IWA for Sunday 031311

Constitutional Amendments requested from the Left.
Hey folks,

Time to wrap things up with the Idiot of the Week. This week was REALLY easy. Now the founding Fathers DID put into place a provision and a method, to amend the Constitution if need be, due to the changing times. However, they made it clear that the core, and basic Constitution was non-negotiable.

So we have an amendment process. such as the First, Second, Third, ETC. Lets look at them.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay

OK, so times change a bit. Here we are in 2011. What are some Constitutional Amendments that some on the Left want to add to this list? Amendment 28 - A Right to a decent Home, 29 - A Right to Medical Care, 30 - A Right to a decent Education, complete with a iPod and a Laptop to EVERY Student. I'm NOT making this stuff up. Our Idiot of the Week, ACTUALLY made THIS Statement on the Floor of the House

"Mr. Speaker, I believe that the answer to long-term unemployment is actually in the Constitution of the United States.

Well, let me say that a little differently. It's not in the Constitution of the United States. It should be in the Constitution of the United States, and one of these days we're going to get there.

We need to add to the Constitution the right to a family to have a decent home. What would that do for home construction in this nation? What would that do for millions of unemployed people?

He says we need to add to the Constitution the right to medical care. How many doctors would such a right create?

He says we need to add to the Constitution of the United States the right to a decent education for every American. How many schools would such a right build from Maine to California? How many people would be put to work building roofs and designing classrooms and providing every student with an iPod and a laptop? How many ghettos and barrios will actually be touched by such an amendment?

In fact, very little that we pass in the Congress of the United States even touches the long-term unemployed. Only thing that touches them that this Congress has access to, that can actually change their station in life, is the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, there's an even greater America that's in front of us. It's the America that adds to our founding document these basic rights."

I'm not sure who "HE" is, but it is Jesse Jackson Jr. making this Statement on the Floor of the House. What appears to be a pretty empty House. Here, watch it for yourself.


So there you have it folks. Jesse Jackson Jr. and TRUST me, he is not alone, wants to add to the Constitution, The Right, which means the Government must provide, Housing, Healthcare, Education, and Free iPods and Laptops. That's right. Government Housing, Obamacare, and Education where the Government sets the criteria. You got it. USSA in full blown glory.

Sorry Jr. but you ARE the Idiot of the Week, and most definitely in the running for Idiot of the Year. It is amazing. People like you {Liberal Leftists} do not LIKE the Constitution. You do not LIKE Free Speech, Gun Rights, nor Property Rights, You do not like Powers of the State. Yet, you know, there is no way around these without a full Amendment to do away with them. So you want to add Government Housing, Obamacare, Education {Complete with free Laptops and iPods to the kiddies} TO the Constitution? Well, then you know that the Government will control ALL these things and no one will be able to do much about it. It's in the Constitution. Right? Idiot.
Peter

Obama and Crew Crying Over Judge Ruling

Kettle, Black?

Hey folks,

This is too good. So just Monday, Federal Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. Two thirds of the American People, 26 States, and MANY in Congress agree with this Judge. What is the White House response? The Judge is out of touch. He is "well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion"The Judge? Try anyone that SUPPORTS Obamacare. THEY are the ones that are well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion, or ANY opinion.

Look, what you heard all day, and what you are most likely to hear in the Days to come, is that it's tied. Two to Two. Two Judges ruled for Obamacare, Two ruled against. That this means nothing. The is simply not true. This Judge, and THIS Ruling KILLS Obamacare. Period.

So what is their response? Attack the Judge.

"The analysis is on the whole is, to put it charitably, unconventional," said one official. Another said repeatedly that it is an "outlier" that contradicts other rulings.

And this.

In a blog post on the White House website, Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Adviser Stephanie Cutter wrote that the case is "is a plain case of judicial overreaching."

"We don't believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts," she added.

The TRUTH is, this Reagan appointed Judge, looked at the Law, looked at the Constitution, and ruled that due to the lack of a severability clause, the whole thing is unconstitutional. Because you cannot separate, the MANDATE that all buy insurance being unconstitutional, you must rule the whole thing unconstitutional. And this BS you may have heard or read about it being OK for Obamacare to proceed while the appeals are pending? Total BS. The Judge NEVER said that. He KILLED Obamacare. He even quoted Obama while doing it.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Now the White House is trying to COMMAND other States to flat out IGNORE this Ruling.

The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.

So forget what this Ruling says? Wrong. We need to, and so do they, like it or not, listen to this Ruling. Obamacare IS unconstitutional. He KILLED it. For now. A higher Court may over ride this, but for now, it's dead.

OH By the way. Remember what I said yesterday?

Just wait, the Left will be blaming Talk radio on the Judges decision. Just wait.

And?

Like what? He listens to Rush Limbaugh? {Laughing} Just wait folks. Just Wait.

{Laughing} Get this? This is from News Works - A judge's weak tea February 1, 2011 By Dick Polman

But what's astonishing, to the point of mystification, is the content of the new ruling. It blends the ideological spin of a tea-party partisan with the intellectual heft of a Palin.

Then he said this.

I felt like I was like reading a transcript from Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

Told you so. This is a Blogger, and you can find many others out there saying the same type of things. They attack what they fear. Palin and Rush, Talk Radio, and Fox News. They ONLY attack that of which they fear. {Laughing} Do not worry, the MMD {Mainstream Media Drones} will not be that far behind. {Smile}

All those fighting to repeal this, keep it up. Do not rely on or count on the Courts. Kill this thing dead. Make it pointless to continue in the Courts. If you can, then it's looking pretty good in the Courts as well. It IS unconstitutional. It needs to be killed. 26 States, Two Thirds of the American People, the MAJORITY of the House, and MANY in the Senate, KNOW this is wrong, and want it gone. Make it so.
Peter

Sources:
CBS News - White House Fires Back at Ruling Declaring Obama's Health Care Law Unconstitutional, Calls Decision "Judicial Activism"
Washington Times - Judge rules against health law, cites Obama’s words
News Works - A judge's weak tea

Nullification, States Strike Back.

This is a two parter.

Hey folks,

What is Nullification?

Back in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his "Kentucky Resolution," a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France, that "nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts... is the rightful remedy."

Three decades later, South Carolina Sen. John Calhoun pushed nullification of federal tariffs that many in the South deemed discriminatory toward agricultural slave states. President Andrew Jackson readied the military, before a compromise defused the situation.

In 1854, Wisconsin also sought to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act that forced non-slave states to return escapees.

And more recently, Arkansas defied the federal government's order to desegregate public schools after the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

Basically the States are saying we will NOT adhere to the Federal Mandates when it comes to Obamacare, or anything else they feel is immoral or unjust. Anything that goes AGAINST their People's Will, they will simply refuse to acknowledge. Now of course when the Federal Government attempts to use the courts, they mostly win. They site the Supreme Courts assertion that the Constitution's Article VI mandating U.S. laws, when vetted by justices, "shall be the supreme law of the land." But that is not stopping OVER half the States from fighting what they see as an out of control, tyrannical Government.

According to AP - GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight By JOHN MILLER, Associated Press John Miller, Associated Press – Wed Jan 26, 2:56 pm ET

BOISE, Idaho – Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states are reaching into the dusty annals of American history to fight President Obama's health care overhaul.

They are introducing measures that hinge on "nullification," Thomas Jefferson's late 18th-century doctrine that purported to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters.

GOP lawmakers introduced such a measure Wednesday in the Idaho House, and Alabama, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming are also talking about the idea.

Now again, many are fighting against this. Mostly those in FAVOR of Obamacare. But it should be interesting to see how this pans out.

Don't forget folks, the Federal Government IS the Topic of the Constitution. Not the States. The Constitution LIMITS the POWER of the Federal Government, and it HINDERS the Power of the Federal Government over the WILL of the People and the STATES. But as with so many other things, like "The Wall," there are some that want to say the Constitution says the exact OPPOSITE of what it actually says and attempt to USE it to further and to protect THEIR agendas.

Don't forget, over half the States are actively SUEING the Federal Government OVER Obamacare. But this Nullification is just ONE tool that they are using. But if you look around, you will see it's NOT the only one.

Be right back.
Peter

Federal Judges Can Void The Constitution?

Have you HEARD about this ANYWHERE?

Hey folks,

This is just plain scary. Have you heard about this?

United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution PR Newswire

ATLANTA, Nov. 13, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year.

Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.

The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:

Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?

Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?

Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).

Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it all up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).

Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."

Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.

Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"

Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."

The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.

Now you might say that you do not care about this. What does this case of one Grandpa have to do with you? A LOT. It's not necessarily JUST this case. As with a case like Roe Vs Wade.

In September 1969, one Woman, known at the time as "Jane Roe" filed a Lawsuit against Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade. She, AKA, Norma L. McCorvey, pregnant with her third child, wanted an Abortion. She first attempted to scam her way into a Legal abortion by claiming she was Raped, but that was a lie. So after some doing, she got a couple of Bleeding heart Liberals to take the case. She won.

Just like this, you could say, so? What does that have to do with me? Well, NOW we know. Don't we? Now based on THAT case, it has been determined, wrongly, that a Woman has a "Right" to Murder her own Child at whim and Will. This case can have a MUCH farther reaching effect.

That Case dealt with One Woman, now ALL Women are under this precedent until Sanity prevails and it is Repelled. However, THIS case, if the Supreme Court Rules AGAINST William M. Windsor, they will set a precedent. In essence, they will indeed say that Federal Judges, which of course will include the Highest Court, will no long be bond by the Constitution. In essence, they are ruling on the Rule of Law itself. Let's Hope that they do the Right thing here.

We already have had Presidents, Administrations, and a Congress, that have circumvented, ignored, and completely VIOLATED the Constitution. Now we have a Case before the Supreme Court that could make the Constitution the great, unwavering, solidified Law it is, or null and void all together. This may not seem like much now, but how will it look in 20, 30, 40 years? That is the question we need to ask.
Peter

The First Amendment, Evolution

Most completely ignorant.

Hey folks,

So here I was yesterday listening to Talk Radio. I almost turned it off. Yes. I love Talk Radio. I love the show I was listening to. But the SHEER IGNORANCE of some of the callers on this, were driving me mad. Seriously. I'm not trying to be insulting here, it was and unfortunately IS, a fact.

The topic being discussed was about this now infamous Political debate, about Evolution being taught in the Public Schools and Creationism being forbid. One of the Candidates asked "Where is the Separation of Church in State in the Constitution?" Rhetorical of course, KNOWING that it is not there. Well the opponent said what a lot of people have been taught, incorrectly, "The First Amendment."

OK. The First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That some want you to believe, gives the Government the RIGHT to dictate where and when you practice your Faith. Wrong.

First, the Constitution is a Freedom Document. It is a Document to impede the Government from interfering in the lives of the People. To hinder the Government, if the Government becomes too tyrannical. It has NOTHING to do with the States. That's point one.

Two. Look at what is written again. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Anyone with a Grade School Education can clearly see that the word here is establishment. Which means to create from nothing. To set forth. To ESTABLISH something. In other words, the Government {Federal} can NOT create and Establish a Federal Church. They can not create Obamaism, then create laws FORCING Citizens to worship at the Alter. They can not take your Money, to support Obamaism. Nor can they tell you that you must be an Obamaite, in any way. Freedom OF, not FROM, Religion is one of the main reason we are here to begin with. We got out from under the thumb of the Church of England, and the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that a New Federal Church never came into being. It has NOTHING to do with protecting people from Religion. It has EVERYTHING to do with protecting Religion from the Government.

Then this, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means I CAN Pray in Church, Government buildings, Public Places. It MEANS I CAN put up a Cross on the Holidays, or post the Ten Commandments in my Government Office. The Constitution GIVES me that right. It does not PROHIBIT it. Every time you see the Government, or the Courts, tell someone they can not do this or that, Religious Wise, THEY are violating the Constitution. That includes God in Schools.

Then the conversations went to Evolution Vs Creationism. We have talked about this before. It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does God. Science ACTUALLY DISPROVES Evolution minus a Creator. Mathematics does as well. Something from something is something, something from nothing is something. Nothing from Nothing equals Nothing. There HAS to be a first something for something to become.

Then you have DNA. With all the advancements in our understanding in DNA, we understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE for all life to come from ONE single cell organism. Trees, plants, Hot Blooded, Cold Blooded, ETC.

So to believe in Creation, you must believe that there was an Intelligent Being that creating all that is. Evolution minus that Creator, has you to believe that there was something that just appeared from nothing, and from that something, came all we have today from all plant life, fish, birds, snakes, flies, ants, People. So which takes more faith?

I understand and agreed. If you are going to teach one THEORY? Then teach BOTH. The Constitution does NOT restrict the teaching of the THEORY of Creation, anymore than it restricts the THEORY of Evolution.
Peter

Commerce Clause Back Door To Socialism

So saith the Kooks.

Hey folks,

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So, now we have the script, from the Left, that it is the Commerce Clause that makes it Constitutional for Congress to FORCE you to buy Obamacare and FORCE you to allow the Government to take over, well, ANYTHING they chose. It doesn't. Some even know that. But that is not stopping them from "Assuming" it does.

When Senator Kent Conrad was asked if he could point to the section in the Constitution that permits this, he said this.

“No, but I’ll refer you to the legal counsel for the Senate and they’re the ones that lead there as the full legal basis for the individual mandate -- and I assume it’s in the Commerce clause.”

At least he admitted that he is no Constitutional Lawyer. When our old friend, you know her, you love her, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) was asked the same question, she answered the same way.

The health care bills in both the House and Senate require that every American purchase a health insurance policy. At the Capitol on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Feinstein: “Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority for an individual health insurance mandate?”

Feinstein said: “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."

CNSNews.com followed up by asking Sen. Feinstein whether this broad power had any limits: “If there’s a health insurance mandate, is there a limit to that authority? Is there something that can’t be mandated?”

Feinstein responded: “My own view is that there is not, within health insurance.”

Yup. NO LIMITS. In their minds, this is an excellent way to open up all kinds of things. A back door to Socialism. So just how expansive is the Commerce Clause?

Wickard v. Filburn that was decided by the Supreme Court in 1942 is a good study. Filburn was a Farmer who was fined by the Kooks in Government at the time, because he harvested more Winter Wheat on his property than the amount that was approved by the Agricultural Adjustment Act. What is that? It is where the Government Limited Farmers to Eleven Acres. Franklin D. Roosevelt praised the "sound, consistent measure" of the "Conservation of National Soil Resources." AKA Kook, liberal Socialistic policy, and later to be found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Well, Filburn harvested an additional twelve acres that he was going to use for personal consumption only. The Kooks in power would have none of that. They slapped him with a Fine that he refused to pay. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and they unanimously ruled against Filburn, because any wheat that he personally consumed would not then be purchased on the open market. So they decided that THIS indirectly affected Interstate Commerce. None of this is even remotely connected to the Clause, but that did not stop them then. It's not going top stop THIS group of Kooks NOW.

This is why Obamacare is so important to them. Regardless of the form that any new Obamacare plan takes, the Government’s involvement, will exercise full authority to select your Doctors and Hospitals. They will DICTATE to you the Treatments you receive as each of these Providers and Procedures will be fully regulated by the Government. There will be rationing, regardless of the promises made. There will be long waits as well as treatments withheld because any one specific case may not be deemed worthy of the expense.

This is something else they are attempting to lie about. Life and death judgments will now be decided by someone other than the person affected or their family. These are the apparent things that can be envisioned because they are readily observable around the world. Anywhere you chose to look with a Socialistic Medical System in place.

Then you have them using this as a back door to Socialism itself. In the interest of saving money on "Healthcare," they will start dictating and regulating your everyday behaviors by simply relating them to healthcare in some manner, no matter however indirect it may be. Some of your habits that will begin to be attacked by them right from the get go? Smoking, Alcohol usage, Soda consumption, Exercise habits, the Foods you eat and how often etc. This will lead to your Hobby. How dangerous are they? Skydiving, Racing, going for long hikes, Skiing? Then every day activities. How long is your commute? What about your job itself? Firefighter? Cop? How dangerous is what you do for a living?

From cradle to the grave, from Sun up, to Sun down, the Government will be watching. More than watching, they will be DICTATING to you What, When, How, and Why. Talk about Big Brother. Where oh where are the Hippies of today?
Peter

Sources:
CNS