Posted 7:14 PM by Gerald Klaas

This blog is now located at http://geraldklaas.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://geraldklaas.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Posted 8:12 PM by Gerald Klaas
Interesting article in The Washington Post today. The authors cite several Supreme Court cases that they believe would be used to test any health care mandates. Their conclusion seems to be that Congress won't be able to come up with a law that will pass constitutional muster.

Posted 11:55 AM by Gerald Klaas
According to Yahoo News, the White House appears ready to drop 'public option'. I wonder who finally figured out that government run health care is unconstitutional?

Back in June, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece suggesting that government-run health care may be unconstitutional because it would be impossible to implement without violating the right to privacy established in Roe v. Wade.

Personally, I think it's much more likely that the Supreme Court would invalidate a public health option based on "takings" violations of the 5th Amendment as in the case of
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935) .

What most people don't know is that Social Security taxes, according to the Supreme Court case Helvering v. Davis, are "true taxes, their purpose being simply to raise revenue . . . available for the general support of Government." Our government convinced the Supreme Court in 1937 that there is absolutely no connection between Social Security taxes and the benefits paid. People have no right to Social Security benefits regardless of how much they've paid into "the system", therefore it's not an insurance or annuity program as was found unconstitutional in the Railroad Retirement v Alton case.

Maybe the White House has figured out that the Supreme Court may well overturn forced government "insurance".

Posted 4:17 PM by Gerald Klaas
I just read an interesting blog post from Jim Mathie in August 2006. He was talking about John Kerry's ideas for health care at the time, but the logic still applies..... what if Congress passes a health care plan, a case questioning its constitutionality is brought to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides to revisit the 1937 Helvering v. Davis decision that allowed for implementation of Social Security? Would they find that Social Security is unconstitutional? Medicaid?

Posted 8:36 PM by Gerald Klaas
Kudos to Remote Area Medical (RAM) for hosting a free medical event in Inglewood, CA this week.

It makes me wonder, why is a universal/socialized/single-payer health plan the only thing being discussed in Washington and the media? Don't they realize that such a plan can't be Constitutional from the outset? If the feds really want to help the uninsured, they'd take a clue from Remote Area Medical and set up mobile clinics with free services to all comers, leaving them in place for as long as the line lasts and moving to the next location. There you go, free health care for anyone who needs it, and no mandates on anybody who chooses to provide their own health care, thank you very much.

Posted 10:06 PM by Gerald Klaas
Tonight I attended a training class using the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) Live CD. The Live CD is packed with security testing tools like nmap and WireShark. I was really impressed with the ability to use WebScarab proxy to log, interrupt and modify HTTP calls to a localhost copy of WebGoat webserver. Ever since I earned my CISSP certification in 2001, I've maintained a laptop of security tools, after tonight, I'm thinking OWASP may be my new toolbox.

Posted 3:31 PM by Gerald Klaas
I just wrote a letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee in response to an anti-birther editorial by Eugene Robinson.

• In his editorial "The Berserk 'Birthers'", Eugene Robinson states "that there is not a scintilla of truth....in the whole 'birther' idea", and then goes on to compare them to those who believe the world is flat, even suggesting that they should wear tin foil hats.
  
  But Robinson avoids the one (and only) question that unites 'birthers', that being the question of which controlling legal authority has verified Obama's eligibility? The answer is NONE.
  
  True, there are those who believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, but there are also those who believe Obama couldn't be "natural born" whether or not he was born in Hawaii, since the common understanding of the term "natural born" at the time of the ratification of the Constitution was based on English common law and such writings as William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62 (1765), which required BOTH of a person's parents to be citizens in order to be considered to be "natural born".
  
  As long as there is disagreement about the meaning of the term "natural born", and as long as there is no assigned legal authority to verify such elegibility, this issue will not go away.
  

Posted 6:12 PM by Gerald Klaas
Are we really this close to fascism that the White House openly asks citizens to report private conversations if they oppose their political agenda?

• These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Posted 7:50 PM by Gerald Klaas
Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona continues to irritate Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security by arresting illegal immigrants. So why isn't the federal government beating him to it? I don't know ask Janet....
Anyway, apparently Arpaio's deputies arrested a couple dozen illegals the other day

• Ten of the illegal immigrants were released because they had committed no other crimes, and that fact pitted Arpaio against Homeland Security. Arpaio says the feds told his deputies to let them go, while Homeland Security says the decision was exclusively Arpaio's.

Hmmm, could it be a difference of interpretation? Between Arpaio and Napolitano, I know who I believe.

Posted 8:15 PM by Gerald Klaas
A picture is worth a thousand words......

It's amazing that the White House would publish this photo not realizing how revealing it is.

• Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

Posted 6:00 PM by Gerald Klaas
Finally, someone who makes sense when talking about universal health care.

• There are ways to provide universal or near-universal coverage without transferring ownership of health care production to the government. When we wanted no American to go hungry, the government did not take over the entire food production industry; it provided vouchers, food stamps. Why then, when it comes to health coverage, would we think the answer lies in transferring control of all health care production to the government?
• Senator Jim DeMint, RINEE of South Carolina (Republican In Name and Everything Else), for example, offers The Health Care Freedom Plan,
  

Posted 10:12 PM by Gerald Klaas
Read a great quote this evening in the forward to the 1914 book FIAT MONEY INFLATION IN FRANCE . Seems to be as relevant today as it was a century ago.

• Legislatures are as powerless to abrogate moral and economic laws as they are to abrogate physical laws. They cannot convert wrong into right nor divorce effect from cause, either by parliamentary majorities, or by unity of supporting public opinion.

Posted 9:52 PM by Gerald Klaas
I recently bought a used Chevy S10 pickup and found out that it is capable of running on 85% ethanol (E85). There are a couple of fueling stations nearby that sell E85, so I can use E85 if I can get over an ethical dilemma. TIME magazine ran a story in March 2008 titled The Clean Energy Scam suggesting that burning E85 might actually be more harmful to the environment than burning gasoline.

I must admit, I do think that making ethanol from corn is stupid, but there are better feedstocks for making ethanol.

I do believe that the environmental science is squarely in favor of using ethanol as a motor fuel, but only if you use the right feedstocks and production processes to create it. I put the blame for the unintended environmental consequences mentioned in the TIME article directly on the U.S. Congress who distort the feedstock market with sugar subsidizes and import quotas and corn subsidies.

If Congress wants to encourage energy independence, they should tax petroleum and subsidize biofuels research, and stop manipulating the ethanol feedstock markets.

Posted 9:40 AM by Gerald Klaas
So today the Supreme Court Justices meet to decide whether to hear the case regarding Obama's birth certificate (Donofrio v Wells). It still amazes me that there is more coverage of Obama's blackberry than there is about questions of whether his executive orders and future appointments will be valid. There is huge potential for a Constitutional Crisis, but not a peep from major media. Luckily, individual citizens and the world still watch.....

From UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/04/barack-obama-citizenship-supreme-court
From Canada: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6654
From India: http://www.domain-b.com/people/in_the_news/20081204_barack_obama%20.html
From Ghana: http://news.myjoyonline.com/international/200812/23568.asp
From Caribbean: http://www.caribbeanworldnews.com/middle_top_news_detail.php?mid=1784

Where's the US media on this?