Arizona's immigration law is a statement of unprecedented accuracy that the Federal Government has no duty, authority, or capacity to protect our borders with neighboring nations.  This is how relations were between the states themselves before the Constitution.

Per the Constitution

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 establishes the federal government has exclusive power over naturalization, so much so that naturalization must be uniform, meaning it cannot be arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise unpredictable:

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...”

Let's see how the National Government of the United States defines “Naturalization,” 8 U.S.C., Section 1101, paragraph 23:

“The term ‘naturalization’ means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.”--http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001101----000-.html

First, notice there is no mention of the border of the United States.  This indicates that there is no inherent relationship of the border to naturalization.

Second, “by any means whatsoever” is very broad, which means that for someone not to be a legal alien would require a willful and intentional avoidance of naturalization and a blatant disregard for America and our laws.

Understand that the national government has in fact created “an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” a consistent and predictable process for anyone who wants to live in America to achieve the “conferring of nationality of” the United States of America.

Thus Arizona, and the border, is being misused as a political issue, a victim of political application of the “substantial effects test.”  National Government action to control the border is assumed, by the Washington Politicians, to be perceived negatively by the vast majority of the Hispanic Community.  Anything that could “substantially effect,” in a negative way, the Politician’s ability to appeal to the Hispanic Community must, to the Politician, be avoided at all cost.  This wreaks of national weakness when viewed in light of the Hispanic Community being the fastest growing community in the United States.  Washington and politicians all over America are treating the Hispanic vote as a political “derivative,” a futures contract that the biggest “political speculators,” Washington Politicians, believe is best invested in by taking no action.  Political insurance that nothing could in any way be applied by the Hispanic Community as a negative to the Politician and their expected lifestyle.

A Politician’s persistent emphasis, irrespective of party, is to get re-elected and maintain their seat of abuse of our power, to put politics before their primary duty to protect our unalienable Right to Life through securing our border and protecting us from those abroad who hate America.

Please know that I have nothing against people who want to serve this nation for as long as they wish, so long as it is in honor of We The People, to effectuate Our Will in securing our Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.  Anything less is deserving of our Sovereign imposed term limit of voting against that politician as reprimand for the disservice they have done to our nation while abusing the powers of the Constitution.  This abuse, and an exploitation of all American aliens, is what is occurring right now by the failure of the United States Government to enforce existing immigration law, as that enforcement upon illegal aliens is the “to establish” part of “an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” the enforcement of our laws is how establishment of uniformity is accomplished.

Lack of Uniformity Invokes State’s Rights

The physical border is a labor made physical property (achieved generally by war).  Physical borders are affirmed by mathematical measurements that then are used in crafting law made property, by legislation designating a border that is also in agreement with the neighboring nation.  Treaties tend to be these agreements.

And The 10th Amendment states:

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

As we saw above “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” has nothing to do with borders as citizenship has only the physical property of a birth location within the borders.  Naturalization is thereby not required.

There is also no provision in the Constitution granting specific power to the Federal Government to control the border, nor any provision prohibiting the states from doing so.  This indicates that if a State and the citizens thereof believe a law, such as the Arizona immigration law, will help them to secure their border, that, as a State, they have every right to pass such legislation.

When one reviews the intent of the Arizona Law one finds a State providing the manpower and capability to enforce the Federal Immigration Law in their State at the State’s own expense.  Additionally, if a greater number of states pass similar legislation, the National Government is being assisted in achievement of the “uniform Rule” requirement of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.  And please note too, that “Federal Government” means government by both the individual States and the National government together, as that is our “federal system of government.”

Behold the Legislative Intent of the Arizona Law

“The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona.  The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

And further...

“A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

“B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

“C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

“D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.”--S.B. 1070, http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf  (Emphasis mine.)

The Arizona Law, which is based on the National Government Law, is the ultimate assistance the National Government and its 13 trillion dollar debt need.

By its language, the Arizona Immigration Law is consistent with the Federal Constitution‘s requirement of “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”   Almost word for word this law is a copy of the immigration law passed by Congress with one exception:  lawful contact.  The National Immigration Law is where local police are authorized to ask for papers without already having lawful contact with the person, meaning it is the National Immigration Law and not the Arizona Law that does all the terrible things Nancy Pelosi says the Arizona Law does.  It would seem Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and their boss President Obama, fell for their own propaganda that the law is an exact word for word duplicate of the National Immigration Law.

It also must be said that the Arizona Immigration Law does not demonstrate any attempt by the State of Arizona to enforce immigration law in protest, usurpation, or in any other way without the National Government, and that the Arizona Law is only in support of the National Government’s Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.  The Arizona Law is to effectuate a public policy that recognizes and addresses a desperate need to enforce Federal Immigration law, particularly where, by politicization, the National Government has asserted the 5th Amendment to do and continue doing nothing.  This is an act of silence that effectuates a measurable result of 465,000 illegal aliens in Arizona.  This testimony by omission (action by failure to act) is the significant basis for passing laws to help, to cooperate with the National Government.

And it further must be said that, when the National Government that has a power delegated to them and fails to enforce its own laws in support of that power, the National Government then relinquishes such power back to where the power originates, the States or the People.

More on the Uniform Rule of Naturalization

With Naturalization, and all other enumerated Constitutional Powers, there is a mandatory non-discretionary duty upon the United States Government to assure use of theses powers in a manner consistent with their purpose in being delegated.  Naturalization requires that all aliens in this nation have had “the conferring of nationality of” the United States upon them “after birth, by any means whatsoever” or the National Government will have failed “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”  This failure is what has occurred in Arizona for more than 15 years, to which Arizona is responding as an individual State honoring their duty, as a State of the Union, to assist the National Government.

The National Government’s need for help is emphasized by our government having an entire system designed specifically to identify those who are here legally and those who are not.  We would not have this system and the documentation thereof, a green card, with legal requirement the documentation is to be carried on the person of a legalized alien unless the purpose of such documentation is to be available for presentation on demand.

The lack of action by the National Government, due to the politicization of the immigration issue, has brought the federal government to impotence in regard to naturalization, as a limbo has been created by inaction that only serves to protect those not legally in the United States.

Thus, pursuant to the United Stated Code definition above, the National Government is acting in violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 by not enforcing the National Immigration Law.  The National Government is failing to assure all aliens in this nation are in possession of a green card, a direct violation of the “uniform Rule” requirement of the clause by the National Government.  “Uniform Rule” makes it incumbent on the Federal Government to enforce the law without question, particularly in light of the idea “we are a nation of laws and not men.” and “there is no one above the law.”  The Constitution is the often-stated (or oft-quoted) source of these notions, and the Progressives who remind us of this need to remember this same position in the application of Naturalization to those here illegally, regardless of their number.  It is an outrage that these Washington Elite Progressive Politicians always remember to mention these ideas when scolding financial institutions, the insurance companies once they opposed healthcare, and, whenever there is need to bring back into lockstep line, the political forces that helped the President gain election, for then these very same Politicians forget this principle for sake of the same manipulation of political forces.  There is no integrity to their cause, just myriad negotiations in patronage, so long as political office, and the Politician’s seat of abuse of power, is retained.

Now to those who say, in relation to Mexican immigrants, “but they just want to work, to do the jobs Americans don’t want” or “look at the violence there, these people can’t make an honest living in that environment, and that’s no place to raise their children,” please explain why these people don’t immediately ask for sanctuary?  You’d think the plethora of immigration lawyers, whose job is entirely created by this uniform Rule of Naturalization, would make sure that those here illegally are well versed in applying for sanctuary!

However, for once it may be an issue that has nothing to do with the lawyers, and instead it is that these people crossing into America from Mexico, aren’t interested in asking for the opportunity to be a part of the Sovereignty of this nation, and instead, wish to assume this land belongs to them, maybe even as a debt owed by us, the jobs they take here being the tip of the iceberg and some sort of recompense in their eyes?

Hence the whole idea of this uniform Rule of Naturalization:  provide, as we do for native born American Citizens, equal opportunity in regard to becoming an American, which the national law does provide when you look at the definition of “naturalization” (above) and the lack of defining a specific means by which citizenship is to be conferred.  As Americans, let us be clear in our American Pride and recognize that the issuance of green cards, and/or other instruments, which an alien is to present when inquired of, that these instruments are intended to be displayed with pride because that alien is being asked to demonstrate Citizenship, that they are an American.  What could be a greater honor, as a legal alien, than to show the world that this great honor of being an American has been conferred on their person by the United States of America?  These instruments and any request for their presentation violate nothing in the Constitution, particularly where the law provides for their issuance to the person upon conference of nationality of the United States by “any means whatsoever.”

Let’s make sure to note that the primary purpose of naturalization is to cause the person applying achievement of the full authority to enforce the prohibitions on the National Government that are made by the Federal Constitution.  This current system of Naturalization beholds the legal alien as one “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Legal aliens have the legal authority to be counted amongst the multitude who are the Sovereign of this nation, and protected by the limitations of intrusion in their lives placed on the National Government, people who can subject the government to be held accountable to the Constitution and express re-statement of existing rights the first Ten Amendments represent.  The legal alien is one of We The People who instituted a National Government to secure Our unalienable Rights.  This is what the green card represents and apparently the Progressives want this to be given to those who do not respect our laws by applying to achieve this themselves--Naturalization by Nannystate.

To be an American, is not a minor power, and it is an absolute confusion of the national government to take the position they are handing out citizenship and not the inclusion of legal aliens as part of those who created the National Government, with all the unalienable Rights that come with being an American.

This lack of the National Government to take direction from the Constitution is the only reason this issue is pressurized, controversial, and political, as, Constitutionally, the matter of Naturalization is settled.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

I am amazed sometimes at what happens when preparing an article.  Please take a look at the following photo that has been circulating on the web:




Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this article.

Remember TARP?  Remember how it failed in the House after We The People contacted our representatives and said “We do not want this bill” at a ratio of 9:1 against it?

....And what you may not remember is the Washington Progressive Elites successfully tried again.  The Senate picked up the failed bill, made it an amendment to a bill that already passed the House, and, due to the positives in the original bill, TARP was passed, despite our will and over our well articulated objection, which at the time was still at 8:1 against TARP.

Forward to the Healthcare Bill.  Again we do voice our opinion, and again we are ignored, a parliamentary procedure is used, similar to the one Harry Reid pulled with TARP, that again also violates the U.S. Constitution, and, more importantly, ignores the Sovereignty of America as though below the will of Washington’s whim.  Apparently, today America is only about achievement of the will of the United States Government and its Washington Elites.

Forward to Immigration.  Arizona passes its own clone of the U.S. Government law to assure a means of enforcing immigration law in the State of Arizona.  With 465,000 estimated illegal aliens in Arizona there is a specific necessity to have some deterrent to lessen the constant, and federally unanswered, influx of people who have no reservations in violating the border of the United States of America.  And yet somehow Arizona is attacked by everyone who wants to believe that immigration is a province of the United States Government alone, irrespective of the apparent abdication of this presumed sole federal authority by the National Government’s failure to act.

It appears to me these people need to read about the history of their own country to discover the truth:  There was no U.S. Citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment.  I am sure, however, that the Progressives will continue to see this historical fact as meaningless, explaining away the actual history that people lived and continue to live in a state or the District of Columbia, and are citizens thereof which results in being a U.S. Citizen.  Birth Certificates are managed by States, there is no federal Birth Certificate.

And of course, the need for Arizona to pass this law, say it with me, is that “We The People, the Sovereignty of the United States of America, have been ignored when asking for help securing our State borders.”

So get ready for the most demoralizing Progressive slap in the face to the American people so far, as Obama, and the rest of his Progressive Elites in Washington, D.C., biatch-slap the American People one more time.

The other day Pelosi and Reid unveiled their outline, for “immigration reform legislation,” in response to protests by ILLEGAL ALIENS meaning:  The United States Government, that ignored the American People and Sovereign of America issue after issue over and over, is now going to listen to, take orders from, and acknowledge the power of, illegal immigrants!  Just watch as the dynamic duo of Pelosi and Reid, along with their new executive branch ally Obama, the Dictator-In-Chief, show respect to people who are not legally here, have no legal rights, no right to be heard, no right to even be considered, in what appears a perfect Saul Alinsky inspired  Obama “bold step” to do one thing:  maintain Progressive power.  You see the Hispanic voting block is a perfect political offset, a perfect political gain to offset the Tea Party movement membership--Progressive interest in immigration reform has nothing to do with protecting our border, protecting our people and their property from encroachment by criminals, people who are criminals by merely crossing our border (hence, “illegal” alien).  No, the progressive interest in immigration reform is merely a political ploy and nothing more.

Consider that to the Congress and Obama it doesn’t matter that these illegal aliens were violent or criminals in their own country in the first place, or that they are and/or were violent over the weekend here in the United States (ignored by the “mainstream media”), or that these illegal aliens are threatening others, or having the audacity to create and display billboards characterizing the Governor of Arizona as “Hitler’s Daughter,” while, as in the photo above, threatening to “shoot more police in Arizona until we get FREE!”

But I should not blame the illegal aliens.  The Second World War was almost 70 years ago, and I am sure the illegal aliens, who see this land as theirs and that it was illegally taken from Mexico, feel the entire purpose of Hitler is to be remembered and placed at the forefront of any mischaracterization, or similar misguided ad hominem attack.

This importance of Hitler to the Progressives appears glaringly true according to the history of the manifestations of Progressive propaganda, Hitler is their poster child and a projected definitive description of their opponents, never to be set aside.

Just look at recent history of the Progressives when they attacked President Bush.  It’s obvious to this writer that in Progressive thinking every effort must be made to pay homage to Hitler.  Forget any notion of making every effort to assure what happened in World War II never happens again.  No no, what must be done is Progressives must mock the good of a Governor carrying out the Will of their citizens by claiming alignment of that Governor with the ultimate Progressive hero, Adolf Hitler in order to hide the Progressive socialist agenda in fact.  Either that or it’s still a secret to Progressives that Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist Party whose ideology is big government communist control in character. 

But as usual the truth that sets us free can and will be used by the notoriously power hungry, the Progressive socialist movement, to abuse and exploit those here illegally for the sake of the opportunity value of their vote.  Correct me if I am wrong but this seems another trademark Rahm Emanuel “not letting the opportunity of a crisis go to waste,” even when that “crisis” is an entirely artificial Washington D.C. Progressive Elite creation that’s 15+ years old due to the national government’s failure to act.  I grade the government as they grade us.  Every time we fail to treat each other a certain way, it is characterized as abusing someone else, a trespass and abuse of our sovereign authority and prerogative.  The criteria is by what we do or fail to do, as under the laws the government enacts “act includes omission,” thus by the government’s own criteria failure to act is acting, and the government is imposing a mandate upon the people by this very definition which strips us of our choice.  But of course this doesn’t apply to illegal aliens who omitted applying for legal citizenship...Right!

Oddly our government, of, by, and for the people, which is prohibited from making this mistake, fails to see our lack of action as the statement of our assertion of our Sovereign prerogative.  Instead the United States administrative body of Progressive Elites in Washington D.C. sees any “ommission” by U.S. Citizens as an opportunity to assume authority and control over everything that action touches to mandate this or that action, as though the government is trying to prove itself a government over us, over man, over the people, over we who created such government.  In evidence I submit again the Healthcare Bill as our most recent example.

So now let’s compare and contrast the conservative Arizona Governor Brewer with Progressive Socialist Hero Adolf Hitler as that is apparently why Progressives always have their race...er...racist card ready to pull out, a sort of “SS membership card” demonstrating their obsession with racism, just like Hitler’s SS was obsessed, and with keeping race a political and social tool of manipulation, just like Hitler’s SS did.

Governor Brewer could not be farther from the ideology of Hitler.  She believes in the limited exercise of government power over citizens of the United States in Arizona.  Governor Brewer is an advocate of small government machinery to carry out the inherent powers of the authority of the State of Arizona.  Governor Brewer is also paying attention to the State’s budget and, by passing the Arizona Immigration law, has proven to be a people-conscious governor who is well aware of what her citizens want.

Governor Brewer made no speeches to convince anyone Arizona’s immigration law is right, as we’ve seen done countless times by Obama in trying to get the American People to support anything.  Instead the Arizona Governor is acting upon the input of the Federal Government’s ignoring of Arizona’s border problem because 70% of the legal citizens of the State of Arizona wanted her to sign the bill into law as a matter of public safety.  I am sure the family of the Arizona peace officer shot in pursuit of a group of suspected drug traffickers, who used an assault rifle of common use by drug cartels, can be of great assistance in understanding the “matter of public safety” concerns of Arizona citizens.

So get your popcorn and watch as this wonderful group of arrogant illegal aliens, people who are here without any legal rights, from Mexico, Canada, the 50,000 Irish that are said to be in New York, etc., get access to use of the political means, to the opportunity to exploit the American Citizen by invitation and license of the Progressive infested United States Government.  And make no mistake on this either, know that this is being done to make sure We The People in this nation are sent the Progressive message of their successful 2008 coup, telling us:  “You are not in charge, we are, ‘we won,’ we are the Sovereign, you, the people, are merely here to pay for whatever we want to do, so accept and enjoy being exploited, abused, and treated as the peasants of old and eventually you too will know it is your destiny as Americans to be slaves to a ruling elite class since we so easily took your right, your will, your Sovereignty from you.”


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

Flipping the house is noble and worthy, yet it is not enough.

If the principles of our nation’s founding are not THE special interest of those we elect, then we've merely swapped parties for the sake of the election exercise, used again as though paupers of the nation we are the Sovereign of.

If the real interest is long term, to not let this happen again, it is necessary we think, plan, and design from that position.  We must recognize this is about the Sovereign People of America, We The People, per a variety of clauses in the unanimous Declaration of Independence recognizing this sovereignty through recognizing our authority to establish a government to assure our unalienable rights, that "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed."

It is the abdication of this authority that has led us where we are now.

To illustrate, our voting history is that people who owned property were once the only ones who could vote, and that was because the National Government’s authority was so limited as to only effect property owners.

As we expanded the right of suffrage beyond this voting block, the national government took this to mean that we desire them to claim jurisdiction and authority over an ever growing list of aspects of our lives, and, voluntarily abdicating our power, our right, abdicating the power of our own self-determination to which the government is our tool of assistance and accomplishment, not our master.  But our desire for input on their affairs only led them to be certain we wanted them to decide for us, to act for us, to provide opportunity for us.

If we can learn from, and embrace the understanding of, these simple founding principles to assure limited government we'll be able to do more than merely assert the power of a vote, and as well empower our State governments to be the Bulwark of encroachment of national government power they are meant to be, as well as empower ourselves to keep the “bottom feeders” of legality as a means of government revenue by taxation in check.

Either we take on the mantle of the Founding Fathers from the time of the unanimous Declaration of Independence, or we are destined to find ourselves merely part of a "teeter totter" of mass population manipulation, without a shred of power, as each side whittles away at those things that assure We The People are the Sovereign above the government that we created by granting certain, specific, and limited powers to such government that we as Sovereign certainly have the authority and power to take away, if we have the will.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

On April 9th, 2010, I found myself perplexed by Tea Party Nation.

You see, 2 days before I wrote a message to all of my friends in the Tea Party Nation, including the administrator, Simon Jester, the message was that I cannot be a part of an organized group, and thus will no longer be at Tea Party Nation. Seems pretty obvious I was leaving right?

Well 2 friends had replied the following day, and I wrote them back thanking them for the support. And please note I made no copies of any of this as I had no reason to believe I needed to copy and paste these to a file.

Well, the perplexing situation of April 9th 2010 was that my account had been suspended when I tried to log in. Of course I figured it’s just a glitch or bug, and would be fixed.  At the time of posting this article it’s more than 10 days after discovering suspension of my account, and my account remains suspended. No emails or notices of any problems with the Ning network or any other information to suggest my suspension is a bug or glitch.

Instead, more of a confirmation of my belated suspicions.

Since April 9th, 2010, I have since spoken to those 2 people who supported me in my original Tea Party Nation communication. I have learned that one was told he had to edit his blog against the National Tea Party Federation in order to have it posted, which he did not and thus it was never posted. 

The other person who questioned the National Tea Party Federation, as tactfully as possible, has also been suspended since doing so.

By the National Tea Party Federation's actions there appears a line of reason, of integrity, soundness, and continuity, that has escaped their members knowledge and awareness (Tea Party Nation being a Federation member), the simple comprehension of freedom.  It is rather obvious that the National Tea Party Federation does not understand that the Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of Americans who are for limited government, in accordance with government’s servant role as outlined in the unanimous Declaration of Independence (via our consent), The Constitution (via the exact enumeration of powers, and the Bill of Rights (via the 9th and 10th Amendments recognizing rights outside the constitution belong to the States and the People).

Tea Partiers are from all walks of the political sphere, mostly conservatives who recognize that limited government is the key to freedom, that freedom of speech is most vital to having any means of communicating points of view to inform and maintain the popular sovereignty of the American People.  And apparently they are unaware that ?we’ve a few liberals who have found their limit to the scope and size of government, in one instance regarding recent regulations to protect media copyrights that some liberal find is being used as an excuse to encroach upon individual privacy.

What is an amazing turn of events for me, that was made obvious by Tea Party Nation’s suspension of my account, when I was leaving in the first place, is learning the National Tea Party Federation appears to be suspending all Tea Party member voices of dissent to Federation authority, and how this wreaks of the Progressive movement. What is most sad is that this type of “organization” carrying on in this way, walks right into the currently specious Progressive argument that fascism comes from the right. Apparently The National Tea Party Federation, primarily funded and being run by republicans, and I submit is a “republican progressive” commandeering of the Tea Party movement, is doing so to purposefully walk right into these Progressive fascist arguments, legitimizing them, and putting an end to the significant value in American individuality and freedom the Tea Party movement is. I submit that it appears the National Tea Party Federation, by suspending those who dissent from it, is making every effort to destroy the Tea Party movement “from within”--almost sounds like the governance of Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t it.

Those unfamiliar with Dr. Laurie Roth (http://therothshow.com/) should know she is well aware of the reality of the Tea Party movement, of the Tea Party being our movement, a grassroots movement of anyone willing to take a stand against big government, and thus a 15 million strong Voice of We The People. Dr. Roth also has full knowledge of the Tea Party founder Dale Robertson, who has been attacked from the left and has also been attacked by those who formed the National Tea Party Federation. Those at the top of the Federation have done all they can to keep Dale Robertson out of what they want to do with the Tea Party movement because, it appears, this is the Federation's best way to keep the real message of the Tea Party away from media view.

One example of common Progressive hatred and efforts to destroy the Tea Party movement is that Dale Robertson has been the subject of the “racism” charge from all sides, merely for trying to shed light on a term historically used for the politically unrepresented, that we know today “as the n-epithet.”

The Tea Party movement is not a political Party, and to quote one of the members, a historian whose essays on Franklin are most enlightening:

“The "Tea Party Movement" is a MOVEMENT. It begins with the individual. It has no head to cut off. Thus, it cannot be defeated. Beware those who claim to own the sky.”--Tony Rollo (http://www.tonyrollo.com)

The Tea Party movement is not a political party and does not seek to be one. We wish to be a reverberation of the silent majority who sits quietly waiting for November with full knowledge there is nothing the democrat and republican Progressives could do to not be voted out. 

So be well aware of what “Tea Party” you decide to join, and particularly to NEVER speak out against the National Tea Party Federation.  They, like so many others who sell out their nation, only see the Tea Party as an opportunity, as, in true Progressive fashion, to mock America and our Popular Sovereignty, our rights to use of venues they hold out as a place for us to be heard, and, it appears, they must do this on the grounds the rest of us are not smart enough to have this power that is ours in the first place:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”--unanimous Declaration of Independence, 1776.

I believe there is a book by this name, and here it seems most appropriate with a little modification “Behold A Pale Tea Party Trojan Horse, the National Tea Party Federation.”

“NTPF” appears to be the new “government here to exploi....er...help you” by silencing you when you do not agree with their agenda...Now that’s Progressive!


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

Some of you may know of this already, and yet, some may not, so I figured this is great to bring up, particularly right now in light of how our relationship is going with Israel.

Here is an article that recently one needs to login to access:

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

However, if you wish to see the article without logging in at the New York Times and having to see the author's face, you can instead view this article as a prop used to promote Obama during the campaign:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/06/obama_man_of_the_world.php

Now many of us may have heard about this from Jerome Corsi's book about Obama, which is what shed light on this for me. However that was before the election, when the foreseeable outcome of a man with this background, experience, and perspective could not be fathomed with certainty. It is worth noting that the Obama campaign went through a variety of machinations to deny Obama's Muslim upbringing, only to eventually use this as a persuasive point with the anti-war elitist Progressive crowd once the anti-war attitude had been peaked by his anti-Bush rhetoric, and it worked to get him elected.


But today we have another use for this article, quoting from the Article:

"In foreign policy as well, Mr. Obama would bring to the White House an important experience that most other candidates lack: he has actually lived abroad. He spent four years as a child in Indonesia and attended schools in the Indonesian language, which he still speaks.

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office .... He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.


"Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” (Empasis Mine.)


Set aside that Barack Obama is technically an illegal alien from Jakarta and that there is no record of his again being nationalized as an American Citizen after being a Jakarta citizen of Muslim Faith (required at that time in Indonesia to gain citizenship required for schooling).

The issue here is Obama's "less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics" taken too far.

His negotiations with Iran, the open hand stretched out, batted back by Iran. Nukes are now even more likely to happen more swiftly as the November election comes closer and closer and Iran knows the Congress will change. Bush was no more effective than Obama, but at least they had the intel on secret sites to give to Obama to do something with, which has resulted in a political "bowing" to the awesome power of Iran...well the religious zealots running the Muslim State of Iran in any event.

And let's look at his being upset with Israel for asserting their Sovereign prerogative to build where they wish with in their own land, that in some cases is land they won in a war brought to them, which continued to be brought to them and anyone that supports them to this day.

Going a little further back to the "Obama Middle East and Europe Apology Tour" we find even more of this type of "less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics" to the extent of appreciating their act in Obama's "more likely to be aware of their nationalism" as he "once studied the Koran with them," which is to say that Obama himself agrees with Muslim fanaticism as normal, as a form of nationalism, and thus protected speech, protected expression, because, again, Obama "once studied the Koran with them."

A further review this article it appears may also shed light on the White House Kenyan Progressive's view toward amnesty for illegal, undocumented, aliens, like he and his aunt.

And to you Americans who bought the line about "we discovered we spend 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq that could be better used here," (in the United States) how do you like that Obama is seeking another billion for the Iraqi military? (For more on the 10 billion dollar claim, see http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.5.8)

Thank you so much Mr. President for finally having a consistency other than Progressivism: Muslim lust at all costs including Israel. Oh and also thank you for announcing publically that the military strike option is off the table in regards to Iran. How "bold" and Progressive of you Mr. President. I wonder if your family tree shows any relationship to Neville Chamberlain, who negotiated the Treaty with Adolf Hitler to protect Europe days before Hitler's invasion of Europe began...That's not possible, Chamberlain was a conservative...But then again you did run on a platform of "change."


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman


Note: This article and others from me in the future will only be found http://teapartyorg.ning.com and http://changingwind.org.  Arrangements may be made with others, excluding ANY member organization of the National Tea Party Federation.

When you watch this video, my fellow dirty rotten racist Tea Partiers who Charlie Wrangle sees as reminiscent of his days as a civil rights advocate and Progressives in Washington see as "causing trouble" by "taking over the capitol"--funny how we paid for the buildings but are criticized for using them--please make sure to watch it to the end.

I find this informative to my previous article on cultural differences (http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/cultural-differences-not) that the camera finds the truth of the situation once more as to who is really causing trouble and playing on stereotypes. What I mean is that if this is a union organized/affiliated democratic party event then don't you find it particularly revealing that the field director made sure it was the African-American who had the egg? See for me it's the democrat party keeping with the dixiecrat tradition that occurred by this egg throwing incident.

So it is no surprise that the field director carried out the illegal activity of lying to the police while claiming to "innocently" protest. Imagine a police record of that African-America throwing the egg at the bus on orders of his democrat party field director who previously worked for the AFL-CIO, not a pretty picture, but explains why "we're not saying anything" was their end result. My only wish is that Breitbart had placed a citizen's arrest on him for obstructing justice in lying to the police.


Breitbart got a shapshot of the "field director" and put out a call for people to identify him on Big Government.com, and this is what Breitbart found:

"

Quincy Pundit thinks they found him. According to them, this guy is a dead-ringer for Brian Dimarzio.

"Considering Dimarzio is the Field Director for the Nevada Democratic Party and prior to that job, he worked for the AFL-CIO, it seems like a pretty good match. What are the odds that a guy who looks exactly like
our pal in the video also worked for the AFL-CIO and is now the Field Director for the Nevada Democratic Party?" (Full Article at http://biggovernment.com/sright/2010/04/02/did-the-democratic-party...)

It's not DNA evidence but sure seems to be more than enough to suggest that the variety of resistance to We The People, and making every effort to discredit and distort the message of the Tea Party Movement, it seems highly likely the Unions--who aren't corporations, yet are acting like a corporate special interest group with the edge of Tony Soprano while enjoying the privilege of non profit status--are using every mischaracterization trick in the book, their "framework" I guess for a "transparent" America.

To me this is akin to the middle east extremist terror organizations who never count the deaths of those of their opponent as deaths, always characterizing these dead in a manner that treats the death as no loss to anyone, and more importantly justified in the name of their cause to treat these deaths this way.

Also anyone familiar with World War II will know that this field director in the video demonstrated just one of the types of methods of the SS that were used to silence opposition during NAZI rule. If Andrew Breitbart had not been with the Tea Party movement, this could have gone a very different direction, which still could have happened since law enforcement officers are unionized as well. Much to consider.

For the Tea Party movement it seems it is time for any lawyers we have to get involved, I am sure we have enough legal activity to help them maintain their barcard with the 2 pro bono cases a year lawyers have to take.

We need lawyers in order to help those Progressives in Washington, decrying the Tea Pary movement as racist, to find it in their political interest (they obviously have no heart, unless it is politically expedient) to decry their own party for it's bigoted stereotyping hypocritical exploitation of people of color, of women, of every minority in America, solely to gain power so they can mistreat everyone without any resistance. This is the future that stares us in the face if we are unsuccessful in returning this country to the Will of the People.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman


Credits: Drudge Report on Twitter for notifying me of this article by Andrew Breitbart, and a thank you to Quincy Pundit for identifying the union affiliated field director.

This is going to be hard to discuss, but, in light of Al Sharpton’s comments on O’Reilly about the Tea Party slogan, “Take our country back” being a racist slogan, I find this necessary. Of course Bill failed to address that issue, and ended up losing the argument.

Racism is the card pulled from the bottom of the deck as a knee-jerk reaction. I find it in the psychological disposition of victim because a victim is always justified in whatever they do to get out of the position of feeling the victim, even when such position is a persistent driving force, to where there is no time they are not a victim.

Apparently Al Sharpton didn’t know of Lloyd Marcus, or doesn’t regard Michael Steele as being non-white due to not agreeing with him, and this is the crux of the matter.

Al Sharpton is not right in the sense of racism, but he is right in the sense of culture.

The culture that came about from the way our nation was set up by Our Founders, is an American culture. This culture changed from time to time due mostly to innovations until the early 1900s, and then it began to change for a different reason: government imposition.

Of course this change wasn’t telegraphed to people abroad who speak a different language and live differently. So they come here and often have to “fight for their due,” so to speak.

African-Americans were largely brought to America after being sold by their tribes, which Emmitt Smith discovered is still going on in Africa to this day.

What this explains is the difference in culture. Americans want to keep their culture, which by changing due to innovation, this means became a significant part of the culture itself, circular and inclusive.

Our President today embraces a state of mind from his cultural background, surrounded by radicals, particularly racist African-Americans on the south side of Chicago, Mr. Obama has been imprinted with the cultural mindset of these people, “the white man owes me.”

This is not to say President Obama is making sure they get what is owed to them, in the sense of reparations, etc., but it is to say that his actions are filtered through the prism of the culture he came to know very well in building his political regime.

If you are unaware of Chicago being considered the African-American nation’s capital or it’s Vietnam War Protester roots, or the melding of the civil rights momentum with the anti-war movement, then you may not be familiar with the Chicago 7, the yippie movement and the influences these people have today using the very capitalist system they denounced.

Mitch Kapur, famous maker of Lotus 123 who sold the company to IBM, was one of these very people. Today he is wielding his wealth in every way to help with engineering a culture appreciative of central power. Mr. Kapur is a principle in the development of 3D virtual worlds where the company dictates all terms of service and the entire mechanics of the world.

This demonstrates that routine in a culture can imprint a way of thinking, a way of approaching things that tends to become a predatory imposition on another culture. Now, in light of the root of the predatory culture being based on victimhood, the race card must be pulled out to defend the right of that culture to impose itself.

Again, this is how Al Sharpton is right, but his being right is of no significance because it is derived from the same victimhood culture. The idea that Al Sharpton actually said that the word “our” in the phrase, “take our country back” is “obviously racist” is a perfect demonstration of the persistence of victimhood, always watching like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, for that innuendo as a “fact” to play “gotcha” with.

We Americans want our American culture that took root based on America being a free nation, for all people to come and join and become an American in more than name but by being a part of our culture. All cultures are welcome so long as their goal is not to eradicate our history, the basis of the American culture, and instead is to find the compromises necessary to accommodate expression of theirs or that of their ancestors host country as a part of the American culture.

This, my friends is a large component of the battle before us, and it is necessary we recognize this in order to do justice for those who are from another culture and assume it’s purely racial due to their defensiveness of being different to the founders of this nation.

Again this is a difficult subject to broach but it must be done for the sake of our friends who are from a different culture that haven’t come to appreciate America for itself, for its foundations and meaning in a world history that was significantly changed merely by the founding of this nation.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

Taking a bit of a respite and collecting ones thoughts can be a good thing, and the following is the result of such time upon discovery of there being 37-38 states proposing legislation to wrangle in or stop the healthcare bill's intrusion into their State:

"In accordance with the authoring of the Constitution having taken place without the existence of the limited government enumerated thereby;

And pursuant to the powers retained by the states and the people by the 10th Amendment;

We, the states, by and through our desire to save the republic of the United States of America, along with the urgency impressed upon us by the Citizens of our Several States have authored, debated, constructed and ratified this 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

We, 3/4 of the States of the United States, do hereby Re-Assert and Re-Establish ours and our Citizen's role of granting consent to the National Goverment in Washington D.C. over the specific subject matter of inter-state commerce as an international matter to be made regular by regulation carried out by the National Government in accordance with the Will of the People and reaffirm the Constitutional Intention of the enumerated powers granted to the national government in their limited character to this specific purpose under our authority and individual rights identified by the antecedent unanimous Declaration of Independence, of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to which these enumerated powers are limited not to encroach upon in any manner whatever.

We therefore hereby Amend the Constitution for the United States of America to bring an end to oppressive laws that have undermined our republic by impugning, undermining, and liquidating State's Rights and thereby the Citizen's Right and authority, alone or by proxy, for their consent and thus establishment as the government of the Untied States of America as established by the unanimous Declaration of Independence.

We hereby do also make express recognition of the abuses of representation of the Citizens of our Several States that are carried out by the National Government in Washington D.C. as a regular course of business, and that this abuse of representation would not be possible without a variety of legislative enactments that deny the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity and only bring about a subservient role of the Citizen in exchange for more, continued, and repeated abuse in dependency on the National Government that exploits the Citizen's rights in property for sake of a national agenda to squander all that such National Government has demanded and given by the Citizen in good faith, a voluntary servitude the National Government never earned and therefore does not value but to abuse.

The following directives are to re-establish the Founding States' purpose and intentions to assure the national government is guided by a charter of negative liberties and imposes these restrictions upon the federal government immediately upon ratification of this Amendment by 3/4 of the State Legislatures, in like manner as the authoring, debate, and construction of the unanimous Declaration of Independence, germane Constitution of the United States of America, and it's companion Bill of Rights were manifest in the origins of the United States of America, we the States and Citizens of the United States of America do direct by our authority as the Sovereignty of the United States and pursuant to the 10th Amendment:

1- The 14th Amendment is hereby repealed.

2- The Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed.

3- The 16th Amendment is hereby repealed.

4- The 17th Amendment is hereby repealed.

5- Any and all Public Welfare acts that assured dependency of the American people upon the national government shall be phased out over 5 years and repealed by this Amendment.

6- All acts, amendments of any kind whatsoever, whose expansion of national government power was reliant on the above repealed acts, or each other, are hererby repealed.

7- All bureaucracies created by any of the above acts shall be disbanded and their bureaucrats stripped of all accreditation and any emoluments whatever along with any retirement funds to be returned to the United States Treasury.

8- Healthcare is not a right and due to the potential for abuses by government in private matters of the intimate and direct nature to a Citizen's Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, that genetics and nanobot technologies as healthcare treatments can impose upon the Citizen and render their mind other than an individual of their own freewill and Age of Enlightenment Sentience, the Healthcare Act of 2010 is hereby repealed.

9- Any and all acts to establish or otherwise manifest any institution whose operation, character and nature, either by itself or in coordination with other institutions appears in any manner whatsoever to re-establish the institutions disbanded, or, the forms, intention, or character, of these repealed acts, shall be repealed, and any institution thereof disbanded, upon notice of such appearance by 3/4 of the State Governors in agreement.

This Amendment, is amended to the Constitution upon ratification by 3/4 of the states alone and without any necessity for passage by Congress pursuant to the express instructions of Article 5 of the United States Constitution, making succinct distinction between the approval of Congress, prior to the 17th Amendment, that in all cases requires the superior act of ratification by 3/4 of the States as an absolute necessity to achieve any and all Constitutional Amendment, and, is also ratified due to it's nature, purpose and necessity as this particular Amendment is by the Will of the States and the Citizens thereof in assertion of State rights that have long been suppressed by the National Government at the expense of their Citizens and individual liberty being oppressed by the centralization of power and expansion of administrative rule in Washington D.C."


Is this a finished product? No as no one person could do this to the satisfaction of everyone else, particularly in light of me not being Thomas Jefferson. But, in light of the arrogance that was and is being carried on from the Oval Office, just to break the will of the Sovereign in American, We the People, and to quell any semblance of assertive authority by us. The above amendment idea came to mind and seemed all to appropriate to maybe bring about a discussion of what freedom, sovereignty, and being an American mean, and, how this American Character greatly differs to any other nation on Earth, so long as we do not forget the value of our own being, as Americans. This brings great clarity to why history is being pushed out the door, that references to moral equivalence only have meaning when being used against someone with moral values, while not recognizing moral knowledge as a means of measure to know the stench of something that wreaks of heinous violations to the very foundations of individual liberty. All referentials are under attack so as to destroy whatever sense of stability we have, and to assure that there is a constant insanity of repetition that depletes our reserves and breaks us like a soldier in boot camp.

May this bring about some thoughts or considerations, that elevate us above the cesspool and it's central hub dictator that only sees the people as a vehicle of exploitation in his constant progressive Saul Alinksy absorption of power. We can no longer react to that and must take actions, must suggest, explore, brainstorm and pursue well deliberated actions.

The gloves aren't off, we just need to let Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il, Putan, and China know that they aren't the only ones that can slap our President and the absconding incompetence in Washington D.C. around.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman



Note: I apologize for typos and let me know if you find any, my good friend and book author, who proofreads and sees what I don't see is busy finalizing their last book.

Just a few things to share from the Senate bill as passed on December 24th, 2009.

Bart Stupak's reservations with the Senate Bill follow. Basically this is where the actual bifurcation of public funding for abortion to create an allowable category as a matter of health insurance policies occurs.

At Pages 2070-2072 of H.R. 3590, as amended by the Senate:

"5 ABORTION SERVICES.—
6 ‘‘(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF
7 ABORTION SERVICES.—
8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any
9 other provision of this title (or any amendment
10 made by this title)—
11 ‘‘(i) nothing in this title (or any
12 amendment made by this title), shall be
13 construed to require a qualified health plan
14 to provide coverage of services described in
15 subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of
16 its essential health benefits for any plan
17 year; and
18 ‘‘(ii) subject to subsection (a), the
19 issuer of a qualified health plan shall deter
20 mine whether or not the plan provides cov
21 erage of services described in subparagraph
22 (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for
23 the plan year.
24 ‘‘(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—
1 ‘‘(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
2 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services de
3 scribed in this clause are abortions for
4 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap
5 propriated for the Department of Health
6 and Human Services is not permitted,
7 based on the law as in effect as of the date
8 that is 6 months before the beginning of the
9 plan year involved.
10 ‘‘(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
11 FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services de
12 scribed in this clause are abortions for
13 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap
14 propriated for the Department of Health
15 and Human Services is permitted, based on
16 the law as in effect as of the date that is 6
17 months before the beginning of the plan
18 year involved.
19 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL
20 FUNDS.—
21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health
22 plan provides coverage of services described in
23 paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall
24 not use any amount attributable to any of the
1 following for purposes of paying for such serv
2 ices:
3 ‘‘(i) The credit under section 36B of
4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the
5 amount (if any) of the advance payment of
6 the credit under section 1412 of the Patient
7 Protection and Affordable Care Act).
8 ‘‘(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under
9 section 1402 of the Patient Protection and
10 Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if
11 any) of the advance payment of the reduc
12 tion under section 1412 of the Patient Pro
13 tection and Affordable Care Act)."



The politicizing that is built into this bill engenders that H.R. 3590 is not legislation but purely abuse of our political process that is being done in pure arrogance to show they can carry on without the Will of the American People.

Oddly it appears this same politicization has barred the government from using the budget reconciliation process according to the terms of this section:

Page 2028:

"20 (e) GRANTS FOR QUALIFIED INVESTMENTS IN THERA21
PEUTIC DISCOVERY PROJECTS IN LIEU OF TAX CREDITS.—"....

and in particular paragraph 12, on pages 2033-2034:

"24 (12) PROTECTING MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES FROM
25 TAX INCREASES.—It is the sense of the Senate that the
1 Senate should reject any procedural maneuver that
2 would raise taxes on middle class families, such as a
3 motion to commit the pending legislation to the Com
4 mittee on Finance, which is designed to kill legisla
5 tion that provides tax cuts for American workers and
6 families, including the affordability tax credit and
7 the small business tax credit."

To me without proving this bill does not raise taxes on middle class families the Senate has precluded itself from bringing this bill up by Reconciliation.

Another wonderful section, that seems to put the idea of "lawful" in there as though the idea of "right" pursuant to the Bill of Rights is subject to lawful:

Page 2037-2040:

23 ‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN
24 RIGHTS.—
25 ‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—
26 A wellness and health promotion activity imple-
1 mented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require
2 the disclosure or collection of any information relat
3 ing to—
4 ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully5
possessed firearm or ammunition in the resi
6 dence or on the property of an individual; or
7 ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of
8 a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
9 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None
10 of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the
11 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
12 amendment made by that Act shall be construed to
13 authorize or may be used for the collection of any in
14 formation relating to—
15 ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
16 a firearm or ammunition;
17 ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammu
18 nition; or
19 ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or am
20 munition.
21 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA
22 BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Sec
23 retary under the Patient Protection and Affordable
24 Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall
25 be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain
1 records of individual ownership or possession of a
2 firearm or ammunition.
3 ‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PRE
4 MIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSUR
5 ANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health
6 insurance coverage may not be denied, and a dis
7 count, rebate, or reward offered for participation in
8 a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld
9 under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or
10 in accordance with the Patient Protection and Afford
11 able Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on
12 the basis of, or on reliance upon—
13 ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
14 a firearm or ammunition; or
15 ‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm
16 or ammunition.
17 ‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION RE
18 QUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall
19 be required to disclose any information under any
20 data collection activity authorized under the Patient
21 Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
22 made by that Act relating to—
23 ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
24 a firearm or ammunition; or
1 ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of
2 a firearm or ammunition.’’."

Funny how the use of the term lawful is conspicuously in affirmation of the authority of the Government to deem the justness of "firearm" possession, and meticulously itemize this variety of firearms issues in a Healthcare Bill, and entirely unnecessary in light of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" unless the government has agreed we are a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" according to the idea of regulation.


And this here, is toward the beginning of the bill at Page 23:

"3 ‘‘SEC. 2715. DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF UNIFORM
4 EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE DOCUMENTS
5 AND STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS.
6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 months after the
7 date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable
8 Care Act, the Secretary shall develop standards for use by
9 a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering
10 group or individual health insurance coverage, in com
11 piling and providing to enrollees a summary of benefits and
12 coverage explanation that accurately describes the benefits
13 and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage. In de
14 veloping such standards, the Secretary shall consult with
15 the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (re
16 ferred to in this section as the ‘NAIC’), a working group
17 composed of representatives of health insurance-related con
18 sumer advocacy organizations, health insurance issuers,
19 health care professionals, patient advocates including those
20 representing individuals with limited English proficiency,
21 and other qualified individuals." (Emphasis mine.)

Everything from line 14-21 might as well be a list of lobbying groups, and note those who are suffering a catastrophic illness, are not directly represented. Instead they are, as perfectly government controlled as possible, lumped together with "patient advocates." Of course we all agree the groups those absconders with our Liberty, usurpers of Freedom in Washington deem "qualified individuals" right?


I am certain there is much more, as the Secretary, HHS secretary or Treasury Secretary (since the bill is being packaged as an amendment to the 1986 tax law), is mentioned in the document 508 times in the first 507 pages of the 2400 page bill.

The bill can be found in pdf format here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3590


Let's hope Stupak and company have the guts to stand their ground since clearly the exponential growth of power assumption by our administrative D.C. servants does not preclude doing anything to further erode and displace the Sovereign people of America with a Kenyan Dictator's dream.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

Hello sir.

I want to show my conservative Tea Party appreciation to you for taking such a significant stand by sharing what Illinois Senator Obama said in his debate against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. During the campaign he claimed he just argued there is already a law on the books, this is not so. The following is from the actual transcript at pages 85 and 86 of the discussion on March 30, 2001 in the Illinois Senate:

"SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony.

"And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The Second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of constitutionality.

"Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I

-- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present."

Original available from http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf, the pdf is protected so I had to type this in.

I urge you to distribute amongst all pro-life democrats this statement of President Obama's, made in argument against adding language to a bill to protect babies whose birth is induced by a mother trying to abort, and the abortion is botched.

You are doing a great service to our country in voting no on this healthcare bill and I hope you will always do what's right based on the people, as we really need our representatives to represent us.


Thank you and/or your staffer for taking time to read this,


Toddy Littman

Progressive Alex Jones and his following must surely be proud today as Iran's President finally takes the bait and fuel of Progressive promotion of 911 conspiracy theories to agree.  It's so wonderful to see people promote and accept a position that doesn't take into account the actual architecture of the World Trade Center (google Minuro Yamasaki), but relies on innuendo, assumption, and experience in every other field, completely missing where the true conspiracy lies, with the American Institute of Architects, while handing our enemies abroad a tool to divide our people.

Let's see how well this echoes the conspiracy theory:

"(Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday called the September 11 attacks on the United States a "big fabrication" that was used to justify the U.S. war on terrorism, the official IRNA news agency reported."

Gotta love that Terrorist supporting Iranian Dictator's ability to sound like he's broadcasting right to Prison Planet.

It's a short story so let's just put the meat right here:

"Ahmadinejad described the destruction of the twin towers in New York on September 11, 2001 as a "complicated intelligence scenario and act," IRNA reported.

"He added: "The September 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan." He did not elaborate.

"Nearly 3,000 people died in the hijacked airliner attacks on New York and Washington, which were carried out by al Qaeda operatives.

"In January, Ahmadinejad termed the September 11 attacks "suspicious" and accused the West of seeking to dominate the Middle East."  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6251AO20100306

Come on all you wonderfully certain to look at everything but Progressivism types to sit in denial, denial of believing America was so vulnerable, denial that a group of Muslim Extremists could be so smart, and all playing into the hands of Progressives and our enemies abroad who are looking for the limelight, to tear apart our country with another innuendo based controversy because we are so gullible.

Let's look at the Towers of the World Trade Center to get a better idea why this is just denial:

"[1]The Port Authority specified that the complex must have a minimum of 10 million square feet of office space (the Empire State Building  has 2.1 million sq. ft.). Yamasaki did it with a mix of low and
high structures surrounding a large open space. The five-acre plaza, comprising about one-third of the site, was, for him, the essential element in the design, not the grandeur of the two towers. He designed this space to provide "a great relief from the narrow streets and sidewalks of the surrounding Wall Street area." More importantly, Yamasaki writes, in his autobiography A Life in Architecture, "Like many other important plazas in the world, it is designed as an end in itself, to set off the buildings facing it and to create an environment made totally for the pedestrian… an oasis."

"Facing seemingly insurmountable technical challenges, Yamasaki and his team of engineers and architects nevertheless figured out a way to construct the world’s tallest buildings on that site. [2]They had to anchor the towers in granite that was 70 feet below the adjacent Hudson River. To do this they made a "slurry wall," something that engineers had used for a subway system in Milan. Like the hull of a ship, this steel and concrete-reinforced wall kept river water from flooding the 500 by 1000-foot wide area of excavation. [3]Two other innovations – load-bearing exterior walls and a "skylobby" system – substantially increased the amount of useable space on each floor. This enabled Yamasaki to have room for his plaza and still meet the square footage requirement for the center. [4]Like he did with his 20-story IBM building in Seattle, Yamasaki provided structural integrity to the towers by placing steel columns around the outside of the building – 236 of them spaced 22 inches apart. These vertical columns, 1353 feet high, along with the 47 in the central core, provided sufficient support for each floor to eliminate the need for any interior columns. Each tower had 254 elevators. Skylobbys, where people transferred from express to local elevators (on floors 44 and 78), divided the tower into three sections. He stacked the shafts for local elevators that serviced the lower, middle, and upper thirds of each tower one on top of the other. [5]Yamasaki and his team thereby made 75 percent of each floor available for rent, compared with 50 percent per floor in other skyscrapers—and they built those towers for the same cost as a conventional skyscraper half as tall.

1-These buildings were built in a challenging environment, to provide almost 5 times the rent-able space of the Empire State Building for the same cost or less to build.

2-Soils were specially treated.  Any Soils Engineer can tell you how this land had to be kept exactly as it was made to assure the structural support for these buildings.

3-Selfish motives as Yamasaki designed the towers to have an area for himself, square footage outside the area that was sought by the Port Authority to be rented out, grand innovation but unrealistic to potential catastrophes.

4- The most overlooked part of this is the external bearing walls made of 236 columns, 22 inches apart, or 79 columns per side and 1353 ft high, with 47 columns in the central core, so in distributing 100% of the the weight, that's 83% of the weight bearing on the external columns, "sufficient support for each floor to eliminate the need for any interior columns," so there were no interior columns at all, and 17% of the buidling weight bearing on 47 columns in the central core.

5-The only objective, is to create almost 5 times the rentable space at the same or less cost than buildings half the size.

So this was a disaster due to poor and cheap design, to get almost 5 times the rentable space of the empire state building for 1/4 the cost to build something of such capability, on land that had to be treated specifically and have a granite foundation artificially introduced.

Building Codes were not met here.  Sure the buildings fell as intended under the building code, which is the same reason buildings that are demolished fall the same way, they are designed not to "ex-plode" so as to minimize damage, and are instead designed to "im-plode" but not only by demolition, but by any failure of the building's structural support, including cutting the columns on any side or corner of a building where 83% of the structural bearing weigh load is on the external walls.

How did the Terrorists figure this out?  They aren't stupid, and we educate them in the graciousness of being America, to be repaid in this manner.

The previous attempt to bomb the towers by putting a car below the center column which resulted in minimal damage, surely triggered the terrorists to ask "why didn't this thing come down?"  And as Minuro Yamasaki is a celebrated architect for this technological feat, there is great research available about his designs, particularly the World Trade Center.

I submit that the American Institute of Architects have done everything they can to deflect any questioning of their code and responsibility in regard to the World Trade Centers.

I submit that as they codify the International Building Code worldwide as well, they have quite a bit at stake in having this situation be blamed on them.

According to the code, the lower structures are supposed to support the weight of the above floors, and when they do not, it is a structural failure, that is due either to a flaw in the building code or issuance of a waiver to construct the facility without supports meeting those code provisions, for a project of this magnitude, the latter would have required a waiver issuance from the AIA itself as the City and Port Authority would have demanded it to shield themselves from liability.

It is in the best interests of the AIA to have everyone looking everywhere but at them in regard to why these towers fell as they did, compacting cement with the force of gravity from 1300 feet up to the point it was disintegrating as it fell, exploding in some cases due to this magnificent gravitational force that can drop a penny 20 feet into the ground after hitting the concrete sidewalk from that height.

Gravity, chemistry, physics and the structural sciences are required to be the culprits unless we wish to support Ahmadinejad in his current attack on the west in lure of those who believe as he does--are we really going to let this foreign enemy, Ahmadinejad exploit this fracture of our people? Our nation?

Only the future can tell, but if we truly want to take our country back, we need to resolve ourselves to the fact we were attacked, we have enemies, and they are not stupid, otherwise these things will haunt us later and become opportunity to sow the seeds of division that got us stuck with this Progressive "Comrade-in-Chief."

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. Thank you Alex Jones for continuing to exploit those hurt by this tragedy, for helping them not move on, and instead dwell in perpetual distrust of their nation, which only culminated in becoming a political element of the battlecry for "change" in reliance on government to fix itself and election of Barack Hussein Obama.  You're a real piece of work.  I wonder how much the AIA paid you!

This is Senator Byrd's letter to the Senate:



Their conscience for America, American Pride, freedom at as many levels of right of the individual, that is where the opportunity to reach them remains. Their sway toward this take over of a large part of our lives
and our nation is based on the majority of them being lawyers, knowing that to move the jury one must "shock the conscience." As they act as jury in our stead we cannot shock them with the atrocities they can
cite due to a lack of healthcare, affordability, or access due to pre-existing conditions, in the minuscule minority percentage of cases of medical care in the United States of America.

We can shock their conscience of what bipartisanship, what getting something done according to the Will of the People means, and how anything less is oppression.

We can appeal to their memories of father, mother, and the way freedom was taught by them, and ask these legislators if that same freedom can be taught to children today or is it less, and does this legislation move us any closer to the freedom our American ancestors had.

We can bring them to terms with the fact that the imposed cost of mandated healthcare on those who can't afford it, when coupled with collection by the IRS, is healthcare in mockery, and an atrocity against the poor--Our best example citing one of the causes of the economic collapse, Oil, a necessity to modern day life, rose in price so dramatically that those who can barely make ends meet ended up defaulting on their home loans, and our economic house of cards collapsed with the magnitude the terrorists intended of the World Trade
Center collapse on 911.

We can make certain they know we understand that there is a clear and distinct abuse of power when a government is so certain and ready to impose such a heavy hand on a segment of society already barely able to survive.

It is this dramatic reality of their actions that they do not comprehend but that must be brought to their attention in balance to the cancer patient who cannot get healthcare, the insurance companies failing to have a way to fund a situation that is likely to end in death and impossibility to fund the account enough to afford the coverage for the price charged.

These denied healthcare talking points are used as "shock the conscience points," and it is up to us to help them see an even more overwhelming dramatic effect if they pass this bill, the rugged independence of America is sacrificed for their President. These things it would seem are necessary to be brought up along with the myriad other well known and, that they are ready to debate, issues with the healthcare bills.

We need to shock the conscience enough to vote no and hope to hear more from us as to what we truly want as opposed to what they've assumed we are asking for in desire to effect political upheaval irrespective of it only adding to the corruption and destructive character the United States Government is becoming known for throughout all of its people.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

The very first question a free people asks when confronted by law is “By what authority?”

This used to be done by a writ known as a “Quo Warranto” and many states still allow this means of redress of grievance throughout our nation because every single act of government, due to operating according to our purse strings as theirs are entirely built from us, and especially those acts where government is coming against the citizen from an adversarial position, require the citizen have redress of grievance.

Our trouble is that through Progressivism, this very questioning of authority, is viewed to only be allowed to the level of “healthy skepticism.”

We’ve come to a point of believing all possible action is through the election process as well.

We do not take other actions that are at our avail.

For instance, California is in serious financial trouble, yet, the citizens do not avail themselves of the following section of the California Code of Civil Procedure:

“526a. An action to obtain a judgment, restraining and preventing any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate, funds, or other property of a county, town, city or city and county of the state, may be maintained against any officer thereof, or any agent, or other person, acting in its behalf, either by a citizen resident therein, or by a corporation, who is assessed for and is liable to pay, or, within one year before the commencement of the action, has paid, a tax therein. This section does not affect any right of action in favor of a county, city, town, or city and county, or any public officer; provided, that no injunction shall be granted restraining the offering for sale, sale, or issuance of any municipal bonds for public improvements or public utilities.
An action brought pursuant to this section to enjoin a public improvement project shall take special precedence over all civil matters on the calendar of the court except those matters to which equal precedence on the calendar is granted by law.”


California is a state that needs their citizens’ direct action in the interest of saving their state, and in statement to the legislature that the outrageous new taxing schemes (and California government codes do call them “schemes”) that penalize the population of the state for the sake of, among other things, union pension plans and healthcare for illegal aliens, are not necessary and will not be tolerated. But I haven’t heard anyone claiming to have brought this type of action and winning by demonstration of the “illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate, funds, or other property of a county, town, city or city and county of the state,” which would seem pretty easy to do in the current economic and budgetary climate in California.

There may be a proper use of this to bring an end to saving a fish that gets stuck in water pumps in exchange for the loss of 80,000 jobs in California agriculture, the loss of the revenues of thriving cities based on those jobs, and the deterioration of rich farmlands into desert wasteland that will need to be rejuvenated to be used, which adds another expense to the owner or the government down the line.

Clearly there is an “illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate, funds, or other property of a county, town, city or city and county of the state,” in the unemployment of 80,000 people to save a fish. Of course, I forget that, according to Environmentalist Rhetorics Hysteria 101, action against man is necessary, that man’s actions are the ones to be viewed as trespass on the Earth, foreign to the planet, and of less purpose here than any other creature. Funny how “Progressives” never seem to fight those environmentalists, whose entire mission is to thwart “progress.” If I remember correctly, the main reason for this environmental mass destitution is the notion of “man is more intelligent and able to do better,” which may be true.

Yet, even so, it begs the question, “Better by what measure?” Also, so if we can “do better” by increasing production in ways that are worse on the environment, then that should be okay too, as the moral purpose of wealth, to provide work for others of mankind, would be served by greater production, which achieves greater employment, and further achieves helping others lift themselves up to a point of reasonable pride, a sense of honorability, through accomplishment of producing something that people can use and some may even need. With the agriculture issue in California, the “people need” it part of the equation, one would think that could be understood by an amoeba. It is grand how nicely this exposes the environmental idea of man “doing better” has nothing to do with the thriving of mankind.

Honestly, if this environmental thing were real, they’d want people to have work, as then they would be able to afford better cars, better computers, better technology, contribute to environmental causes so these organizations can stop relying on the likes of Progressive George Soros. But, instead, while pushing this phony care for the Earth, their actions inhibit those who need capital the most from attaining it, environmental squelching of the opportunity of one to have their own means. This very result is consistently demonstrated in nation after nation across the world as well as California and other States in America and very well demonstrates just how phony environmental concerns are.

If you are from California, I am sure you know a few areas of local, county, and state government waste that you could enjoin with California Code of Civil Procedure 526a, and help bring the understanding of the rule of necessity and proper use of emergency to the forefront of making hard choices and budgetary decisions in your state.

I am sure similar statutes exist in other states throughout our great nation, and, as Americans, I do hope we have taken on the mantle and meaning of “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

You may all recall the fanfare and audience our imperious Progressive celebrity leader received by announcement after the Superbowl, via his “top gun” Katie Couric, of invitation to have a meeting with the GOP “to discuss healthcare” next week.

Anyone scratch their head and ask, “Mr. President, why didn’t you do that in the first place?”

That’s all that came to my mind. Of course I recognize this invitation admits the leadership of Congress has not had an open door to ideas outside of democrat party circles, to where they say the GOP, or anyone else for that matter, has no ideas--the democrats don’t know, their door is always closed.

But finally the Grandmaster of our nation has admitted with this invitation that he and the democratic party carried out their acts in the shadows, as liars, cheats, and thieves, or, to be Midwestern honest “The Chicago Way.”

Just ask anyone from Illinois, and specifically Chicago, how long it takes to get anything done unless you are already bought and sold by the political machine as a patronage junkee. Also ask them how often someone is shaking someone else down, even Churches!

Yet this situation gets “progressively” worse as Chicago style partisan politics are asserted as the national means of policy making....

The White House, announced they are working on their own merging of House and Senate bills, a reconciliation healthcare bill to be presented for budget reconciliation--the 51 vote option. Fascinating that the President, who was so busy campaigning he was actually absent from the U.S. Senate more often than the number of votes of “not present” he made in the Illinois Legislature, is now LEGISLATING FROM THE OVAL OFFICE to pass a bill with 51 votes that around 70% of the American public is against, and to add further insult to injury in our representative system, before the meeting he scheduled with republicans (breathes very slowly to slow bleeding from the eyes).

What is just beyond belief to me, is that every democrat spoken to about this brings up republican handling of revenue and expenditure legislation, that cut taxes or cut spending, things germane to the budgetary process, the democrats claiming this as their excuse to do the same with healthcare! This seems more like revenge and childish "they did it so we can too" partisan games, and is being done irrespective of the difference in the nature and effect of the healthcare bill. The democrats are going to caste, for the first time in American history, healthcare as a government revenue and/or expenditure bill to get it through, to bring healthcare into being a budgetary item of the government irrespective of the American people wanting healthcare to stay in private hands just with better regulation.

And, since the White House is choosing this option, Obama is unequivocably breaking his promise of bipartisanship to get things done, not that I am all for them working “progressively” together, but that it is HIS promise he is going to additional lengths to break.

It appears the Tea Party, and Scott Brown, have forced the Progressives to press the accelerator even harder, to try to do all the damage they could do to America in 4 years, in the next 10 months!

Let us hope a some Tea Party nudging will effect a few democrats, as they still have the most seats, to come to recognize that passing healthcare like this is the most violent act of abuse of the American People that the democrat party could ever carry out.

And, if they do pass healthcare this way, let us all make certain to tell the world, “Barack Hussein Obama and the Progressives exacted vengeance against the American People by passing healthcare like this. This is a vengeance that is equivalent to Saddam Hussein firing missiles of mustard gas on 400,000 Kurd and Iraqi men, women and children, his own citizens, in Northern Iraq!”

It is our will, our conscience, our necessity, our known and accepted role, to be a beacon of hope to people of all nations who want a better life, one based on freedom. And this is a historic role, one that has assured mankind will be free. A role that no longer exists when under an oppressive regime of elite, class baiting, rhetorical Progressives, who appear bound and determined to break the individual American Spirit.

In a dictatorship we expect the ruler to disregard, abuse, and exploit their people, but not in the American Republic, where the people are the sovereignty of the nation and not the national government.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

Well actually President Obama is agreeing with the American People without knowing it. Just go to the following link and scroll the video to 40:19 and let it play.

http://www.youtube.com/v/R5vOMIN673A

You’ll find President Obama arguing with Dr. Tom Price from Georgia, that HR 3400, the Republican Healthcare Proposal that does all that the President wanted but without raising taxes one penny, is, according to President Obama,.....


“just not true, you can’t structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing.....It’s not enough, if you say, for example that we’ve offered a healthcare plan....Specifically it’s gotta work. There has to be a mechanism in these plans that I can go to an independent healthcare expert, and say, ‘is this something that will actually work?’ Or is it boilerplate?”


Isn’t that what we’ve all been saying while Reid and Pelosi have pushed for as much nationalization of healthcare as they can in both of their bills and with the President saying the bills "save money" or are "deficit neutral?"

But to exacerbate the intellectual elitism of our Progressive President, Obama further argues against tort reform, citing a lack of significant savings, “....But the CBO, or other experts, say to me, at best this could reduce healthcare costs, relative to where they are growing, by a couple of percentage points, or save 5 billion dollars a year, that’s what we can score it at, and, it will not bend the cost curve long term, or reduce premiums significantly, then you can’t make the claim that’s the only thing that we have to do.”

Intellectual elitism is established here because Mr. Obama demonstrates a perfect lack of understanding of tort reform in regard to the healthcare issue. Arizona, for example, has a lack of medical doctors available to take care of patients. The reason is that the cost of liability insurance has left it virtually impossible for doctors to carry on business with a profit. This shortage of doctors drives the price of healthcare up due to the basic laws of supply and demand and is why the doctors we have are able to be profitable. Thus the ratio of doctors to patients can’t be increased without sacrificing the success of the current doctors and, at the same time, the opportunity for new doctors.

Of course in typical lawyer fashion, Obama knows nothing, and needs to have some expert of one kind or another tell him what will or won’t work, and, that verification is how he derives if what is proposed will work or not. To me this reliance on experts is one hell of an opportunity for lobbyists.

Let’s imagine if we could get twice as many doctors as we have competing in the marketplace for residency and the market of people who need medical care, and prices would come down. Of course then government would have no reasonable basis to claim a need for government to control healthcare merely to assure 15-30 million people are covered by a medical policy (5-10% of the entire population of the United States). This is an inequity to suggest, let alone pass, a law to displace the comfortable consumer market of current healthcare that is enjoyed by 90% of Americans merely to assure 10% or less have a means to get healthcare. I believe the term “over reaching” is in order, but another more juvenile yet appropriate term could be used here “unnecessary drama.”

Our economy is fragile enough as it is, and proposing this type of reckless legislation, legislation that does not even impute the impact of tort reform on the equation, is a very quick way to destabilize what little we can see with any sort of stability, as even a bad system has predictability, and thus is one less area of worry, one less thing to think about in the midst of worry about ones employment, eating, feeding their family etc.

Lastly, of course the idea President Obama put forth, "that it costs nothing" is in telling counter-distinction to "doesn't raise taxes a penny" and reveals that Mr. Obama feels taxes are indicative of cost, the notion that government is the answer and must spend, must have a cost, for there to be any "meaningful change," and without such cost, it is just the status quo and what we've done for 8 years, irrespective of private enterprise being the engine of America for over 200 years in fact!


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman


*Note:  Reposted from another blog because this particular point sure seems like it's being ignored....More to come regarding Obama's comments on energy and how his response, as I am mentioning here, is in absolute contrast to his reply to the GOP stimulus notion of "creating twice as many jobs for 1/2 the cost."  Arrogant narcissist spin doctors are so much fun!