on a Daycare Private Business)

Could A CA Court Case Be The End Of Union Release Time For Teachers

Circuit Court OKs Federal Lawsuit

Local PLA's Bites The Hand Feeding The Beast

Union Corruption Update

District Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction To Recognize And Bargain Pending NLRB Charge

More NJ Unions Arrested By Authorities

How Unions Deciminate Small Family Owned Businesses

Videos Of The Weeks

Gov. Christie Gives Another Look Inside What Is Happening In The Teachers Union

AFLCIO President says The United States Does Not Have a Deficit

Trumpka: We Drove Obamacare Down Republicans Throat

Articles Of The Week

Proud To Be A Union? How Unions Deciminate Small Family Owned Business

Union Jobs VS Childrens Lives

The new SEC gives Unions More Power Than The Average Investor

Other Union News

Union and Congress

Union Corruption Update

Unemployed? Blame Public Employees

UAW Bosses Chased Out Of The Meeting By Local Membership

New Chicago Teachers Union Head Is Same Old Same Old

Pelosi Hopes The Empolyee Free Choise Act Happens Soon

Boeing Employees Resond To Union Boss Bullying

Kansas City Nurses Challenges Backroom Deal

Concerns Over Recess pick Craig Becker

According to the Wall Street Journal:
The unions themselves could have prevented some layoffs had they been willing to adjust their rich benefits. In Milwaukee, for example, nearly all of the 500 teacher layoffs announced earlier this year could have been avoided if the unions had agreed to change health plans that cost $23,000 per teacher per year for family coverage. They could have accepted a still-rich $17,000 plan. The unions chose the layoffs, betting (correctly) that Democrats in Washington would come to their rescue.

How To Decertify Unions

California City ?1#?!SLAPS Greedy Union Goons

The GOP's Counterinsurgency By Spenders

Rep Trent Lott of Miss Slams Tea Party Unruly Insurgents

The Administration Defends Obamacare Mandates

Decertifying Unions
" Employees who no longer want a union to represent them — whether it's because the union is undemocratic, corrupt, violent, or just plain inept — are entitled to seek an election to determine if a majority of their coworkers wants to drop the union. Such elections, conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), are known as "decertification elections." They are not rare -- several hundred take place in a typical year."

Must Have 30 Percent Of The Workers In The Bargaining Unit Sign This Petition

Regional NLRB Offices


Bill # S.3194 Harry Reid's NEW Forced Unionism Bill for Police, Fire Fighters & EMTs
(Please vote No. This Bill is dangerous for every state)

Union News

Payback To Big Labor, While Our City And States Foot The Bill,_while_our_cities__states_foot_the_bill

As Obama Kowtows, Unions Eye The Private Sector,_unions

In Alabama: Oppressed Teachers Take On The NEA

South Dakota: Where your dues are going: Political campaigns

In Florida: The Long Reach Of Teachers Unions

Wasteful New York Rules Provide Sneak Peak Into Firefighter/Monopoly Union Rules

In New York, Political Football: On heels of NLRB ruling, pols jump into St. Barnabas fray

Anti Public Employees Unions Backlash

California Unwittingly Funds Unions

Unions Go To Pot?

To SEIU And Andy From Where The Sun Stands Were Coming To Take You Away

Union Bosses Deny 11000 Employees A Vote on Labor Contracts

Union-Backed Democrat Wants to Kill 22 Right-to-Work States
Posted By LaborUnionReport On June 17, 2010 (9:01 am) In Big Labor

Elections have consequences.
In 28 states across the U.S., unionized workers can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. If workers refuse to pay the union, the union can order them to be fired from their jobs.
However, since 1947, the so-called Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (passed over Pres. Harry Truman’s veto) enabled state legislatures to enact “Right-to-Work” laws which outlaw forced unionism. Currently, there are 22 “right-to-work” states…Unless Congressman Brad Sherman gets his way.

It’s not the first time he’s pushed it. In 2008, he actually introduced a bill that went nowhere. However, this time union-bought backed Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman’s effort to end Right-to-Work laws must be take a little more seriously.

On Monday, Rep. Sherman sent a letter to colleagues encouraging them to join his efforts to force workers to pay union dues by ending Right-to-Work laws.
With nearly $700,000 pumped into his campaign coffers over his career by Big Labor (12 out of his top 20 contributors are unions), there’s little wonder why the California Congressman would want to reward his backers. After all, California, (with all its fiscal issues) owes a lot to its unions.

Obamacare, Commerce Clause, And The Increased Powers Of Congress

First step, June 15, 2010 webcast, was understanding Ken Cuccinelli's lawsuit, Virginia's Ken Cuccinelli, Commonwealth Of Virginia vs. Sebelious.

Second Step, Thanks to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch,, for providing an amazing educational look at, not only, the Constitutionality of Obamacare, but, a closer look at the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, and the increased powers of Congress.

May 12, 2010 — A Judicial Watch educational panel featuring Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Georgetown Professor of Law Randy Barnett discussing the potential constitutional challenges to the health care reform bill known as "Obamacare".

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional? Part I

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional Part II

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional? Part III

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional? Part IV

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional? Part V

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional? Part VI

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional? Part VII

Press release on HR4995 End The Mandate and Great News For Georgia (Congratulations=))

For Immediate Release
June 15, 2010
Paul Pleased by Floor Vote on "End the Mandate"
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Paul was gratified today when House Republicans forced a vote on the floor to strip the most authoritarian measure from the new healthcare reform law - the requirement that every American buy government-approved health insurance or face stiff IRS penalties. Essentially, today's resolution adopted Paul's "End the Mandate" legislation (HR 4995) as a motion to recommit on a related tax bill.
The motion failed with a final vote count of 230 nays and 187 yeas, with a significant number of Democrats crossing party lines to vote yea.
Though the "End the Mandate" vote did not succeed in reversing this odious measure, it is a positive sign for renewed and ongoing efforts to prevent America from moving closer to a government-run healthcare system.
"I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues in agreement with me about the health insurance mandate. With so many in Congress on both sides of the aisle willing to continue this fight, my hope is that we won't give up until this provision, and many others, are repealed," stated Congressman Paul.

In Georgia - Governor Sonny Perdue signed Senator Judson Hill's legislation into law to protect Georgian's right to make their own health care choices. (Yeah!!=))
A few days ago Governor Sonny Perdue signed Senator Judson Hill's legislation into law to protect Georgian's right to make their own health care choices. Senate Bill 317, authored by Hill and passed by the Georgia Senate, was added as an amendment to Senate Bill 411 to prohibit mandatory participation in federal health care.
My SB 317 simply protects the basic rights we all enjoyed before President Obama signed into law the federal take-over of health care. Senate Bill 317 prohibits the federal government from forcing an unconstitutional mandate on Georgia's citizens or punishing anyone for not buying heath insurance. Georgians do not want federal bureaucrat involvement in our health care decisions, said Senator Hill. "Every Georgian should have the right to purchase private health care, purchase government health care, or exercise their right not to participate in a health plan without being fined," said Hill. Existing private and government programs would not be affected by this new law. SB 317 also prohibits any government from punishing a business that does not participate in a federal health plan, as well as it protects health care providers from being forced to perform mandated medical procedures such as abortions.

When Senator Hill opposed a tax increase this Session, Senate Bill 317 was stopped in the House. Senator Hill successfully had SB 317's language amended into Senate Bill 411. SB 411, which is similar to Senate Hill Senate Bill 445 and his 2009 legislation, expands Hill's 2008 Bill that allows health insurance companies to partially refund HSA health insurance premiums for people who stay healthy.
SB 41, as introduced, will now allow wellness incentives in other health insurance plans to reward Georgians for good health or following preventative health measures.

Healthcare Bill Bailout To Labor Movement

Healthcare Bill Bailouts To Big Labor Have Already Begun...Don't Say We did't Warn you

Organized Labor Bosses 'Own' Obamacare

How Donald Berwick Will Run Your Healthcare

What Does John Mccain have To Say About Doctors (Interesting Article)

Ohio Supreme Court ruled OK to get Health Care Ban in the Ohio Constitution! (Yeah Ohio!=))
That's right - we won!
Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, the Ballot Board and Attorney General Richard Cordray just lost to the Ohio citizens.
What did they lose?
In Ohio Liberty Council v. Brunner, they attempted to prevent the Ohio citizens from determining their own future on the recently passed healthcare bill mandate, which states everyone must purchase government approved health insurance or be fined, with the possibility of jail time.

Score: Freedom loving Ohioans 1 - Brunner and freedom inhibiting officials 0
I'd love to tell you that's all it takes, but unfortunately part of their strategy was effective. They delayed our signature gathering time period and we still need over 400,000 valid signatures from over 44 Ohio counties in just a couple months.
This will be difficult. It is possible, but your help is needed.
If you are interested in helping with this vital project through volunteering or donation - we will need all the help we can get. These donations will be used exclusively for initial costs of launching this effort (printing, cards, banners, flyers, etc). Click Here!

God help us all as we defend Ohioan's freedom to choose.
Extra special thanks to Maurice Thompson and the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law. Maurice has defended liberty once again by leading the way on this case.
If you don't know Maurice Thompson and the 1851 Center, you need to follow what they are doing. From defending personal liberties to getting ACORN kicked out of Ohio - we have some brilliant minds on our side.
The battle is just beginning!

Ohio Liberty Council vs. Brunner

Ken Cuccinellu Update And Other News

Healthcare In The News

Two Of The Most Dangerous Words You Never Heard
(Redistribution in healthcare)

States That Passed Laws REJECTING the Healthcare Mandate

Dr. David Janda Explain Rationing and What Is Happening Today With Doctors

Doctors Will Be fined and Jailed If They Put Patients First

Healthcare Update From Ken Cuccinelli

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Dear Fellow Virginians,

Last Monday, as most of you know, Virginia went to court to argue its motion for summary judgment (the merits of the case), in which we argued that the individual mandate contained in the federal healthcare bill is unconstitutional. At the close of the hearing, the judge indicated that he expected to rule on the constitutionality of the federal health care law by the end of the year.

In addition to the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the commerce clause, we also had to address two other subjects: first, whether the "penalty" associated with not purchasing the government-mandated (I call it "Nancy-approved") health insurance is a tax under congress' taxing power, and second, if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, what remedy should the court impose? I'll get to each of these in turn.

Virginia's is the first state case to reach the summary judgment stage, and as such we're likely to have the first decision. The Florida case with 20 other states represented has its summary judgment hearing scheduled for December 16th, right around the time we'll be looking for a decision in our case.

Last week I promised you a rundown of the case - where we are, and what's coming up - so today I'm not only going to discuss our case, but the two recent rulings by judges in other healthcare cases as well.

Virginia's Case

As many of you who have been reading this newsletter since we filed suit back on March 23rd know, this case is not about healthcare. We argued again last Monday that this case is about protecting our liberty, and that the precedent the federal government is trying to establish, namely, that they can order you to purchase a product of their choosing, would massively expand federal power beyond anything the founders intended or envisioned. The result of course would be a loss of liberty by all of the citizens and a reduction of the unique role of states to that of a functionary of the federal government.

In this case, Virginia is exercising the check to federal power that the founding fathers expected states to exercise when the federal government oversteps its proper legal and constitutional authority. This part of the system of checks and balances is what is called "federalism." The more commonly known part of the system of checks and balances is the division of power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches within the federal government.

If we lose this case, one major consequence will be the death of federalism. I doubt the founders ever conceived that we would be in a situation where all that stood between us and the end of federalism was a single court case. Sadly, that is where we find ourselves as a nation.

Fortunately, as the judge in our case noted in his denial of the motion to dismiss - congress is extending the commerce clause further in the healthcare bill than it has ever done in the past. In an amicus brief ("friend of the court" brief) filed by three former US Attorneys General, Ed Meese, Dick Thornburgh, and William Barr, in support of Virginia's suit, they said that in all their years of defending the laws of the federal government, they have not seen such strained reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that the government has the power to order people to buy a product and to impose penalties if they don't. The former AGs called that reasoning "nonsense" - there are some things former US AGs can do and say to the court that I can't... like call the feds' central argument "nonsense!"
As we saw in earlier stages of this case - the federal government now feels compelled to argue that the penalty for failing to buy the Nancy-approved health insurance is a "tax," despite the fact that key figures - including the President - involved in the passage of the bill argued repeatedly that it was "absolutely not a tax"... to use the President's own phrase.

Interestingly, the judge asked the federal government's lawyer point blank why they are arguing it was a tax, even though the president said it was not a tax. It was awkward to say the least to see the government's lawyer try and dance around the question! The lawyer denied that the President had ever said it was NOT a tax... however, if you watch this interview with the President, you will see that that is not true. Whoops.

We asked that if the court rules that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, to issue an injunction to keep the government from implementing the federal health care act. This is the question of what remedy the court should impose if Virginia prevails.

For those who may not recall, the federal healthcare law does NOT have what is called a "severability clause." What's that? It's a provision in most contracts and many pieces of larger legislation that says that if any part of the law is held unconstitutional, all the other parts of the law remain in effect. I.e., the bad provision is "severed" from the bill.

What happens when there is no severability clause? Well, the easiest way to start explaining the answer is to tell you what would happen if there WAS a severability clause. With a severability clause, the feds would get the benefit of a presumption that whatever else could remain in the bill and still function, would in fact be left in effect.
Without a severability clause, the whole bill does NOT automatically fall, though that is what Virginia is requesting of the court. Instead, the court has to ask the question: 'would the legislation have passed without the offending provision?' That's a pretty awkward position for a judge, but it's the 'rule' the Supreme Court has established.
In our case, the federal government has already conceded that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then all of the insurance provisions of the bill would have to fall, as they are dependent on the individual mandate for proper functioning.

Interestingly however, during the motion to dismiss phase of the case, they referred to the healthcare bill as regulating how healthcare was financed. The 'financing' tie-in seemed to disappear from their discussion in the summary judgment phase of the case. Why? So they could argue that the Medicaid/Medicare changes wrought by the bill could survive. If this is primarily a financing scheme, then surely the other financing pieces should fall with the individual mandate, i.e., the changes to Medicaid and Medicare.

Note that it is the changes to Medicaid and Medicare that threaten Virginia with over $1 billion of unfunded mandates by fiscal year 2022... and of course that conservative cost estimate assumes that federal estimates of the costs associated with the bill are - for the first time in history - accurate.

So, I think if the individual mandate is held unconstitutional, and the penalty is deemed - shockingly - a penalty and not a tax, then there are three most probable remedies the judge might impose: 1) enjoin the whole bill; 2) enjoin just the insurance elements of the legislation; and 3) enjoin the insurance, Medicaid and Medicare elements of the legislation.

The judge could carve the law up even more, but that strikes me as unlikely if for no other reason than keeping it simple makes sense when he knows that whichever side loses is going to appeal.
A lot to think about...

Meanwhile, Up in Michigan

Several weeks ago, in a far less publicized case than either Virginia's or the multi-state case being tried in Florida, a federal judge ruled that the individual mandate is constitutional. While we would love to see our allies win every single case around the country, such an outcome was never going to happen. And in the Michigan case, reading the ruling demonstrates the incredible leaps of logic and language the judge had to explicitly engage in to reach his desired conclusion. In fact, such weaknesses are so obvious on reading the ruling, that I am hopeful that it will actually be helpful to us.

How, you might ask? Well, I think that the obvious lengths to which the Michigan judge had to go to rule that the individual mandate was constitutional may ultimately deter other judges from going down that same route.

However, despite the judge's ruling regarding the individual mandate, he also noted in his ruling that "The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes." Now, if you remember from our case, the federal government painstakingly argued that the healthcare law can be maintained under congress' taxing power. It is unclear why the judge made this statement, as he did not elaborate on his reasoning, but it begins to suggest that we may see consistent rulings against the feds' tax argument, perhaps even across the country.

And In Sunny Florida...

In the Florida case, where our 20 sister states are litigating together, Judge Vinson recently denied the federal government's motion to dismiss like Judge Hudson did in our case in August.

Remember that a typical constitutional law case has two rounds: first, the motion to dismiss and then summary judgment. The motion to dismiss in Virginia's case was decided on August 2nd, while the motion to dismiss in the Florida case was decided on October 14th.

Similar to the Michigan case, Judge Vinson repeatedly called the fine for those that don't purchase the Nancy-approved health insurance a penalty. In fact, he spent 22 pages explaining why the "penalty" is not a tax. He noted that the fines were not intended to raise revenue, but rather act as a deterrent against people choosing not to purchase the mandated healthcare.

In a particularly stinging passage, the judge cited "Alice in Wonderland" to note the absurdity of professing to the public (while the bill was under consideration in congress) that the penalty for failure to comply with the mandate is NOT a tax, and shortly thereafter walking into court and arguing that, in fact, it IS a tax.
As the Washington Times noted regarding Judge Vinson's opinion as it related to the tax argument, "His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck - and the same goes for a penalty."

You might ask how the judge was ruling on the tax question at the motion to dismiss stage. The short answer is that he said that he did not need to take up the issues related to standing regarding the tax question, because the penalty in question is not a tax. So, he addressed the tax issue in his ruling on the motion to dismiss in order to set aside certain arguments being made in the motion to dismiss by the federal government.

Note that there are now two substantive rulings on the tax question, one by a judge (in Michigan) who looked like he really wanted to rule the individual mandate constitutional, and in both instances the feds' position that the penalty is really a tax has been rejected.

Here's hoping for #3 on that point in December!

And to Conclude...

In Virginia's case - the judge noted at the end of the hearing that both sides were better prepared for this case than any he had seen in a long, long while. It was clear during the hearing that he had carefully read the briefs submitted by both sides, and he asked pointed - and very knowledgeable - questions about the positions of both Virginia and the United States.

His very detailed preparation for the trial date, and the statements he made about taking his time to carefully parse out all the arguments before coming to a decision means that he is taking this case - as we are in the AG's office - as one of the most important cases of our time.

I have not changed my expectations on the case from the outset. I am still cautiously optimistic that Virginia will prevail, but whenever you're in truly uncharted legal territory in the courts... anything can happen!

Potential Effects Of Obamacare

Potential Effects Of Obamacare

Videos Of The Week

Judge Andrew Napolitano On Patients Rights To Privacy and Doctor/Patient Relationships!

The Road To Canadacare Sally Pipes On Truth To Obamacare

Bill Gates Death Panel Advocates

Don't Forget What Our Representatives Said About Singlepayer Healthcare System
(United States is on it its way to a Singlepayer System. Will individuals be able to build a business in any industry of their choice? Or will Government make business choices for the individual?)
Jan Schakowski in Illinois
Barney Frank in Massechussets
Anthony Weiner in New York
Russ Feingold in Wisconsin
Henry Waxman in California

Articles Of The Week

ObamaCare’s Job-Killing Impact Is Just Getting Started

Brian Calle: CEO Series: Obamacare Impact

Insurers Ending Child-Only Policies

Other Healthcare News

The First Victims Of Healthcare Reform,8599,2013623,00.html

Large Employer Healthcare Design Change

Obamacare Direct And Indirect Cost On Small Businesses

How The AMA And Medical Societies Failed To Serve Their Constituents

US Overhaul Lawsuit

Obama Healthcare Is Enough To Make You Sick

Obamas Brave New World

Obamacare Mafia Tactics