Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Truth About the Health Care Bills [A Constitutional lawyer has read the entire bill]
email ^ | Posted August 12, 2009 | Michael Connelly

Posted on 10/14/2013 8:50:54 AM PDT by Slyfox

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.

I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last
I wonder if Nancy Pelosi has finished reading it yet?
1 posted on 10/14/2013 8:50:54 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

“... This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.”

:::::::::::::

Been saying this for years now. Thank You, John Roberts.


2 posted on 10/14/2013 8:55:13 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Nanacy Pelosi does not HAVE to read any of the provisions of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010” - none of it applies to her anyway.

She is SPECIAL, doncha know.


3 posted on 10/14/2013 8:55:30 AM PDT by alloysteel (Those who deny natural climate change are forever doomed to stupidity. AGW is a LIE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
The key:

In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated.

4 posted on 10/14/2013 8:57:37 AM PDT by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

FUJR, FUNP, FUBO, FU DemonRats!


5 posted on 10/14/2013 8:57:54 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (If Americans were as concerned for their country as Egyptians are, Obama would be ousted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
OK. Here’s a question for brighter minds than mine. Roe v. Wade established the “right to privacy.” I personally believe that the right to privacy is inherent in the unenumerated rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment, although I don’t believe it is applicable to the abortion issue, but that’s a subject for another day.

So the question is: If the right to privacy designated in Roe v. Wade is widely accepted (especially by leftists) as the Law of the Land, wouldn’t that mean that the government has no right to our personal healthcare information?

Doesn’t that put Obamacare at odds with Roe v. Wade, and thus render it unconstitutional? Of course I realize that the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be constitutionally valid, but that is because the right to privacy was never brought up in the arguments to be considered, nor addressed in the Court’s decision.

If the right to privacy were to be invoked before the Supreme Court, wouldn’t the court have to rule Obamacare unconstitutional on that basis alone? Or else would they rule that the right to privacy only applies to abortion, a ruling which would be absurd on its face. See Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Or am I missing something?

6 posted on 10/14/2013 8:58:07 AM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

That poor man. Have the Thorazine handy for him...


7 posted on 10/14/2013 8:58:52 AM PDT by null and void (I'm betting on an Obama Trifecta: A Nobel Peace Prize, an Impeachment, AND a War Crimes Trial...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

No.


8 posted on 10/14/2013 9:01:19 AM PDT by the anti-mahdi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Nazi Pelicanosi has no need to read it. She and her family have been exempted from it. She knew from the beginning what it was intended to accomplish and as a good democrip thug she loves it. Now we see why the pirate Roberts was placed at the head of the subPreme Court. He is a globalist sock puppet and traitor to America. he will do as he is told because someone has the blackmail data to control him. John Roberts is without any honor or integrity, the grinning littleman quisling scum.


9 posted on 10/14/2013 9:03:14 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

It’s impossible to read this Bill. The narrative is interrupted by so many references to other statutes and regulations that the reader would have to sit in the middle of a law library with a half dozen aides at hand to look up the references. It’s worse than a trainwreck.


10 posted on 10/14/2013 9:03:52 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the anti-mahdi

A bullet point version would be more effective IMHO


11 posted on 10/14/2013 9:03:57 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
That why it is important to fight this law to the end.

this is their coup de grâce of the constitution. .

12 posted on 10/14/2013 9:05:34 AM PDT by oldbrowser (The debt limit is the emergency brake on government spending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

bump


13 posted on 10/14/2013 9:06:14 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Producing Talk Show Prep since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

> It’s impossible to read this Bill.

That’s what they’re counting on...


14 posted on 10/14/2013 9:06:16 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

In a “ normal” world maybe???


15 posted on 10/14/2013 9:07:26 AM PDT by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: the anti-mahdi

No what?


16 posted on 10/14/2013 9:07:45 AM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

“Thank You, John Roberts.”

No kidding. He threw the Constitution in the trash with his ruling. This law was patently unconstitutional on its face for all the reasons outlined in the article.

Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, the Constitution is dead. The executive no longer recognizes any restraint on his power from any other branch of government. And the government no longer recognizes any restraint on its power over the people.

All the talk of “America as the land of the free” is now just bullsh** propaganda to feed to gullible third grade kids.


17 posted on 10/14/2013 9:11:20 AM PDT by henkster (Communists never negotiate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

bump’


18 posted on 10/14/2013 9:14:14 AM PDT by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
It’s worse than a train wreck.

Thank the Lord it is a train wreck.

19 posted on 10/14/2013 9:15:35 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Good stuff but who is going to do something about it. Tea Party? GOP, etc. We are toast.


20 posted on 10/14/2013 9:15:51 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zot; Interesting Times; NYer

Worth reading.


21 posted on 10/14/2013 9:17:01 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

You can trace NObammy’s releasing of the hounds to that one pivotal moment when he was told the Constitution meant nothing anymore.


22 posted on 10/14/2013 9:18:34 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

I’m going way out on a limb here, but I am speculating that not all the Supreme Court Justices have read the entire bill either.


23 posted on 10/14/2013 9:20:34 AM PDT by Zuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Why would obama want the “executive branch” to have this much power if he’s planning on leaving in 3 years?

The young left wingers who still support these communists are going to be very upset when their children are sent home to die. Then their parents will be next. Then grandparents “Mammaw” or “Pappaw” are told to go home and die. And finally it will be their turn.


24 posted on 10/14/2013 9:22:34 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
You can trace NObammy’s releasing of the hounds to that one pivotal moment when he was told the Constitution meant nothing anymore.

Great point. The meaning of "lawless" is to merely ignore the law.

25 posted on 10/14/2013 9:23:30 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

Well, he did tell Medvedev about having more flexibility after his election. He made that statement before the 0bamacare ruling by the Supreme Court. I think he knew the fix was in for both the ruling and the election.

But as you say, ever since the twin defeats in the 0bamacare case and the November election, he has gone off the charts with his brazen disregard for the Rule of Law.

However, I don’t think he will run for a third term, even though there only a scrap of paper to stop it. His handlers will be done with him, and it’s time to move on to a new figurehead. Just like the Chicoms turn over the premiership every 10 years, we will do the same every 8.


26 posted on 10/14/2013 9:24:19 AM PDT by henkster (Communists never negotiate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Obama didn’t have time to pack the court so he determined which justice would be the easiest to blackmail. As I’ve long said people will do a lot of things to protect their children. And that’s how they got to Roberts.


27 posted on 10/14/2013 9:25:44 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

Not surprising...this is our stand to stop it now.


28 posted on 10/14/2013 9:26:27 AM PDT by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Originally posted 12 August 2009 here

http://michaelconnelly.jigsy.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills

According to snopes.com, the essay is about a different healthcare bill than Obamacare, so if true, this essay is outdated.


29 posted on 10/14/2013 9:30:40 AM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican
Why would obama want the “executive branch” to have this much power if he’s planning on leaving in 3 years?

The real reason for this particular bill is to usher in their vaunted marxist paradise, with Obama as the transcended leader.

Remember none of the marxist entities that have appeared in the history of the past have done it right. They think they will get it right this time.

Besides, who says he is planning on leaving?

30 posted on 10/14/2013 9:30:41 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Roberts is living proof that if you do something illegal and try to keep it hidden you can and will be blackmailed for it.

He illegally adopted 2 children from Ireland and now he is being blackmailed by Barry and company and look for it to continue.


31 posted on 10/14/2013 9:32:14 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

“Or am I missing something? “

Yes

There is no general right to privacy.


32 posted on 10/14/2013 9:36:29 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

And once you give in to blackmail, you’ve sold your soul. The blackmail will only escalate. You’d think Roberts would be smart enough to realize that. I’m sure he had to swallow several rationalizations for this.


33 posted on 10/14/2013 9:36:36 AM PDT by henkster (Communists never negotiate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

Article I, Section 8 ... "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 ..."

That "general Welfare" statement, in my opinion, makes the ObamaCare Law Constitutional.

34 posted on 10/14/2013 9:38:53 AM PDT by OldNavyVet ("Learn from science that you must doubt the experts" ... Richard Feynman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

If 0bama’s handlers wanted him to run a third term, Roberts would rule it constitutional, the press would wholeheartedly agree. But for the purposes of maintaining the facade of a free country, and for the reason 0bama’s handlers are ready to move on, we will be like the Chicoms. The premiership will change hands every 8 years, unlike China where its every 10.


35 posted on 10/14/2013 9:39:24 AM PDT by henkster (Communists never negotiate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Write a billion trillion words, makes no difference. Who is gonna stop it? Buhler Buhler? Unless and until you can get whats in there thrown out and replaced with ones who have the balls to say enough then nothing will change.

Just like here on FR. Blah Blah Blah talkie talkie talkie.

One if you derive your $$$$ from the govt then no vote for you.

I posted here Dr. Edwin Vieria on what to do to fix this mess. No response. Tells me keyboard commando’s.

D V Kidd has lots of great stuff but can’t post here.

So all talk and 6 bucks gets you cheap burnt nasty coffee at starbucks. Wooo Hooo!

Well at least I’m proud to be an American where in our delusions we think we are free.

At least we had some who went to dc and removed the barriers, not hat it did much good.

I got 5 dollars that says 90% of congress will be reelected next election because of lazy stupid americans who in reality don’t deserve freedom because they are too lazy and stupid.

We should invite those who hate america to get on a one way ship to anywhere they want to go and enforce it.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.


36 posted on 10/14/2013 9:39:39 AM PDT by Southern by Grace (kickbacks, bribes, maifia payoffs is how the D's get R' done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

“Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.” This is 4 years old,hasn’t the bill been revised since then? I’m not saying the revised bill is better but this is from 4 yrs.ago.


37 posted on 10/14/2013 9:42:02 AM PDT by ohiobushman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Snopes review of this summary, not up to date.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp


38 posted on 10/14/2013 9:44:06 AM PDT by shoedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

This is not the first time something outdated has resurfaced on FR and other places on the web and treated like current events. A year or so ago a obscure website discussing the government confiscating IRA’s made the rounds, I found it to be a fake and no one really cared.

The difference being obamacare is not fake and cannot be ignored.


39 posted on 10/14/2013 9:44:29 AM PDT by redfreedom (Republicans = The faux conservative wing of the democrat party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

bkmk


40 posted on 10/14/2013 9:46:14 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohiobushman
It took the last 3 to 4 years to write the computer program after the bill was initially written.

If the truth be told, Hillary was working on this in the 1990s. What is now Obamacare is just the end result of the entire marxist effort to control all of our access to medical care.

It is the same bullcrap from the same bunch of cows.

41 posted on 10/14/2013 9:51:37 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

After the Constitution is destroyed, will there still be any need for constitutional lawyers?


42 posted on 10/14/2013 9:52:15 AM PDT by 353FMG ( I don't say whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Roberts had to make a quick and dirty decision because he had his plane ticket to that certain Mediterranean island. The bank was waiting for his deposit. The catch is he was photographed going into the bank carrying a good sized brief case. There were/are web photos of Roberts on Malta with the briefcase. I recall/believe the Vatican bank was also involved. Roberts was planted on the SC so that the USA would be tied to the ‘new world order’. As far as I am concerned he is a despicable ‘American’.


43 posted on 10/14/2013 9:54:58 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

She wouldn’t care anyway...she is all about limiting the and me but not she...


44 posted on 10/14/2013 10:01:45 AM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Besides, who says he is planning on leaving?

That’s my point. He doens’t plan on leaving. The libs would never do this if they thought a conservative could ever be president.


45 posted on 10/14/2013 10:12:15 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ohiobushman
This is 4 years old,hasn’t the bill been revised since then? I’m not saying the revised bill is better but this is from 4 yrs. ago.

I posted this because I thought the content of what the Constitutional lawyer had to say was very interesting.

I am aware that it is four years old. The bill was not revised, it was passed.

We are now having to wake up like after a full night drunk binger realizing that what we signed up for ain't what we thought we signed up for.

46 posted on 10/14/2013 10:22:49 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
There is no general right to privacy.

Nonsense. Of course there is. The fourth Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches ... ." What is that about, except the right to privacy against government intrusion into our lives?

You will say "It's not in the Constitution." But to say so would completely negate the 9th Amendment which plainly recognizes unenumerated rights in its language: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How is it even possible to imagine a society based on liberty and limited government without recognizing that free people do, in fact, have a natural right to be protected from government intrusion into the most intimate details of their lives. Good luck establishing a free society without acknowledging a such a natural right.

Conservatives make a grave and tragic error when they argue that Roe vs. Wade errs in recognizing a non-existent right to privacy, when in fact they're picking the wrong fight.

The fact is, the right to privacy is irrelevant to the argument against abortion, which actually should be an argument about a mother's rights vs. the rights of an unborn child. The abortion issue is really about rights in conflict. But it is not fundamentally about privacy, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision because it fails to take into account the fact that the unborn have a right to life. But let's not try to rectify that inhuman omission by throwing out one of our other most basic rights -- the natural right to privacy.

In fact, conservatives should be in leftist's faces screaming about the right to privacy all the time, on a lot of different issues.

For example, although the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to impose one, it does not give the government the right to violate our other Constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and the specifically enumerated 5th Amendment to the right against self-incrimination (i.e. being forced to submit a tax return signed under the penalty of perjury.

Sorry. You lose unless you can offer a rational argument negating the right to privacy other than just repeating that "there is no such right." And don't tell me it's not a right because it's not in the Constitution, unless you want to repeal the Ninth Amendment.

If you want to make the case that there is no right to privacy without invoking the two arguments I just named, then please enlighten me. I have an open mind and remain ready to be convinced by a logical argument, if you can make one.

Go ahead. I double dog dare you. I'm all ears.

47 posted on 10/14/2013 10:23:09 AM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

When a Republican President is in office, Roberts could be impeached for his role in the conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution.


48 posted on 10/14/2013 10:23:53 AM PDT by WhiskeyX ( provides a system for registering complaints about unfair broadcasters and the ability to request a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
FUJR, FUNP, FUBO, FU DemonRats!

Forgot the old catch all from Viet Nam days...FUBAR.

49 posted on 10/14/2013 10:31:15 AM PDT by USS Alaska (If I could...I would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

‘general Welfare’ pertains to the United States. It does not translate to the Citizens thereof (We the People).


50 posted on 10/14/2013 10:49:00 AM PDT by i_robot73 (Give me one example and I will show where gov't is the root of the problem(s).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson