We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

After nearly a year of deliberations, majority leader Harry Reid released the full text of the Senate's health-care bill, which consists of the Finance Committee Bill merged with the HELP Committee bill and some new twists. Here are some key features of the 2074-page (doubled-spaced) bill: * Insurance exchanges will be set up in 2014 to help the uninsured get coverage. * A public option will be available on these exchanges. * Anyone below 133% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid. * Anyone between 133% and 300% of the poverty line will get subsidies to buy insurance. * Insurance companies will be required to accept all new customers, even with preexisting conditions. * Annual and lifetime limits on coverage will be prohibited. * Insurance companies will be forbidden from canceling policies when a person got sick. * Insurance companies will not be allowed to charge sick people more than healthy people. * Employers with more than 50 employees will be fined for not providing health insurance. * Small businesses will receive tax credits to help them buy insurance for their employees. * Uninsured individuals will be fined $750 per year. * The size of the Medicare donut hole will be reduced by $500. * Children will be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until age 26. * Policies will have to explain their benefits in a standardized form in simple English. * An appeals process will be created so patients can fight back when coverage is denied. * There are many provisions encouraging preventive medicine. The bill will result in 31 million additional Americans getting insurance and will cost the government $848 billion over 10 years but this amount is more than covered by new taxes, resulting in a net reduction of the federal debt by $130 billion over this period. In the second decade, the savings will reach $650 billion. President Obama insisted that the bill come in below $900 billion simply for political reasons--then the Republicans would have to talk about an $848-billion-dollar boondoggle instead of a trillion-dollar boondoggle, which sounds much worse. There are new taxes are on gold-plated health-care plans, medical devices, and elective surgery. Medicare payroll taxes for high earners will be increased and growth of Medicare expenditures will be curtailed. The new taxes proposed are one of the major areas where the Senate and House bills differ so there will be much haggling in the conference. Health-insurance exchanges would be set up on which private companies as well as a public plan would be offered to people not covered by their employer's plan. Any state that wanted to prevent its residents from choosing the public plan could ban it by legislation, but it is hard to envision many state legislators running in 2010 or 2012 saying: "If elected, I will vote to make sure you can't choose the public plan." Since both the House and Senate bills now have public options, it is highly unlikely it will be stripped out in conference. While many members of Congress have been pontificating about how even a tiny public plan will destroy in the insurance industry, no knowledgeable person believes this. Even with Medicare, insurance companies prosper by selling supplemental plans to seniors. What the public plan might actually do though, is reduce insurance company profits a little bit, but for a senator to say: "I am against reducing insurance company profits" wouldn't sound so good. Even in socialist France there is a thriving private-sector health insurance industry selling supplemental plans. A sticky issue is abortion coverage. The House bill went very far in prohibiting insurance companies from offered abortion coverage. The Senate bill does not go as far. It merely sets up a firewall to make sure federal money is not spent on abortions. Adding irrelevant bits and pieces of legislation to a bill has been a congressional staple for decades. It is surprising that no opponent of the war in Afghanistan has proposed an amendment to the funding bill requiring the Army to provide an abortion to any female soldier requesting one. It would kill the bill. Democrats of all stripes praised the bill as being the greatest thing since sliced bread. Republicans of all stripes said it would be the end of the world as we know it. If you expected a rational discussion of the bill's many provisions, welcome to Planet Congress. Reid will file a cloture motion today, which means the vote will be on Saturday (Senate rules require an intervening day). Then we will find out whether Reid has managed to corral all 60 members of his caucus. Probably even the holdouts will find some cover in the bill. For example, Ben Nelson could say: "While I oppose this government takeover of our wonderful country, the bill reduces the federal deficit by 2.6% a year so I am voting for it" or something equally stupid. Also, Nelson, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) could find some reason to vote for cloture but vote against the bill itself (when their votes are not needed). Some Democrats are willing to ditch their deeply held fundamental principles for a small bowl of pork. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) has miraculously dropped his opposition to this government takeover of the country when the tax on medical devices (many of which are produced in Indiana) was halved.

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says: • That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability. • That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel. • That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright. • Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

Habibollah Latifi, Ehsan (Esma’il) Fattahianand Sherko Moarefihave all been sentenced to death for “enmity against God” in unconnected cases overthe last two years. They are believed to be on death row in a prison in Sanandaj, the provincial capital of Kordestan.

"Massachusetts Man Says He Was Fired for Telling Colleague Her Gay Marriage Is Wrong" Saturday , November 07, 2009 By Joshua Rhett Miller A manager at a Massachusetts retail store claims he was unjustly fired after he told a colleague he thought her impending marriage to another woman was wrong. Peter Vidala, 24, told FoxNews.com he was terminated in August from his position as second deputy manager at a Brookstone store at Boston's Logan Airport after a conversation he had with a manager from another Brookstone store who was visiting the location. Vidala claims the woman, whom he declined to identify, mentioned four times that she had married her partner. He said he then left the store briefly to visit the airport's chapel before returning. "I found it offensive that she repeatedly brought it up," Vidala said. "By the fourth time she mentioned it, I felt God wanted me to express how I felt about the matter, so I did. But my tone was downright apologetic. I said, 'Regarding your homosexuality, I think that's bad stuff.'" The woman, according to Vidala, then said, "Human resources, buddy — keep your opinions to yourself," before exiting the store. Two days later, Vidala, who had been employed for just a matter of weeks, received a termination letter citing the company's zero-tolerance policy regarding "harassment" and "inappropriate and unprofessional" comments. "In the state of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal and there will be people with whom you work with who have fiancées or spouses who are the same gender," the Aug. 12 letter read. "... While you are entitled to your own beliefs, imposing them upon others in the workplace is not acceptable and in this case, by telling a colleague that she is deviant and immoral, constitutes discrimination and harassment." Vidala disputes using the words "deviant" and "immoral" during conversations with human resources employees on the matter. "I did say I regard that lifestyle as deviant, as in deviating from the norm, but I never, ever said to that to the [manager]," he said. "In general, I believe people don't want to hear about controversial issues like that in the workplace. They shouldn't have to." Vidala, who has not hired a lawyer, said he is considering filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a statement issued to FoxNews.com, Brookstone President/CEO Ron Boire said a "thorough and fair investigation" had been completed in the matter. "We do not comment on any specific personnel issues," the statement read. "However I will say that Brookstone is an equal opportunity employer, meaning that we maintain a healthy, safe and productive work environment free from discrimination or harassment based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, physical or mental disability, or other factors that are unrelated to the Company’s legitimate business interests. "We are proud of our diverse workforce of varying cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds." Asked why he felt the need to comment on the woman's personal life, Vidala, who has since left the Boston area, said he felt compelled to do so. "I see, like all real Christians, homosexuals as people who, like me, are sinners and need to be told the truth in a loving way," he said. "In this situation, I took issue with the behavior. I think it's lunacy to call that type of behavior marriage in any kind of form. I had to express that I'm intolerant of that behavior. It's a love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin kind of deal." Vidala said he felt "intentionally goaded" by the manager to comment on her relationship. "She knew how I felt about homosexuality," he said. "When you talk to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, 'I'm happy for you.' But I really couldn't feel happy for her."

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

I think there are four obvious lessons to draw from tonight’s election returns: 1. For Conservative Republicans: The America people reject Barack Obama and obviously want true conservative leadership. The Governorships of two states have switched to the “R” category, showing a grassroots conservative movement that is alive and well. 2. For Moderate Republicans: The American people obviously want old-fashioned economic conservatives who are moderate on social issues. McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey won by downplaying social issues; Hoffman in New York-23 lost because he was too extreme. 3. For Moderate Democrats: The party out of power usually does well in off-year elections like this, and this year was no exception. But obviously there is no sign of any substantial shift in public opinion from the election of 2008. 4. For Liberal Democrats: NY-23 was the race to watch this year, given that right-wing extremists like Palin and Beck threw all their support behind Hoffman. But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years. Obviously this shows that the American people reject right-wing extremism. Obviously.

Kucinich: Health reform legislation ‘a bailout for insurance companies’ By Stephen C. Webster Saturday, October 31st, 2009 -- 4:01 pm According to Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the Democrats' health reform legislation is basically a sham. Appearing on MSNBC's The Ed Show on Friday night, the House's most unabashed progressive condemned Democratic leadership for removing his amendment that would allow states to create their own single-payer systems. Then he called the entire legislative package "a bailout for insurance companies." Under a single-payer system, like those in Canada and the United Kingdom, the government pools taxpayer funds to pay for citizens' health care and fees are not collected by health care providers. The Kucinich amendment would allow individual states an opt-in to such a system. The amendment is missing from health reform legislation unveiled Thursday by Democratic leadership. "Representative Kucinich was livid when he found out that his provision to allow states to create a single payer system was stripped," News Junkie Post noted. "Kucinich’s amendment passed the House Labor and Education Committee in July. 'No one gave me any rational reason,' Kucinich said. 'I can only assume the insurance company interests brought pressure to take it out. Otherwise I would have heard from someone.'" Story continues below... "The [committee] vote was 25 to 19, with support coming from an odd mix of liberal Democrats who support single-payer on its merits and conservative Republicans who want to preserve the rights of states to regulate themselves," The Washington Independent noted at the time. "The removal of the Kucinich amendment constitutes yet another capitulation to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries who are already reaping billions of dollars from the bill," reads a statement from the congressman's office on Thursday. Under the revised public option, "Pelosi and her team have proposed a plan that would not make payments for care based on Medicare rates ..." CBS News's John Nichols noted. "Rather, under the Pelosi plan, the rates be tied to those of the big insurance companies. That's a big, big victory for the insurance industry, as it will undermine the ability of the public option to compete -- and to create pressure for reduced costs." Speaking to liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz on Friday, Kucinich continued his assault on the legislation. "I think we need the support of the American people to say, look, you need that state single-payer amendment in the bill to make it credible," the congressman said. "I mean, what are people giving up already? They're being mandated to buy private insurance. If you read the bill, the people are going to end up paying -- the insurance companies can raise rates 25 percent right off the bat, if you read the bill." Schultz encouraged Kucinich to repeat himself on that point. "It's on page 22 of the bill," he replied. "Right here, it says that rates shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market. Now ... It's very easy to understand what that means." "It's not reform," Schultz insisted. "It means a 25 percent increase, they'll have the ability to execute and since insurance companies have already raised rates for the last four years by double-digits, we can expect -- based on the bill -- another rate increase by the insurance companies." Schultz called the bill a "sellout" to insurers because the bill only allows 11 million people into a limited government-run health insurance option, and includes a mandate for Americans to buy private policies. "Maybe instead of a sellout it's a bailout," Kucinich responded. "Maybe what we're looking at here is another way that Wall Street's speculative engine can be fueled, this time with the help of the premiums of tens of millions of Americans." On his Web site, Kucinich took his point further, calling the legislation "a bailout for insurance companies" that must be altered. "The Kucinich [single payer] amendment has been added to H.R. 3200 in the Education and Labor Committee, the amendment would permit states to enact a single-payer health care system," the congressman's Web site claimed.

YouTube - Congressman Kucinich on MSNBC, The Ed Show: "Restore State Single Payer"

The Taxing Clause, using the words "general Welfare," (Art. I, Sec. 8) states: "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 . . ." Hamilton always denied that this clause gives Congress a general legislative authority--to legislate regarding, and so as to achieve, whatever Congress might consider to be for the common good. He never varied from his assertion in The Federalist number 83, regarding the plan of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution, with regard to such authority, as follows: "The plan of the convention declares that the power of congress or in other words of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority; because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." (Emphasis per original.) Hamilton never contended for--indeed, he evidently would have opposed strenuously--use of the Federal power to tax and spend so as in effect to give the Federal government indirectly any control over anything, or anybody, which is not directly and openly authorized by the Constitution and its amendments through enumeration of the powers granted to it by the people. He would undoubtedly have agreed with the distinction which Jefferson drew--in the above-mentioned addresses made after Hamilton's death--with regard to Federal aid to Education: that land-grants in aid of education are constitutional, partly because they could not possibly produce any degree of control over the recipient institutions due to such grants being a single-transaction measure as to each of the recipient institutions.

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill By Jeff Zeleny New York Times President Obama signed a hate crimes bill into law on Wednesday, telling an audience at the White House that the provision would “strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth.” The law expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation. Under existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin. “Prosecutors will have new tools to work with states in order to prosecute to the fullest those who would perpetrate such crimes,” Mr. Obama said, speaking in the East Room of the White House at an evening reception, “Because no one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love.” The hate crimes measure was included in a defense spending bill, which Democratic leaders in Congress intentionally did in an effort to keep Republicans from blocking the legislation. The legislation had been under consideration in Congress for years. It was named in memory of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student who was murdered 11 years ago. “You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits — not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear,” Mr. Obama said. “You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights — both from unjust laws and violent acts.” The audience at the White House included Denis and Judy Shepard, the parents of Matthew, and the family of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who championed the legislation for years, but died before the bill was ultimately passed.