Are Medical Entrepreneurs Parasites? The Government Believes They Are by William L. Anderson

I’ve not posted since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the insurance mandate of Obamacare, and am leaving much of the back-and-forth to other writers. Peter Schiff writes that if the government really does have the authority to levy a “tax” upon any citizen who does not purchase what the government demands they buy, then there really are no more checks on the power of government.

(“The Rand Paul Detainment”) ~ The Paul Detainment and Metastasizing Executive Power: Another Progressive Triumph by William L. Anderson

One only had to wonder how long it would take before there would be open confrontation between a member of Congress and the TSA, and it finally happened with the detainment (and that is what it was) of Rand Paul in Nashville on Monday. That was bad enough, but when one takes into account the larger picture of separation of powers, it is even worse.

Image via Wikipedia

Many years ago, I asked then-Tennessee U.S. Senator Jim Sasser in a public forum why Congress did not have to obey the laws it imposes on the rest of us. Sasser, unfortunately, answered by saying that the Senate was full of the greatest people he ever had known, which was not a real answer, but neither was Sasser exactly a bright bulb of knowledge. To him, the whole thing was a power play, and he had power, and I didn’t.

Except that Sasser unknowingly had a very important principle on his side, the separation of powers as listed in the U.S. Constitution. (I have to thank Lew Rockwell for pointing out this issue to me, and I admit it opened my eyes to a lot of things regarding the law and the growth of executive power.)

The founders of the United States had laid out three branches of the central government, and also had constructed legal walls between the central government and the states, all known as “separation of powers.” There were to be limits upon the powers of people in those entities, and in the case of Congress and the executive branch, one of the provisions was the prohibition upon detaining members of Congress on their way to legislative sessions. As Mac Slavo has written, this provision existed to keep political rivals, be they in legislative, state or the executive branches, from using arrests as political tools to prevent legislators from voting.

A Tale of Two State-Sponsored Killings by William L. Anderson

A Tale of Two State-Sponsored Killings by William L. Anderson

A Tale of Two State-Sponsored Killings by William L. Anderson:

Before Brewer was to be killed, he declined to make a statement; Davis, about to die, calmly expressed one last time that he did not do what he was about to be killed for allegedly doing.

They were different men, different events, yet they are tied together and not just because they were executed on the same date in the same country.

Would Troy Davis have supported the execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer? Would Lawrence Russell Brewer have supported the execution of Troy Davis? I don’t know. What I do know is that when it comes to state-sponsored killings, all principles are discarded. People become what they have hated, and supposedly-principled people become the worst of hypocrites.

People who say they are “pro-life” try to justify executions in that same light. John Ashcroft, who lost his U.S. Senate election in 2000 to a dead man, had enraged black voters in his state of Missouri because he single-handedly denied the appointment of a black judge to the federal bench because Ashcroft claimed that the judge “was soft on the death penalty.”

Yet, Ashcroft was one of the most staunchly anti-abortion members of Congress and always was feted by “pro-life” groups for his legislative actions…………….

MORE…..

via BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ NOW!: A Tale of Two State-Sponsored Killings by William L. Anderson.

Congress and Obama: We Need More Innocent People in Prison by William L. Anderson

This past year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down much of the “Honest Services Fraud” law that federal prosecutors were using as the catch-all for targeting whomever they wanted to have thrown into prison. As I wrote two years ago, this law was the ultimate prosecutorial weapon for people who already have an arsenal of injustice.

*****

We Need More Innocent People in Government Cages
According to Obama and Congress. Article by Bill Anderson.

*****

Well, just when you thought it was safe to go back into the courtroom, the Obama administration and the U.S. Senate want to tag team in order to give federal prosecutors the power to send anyone they choose to prison, no matter if the accused has committed a crime or not. For readers who think I am exaggerating, think again. As I wrote in 2009:

You might not have robbed a bank or stolen anything, or engaged in any of the 10,000 “crimes” that federal prosecutors have in their buffet line, but I can guarantee that you are “guilty” of “honest services fraud.” Have you ever taken a longer lunch break than what you are supposed to do? Have you ever made a personal phone call at work or done personal business on your employer’s computer? Have you ever had a contract dispute with an employer or a client? All of those things can be criminalized by an enterprising federal prosecutor.

If you are an attorney and have signed forms even though you have not read every word in them (for example, the standard closing documents for real estate), then you have committed “honest services fraud.” The list goes on and on, but most likely by now you have the picture: you are guilty even if you never are placed in the dock in federal criminal court.

One would think that with the USA housing a fourth of the world’s prisoners and the building of prisons being a boom industry, that someone in Washington might be ashamed of this state of affairs. But, as the Wall Street Journal has noted, Obama and members of Congress apparently believe that the prison jobs/slavery process must go on:

Since the Supreme Court limited the definition of “honest services” fraud in last year’s landmark Skilling v. U.S., the Obama Administration has been looking for a way to restore essentially unlimited prosecutorial discretion to bring white-collar cases. Last fall Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer told a Senate committee that Congress should act to “remedy” the Court’s decision. Three bills moving through the House and Senate would try to do so, expanding the reach of prosecutors to go after unpopular politicians or businesses whom they can’t pin with a real crime……………………….

MORE…

via Congress and Obama: We Need More Innocent People in Prison by William L. Anderson.

The Reich Class: The USA’s Modern Bourbons by William L. Anderson

The Reich Class: The USA’s Modern Bourbons by William L. Anderson

The Reich Class: The USA’s Modern Bourbons by William L. Anderson: “A video by former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has been making the rounds, as Reich (who now is teaching at the University of California-Berkeley) claims to have ‘solved’ our economic problems. What is the problem, according to Reich? Marginal taxes are not high enough.

Indeed, as we shall see, Reich represents a class of people who yearn for the 1950s, when a third of the workforce was unionized, people ‘believed in government,’ tax rates were high, industries such as banking, railroads, airlines, and trucking were tightly regulated, and Americans were fed the kind of news via Progressive newspapers and a regulated broadcast media that the ‘Reich Class’ believed they should have. If one can liken this group to any in history, it would be the Bourbon Dynasty, of which Tallyrand once said, ‘They learned nothing and they forgot nothing.’”

Posted by Gunny G at Tuesday, July 19, 2011

via BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984(+): The Reich Class: The USA’s Modern Bourbons by William L. Anderson.

The Casey Anthony Verdict: Jurors Did the Right Thing by William L. Anderson

Nancy Grace is livid. She had been shilling for months for a conviction of Casey Anthony for allegedly murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, and now the jury has acquitted Anthony of murder charges. What’s a gal like Nasty Nancy to do?

Perhaps the first thing that Nasty Nancy should do is to read the laws of this country, and learn the standards that supposedly exist for conviction. Even though Nasty Nancy’s standards for conviction are simple – an accusation automatically means one is guilty – the legal standard actually is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(One must remember that Nasty Nancy during the Duke Lacrosse Case, in which she automatically declared the lacrosse players guilty of gang rape, actually tried to claim that the legal presumption of innocence was a creation of Hitler’s Germany. I’m serious.)

During the trial of Casey Anthony, the prosecution managed to establish what people already knew:

* The skeletal remains found were those of Caylee and there was duct tape sticking to her skull;

* Casey lied to the police about a number of things;

* Casey denied murdering her daughter;

* Casey was not a person of the highest character.

via The Casey Anthony Verdict: Jurors Did the Right Thing by William L. Anderson.