Posted via email from akjsmog’s posterous

Posted via email from akjsmog’s posterous

1. Identify the Problem: After the Legislature passed an $11 billion dollar budget the Governor and AG want to waste badly needed state funds in a meritless frivoluous lawsuit against the federal government in order to deny Alaskans health care, for mere political campaign reasons.
2. Gather Records: Read the summary of the Governor's April 20th announcement with his announced plan to join 19 other states in their wasteful lawsuit against the federal health care package, claiming the Congress has limits under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, all the while ignoring the Supremacy Clause, Limited Immunity Clause, Tax & Spend Clause, and General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution. According to a summery of the Alaska State Department of Law's 48-page legal memorandum analyzing the constitutionality of the federal health care legislation can't make a solid case against the Commerce Clause, nor does it address any of the other clauses granting powers to Congress, thus ensuring the case will be thrown out or certainly lose in court, which demonstrates what a waste in legal fees this fruitless legal maneuver will become.
3. Contact the Person you are Filing Against: For the record be sure to call up the Governor & AG's offices and calmly and accurately explain to them they have no case and ask if they would decide not waste Alaska's money on frivolous lawsuits by dropping the case. Tell them to stop threatening to take health care away from Alaskans. Hands Off My Health Care! Here is the contact information for the Governor's office (465-3500) and here is the contact information for the Attorney General's office.
4. Allow Them to Contact you back: which may just be their response on the phone, or they may ask to get back in touch with you later.
5. Keep a Record of Your Efforts: which can be cross-referenced with their records.
6. Don't Give Up: As the Attorney General's page says, if you are not satisfied with the response, don't give up.
7. Write A Complaint Letter:
   • The letter should include your name, address, home and work telephone numbers, and account number, if appropriate.
   • Make your letter brief and to the point. Specify all the important facts about your purchase, including the date and place you made the purchase and any information you can give about the product — such as the serial or model number. If you are writing to complain about a service you received, describe the service and who performed it.
   • State exactly what you want done about the problem and how long you are willing to wait to resolve it. Be reasonable.
   • Include copies of all documents regarding your problem. Be sure to send COPIES, not originals.
   • Don't write an angry, sarcastic, or threatening letter. The person reading your letter probably was not responsible for your problem, but may be very helpful in resolving it.
   • Type your letter if possible. If it is handwritten, make sure it is neat and easy to read.
   • Keep a copy of all correspondence to and from the company.

Posted via email from akjsmog’s posterous

Reporters present: Rena Delbridge – Alaska Dispatch, Jeremy Hsieh – Associated Press, Dave Donaldson – APRN, Pat Forgey – Juneau Empire, Amanda Coyne – Freelance (Huffington Post, former Anchorage Press writer,) Linda Kellen – blogger, Andrew Jensen – Journal of Commerce, Erica Bolstad – McClatchy DC, Pete Carrin – KINY

The governor said he was briefed yesterday on the AG’s memo and was so compelled and felt it was so important that he waived privilege to release it to Alaskans. He said the issue is “a battle for freedom” under the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. He said the issue is one of regulation versus mandating, highlighting pages 23-26 of the memo, but page 25 in particular (the mandated gym membership line.) He said “for the first time we have the federal government dictating commerce.”

“With the enactment of health care legislation, the federal government has reached well beyond the scope of its authority — into the lives and freedom of Alaskans,” Governor Parnell said. “This case is ultimately about the extent to which the federal government can exert power over the states. It has critical implications for the liberty interests of all American citizens. Alaska must join this important litigation.”

The Attorney General said the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an “unprecedented congressional action” and there is pretty “universal recognition that Congress has limited enumerated powers.” He said he’s advising the state to join the Florida lawsuit to protect Alaska’s interests.

Dave from APRN asked how many states were involved, what the cost to the state is, and what the our goal is. The AG said 20 states are party to the Florida suit and Virginia has their own suit, it’ll cost $5000, and we’re asking the Supreme Court to declare the Commerce Clause elements (the individual mandate) unconstitutional.

Pat from the Empire asked if the state used any outside counsel. The AG said no, it was all internal work. He said they do these kinds of analyses on large issues pretty regularly and always look out for Alaska’s interests. He said our role could be providing good research and analysis to the parties involved.

Jeremy from the AP asked if Rep. Gatto and Rep. Kelly’s legislation played any role in the impetus to draft the memo. The AG said no, but other states had enacted similar legislation. He said the governor tasked him with focusing on the constitutionality.

Pat from the Empire asked if the governor had asked the legislature to move bills or to set them aside. The governor said he didn’t. He said he asked DHSS to analyze the cost of the PPACA to the state, since there’s a significant increase to Medicaid rolls that will fizzle out and be left to the states after two years. He said he tried not to influence the legislature in any way, concerning the Gatto/Kelly bills.

Amanda Coyne asked if this was all moot since there was an opt-out clause, sec. 1132, in the bill. The AG said provisions requiring states to set up an exchange are included, but if states don’t enact their own systems the federal health and social services divisions will come to the state to set one up – so it’s not a true opt-out. He said in general, there are no opt-outs.

Erica from McClatchy asked if this effort moving forward would hurt or hamper Alaska’s uninsured. The governor said he’s concerned with the expansion of congressional powers under the commerce clause; “Health care insurance at the price of freedom? No.”

Andrew from the Journal asked about the timeline for the case moving forward. The AAG said Florida would amend their suit in mid-May, there could be a motion to dismiss from the federal government in June, the motion would play out over the summer, and at that point states will ask for a summary judgment. He said look, hopefully, for something as early as the fall or winter.

Dave from APRN asked if affordable healthcare insurance was a laudable goal. The governor said yes – he supports allowing statewide pools. The AG said under the commerce clause congressional power has been upheld in some kind of economic activity, but this situation is a) completely unprecedented, and b) outside of the scope of congress and the government.

Linda Kellen asked a political question: since 17 of the 21 states have republican governors, or governors running for re-election, and with Parnell having a serious challenger in Ralph Samuels, is this all a coincidence? The governor said he won’t address candidate questions, but he’s opposed this legislation since day one and have diligently done our homework.

Pete from KINY asked what the federal government would think about the state’s argument. The AG said we’re balancing the argument by laying out the history of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause, and that in 1995 and in 2000 they’ve said the Clause can’t give congress unlimited powers. He said it’s “going to be a battle of Commerce Clause limits.” He said all the rhetoric and law review articles, talking heads, and arguments from the other side of the issue “never acknowledge congress has limits under the Commerce Clause.”

Amanda Coyne asked about the opt-out again, saying it’s constitutional, then, for Alaska to mandate coverage. The AG said it goes to the fundamental difference between the federal versus state constitutional powers; “it’s really Con. Law 101” because we’re endowed without limits in the federal constitution.

The governor emphasized that the decision to sue is more about Alaskans’ liberty interests than about health care legislation. “Health insurance coverage is not in the public interest if it’s achieved through a constitutional short-cut that expands federal power at the expense of states’ rights and the liberties of citizens,” he said.

The Department of Law’s 48-page legal memorandum analyzing the federal health care legislation found that most of the legal theories challenging the federal act do not raise serious constitutional issues. The department concluded that the individual mandate was the most troubling and constitutionally suspect provision of the federal act.

The Department of Law’s constitutional analysis of the federal health care bill is available at the following links:

Summary: http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/042010-ExecSummary.pdf
Opinion: http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/opinions/opinions_2010/10-002_ReconciliationAct.pdf

Related Posts from Shannyn Moore:

Alaska Governor Sean Parnell and AG Dan Sullivan announce plans to sue FEDS over healthcare
Caribou Ken Sues the Feds!

Oh, but then I suppose you could “reform” health care again? You guys want to give it a go next time you are in power? It’s so easy afterall. And clearly after everything you wanted in the health care reform bill is actually included in the bill I can see why you’d want to completely reform it. Maybe you guys can call it the “Health Care Deform bill”? Just give the insurance companies anti-trust exemptions again and let them drop whoever and jack up premiums to whatever? That’s been working out so great so far, afterall. Would you spend a whole year debating it like the Democrats? Or would you “ram it through”? Would you use reconciliation? How about a “self-executing action”? Which form of hypocrisy would you use to get it accomplished? Because after all, the Democrats wouldn’t think of using every single tactic the Republicans used against them when the shoe is on the other foot. For some strange reason Republicans think that if they take back over Congress Democrats aren’t going to filibuster every goddam thing they offer. I guess you guys are prepared for the barrage of hypocrisy attacks that will follow, right? In fact, Republicans should campaign on repealing Health Care. That would be very fun to watch.

But the fact of the matter is, when Health Care reform passes on Sunday, and signed by Obama, it becomes law. If the Republicans want to “gut” it and take away its funding, a program that is paid for and is not contributing to the national deficit, then they will basically have to deficit spend to pay for it. Yeah, nobody will notice that. After all the horse shit the Republicans and conservatives are bitching about Obama spending money to keep our country’s economy from collapsing, trust me, if the Republicans even hint they are about to go on a Reagan/Bush spending spree there will be rioting in the streets.

So yeah, good luck with that.

Don't You Just Love Satire?

Needless to say, Lawrence O’Donnel was co-hosting and of course tore him a new asshole. And who wouldn’t!?

THIESSEN: You‘ve got to think back to the period after 9/11. We didn‘t even know who hit us. This program is why we did not have another 9/11 after the attack and it‘s just vital.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: Lawrence O‘Donnell—

O‘DONNELL: Well, you‘re lying about the west coast thing. That‘s been covered very clearly. But you actually—you as a former speechwriter in the White House, you took an oath of office when you took that job, that you might or might not remember. You actually publish a book that says that the president of the United States, on its title, the president is inviting the next attack. Isn‘t it true that the president you worked for invited the first attack—

THIESSEN: Lawrence, that‘s ridiculous.

O‘DONNELL: — by having no idea what was going on with al-Qaeda? You just admitted —

THIESSEN: All right. Please.

O‘DONNELL: — that when you were hit on 9/11, you just said, we didn‘t know who hit us.

THIESSEN: Here‘s the record, Lawrence.

O‘DONNELL: You said we didn‘t know who hit us. You were told who was going to hit you before we were hit on 9/11. And your administration invited the first attack for which you should live in shame.

As remarkable as it is that Mr. Thiessen considers it a defense that Mr. Bush did not know who hit us in the period after 9/11, he is lying. Thanks to traditional intelligence gathering, which Mr. Bush ignored—Mr. Bush knew who hit us very early after 9/11, in fact, he knew on 9/11.

At 3:00 in the afternoon, CIA Director George Tenet told Mr. Bush it was virtually certain that Osama bin Laden were responsible. Bin Laden‘s location at that time believed to have been near Kandahar, and could also have been determined by Mr. Bush on 9/11 if he had read the “Boston Globe” that day.

Any lingering doubts about how partisanship skews Mr. Thiessen‘s view of national security, here‘s an article he wrote this week for “Foreign Policy,” “Barack Obama is killing too many terrorists by his use of drone missions.” Imagine the reaction of a Democratic White House veteran had asked whether Mr. Bush was quote, “killing too many bad guys”?

This level of idiocy takes your breath away, that his theory is, if we could somehow capture them and torture them and talk to them, we‘d be much better off than just actually killing them. We haven‘t invented the drone yet that captures them, we invented the drone that kills them very effectively. And the ones that we are not killing, we are putting on the run with those drones, they are—that puts them out of the zone where they can be doing planning. They have to spend a great deal of their day thinking about how they‘re going to survive. And this moron thinks, no, we should take the pressure off them and somehow have them walking to our arms so we can interrogate them.

But then to even suggest that we did not know who hit us on 9/11, except we would have if we had a torture program in place, is probably one of the most ludicrous things anybody has ever said. First of all, thanks for admitting the Bush administration didn’t care about Al-Qaida in the first place to even have a program. But even if there was, who was in custody to torture. Who does Theissen think we should have been interrogating? Even if it was legal? And even still, if Bush had Osama Bin Laden in custody before the attacks on 9/11 all they would have asked him about was Iraq. Who was going to ask “When are you guys flying planes into the World Trade Center?”

However, the most important thing to remember here is, we knew exactly who hit us. The National Security Council was in the Situation Room on 9/11 before the 2nd plane hit and they knew exactly who it was. Not only that, there was a certain memo released a month earlier that very clearly stated that “Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside the US“.

How is it not hypocrisy to write a book and claim “Barak Obama is inviting the next attack,” when Bush not only invited the previous attacks, he took everyone off watch.

Furthermore, how is Obama “inviting the next attack?” If anything, when it comes the war on Al-Qaeda, Obama’s record is nonpareil and has far surpassed Bush’s. Al-Qaeda is being pursued with a vigor like it has never been seen before. Obama has eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. Obama has taken out 100 of their associates. Obama has sent them all underground. They are, in fact, not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. Despite whatever fantasy world Dick Cheney and Mark Theissen live in, Al-Qaeda is on the run.

It’s one thing to criticize; it’s another thing to distort, fabricate and completely rewrite history.

a principled, common sense, Strong, HARD conservative

Never the less, while Palin has been traveling the country embarrassing herself elsewhere she has weighed in on a few of the upcoming elections as well, saying this about MA Senatorial Republican candidate Scott Brown, that he has “you know, common sense conservative values, principles, solutions, being plugged in to meet the challenges facing America today.” Because obviously someone who poses nude in a Centerfold (without even a hand towel) demonstrates, what is it again, “conservative values, principles, solutions, being plugged in to meet the challenges facing America today.” Or maybe Levi is taking a venture into porn because of the magazine in which he chose to pose in, which was no Cosmo like Brown’s pictorial. And who knows, since Brown’s expose was during the 80s, maybe Levi will make a great Republican Senatorial candidate in 20 years. Hmmm, Levi doesn’t seem to have quite as good a grasp on hypocrisy yet, like all principled common sense Republicans do.

Take the poll : Is A.) the nude photo of Levi Johnson the porn and the nude photo of Scott Brown the common sense conservative, B.) the nude photo of Scott Brown the porn and the nude photo of Levi Johnson the common sense conservative, or C.) Sarah Palin is a hypocrite?

McCain/Palin visor at the beach

Can’t a former half-governor of Alaska ever catch a break? Now her idiotic attempt at a disguise is all the media’s fault and so she and her family are cutting their vacation short. But she did release this statement on her Facebook page:

“In an attempt to ‘go incognito,’ I Sharpied the logo out on my sun visor so photographers would be less likely to recognize me and bother my kids or other vacationers.

“I am so sorry if people took this silly incident the wrong way. I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago.

“Todd and I have since cut our vacation short because the incognito attempts didn’t work and fellow vacationers were bothered for the two days we spent in the sun. So much for trying to go incognito.”"

Also, while “incognito” her t-shirt was still on message: on the front it said, “If you don’t love America,” and on the back, “then why don’t you get the hell out.”

GOP says No to Reagan

Conservative RNC member James Bopp Jr. is circulating a draft resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support if they wish to have party backing. The resolution calls on the Republican National Committee to end funding and endorsements for any candidate who deviates from three or more of the positions. RNC chairman Michael Steele will now have to choose a side between those who would expand the party ideologically and those more concerned with conservative purity at the next RNC meeting in January.

So why just 10 positions to abide by? And why only two are allowed to be broken before being booted from the party? Because as the resolution states, “WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.” Unfortunately, of the 10 positions listed Ronald Reagan completely failed on more than half of them.

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
Reagan = FAIL

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Reagan = FAIL

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
Reagan = FAIL

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
Reagan = FAIL

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Reagan = FAIL

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;
Reagan = FAIL

And to sum it all up the resolution states: “RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further.”

So, good bye Ronald Reagan! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out! It really looks like the GOP learned the wrong lesson last Nov. 3rd.