The IRS is now policing healthcare

Before the U.S. Supreme Court even decides whether or not the administration’s healthcare reform law, known as Obamacare, is even constitutional, the White House is already gearing up the enforcement apparatus: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS). According to The…

Supreme Court says police can strip search citizens for any offense

The constitutional indignities Americans continue to suffer at what can only be called soft tyranny continue to mount, the most recent of which is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that says police can now strip search for any reason – or no reason at all – when they’re…

Ninety-six percent of public says Obamacare is unconstitutional – Washington Post poll

As the U.S. Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature healthcare “reform” law, the American public, for the most part, has already decided it isn’t. Granted, this online survey on the Washington Post website isn’t very scientific,…

Buy Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) Without Prescription

Buy Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) Without Prescription, The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week about Obama's health care law, buy Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) without prescription, Buy cheap Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) no rx, which has been challenged by twenty-six states. The crux of the legal arguments center around whether the federal government can mandate private citizens to purchase a product or service.., kjøpe Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) på nett, köpa Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) online. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) description,

Read the rest here:
If Obamacare is ruled constitutional, effects of Betalaktam (Amoxicillin), Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) no prescription, here are 7 more things the Obama administration may soon require everyone to purchase
. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) without prescription. Low dose Betalaktam (Amoxicillin). Japan, craiglist, ebay, overseas, paypal. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release. Order Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) online c.o.d. Is Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) addictive. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) class. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) price. Where can i buy cheapest Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) online. Online buying Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) hcl. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) use. Real brand Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) online. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) pharmacy. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) from mexico. Where can i order Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) without prescription. Purchase Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) online no prescription. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) photos. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) for sale. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) street price. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) maximum dosage. Generic Betalaktam (Amoxicillin). Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) samples. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) online cod. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) dangers. Where can i cheapest Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) online. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) results. Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) wiki. Where can i buy Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) online. Cheap Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) no rx.

Similar posts: Buy Albuterol (Ventolin) Without Prescription. Buy Gefina (Propecia) Without Prescription. Dolol (Ultram) For Sale. Buy Utram (Tramadol) from canada. Buying Amoxil (Amoxicillin) online over the counter. Finpecia (Propecia) recreational.
Trackbacks from: Buy Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) Without Prescription. Buy Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) Without Prescription. Buy Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) Without Prescription. Buy Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) without a prescription. Is Betalaktam (Amoxicillin) safe. After Betalaktam (Amoxicillin).

Buy Tramadal (Tramadol) Without Prescription

Buy tramadal (Tramadol) Without Prescription, The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are known for trying to hijack nature and claim it as their own personal property via the patent process. But a recent Supreme Court ruling has set a new precedent against this fraudulent practice, purchase tramadal (Tramadol) for sale, Tramadal (Tramadol) without a prescription, as Associate Supreme...

Go here to see the original:
Supreme Court rules biotech Prometheus Laboratories can't patent 'laws of nature', effects of tramadal (Tramadol). Tramadal (Tramadol) recreational. Tramadal (Tramadol) brand name. Order tramadal (Tramadol) from mexican pharmacy. Purchase tramadal (Tramadol) online. Buy tramadal (Tramadol) from mexico. Tramadal (Tramadol) from mexico. Discount tramadal (Tramadol). What is tramadal (Tramadol). Tramadal (Tramadol) treatment. About tramadal (Tramadol). Tramadal (Tramadol) no rx. Tramadal (Tramadol) used for. Where can i cheapest tramadal (Tramadol) online. Australia, uk, us, usa. Purchase tramadal (Tramadol). Buy cheap tramadal (Tramadol) no rx. Tramadal (Tramadol) use. Generic tramadal (Tramadol). Tramadal (Tramadol) price. Tramadal (Tramadol) alternatives. After tramadal (Tramadol). Buy generic tramadal (Tramadol). Tramadal (Tramadol) street price. Tramadal (Tramadol) online cod. Tramadal (Tramadol) results. Where can i buy tramadal (Tramadol) online. Tramadal (Tramadol) overnight. Online buying tramadal (Tramadol). Tramadal (Tramadol) long term. Order tramadal (Tramadol) online c.o.d. Tramadal (Tramadol) brand name. Tramadal (Tramadol) cost.

Similar posts: Zitrocin (Zithromax) For Sale. Buy Riobant (Acomplia) Without Prescription. Buy Azifine (Zithromax) Without Prescription. Tramal (Tramadol) samples. My Tramadex (Tramadol) experience. Comprar en línea Tramal (Ultram), comprar Tramal (Ultram) baratos.
Trackbacks from: Buy tramadal (Tramadol) Without Prescription. Buy tramadal (Tramadol) Without Prescription. Buy tramadal (Tramadol) Without Prescription. Tramadal (Tramadol) australia, uk, us, usa. Tramadal (Tramadol) for sale. Online tramadal (Tramadol) without a prescription.

Obamacare opponents in Ohio collect enough signatures to get constitutional amendment on fall ballot

(NaturalNews) After months of collecting signatures to get a constitutional amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , also known as Obamacare, on the November 8 ballot, Ohio residents opposed to the health care overhaul have finally achieved success. Reports indicate that the group Ohioans for Healthcare Freedom (OHF) helped spearhead a campaign that successfully collected the 358,000 signatures needed to allow Ohioans to vote on an amendment that would prohibit the Buckeye State from complying with Obamacare’s provisions. According to an Associated Press release, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has confirmed that supporters of the amendment successfully collected and submitted 427,000 valid signatures, which is nearly 70,000 more than the 358,000 minimum that was needed. And with the help of OHF’s 35,000 volunteers across the state, this groundswell of opposition to Obamacare in Ohio builds momentum for other states to follow the same course, and for the US Supreme Court to finally make a ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare. If passed, the Ohio amendment will prohibit any federal, state, or local law from forcing Ohio residents, employers, or health care providers to comply with any sort of official healthcare system. It will also prohibit the passage or enforcement of any law that tries to set a minimum mandatory threshold for individual healthcare coverage. “This issue would not be on the ballot without the blood, sweat, and tears of thousands and thousands and thousands of volunteers,” said Jeff Longstreth, campaign manager for OHF. “The message is clear: keep health care between doctors and patients, and keep bureaucrats out of it.” Ohio Gov. John Kasich has expressed his support for the amendment, as have numerous “tea party” and religious groups. Opponents of the amendment, however, have until August 5 to file a challenge. And if a challenge is granted, supporters of the amendment will be given ten additional days to gather more signatures. Sources for this story include: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ohio-health-care-question-apf-2905833599.html?x=0&.v=2

Supreme Court Justice Kagan lied about ties to Obamacare

(NaturalNews) President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, dubbed “Obamacare,” has been in litigation since it was passed last year. A number of federal courts have already issued rulings on whether or not the provision contained within the law that requires Americans to purchase health insurance is constitutional. Federal courts have differed on that point, with some ruling that the provision passes constitutional muster and other courts ruling it does not. For that reason, most legal experts believe that Obamacare will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. And at least one Supreme Court justice may not be the impartial arbiter of the Constitution she claims to be, at least on this particular issue. Some 49 members of Congress are pointing to what they have termed “contradictory” evidence regarding Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation testimony regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and say Kagan should excuse herself from all cases having anything to do with it. “We respectfully call upon the House Judiciary Committee to promptly investigate the extent to which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was involved in preparing a legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) during her tenure as Solicitor General,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the committee’s ranking member. “Contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently released Department of Justice (DOJ) documents indicate that Justice Kagan actively participated with her Obama Administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA,” said the letter. The letter is a result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by CNSNews.com and the Media Research Center , both of which allege that Kagan’s involvement in the case as solicitor general disqualifies her from ruling on any cases dealing with the law. “As you know,” the lawmakers wrote, “Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code establishes unambiguous conditions in which federal judges must excuse themselves from proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. According to the law, a justice should excuse themselves in cases where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity served as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” During her Senate confirmation hearings, Kagan was asked point-blank whether she had ever been asked her opinion regarding the underlying constitutional questions surrounding the law, or offered any views about it, to which she replied simply, “No.”

Stealth Vaccine Laws Allow Children to Consent to Vaccines

(NaturalNews) A current California bill, AB 499, would “allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.”[1] That is, children as young as 12 will be able to get a Gardasil or other STD vaccine without their parents’ knowledge or consent if this bill passes. Disturbingly, North Carolina has a much broader child consent law already on the books: “Any minor may give effective consent . . . for medical health services for the prevention . . . of venereal disease and other [reportable] diseases…”[2] I call these laws “Stealth Vaccine Laws” because they provide for the administration of vaccines without the word “vaccine” or “immunization” appearing in the law. Thus, they may slip under the radar of anti-vaccine activists doing electronic searches for vaccine bills and laws using those terms. There are serious legal and moral problems with stealth vaccine bills and laws. First, they violate parents’ fundamental Constitutional rights. In Troxel v. Granville , 430 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child.” Troxel requires a “threshold showing of harm” that is lacking in the California bill and North Carolina law. Troxel also tells us that parents are presumed to be fit and to make decisions that are in their children’s best interests. So, giving the children of every parent in the state the ability to consent to medical treatment at any time amounts to the state declaring that all parents are unfit regarding those matters to which the children are given authority to consent. Under Troxel , parents are presumed to be fit unless there is a showing of unfitness. So, child consent laws violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, unless they include the requisite “threshold showing of harm.” As a practical matter, this means that there must be an emergency, a significant harm or risk of harm before someone may make decisions on behalf of a child without a parent’s consent. Medical and other professionals already have this authority. Neither children nor parents have to consent to a child’s receiving treatment in a medical emergency where immediate intervention is needed to save the child’s life or avert serious harm. Proponents of child consent laws argue that there are some children who need the ability to consent to medical care, children whose parents can’t or won’t take proper care of them. But there are already measures in place to help children in those situations. State workers in Child Protective Services (CPS) and Social Services may seize custody of children when necessary to protect them from severe physical and/or emotional harm. And where parents are unfit, their fitness can be challenged and their parental authority given to other persons or agencies that are capable of exercising proper care of the children when they are not. If current laws are letting some children slip through the cracks, then by all means let’s take steps to fix the problem, but enacting laws that violate the Constitutional rights of all parents is not a proper solution. It is, however, a rather convenient way for the pharmaceutical industry to bypass parents to administer vaccines and other therapies directly to children (who are not likely to say ‘no’ to a doctor). And while parents may opt out of unnecessary medical treatments for their child that they can’t afford, child consent laws ensure payment for services every time–from the state. There is a second, narrower Constitutional issue in states that offer a religious exemption to immunizations (every state but MS and WV). For legal purposes, a child’s religious beliefs are deemed to be that of the parents. So, a law that would allow a child to consent to an immunization would violate parents’ First Amendment “free exercise” of religion rights. It doesn’t matter that few parents may actually be affected or that some children may accurately report their parents’ religious objections to vaccines. The fact that the law creates a situation reasonably likely to result in a Constitutional violation is sufficient reason for a court to rule that the law is unconstitutional. (For that matter, in states that offer philosophical or medical exemptions, state exemption rights of the parents could be violated as well.) Which brings us to an important point: A law is not officially “unconstitutional” merely because someone says so, or even if they present a compelling legal argument, as there is virtually always someone with an opposing view. Only a court may officially decide if a law is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the practical consequence of this is that states can and sometimes do enact laws that turn out to be unconstitutional, and they can do that whether legislators know of that possibility in advance or not. Once a law is enacted, it is “good law”–fully enforceable–unless and until it is repealed by the legislature, or deemed unconstitutional or otherwise uneforceable by a court. This means that pro-vaccine lobbyists can support the passage of unconstitutional bills that are profitable to the pharmaceutical industry, and they may succeed–unless we remain vigilant and successfully oppose them. The same is true for any other industry, of course. Big business can roll right over the Constitution, and get away with it to the extent that the citizens and legislatures allow it. This is something that should cause every one of us great concern. Child consent laws also fail the common sense test. Children, by definition, lack capacity–the judgment and maturity–to make important decisions for themselves. For this reason, they can’t enter into binding legal contracts and don’t even truly own their possessions (technically, their parents do). So, giving children authority for medical decision-making simply doesn’t make sense. Child medical consent laws not only put decision-making authority in the hands of those not able to exercising it responsibly, they do so by taking that authority away from the mature adult parents who are much more capable of exercising it responsibly. These laws are intrusive, an example of overreaching by the state into private family lives, a violation and interference with parents’ fundamental right to raise their children. If present laws leave some children’s medical needs unaddressed, let’s fix those laws. But taking authority away from all mature adult parents and giving it to immature children is irrational–a step that could only make sense only from the narrow perspective of those who stand to profit from it. Unless each one of us becomes legislatively active, more laws providing for the administration of vaccines and other unnecessary medical treatments will be enacted, because the pharmaceutical industry (among others) supports legislation to further its own bottom line–that’s the business of business. Health rights are not stagnant. We are either acting proactively to expand them, or we are passively allowing them to disappear. There is no safe middle ground! Join the NVIC Advocacy Portal and the Pandemic Response Project to stay informed and be active in vaccine legislative issues. In the meantime, go to your state legislature’s website to see if there are any stealth vaccine bills or laws in your state. If there are, contact your state representatives with your objections, and alert others to do the same. Meanwhile, I’m available to assist with U.S. vaccine rights and legislative issues. Sources for this story include [1] California Assembly Bill No. 499, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_499_bill_20110215_introduced.pdf [2] N.C.Gen.Stat. 90-21.5. Minor’s consent sufficient for certain medical health services, http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_90/GS_90-21.5.html [3] Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html

Are you a Sheeple? Take the Sheeple Quiz and find out

(NaturalNews) Have you herd about the Sheeple Quiz? Although most NaturalNews readers will easily beat it, it’s a fun quiz to find out how smart (or gullible) your friends really are. So let ‘em take the Sheeple Quiz! And then you’ll know whether they’re independent thinkers or just zombie-minded sheeple like the rest of the flock. Here’s the quiz. Choose “A” or “B” as the answer for each question, then check your score below. The Sheeple Quiz #1) The purpose of the mainstream media is to: A) Keep you informed. B) Feed you misinformation while keeping you distracted from the real issues our world is facing. #2) Social Security is: A) A financial safety net that makes sure people have a retirement income. B) A government-run Ponzi scheme that requires more and more people to keep paying in just to stay afloat and will ultimately collapse into total bankruptcy. #3) The fluoride dripped into municipal water supplies is: A) A naturally-occurring mineral. B) An industrial chemical waste byproduct. #4) When you donate money to find the cure for cancer, that money goes: A) To fund research programs that assess actual cancer cures for the purpose of freely sharing them with the public. B) To fund mammogram campaigns that actually irradiate women’s breasts, causing the very cancers that earn huge profits for the cancer treatment industry. #5) The national debt is: A) Under control and will be paid off in a few years. B) Out of control and will spiral into a runaway debt collapse. #6) GMOs will: A) Feed the world and prevent starvation. B) Threaten the future of life on our planet through genetic contamination and widespread crop failures. #7) The FDA protects: A) The people from dangerous medicines. B) The financial interests of the drug companies. #8) The EPA’s real agenda is to: A) Protect the environment. B) Protect the financial interests of the chemical companies whose toxic products destroy the environment. #9) The Federal Reserve functions to: A) Stabilize the economy and keep America strong. B) Loot the economy and control America’s economy for the interests of the few. #10) The purpose of TSA checkpoints at airports is to: A) Keep air passengers safe and secure. B) Indoctrinate Americans into surrendering to police state invasions of their privacy. #11) The practical function of the U.S. Supreme Court is to: A) Protect the constitutional rights of the citizens. B) Legitimize federal tyranny over the People by ignoring the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. #12) Vaccines are based on: A) Gold standard science that conclusively proves their safety and effectiveness. B) Quackery and fraud combined with a persistent medical mythology that utterly lacks a factual basis. #13) Herbs and superfoods: A) Are medically useless and cannot treat, prevent or cure any disease. B) Contain powerful plant-based medicines that can help reverse and prevent disease. #14) In Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, America: A) Led a humanitarian effort to save innocent people from tyranny. B) Waged an illegal imperialist war to occupy foreign nations and control their oil. #15) The U.S. Bill of Rights A) Grants you rights and freedoms. B) Merely acknowledges the rights and freedoms you already possess. Score your Sheeple Quiz To score your Sheeple Quiz, simply add up the total number of “A” answers. If you answered “A” 10 times or more… You are a total news-watching, gullible fairytale swallowing Sheeple! Be sure to keep taking those medications and watching more network news. Don’t bother thinking for yourself because you seem to be incapable of accomplishing that. If you answered “A” fewer than 10 times… You are sadly Sheeple-minded but there is hope for your rescue. Learn more about the world around you and train yourself to think critically so you can depart from the herd mentality. If you answered “A” fewer than 5 times… You are an unusually intelligent free-minded thinker who questions the world around you and doesn’t buy into the usual propaganda. You still got suckered on a few items, so there’s more yet to learn. But you’re on the right track! If you answered “A” exactly zero times… You are the complete opposite of a Sheeple. You’re independent minded, well informed and probably a regular reader of NaturalNews.com. Stay on track and question events in the world around you. Eat more superfoods to maintain your healthy immune system and cognitive function. Avoid the toxic chemicals in foods, medicines and lawn care products. Keep reading the alternative press and voice your intelligent views to others willing to listen. (But don’t waste your time on those who aren’t.) Thank you for taking the Sheeple quiz here on NaturalNews.

Supreme Court denies request to fast-track VA lawsuit against Obamacare

(NaturalNews) A petition made by officials in Virginia to expedite a lawsuit against the Obama health care overhaul has been ordered to run its normal course through the courts, according to recent reports. USA Today explains that rather than be heard now by the judges, the case will instead be handed off to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which is its next stop on the way to the Supreme Court. Filed just after Obama’s “Affordable Care Act” was signed into law on March 23, the Virginia lawsuit has received mixed opinions from the lower courts. Some US district court judges have ruled against the insurance mandate tenet of the health care bill, stating that Congress is in clear violation of the Constitution. Others have said the requirement technically falls under “interstate commerce,” and is thus enforceable under the law. Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has long stood against Obamacare, expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule on the case as quickly as possible, but also admitted that it would have been highly unusual for the Supreme Court to make an expedited ruling on a case such as this prior to it having been heard by at least one lower appeals court. Though Virginia’s challenge of Obamacare encompasses only the provision involving mandatory insurance coverage, the entire bill has the potential to become void, that is if the Supreme Court eventually rules in favor of the plaintiffs. This is due to the “no severability clause” of the health care bill, which states that if one part of the bill goes, the entire thing goes. Earlier this month, Congress repealed the burdensome 1099 requirement of Obamacare, which would have tacked loads of new taxes and paperwork on small businesses. This repeal received bipartisan support, and many say the decision marks the eventual repeal of the entire health care bill (http://www.naturalnews.com/031990_1099_Obamacare.html). Sources for this story include: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-25-supreme-court-health-care.htm http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-02/virginia-health-care-lawsuit-can-proceed-judge-says.html

Next Page »