rw113

I have a 20 year old son who has a mental disability. It effects his appearance while walking, and ability to communicate. While he has walked our neighborhood without incident for years, recently officers have begun interferring. Once, he didn't respond when instructed to stop, so they tackeled him to the gound - while 3 officers held him down, a third put his knee in his back and began hitting him in the face. When neighbors and myself objected, we were informed that this is what they are trained to do to teach people to obey them - its called strike technique (since when does violence train anything?). Complaints to IA have, so far been ignored. It has now been three months, and over the past week he has been picked up 2 times. First, officers "thought something was wrong" with him, so they pulled over next to him. Again, difficulties with communication due to his disability resulted in them tackling him to the ground and handcuffing him. In both these instances, a 72 hour mental health hold was placed on him, and immediately overrideen by the hospital, which called me to pick him up. Last night, he was walking the 3 blocks to the beach. Officers stoped him because they thought he was "high". They brought him home. I was advised that next time, they will place him in a holding cell until the following morning. When I advised that it was a mental condition, they told me that given his mental condition, he is not allowed to walk on the street unsupervised. they will arrest him if they see him without supervision in the future.

All experts agree that my son is not a danger to himself or others. His ability to comprehend and communicate is effected by his disability, but he is aware enough to take care of himself and not walk out into traffic (the officers objected that he was crossing the street - at a crosswalk, but they did not know if he would wonder off into traffic - which was non existent, except for their car)

Any suggestions? Which agencies best protect the civil rights of those with disabilities? If you go to jail for beating a dog to train them - why can police beat a human as a training technique?

I have had an account a BOA for a few years. Like most banks, the first few months, they placed a hold on checks deposited, including pay. However, for several years this hold had ceased. I almost changed banks with the announcement of a $5 a month fee to use their debit card. When they announced they had canceled the idea, I though it was ok to keep the account. Well, they appear to have a new gimmick. They have instituted holds on payroll checks. If deposited Friday, before 5, you can use your funds the following Tuesday after 5. If after 6 p.m. - you must wait until Wednesday to have access to your paycheck. Free use of our money for 4-5 days will add up to a substantial profit over a year. But wait, they also permit overdrafting the account - and charge a fee for the overdraft coverage - while they have received your paycheck, and electronically received the proceeds from your employer's bank days before any alleged overdraft. A double whammy of new, hidden fees in my opinion - Worse, there was no notice of a change in policies, they simply take your payroll check and tell you later it was held, until almost the following week - and it began just a few weeks before Christmas, eliminating the purchasing ability of customers during the weekend sales events.

As I browsed for yahoo comments, I noted their absence before the 2008 elections in the USA, and similar periods. Many in the US have complained of censorship - the ultimate censorship is the removal of diversity of views during elections season. Indeed, the US Constitution protects freedom of the press; freedom of speech; freedom of religion - It does not protect government sponsored censorship, it is the opposite - it is designed to prevent censorship. Likewise, with anti-god (atheist) material replacing nativity scenes - as the only permitted activity on public property in parts of the USA - it is a violation of the right to freedom of religion - anti-religion propaganda sponsored on government owned property. The Constitution prohibits any law effecting the free exercise of religion, not support by government for teaching our children hatred of their parent's religion or of God. Nowhere does the Constitution support the absence of God being mandated by laws of government. Nowhere does the Constitution support censorship of the people's opinion - The Constitution mandates the opposite. YAHOO is discriminating based on religious and political opinion, in violation of the Civil Rights Act with this conduct. What is your opinion?

I keep hearing Obama say DNA confirmed Bin Laden's identity. Where did the original DNA sample - presumably before 9-11, come from. Without the sample, is there any DNA test that will confirm identity?

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarianism is generally characterised by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have no significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct most if not all aspects of public and private life).[3]

Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.

In short -Communism, Marxism, Stalinism, Socialism, Nazi under Hitler, and now Obamaism - are all just forms of a Totalitarian government.

As the radical left exposed their agenda as anti-american, pro-big brother, anti freedom/constitution, the people spoke out - The Dems, supported by their gov run media, said "FO People, we are in control". The people spoke out. Then, it was exposed (with the help of the Tea Party) that many R were actually D, and there was a move to expose and remove such people from office.

The Lib media now alleges that it is not the policies of the Socialist United States Party (aka Democratic Party) that the people are rejecting, it is any incumbent. They claim people really approve of the Socialist Agenda of Obama, but are on an anti incumbent rampage - Are they really that much in denial that the People simply do not want a Big Brother totalitarian form of government? or are they just hoping that their propaganda (that it is not their behavior, but a fickle public) that is causing the outcry against them?

It appears the reasoning of Linder v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court (1925), would be more applicable to regulating (or mandate the purchase by) people, and Health Insurance solely sold and regulated within each States. The Conclusion in Linder was written by Justice McReynolds who ruled that the federal government has no power to regulate medical practice.

In essence, the current Health Care Bill appears to be a combination of regulating medical practice (by determining through Federal Regulations what Health Care is available to the people), the regulation of intra-State (not inter-State) commerce, and the treatment of people as if they were commerce - subject to being forced to buy a product, even if they do not wish to.

Anyone really believe this is not an attempt to impose a de facto amendment to the Constitution without the required ratification by the States?

I hear Dems claim authority for this bill under the commerce clause:

The Commerce clause don't authorize the health care bill for 2 reasons: 1. It mandates the people of a State to buy a product. Since the emancipation of the Slaves, we have been telling you Dem/Libs - people are no longer your commerce!; 2. Insurance cannot be sold across State lines. It is entirely regulated by the States. Absent the inter-State connection, it is not Commerce!

Why do libs support the notion that people are commerce and the Federal Government can regulate what products they must buy and what (non-criminal) actions they must/cannot engage in?

Challenges, while it is fully implemented, pending the outcome?

We fell for it with social reform ed for our children through school; implementation of atheism in government & teaching to our children: and so many other issues - will we all sit quite, hoping that our following the law will result in ouster, the right outcome, in spite of such corruption at all levels of the Fed Government (all 3 branches!)?

In reading the Declaration of Independence, the Nature of Government and the Nature of Men, and duties of free men when government becomes corrupt and ceases to follow the Constitution or Laws of the land, I found three potential courses of action. How do you think this will play out? I know Americans will not go blindly to the slaughter and lose their freedoms to a dictatorial regime.

Yesterday, I asked "Are House of Representative Democrats are really that gullible"? Under additional details, noted pattern of deceit, and backstabbing, and ask why they thought the Senate would pass reconciliation if the Senate Bill was already law. It was deleted for format. Upheld on challenge,

I looked back at Conservatives questions deleted during presidential election, and Brown's Senate election. Yes- it is Liberal censorship, which grows radically during high political controversy - No it is not neutral, or limited to violations of community policy - in fact, Lib agenda that violates community rules is permitted. Conservative agenda that is opposed by Libs is removed. Marxist censorship is the denial of freedom!

I then looked at their helping China imprison people for advancing individual freedom, while Google refused.

Why shouldn't YahooAnswers/Yahoo be boycotted as with the BS Gov Run Media?

Isn't it still manipulation to pass a bill both houses of Congress would not approve with the required number of votes.

Also, in listing to the rule to be used, it was stated the rule would provide for a vote on the Senate Bill - as amended. How then would the original Senate Bill (prior to approval of amendments by the Senate) be signed into law - it will not have passed the House, there is a condition of "as amended"

With all the back stabbing, back room deals, bribes, and betrayals of promises by Obama, Pelosi, etc., what makes the Democratic members of the House of Representatives think that a "deem passed" 2 for one deal would be honored?

The proposal would send the Senate Bill to the President for signature, and "amendments" would then go to the Senate for Vote - what is to stop the Senate from simply voting NO on the reconciliation/amendment bill? The Senate Bill would still become law, even though opposed by nearly all. With all the lies, deceit and breaches of promises, does anyone really think they will honor their word?

Since all who vote yes on either bill are throwing away their careers, and being asked to fall on the sword for Obama and the agenda, why would the trust this group of treacherous traitors to keep their word and vote yes on the reconciliation bill? One the House deems the Senate Bill passed - they are irrelevant- their careers are over, so why would Obama-mites care if they are betrayed?

a State?

Better yet, where does it authorize implementing regulations regulating the conduct of individuals - ie. mandating that they purchase health care?

While there is support for regulating some companies (interstate commerce), I can find none for attempting to regulate a purely civil issue of citizens on the Federal Level. Currently, even the Commerce Clause exception does not justify regulating Insurance at the Federal Level. Under the current system, Insurance (except medi-Care/Caid) is regulated exclusively by the States. It does not effect the commerce clause, as insurance must consent to jurisdiction of the State and once approved, cannot sell insurance across State lines. U

A quick review of case law indicates that the issue may not have ever been litigated -

The determination of who represents a State in the House and Senate is exclusively left to the States. ie. qualification and authority to represent the State in Congress is a State issue, not a Federal issue.

Then Congress must determine if under Federal law, the individual is qualified to serve, and confirm the State's choice. The appointments are for specified periods or time, and provision for filling a vacancy during such periods is left exclusively to the States.

Congress may impeach for failure to remain qualified under Federal standards (ie crimes, treason, etc). However, the Federal Constitution does not address a State's right to remove, or declare a person who is no longer qualified under State standards from Congress - Any power not specifically delegated to the Federal Government is reserved to the States and people, respectively.

While most assume that a 6 year appointment to the Senate means that it cannot be revoked by a State, the Constitution does not state that a State cannot disqualify, or remove an individual no longer qualified under State standards to act as it's representative. The Federal Constitution deals with the issue relative to Federal standards, not State, and thus it is arguable that it is one of the powers reserved to the State.

In 31 States, declaring the Health Care Bill, or Fed Gov mandating the purchase of insurance to be unlawful, and requiring the State Attorney General to challenge any such law has been passed, or is pending. Nevertheless, many of the Senators and Representatives are voting against State Laws and the will of the people. A violation of State law is a basis for a State to find a representative no longer qualified to represent it, following vote of the people. Too often, the votes of our representatives are for a political agenda separate from the interests, or detrimental to the intrests, or the States the were entrusted to represent. It is time the States seek to declare disqualifications under State law, and fill the vacancies created, with people who will represent the people and States. Such a process will be challenged in Court, but appears, in my opinion, constitutional and a right of each State to choose its representatives and who is qualified/disqualified from representing the State. Such a process, if successful, will go a long way to returning the government to a Constitutional Government, and representation of the people, by the people and for the people -

What do you think?

In watching the back room deals; threats; bribes for political advantage; attacks on anyone who disagrees, from the Supreme Court Justices to Joe the Plumber, to New Media; the ongoing admission that the Constitution is viewed as an obstacle, which needs to be circumvented; and the ongoing attempts to circumvent the peoples will - as well as a true vote on health care - they following quote came to mind - How many agree - or believe it may reach the point where we - the people - must take such a stance?

I hear Obama now wants to "deem" the Senate Health Care Bill passed by the House, without a vote, and proceed to reconciliation - so a true vote in neither the House or Senate is had? Just how much willful violation of the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States will the people tolerate? How much open corruption?

In Battlestar Galactica, the survivors of the Silon attack were searching for earth, with the prophosey from God.

In Caprica, terrorists worship the God of one - described as an all knowing dictator from whose decisions there is no appeal. Followers have committed acts of terrorism, even blowing up a commuter train. Now, Silons are being created and followers of the God of One are having their essence transferred into them - thus, the Hollywood spin is becoming followers of one God are terrorists that attempt to destroy the human race.

This appears to be an anti-God propaganda piece, where the religion of Atheism is attempting to use psychologists to teach our youth that God is evil. The Avatar appeared to be an anti_American propaganda piece to teach that evil USA will do anything to take what they want from others, and nearly destroyed a planet to get at the precious mineral in another's soil (I hear it caused a lot of Libs to feel sorry for those poor Muslim terrorist boys, that are just trying to preserve their culture against evil America forcing their beliefs on them, while trying to get at that precious mineral (oil) in their soil.

In my opinion, as always, followers of the Master of Deceit has accused others of what they stand for. My concern is that this same philosophy is being taught in our schools. How many more young minds will be deceived by such propaganda pieces?

Should they negotiate, knowing it's all a farce for publicity? Should the try to reach a middle ground, knowing what that means to the FO People Party [give us our way, or no way]? Or should they strictly attempt to return the USA to following the Constitution, including a limited Republican Form of Government, and stick to their conservative demands for ethics, morals and integrity?