Truly respecting your right to choose.

reserving the independence of Americans' health care decisions, free from any and all government coercion and other denial of their constitutional rights, is the hallmark of almost all Republican alternatives to the Demøfascist Pølitburø misleaders' Øfascist"Care" bills shovings down our throats.

Many of the major Republican alternatives are arranged into a comprehensive whole by the proposed bill below. Follow the links to the House and Senate bills cited under its titles and subtitles to read the applicable legislative language. (Bills containing the same or very similar language are in parentheses.)

Labels: a Republic if we can keep it, consumer rights, non-liberal ideas (aka Good Ideas), patriotism, Power to the people, RESET BUTTON 2010

	6:10 PM   0

Change We Need

f your "representative" votes in favor of Half-Whitey Former Junior Senator Baracketeer Øfascist's health "care" bill Mein Healthkare, but he or she won't pledge to enroll his or her whole family in the public "option" he or she loves so much, then you and your family should be entitled to enroll in the same Congressional Gold Plated^® private-options plan special privilege, including "taxpayer-subsidized care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.," which he or she enjoys.

Call it the "Give the People Hope™ Act of 2009."

When that passes we can demand the Federal Aviation Administration crack down on all those flying pigs and unicorns which have been posing a real hazard to normal air traffic.

Labels: anti-America liberals (BIRM), consumer rights, fascist totalitarian liberals (BIRM), government over beyond and forsaking the people, miserably failing liberals (BIRM), Power to the people

	2:49 PM   0

Short answer: the same fascists who decide, no, you don't have any choice besides buy it or be taxed punished.

orrupt politicians and distant bureaucrats making all these decisions for you. Where's the freedom in that?

Every medical record in the entire nation in their grimy hands. Where's the privacy in that?

Those wasteful hands shoving an additional $240 Billion bill in our children and grandchildren's. Where's the cost savings in that?

A better alternative is to give health care vouchers to everyone who's unable to buy insurance, inform those who qualify for existing assistance that they do, offer insurance-purchasing tax incentives to the rest who could but don't buy any, stop counting illegal aliens among the uninsured, and, most importantly, reduce across the board government's regulations- and paperwork-burdening involvement in our and our physicians' choices and our insurers' business practices.

In other words, trust the American people to make the best decisions of, by, for themselves.

Do nothing to deny, lessen, or obstruct their respective rights to choose which physicians and insurers are in their best interests to patronize and which employers are in their best interests to work for, thus giving all physicians, insurers, and employers the highest and clearest possible incentives to freely compete for the title of Best Caterers to their customers and employees' interests.

There's maximum freedom, privacy, and cost savings in this Put Americans First™ alternative to the fascist Democorrupt Party's extremely partisan, Big Government do-all, know-all, be-all "reforms."

The last thing we want is another massive, unaffordable, overly complex, permanent, and out-of-control Put Government First^® program that's of the self-serving corrupt politicians and distant bureaucrats, by the self-serving corrupt politicians and distant bureaucrats, for the self-serving corrupt politicians and distant bureaucrats.

Labels: consumer rights, fascist totalitarian liberals (BIRM), good versus evil, government over beyond and forsaking the people, Separation of Common Sense and State, thieving liberals (BIRM)

	8:25 PM   0

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy.... To carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is essential to all government." – McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

[H.R.3200] SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. (a) In General— Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part: "PART VIII — HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES / SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. (a) Tax Imposed— In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of (1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer."

onsume or be destroyed. Some "choice."

The tax imposed by proposed Section 59B on only the incomes of citizens who refuse to obey the federal government's mandate that all citizens be health-insurance consumers is reduced to an unconstitutional direct or head tax by that very imposition.

Nowhere in their Constitution have the people of the United States granted her government the power to force each and every citizen into engaging in any form or manner of interstate or even intrastate commerce. Indeed, it is clear that their supreme document has never envisioned any such kind of naked dictatorship.

Its full scope and purpose is limiting the powers of government over the people, not expanding those powers whenever and however the government may see fit. Certainly not giving government unfettered leave to artificially create out of whole cloth a new "responsibility" of every individual citizen, by mere virtue of his citizenship, to consume any public- or private-sector good or service which that government has decreed he must. Only tyrannies are founded on such principles.

Mandating anything of the sort, especially under color of law, exceeds the just powers a government of the people, by the people, for the people derives from their consent.

Moreover, the taxing power vested in the legislative branch is limited in application to persons or entities freely choosing to engage in some constitutionally-taxable activity. The act of breathing — of continuing to exist as a living citizen or resident in the United States — is not so taxable unless applied "uniform(ly) throughout the United States" to every person who breathes. This is because the tax is based not on any activity by which the person could derive a source of income but solely on the activity by which he takes into his lungs a source of life-sustaining oxygen. In essence, an excise tax on breathing. Even then the collection of this tax, since it is imposed on each head without exception, must conform with the constitutional provision relating to apportionment of direct taxes.

Thus the tax imposed by proposed Section 59B is clearly unconstitutional.

But since when has supporting and defending the Constitution ordained and established by We the People, much less bearing "true faith and allegiance to the same," ever mattered to Øfascist, Peloseri, Reidtard or any of the other fascist liberal Despoticrat Party tyrants^(birm) who're trying to ram their failure-to-consume tax egregious violation of our civil rights down all our throats (unless, of course, we sheepishly "choose" to obey all their abusive dictates)?

Labels: anti-America liberals (BIRM), consumer rights, fascist totalitarian liberals (BIRM), Impeach.Obama.Now., lawbreaking liberals (BIRM), megalomaniacal liberals (BIRM), neither Hope nor Change

	10:37 PM   0

Forced to Buy v. Right to Choose

his isn't auto insurance. There's nothing in our laws that says I must drive. So I can avoid buying such insurance by choosing to walk, ride bicycles, or even roller-blade everywhere.

But the government Demoqrat Regime holding a gun to my head and forcing me to buy "health insurance" simply because I must breathe, constitutes under color of law the clearest definition and application of slavery or involuntary servitude.

Essentially an unconstitutional federal Head Tax, complete with regressively penalizing Bills of Attainder, this usurpation of our powers also violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures as well as the people's Right to Privacy — their Right to Be Left Alone, free of unwarranted public intrusion into and jurisdiction and control over their individual lives and most strictly personal decisions.

Moreover, a conscious person's Right to Refuse Any Medically-Related Assistance, regardless the manner or form, is so sacrosanct that violations of it would breach every health professional's oath.

When such violations are demanded by the people's own government, they further breach the most fundamental of all compacts between it and them: that governments' just powers cannot be derived except from the Consent of the Governed.

However they're viewed, there is no due process in these deprivals of our lives, liberties, and property; nor any just compensation with the attendant takings of our private property for so-called public use when that use promises only unreasonably increasing costs, unduly decreasing freedoms, unprecedented mountains of unconscionably harmful debt, and unavoidable rationing that egregiously risks both life and limb.

But since we're talking about what the Demofascist Party's führer and its other misleaders want to do for to us, all of this is irrelevant.

Rights, choice, due process, freedoms, just compensation, just powers, consent.

None of these is in any Dictatorat's private vocabulary.

Absolute, unquestioned power is both sole means and sole end to his very existence as an allegedly human being, not merely as an actually tyrannical commissar or functionary in some fascist utopia created of, by, and for him and his accessories before, during, and after the fact, where every philosophical difference or uninhibited exercise of any personal freedom is or ought to be an infamous crime, if not a capital offense.

Forced into having no choice at all means that, no, none can see any prospect of hope or change he may need in the future.

Thanks once again, oh, so much, 52'ers Filthy-Tubers.

You've made G. Pavlov Soro$ and his D.C. cabana boys and girls marionettes very, very happy.

Labels: consumer rights, culture of death and destruction, dangerously incompetent liberals (BIRM), Don't blame me - I wrote in Ashcroft, fascist totalitarian liberals (BIRM), lethal liberalism (BIRM)

	11:35 AM   0

Can we impeach him now?

dictator secretively spies on his subjects so, yes, he can know at all times where they are and what they're doing. How else can he always keep a tight leash on them and control whatever they do? Otherwise, he can't have absolute power over the people. (Doctor of Democracy)

Not even al-Qaeda terrorists are subjected to this level of warrantless and extremely intrusive searches of their most private personal information.

That's right. Doctors should learn to operate and "think" more like entrenched, power-hungry, big-government bureaucrats^birm. "Just what the doctor dictator ordered" is not something you want to hear when, God forbid, you're sick.

Frog-marching your physician out of his office in hand- and ankle-cuffs for opposing Obameinführer^® will make them all "Goot Leettil Germans Doktorz."

Doctors' typical "medical" decision: (A) Treat patient as my training and oath dictates and get fined and/or go to jail; or (B) Don't treat patient at all, as Obameinführer^® dictates.

It's the textbook "no brainer."

No, we can't be "expecting too much." Because the big-government Gestapocrats — not we — are the ones we have been waiting for to make all the medical decisions we and our doctors used to make, especially when some Gestapocrat arbitrarily declares you have "no hope" and the "change" he needs is for you to no longer be a "same old tired" living human being but be a very dead one so he doesn't have to spend any more money on you so, yes, he can give more money to "stimulate" his "president"'s special-interest lobbyist buddies.

And speaking of forced euthanasia:

"Your usefulness to The State is insufficient to justify any expense that Its totally monitored and controlled 'medical' 'services' would incur to even maintain your health, much less try to restore it whenever you become ill. So do us all a favor now and take this pill. No, just ignore its bitter-almond scent. It's just what the doctor Obameinführer^® ordered."

That is, Cyanide We Need™.

In other words, Obameinführer^® gets to decide who lives and who dies.

Sieg Heil!

In other words, Liberalism Kills!

Hope! Change!

"Sacrifice"; or, if you prefer the original German, gehen Sie zu den Öfen (go to the ovens).

Control the people's health and you control the people.

When "you will do what I say or you won't get any health care" is just what the Obameinführer^®'s Gestapocrats ordered, what choice do you have but to unquestioningly obey?

"Too important (for our seizing absolute power) to be subject to any transparent democratic process," Herr Tax-Cheat Daschole meant to say in German.

Article of Impeachment I — Crimes Against Liberty: Spying on the American people's private medical communications, information, and activities without any judicial warrant, in clear violation of the Constitution.

Article of Impeachment II — Crimes Against Humanity: Creating a Nazi-like Gestapo that keeps doctors and other medical professionals "in line" with its arbitrary dictates and threatens the health and lives of every American.

The vote today in the Senate shouldn't have been on whether to pass the Obameinführer^®'s Spendulus Porkage™.

It should've been to convict him and remove him from office for high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people.

Labels: consumer rights, culture of death and destruction, lawbreaking liberals (BIRM), lethal liberalism (BIRM), Liberalism Kills, lying liberals (BIRM), spread the misery around

	1:01 PM   0

Raising taxes on the very people he promised to help — making them even worse off — just so he give a vote-buying handout to those who need it less. Now that's "change" we can believe in!

nother Ø'broken promise.

So much for "no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase."

The poor will bear the highest burden of Present Øbamao's higher Poor Tax™. Minorities will be even harder hit.

Three out of every ten poor people will be paying this over 250-percent increase in taxes he wants to unfairly impose on them. But they won't receive any additional benefits from his higher taxes on them since their children aren't included in his latest Middle-Class Welfare/Vote-Buying Handout scheme.

By contrast, only one in five people whose votes he's buying with his middle-class handout are going to see their taxes increase. So, in light of the fact that those with higher incomes smoke less and thus can avoid the brunt of the Øbamarx Poor Tax, they won't be paying anywhere near their fair share.

The unprecedentedly high tax burden that Present Ø'promise-breaker wants to impose on minorities is worse. Especially for blacks, since over two out of every five poor blacks, including over half of all poor black men, will be directly hit by Former Senator Øbamarx's tax increase.

It's enough to make someone say,

But the worst thing that has happened to us is that as a nation we have lost our way. We have lost faith that Americans can still be the good guys, that we can... help the poor....

We won't be getting that faith back, either, after Present Øbamao makes sure the poor and minorities see their taxes increase.

Talk about a regressive tax:

Before delving into what the Øbammunist middle-class vote-buying handout goodies are, let's find out how much they're going to cost the poor and minorities he's excluding from any receipt of those goodies.

The math's so easy, in fact, even a liberal could do it... on a good day... if they had a big-button calculator... and their remedial-math teacher refrained from refusing to have to continually correct their wrong answers for fear of destroying their self-esteem:

Given that Former Senator Øblowa's Middle-Class Welfare/Vote-Buying Handout will be at least $33 billion over the next 4½ years, and that his increased Poor Tax™ is $0.61 on each pack of cigarettes, the number of packs in need of smoking to fund his Middle-Class Bribes for Votes Program^® is 54 billion.

At present there are 45 million cigarette consumers in the United States. Over half of them are poor (i.e., 28% of 36 million at 100% poverty, plus 26% of 54 million at 100-200% poverty, equals 24 million).

Therefore, each of them would have to buy a total of 1,200 packs. That's 270 packs a year, or a carton (10 packs) every two weeks!

And since the poor are the only ones who come anywhere close to smoking that much — indeed, 47 percent of all tobacco purchasers have an annual household income of less than $30,000 (it rises to 77 percent when you include those having less than only $50,000) — they will bear an even more disproportionate burden of Øbonghit's unfair tax increase.

It also means the poor and minorities will have less money to spend as they're running their homes, working hard trying to support their children, and "needing to cut themselves some slack" against the added stress from Øbamarx's Recession^® that's pounding them.

How much less? Since the Øbamao Poor Tax on poverty-stricken minorities and non-minorities' half-carton a week adds up to a total hit of $741 on them, they'll have $165 less to spend every year through at least 2013. That's in addition to the $105 a year they're already going to be forking over to the Government That's There To "Help" Them™ through the steeply regressive federal excise tax currently slapped on them as second-class taxpayers.

So, liberals, choose which one you want these poor and minority parents to cut out for their kids:

That $165 month's worth of food so their hunger-stricken kids can eat more than what your inadequate food-stamp programs provide?

— Headline: Demoqrats want to starve The Children!

That $165 Winter's coat and other clothes so their kids can have something warm to wear when they go to your government schools?

— Headline: Demoqrats want The Children to freeze and even go naked!

That $165 summer month's electric bill payment so their kids can stay cool during the hot afternoons caused by your global warming climate change as well as turn on their desk lamps at night?

— Headlines: Demoqrats want The Children to sit in the dark without electricity! Demoqrats want The Children to not be able to see to do their homework! Demoqrats want The Children to go to bed drenched in sweat!

Before you smug liberals (but I repeat myself) look down your upturned noses and arrogantly say, "Well, then those poor and minority parents shouldn't be smoking!" think about feel what you're saying. Because if they do stop per your customarily racist-sounding demand, where is the revenue going to come from to pay for your "president"'s glorious Middle-Class Welfare/Vote-Buying Handout? Then you'd have no choice but to raise taxes on those very same middle-class folks — and it's bye-bye all their votes.

Of course, this highly regressive Øbamarx Poor Tax™ on low-income minority and non-minority parents means that a significant number of them won't be smoking. So the poor and minorities who still do, including those with children, will have to make up the difference by paying an even higher tax. At least $6 a year more after Present Øbrute's punitive tax on the poor and minorities forces a million and a half to quit or take to the underground economy created as a consequence of, effectively, that Øbamoron Prohibition^{(©1920-1933)} aimed mainly at them and intended to hit them the hardest.

Call it the Øbamao Spread-the-Tax-Around Effect™.

Yes, we can see now that forcing the poor and minorities to pay more than their fair share is about as unfair as you can get. Even for a liberal.

But, hey, what do the poor and minorities matter? It's not like they're going to start voting Republican or any liberty-loving thing like that.

If you're a Dictatorat, you can afford to crap all over them. Same as your party did when it only somewhat more officially advocated making them perpetual slaves.

It's clear your promise-breaking Dear Leader^{(©Tyrants,Inc.)} B. Hitlerian Øbameinführer^{(©Anti-tyrants,LC)} doesn't care about the poor, the minorities, or their children. Why should you?

He also wants to destroy American jobs, especially those in the nation's cigar industry.

It's safe to assume negligible revenues raised from customers of our country's cigar industry, primarily due to the utter certainty there won't be much of one left after the Øbamao Tax Increase™ gets done ravaging it.

How ironic that the liberals' boogymen, Eeevil Corporations™, care demonstrably more about the jobs and living wages of struggling American workers. This includes even Big Tobacco:

If they made over $250,000, and were Demoqrats, they could get away with cheating on their payment of those taxes and get nominated for a high-level position in the Øbamob administration. However, they aren't afforded such privileged exemption under the Democrooks' Rangel Rule.

Certainly even liberals know or should know that slapping any tax on those least able to afford it is never a good idea if your goal is to derive some steady source of revenue from it. Liberals' most beloved group of people of all time — lawyers — are capable of grasping this incongruity:

That is, if your goal actually involves raising funds.

But we're talking about liberals here.

Which brings us to the Øbammunist middle-class vote-buying handout goodies that Present Ømobboss is forcing the poor and minorities to subsidize.

To sweeten his bribe of middle-class parents for their votes — all unfairly funded on the backs of low-income ones — Former Senator Øbamunist offers to define every 19-, 20-, and 21-year-old offspring of theirs as a "child."

[T]he term "child" means an individual under 19 years of age, or, at the option of a State, such higher age, not to exceed 21 years of age, as the State may elect.

So much for "change," too. This is just more of the same Poor Tax™, jobs-killing garbage zer-0bama and other Demoqrats in al-Qongress tried to stick the American People with back in 2007.

Senator Bunning from Kentucky ably called them on it:

He called the Democretins on it again last week:

Although the Peloseri-run House Plantation™ passed the Øbamarx Poor Tax bill, the Senate insisted on amending it. So a few selected Senators and Representative began meeting to come up with a version of the Øbamarx Poor Tax that both the Senate and Peloseri's House Plantation will have to vote on again.

It's not too late for normal, hard-working Americans to rescue their income and their jobs from this Øbamao Tax Increase.

Tell your Representatives today the same thing!

The sad part of all this isn't how Present Øpromise-breaker is manipulating the people who, even now, are still inclined to support him. It's that they not only want but need someone like him to keep on manipulating them.

Labels: consumer rights, elitist despot liberals (BIRM), liberal racism, lying liberals (BIRM), Obama 'Nation', tax'n'spend liberals (BIRM), Washington D(istrict of )C(rooks)

	5:13 PM   0

At least somebody's rolling up his sleeves and doing the job we taxpayers expect and pay him to do.

iven the challenge of fixing the worst economic crisis our nation has seen in living memory, John McCain faces it head on, dives right in where the action is, and works hard to get it fixed quickly for us.

Freshman Junior Senator OBusha, on the other hand, just wants to wait around on the sidelines, literally a thousand miles away, out there on the campaign trail by himself, detached, doing nothing but blaming others and complaining.

After President Bush tried to dump a $700 Billion budget-busting bailout in all our laps, John McCain said, "Not so fast."

Freshman Junior Senator OBusha, on the other hand, meekly went along with President Bush and even said, "Not enough. Make it bigger and broader."

Thankfully, John McCain clearly understands that fixing this mess in Washington is much more important to the American people and their economy than standing on some faraway stage in front of a camera talking about instead of doing something to fix the mess.

Freshman Junior Senator OBusha, on the other hand, is so out of touch with the American people that he feels they would rather watch him up on that distant stage hurling blame and insults at people and otherwise selfishly fiddling with his tie while our nation's economy is burning.

So who's taking action? Who's showing he's ready to lead in a time of crisis? Who's not wasting any time at all when there's a lot of hard work that needs to be done right away?

The next president of the United States of America: John McCain. That's who.

Labels: consumer rights, good versus evil

	11:25 PM   0

Like some butter on you're toast?

nteresting headline:

Leader of Obama's VP Search Team Quits
Former Fannie Mae Chief Was Criticized Over Loan Deals

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2008; A01

James A. Johnson, a consummate Washington insider and former Fannie Mae chief executive, resigned yesterday from Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential search committee, just four days after he was caught up in controversy over low-interest home loans and lucrative business deals.

No wonder you were only "present" again back in 2005, when Senator McCain was asking you to support increased oversight authority so the administration could better regulate your beloved Fannie, Mr. Odonothing-uh. Even after Senator McCain warned you and your fellow Demoqrats Qommunists that, "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

However, what is a wonder is that — given those bookending your pointy head, Freshman Junior Senator OdumbO — his warnings simply fell on your hopelessly deaf ears.

Your party miserably failed to do anything at all about the looming crisis. Other than to obstruct, deny, and filibuster any and all needed Change^®, that is. Even after

The Bush administration today [September 11, 2003] recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

A plan supported by congressional Republicans. But opposed by DemoFanniecrats, of course.

Now what possible reasons could you have for doing, as usual, absolutely nothing? Be$ide$ your 105,849 more of the $ame one$?

Speaking of which,

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac execs now offering advice to Obama
Senator's links to mortgage giants also include campaign contributions

Posted: September 17, 2008 9:10 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi

NEW YORK – Campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made to Barack Obama may backfire if the Democratic presidential hopeful wages an aggressive campaign to cast blame on rival John McCain and the Republicans in Congress for the mortgage-related losses that forced the U.S. Treasury to take over the quasi-governmental mortgage giants.

A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

One more:

McCain hits Obama on Fannie Mae ties

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor September 18, 2008 06:20 PM

John McCain unveiled a new TV ad this afternoon that tries to paint Democratic rival Barack Obama as so inexperienced on the economy that he has to listen to shady characters.

"Obama has no background in economics," the announcer says.

"Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for 'advice on mortgage and housing policy,'" the announcer says, citing a Washington Post report this week.

"Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed 'extensive financial fraud,'" the announcer says, as another newspaper headline appears on screen. "Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed."

Raines, the head of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004, agreed in April to pay nearly $25 million in a settlement with the government in an accounting scandal.

"Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill," the announcer continues, as an image of an elderly woman appears. "Barack Obama, bad advice, bad instincts. Not ready to lead."

UPDATE: Obama's campaign just issued a response, including a denial from Raines.

"I am not an adviser to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters," Raines said in a statement.

Such "I am not a crook" denials, notwithstanding, what flowery sounding Hopenchange™ Plan^® do you have, El ZerO, for delivering a good, swift kick to that crooked Fannie of yours?

What?

No, I can't, uh, hear you over the, um, crickets.

The Crickets' Teleprompter

Labels: anti-America liberals (BIRM), clue-challenged liberals (BIRM), consumer rights, lying liberals (BIRM), tax'n'spend liberals (BIRM), Washington D(istrict of )C(rooks)

	7:07 PM   0

aka Demoqratiq al-Qongress

f, as qongressional Demoqommierat kingpinheads claim, it's indeed the case that from just the 15 percent of "our" public lands they now so graciously allow us wretched, huddled plebeians to lease out for drilling oil and natural gas, we have the potential to "nearly double" domestic production of both indispensable fuel sources, then it stands to reason that if they would so kindly deign to allow us trivial, unworthy (to them) mortals to lease all "our" public lands for this purpose, we'd have the potential to increase such production to over 13 times its current level:

Good news is Demoilqrats^® have finally come around to supporting more drilling. (You OK under the O-bus there, envirowhackos?)

However, merely doubling our production isn't going to be enough to let us do anything more than catch up with, much less surpass, the net amount of foreign oil we'll be importing afterwards.

U.S. demand for all petroleum products is 21 million barrels per day, seven million of which is being supplied by domestic production and 14 million by the refinement of foreign crude oil. In addition, we're producing about a million barrels of crude oil per day for export. Subtracting those exports from the five million total barrels of crude oil we're producing daily leaves us only four million for domestic consumption. So if we doubled domestic crude-oil production, we'd presumably still have at least a million barrels each day for export, but not more than a total of nine million for our own use:

If all we want to do is become just as dependent on imports of foreign oil as we are on domestic supplies, then our country should adopt the Demolightworkerrats' Co-Dependency "Plan"™. (This of course unrealistically assumes that the crumbs lousy drilling leases they've tossed down to us are really as full of crude as they are of crap crud.)

But if we want to truly declare our independence from the dual tyranny of do-nothing Demoqrat Party terraphiliacs (when they're not busy hatefully trying to control and ruin our economy and lives in order to prop their extremist selves up) and terrorist-coddling Third World despots (ditto), we must nearly quadruple our production of domestic oil:

Which means we must at least double the acreage of drilling leases that the Peloseri-Reamed Demoqrat Partyrants mule-headedly want to still limit us to, given that they obviously prefer to do nothing so that, yes, they can unnecessarily and sadistically prolong our suffering.

This, in turn, brings up the most important equation: How many America-loving Democrats would there need to be in the House and Senate before they have enough votes to show those misleaders of theirs how miserably failing and out of touch such mistaken Just Say No to Drilling^®, (give us the) business-as-usual regressiveness is with everything the American people, in ever louder and louder voices, are now expressly demanding?

Of course, Nasty Pelooni, Scary Screed, and the rest of the status-quo Demohoaxerrat "leader"ship have already done the math here (or at least here).

And they didn't even have to worry about running out of fingers and toes before adding those figures up.

Obama bin Biden
2008  A.H. 1429

Labels: aided and comforted enemies, clue-challenged liberals (BIRM), consumer rights, elitist despot liberals (BIRM), government over beyond and forsaking the people

	10:32 AM   0

"Free trade is good, you nativist!"

–Johnincompoop (pun very much intended) MqQain MqMexiqaino

U.S. salmonella probe expands to Mexico: CNN
Fri Jul 4, 1:26 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The investigation of a salmonella outbreak in the United States is shifting to the southern border to encompass produce imported from Mexico, CNN reported on Thursday.

U.S. health officials are struggling to find the source of the outbreak linked to certain types of tomatoes.

There have been at least 922 reported cases of salmonella food poisoning in 40 states and the District of Columbia since mid-April, CNN reported.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has alerted growers and brokers handling their products that, starting on Monday, inspectors will stop shipments from Mexico of ingredients common to Mexican cuisine, CNN reported, citing sources familiar with the investigation.

Cilantro, jalapeno peppers, serrano peppers, scallions and bulb onions are among the products to be examined, it said.

Tomatoes continue to be the primary focus of the probe but officials have expanded the investigation to include produce commonly eaten with tomatoes.

An FDA spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

L

ast month it was both salmonella tomatoes and E. coli Romain lettuce:

A Second Source Says: "It Must Be Mexico"
June 9, 2008 by Salmonella Lawyer

Bob Drobatz is president of operations for Petaluma Market in Santa Rosa, CA. He told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat that the tomatoes he was pulling from grocery shelves came from Mexico.

Mexico is one of the biggest suppliers of red round tomatoes and the country was conspicuously absent from the FDA "safe" list, Drobatz said....

So, where the Hell did the Salmonella Tomatoes and E. coli Romain Lettuce come from?

[Marler blog's Bill Marler] also asks: In the days of the risk of bio-terrorism, and with the advent of computer technology to pin-point where our books from Amazon are, you would think we would be able to trace-back contaminated tomatoes and lettuce a bit quicker?

North American Feces Trade Agreement?

Jalapeños Probed in Outbreak
Tomatoes No Longer Seen
As Prime Suspect for Salmonella
By JANE ZHANG and JANET ADAMY
July 5, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Officials investigating the salmonella outbreak now are looking at jalapeño peppers as a leading suspect for spreading the bacteria that has sickened hundreds across the U.S. over the past three months, according to people familiar with the probe.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially blamed tomatoes. That led to industry losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the National Restaurant Association, as consumers cut down on consumption and restaurants pulled them from menus.

But as the disease continued to spread, the investigation turned to other foods commonly eaten with tomatoes, in particular to other ingredients used to make salsa. Besides jalapeño peppers, officials are looking at cilantro and Serrano peppers....

Salmonella is a feces-borne bacterium that can cause diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps. Most people recover without treatment, but in severe cases the infection can cause death. The Saintpaul strain may have contributed to the recent death of a Texas cancer patient. That's the only publicly known fatality linked so far to the current outbreak.

The Food and Drug Dung Administration is trying to flush its Made in Mexican-feces findings down the toilet because the s***'s going to hit the fan once American consumers find out NAFTA has been responsible for poisoning them?

Nah. Never. John Juanita just got back from MqMexiqaino City and would've found out and told us.</sarc>

Must be my Inner Nativist™ talking.

Labels: clue-challenged liberals (BIRM), consumer rights, Dump MqQain (before he again dumps on us), undocumented lawbreakers, Washington D(istrict of )C(rooks), Where's the Fence?

	8:02 PM   0

When he wrote that, Shakespeare probably had in mind the likes of Alan E. Korpady, King & Ballow Law Offices, 1100 Union Street Plaza, 315 Union Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37201, telephone: 615/259-3456, facsimile: 615/254-7907, www.kingballow.com, Direct Dial: (615) 726-5471, Direct Fax: (615) 726-5419, Email: akorpady@kingballow.com; La Jolla Office: La Jolla Eastgate, 9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340, La Jolla, California 92037-1355, telephone: 858/597-6000, facsimile: 858/597-6008.

he aforementioned "law" firm, in my opinion, to which I am entitled, gives the legal "profession" an even worse name. Which in itself is quite a massive accomplishment. How else would a reasonable person characterize a commercial operation that exists solely by virtue of the licensed privilege generously granted by the people of the State of Tennessee through their duly elected and appointed representatives and agents, to conduct business therein, but which unduly harasses, with wrongful demands and unethical threats of both legal and financial punishments, one of the people of that state who, as a humble, upright citizen thereof, is lawfully exercising her fundamental rights under the freedom of the press and freedom of speech guarantees of her own state and nation's constitutions? Especially when among its heads and associates are persons who, in their capacity as officers of one or more of our courts, together hold a most sacred position of public trust and honor not intended by the people of that or any other state to be occupied by practitioners of the following sort of legalistic bullyism (PDF page 1, page 2):

April 10, 2007
CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Katherine Coble
....

Re:	Your Blog: "Just Another Pretty Farce" February 27, 2007 posting regarding JL Kirk Associates®

Dear Ms. Coble:

This firm represents JL Kirk Associates.

Now forever linked, as is your "law" firm, to "this story via Internet searches with the words 'scam,' 'fraud,' 'rip-off,' and 'con,'" Robed-Master-in-Training Korpady, Esq. All because you felt it would be a great boost to your already overlarge but fragile ego — the same, tiresome type so commonly found feverishly blistering those otherwise dank, empty, pointy skulls of practically everyone within your "profession" — to abuse even that megalomaniacal sense of power you mistakenly believe you possess over all us mere plebes, by delivering in the form of such certified/return-receipt tablet from on high Mount Sinai King & Ballow your harsh commandment of Thou Shalt Not Speaketh The Real Trutheth Abouteth Mineth The Lordeth Thy Godeth's Clienteth Undereth Anyeth Circumstanceseths to one of our true Lord's children, threatening to crush her over the head with that tablet if she does not meekly obey, to the letter, this Word of A Lawyer God forthwith.

A client, moreover, previously the subject of other complaints of a much harsher nature at, appropriately enough, RipOffReport.com. In its "Corrupt Companies" category.

Not to not mention separate complaints as well as numerous unflattering newspaper articles about Kirk Leipzig of Bernard Haldane JL Kirk Asshats-iates, to whom you sent a copy of your stone tablet. Or another JL Kirk Associates horror story, and another, along with a Nashville Channel 2 TV news story about your client (Puppy-Blending Hobo Exterminator).

You have a case against the RipOffReport.com complaints since, as the site itself opines, "the five reports filed are bogus and untrue." Your decision to instead shake up if not shake down the present object of your seemingly vindictive threats has only resulted in what people with computers and Internet access refer to as "backlash." An entirely predictable and avoidable backlash that, with its dredging up of not just any bogus complaints but the non-bogus ones too, in no way serves your client's best interests.

In the February 27, 2007, posting to your blog "Just Another Pretty Farce"

Links supplied via this Helpful Navigation Menu and Quasi Google Bombage®:

...you made the following false and defamatory statements about JL Kirk Associates:

Were ambulance chasers like yourself in possession of any real conscience, it might trouble a legitimate law firm's Entertainment Section associate to know: That the citizen he's been so vigorously threatening and viciously distressing with meritless lawsuits is actually telling the truth; That his firm has foolishly concented to represent an operation that resorts to such clearly unusual, highly unethical, if not blatantly unlawful business practices as asking "the person seeking a job put $4420 on a credit card, a non-refundable fee that allegedly puts all the efforts of the firm at the applicant's disposal," charging "a fee that sounds remarkably like what you just got on your tax return especially since, under the name Bernard Haldane, they built a reputation doing just that," insisting "that the spouse be brought along for the consultation in the hopes that one will be more scared than the other and they can play them against one another," and filing or threatening to file lawsuits against consumers who rightfully complain about those practices in a bald attempt to chill them from performing their civic duty to speak out as well as to silence their complaints; and That he himself is engaging in unethical practices of his own when he willfully misrepresents "the legal standard set out by Memphis Publishing Company v. Nichols" — a "case [that] was about a misleading newspaper article regarding a murder" — by, among other things, failing to "note the word 'misleading,'" and when he knows or should know that the "truth has always been a perfect legal defense in this nation, and always will be, despite the hackery of" himself.

1.	JL Kirk Associates "...was formerly Bernald Haldane before it was purchased by Mr. Kirk Leipzig."
2.	That JL Kirk Associates personnel "use fear to motivate" potential clients to pay for services "without question and without the possibility of a refund."
3.	That, during your interview with your husband, there were questions "designed to help [you] as the insecure wife put more economic pressure" on your husband.
4.	That the amount you were asked to pay "neatly" coincided with your tax refund "which is a matter of public record."

Francis, in his post "It's Not The Crime It's The Coverup" at The Shadow of the Olive Tree, ably responds:

Oddly a JK Kirk employ seems to directly contradict statement 1 in her response:

Mr. Kirk purchased the remaining assets of the BH organization here in Brentwood, changed the philosophy, company mission, replaced every BH employee, and put his name of the door!

I suppose there may be a technical difference between the statement made by the original blogger and the statement made by the employee but to a lay mind they sound remarkably similar. Statements 2 and 3 sound like opinion and while it is true they aren't hedged about with "it seems to me"s or "appears to" or other weasel words when you read them. Statement 4 is plain silly.

More important to his firm's reputation, if not his own career, it might behoove him to acquaint himself with and periodically review the facts: That The Internet Is Forever™; That nothing publicly published thereon becomes after just a day — much more so after the 42 it took you to respond with purposefully intimidating threats of dire consequences if your demands for outright censorship weren't promptly met — other than, in effect, an indelible record, electronically and digitally stored and transmitted worldwide on and between an unfathomable number and exceedingly diverse manner of devices, inextricably meshed with the many trillions of bytes of data coursing through it during any given microsecond; That even if his bullyism succeeds at coercing someone into meeting his demands for erasure of a particular copy of one infinitesimal portion of that universal, enduring, ever-propagating record, all his efforts will still prove ineffective no matter how many times he may double, triple, or more his workload afterwards trying to find and erase every present and future recopy of the same; That he would have to demand the impossible — namely, the full, immediate, and permanent shutdown of every electrical power plant on the planet — before he may truthfully inform his client he's confident he's done all he can to remove from the Internet a single consumer complaint about that client's shady business practices; and, most important,

It's the good advice that you just didn't take... What Kirk did that is stupid (besides their alleged high pressure sales technique) is to try to silence a complaint through threat of legal force. However, in the era of the internet that's like squeezing a water balloon. Squeeze the complaint off of Coble's site, and the story pops up somewhere else. Squeeze there, and it surfaces again, and again, and again. . . Squeeze too hard, the balloon bursts, and you're all wet. Or, to put it more succinctly: Don't sue your customers. –Bob Krumm

That had he simply advised his client the comments of one blogger will, absent the extreme, unreasonable measure of attempting to gag a consumer and unduly pressure her into withdrawing her comparatively mild albeit valid complaints, remain relatively obscure, little more than an isolated incident or passing curiosity incapable of causing material and actionable damage to any business, especially one whose practices are not generally well known and thus considered by only a few to be shady, and will have no possibility of mushrooming into a renowned Blogospheric Event™, replete with Instalaunches®, massive linkings and HatTips, much deserved Fiskings, a new Internet Verb (© 2007 The 'Sphere), search-term shufflings, and other global-reaching firestorms blogstorms all coalenscing into one enormous Big Stink for said client.

Mix attempts to suspend, by law suit, the First Amendment and eviscerate the right of consumers to complain about any business, with the glaring arrogance of an egotistical lawyer who never once thought, before firing off his letter stone tablet, to politely ask the consumer that she reconsider her complaints about his client or to offer in the alternative an invitation to address and resolve those complaints as a genuine gesture of good will on the latter's part, and you have the entire recipe for what you and your "law" firm are smelling now. It was completely unnecessary of you to resort to such bullying tactics in this matter.

The finale of this backlash would be even more justifiable and ironic when JL Kirk Associates turns around and sues you and your Mount Sinai Law Offices for legal malpractice.

In addition, a number of statements made in you posting convey a meaning that is clearly injurious to the reputation of JL Kirk Associates.

Item No. 1 in the Annotated Guide To Red Flags & Other BS To Watch Out For Anytime Lawyers' Lips Move is: Whenever a lawyer argues something is "clearly" this or that, you can bet your house, boat, dog, Aunt Martha's brooch, and all the liters of empty space inside most every lawyer's head that it clearly isn't.

Under Tennessee law, any malicious publication expressed in writing intending to injure the character or diminish the reputation of a business is libel.

Whereas, the publication in this case is clearly neither malicious nor intended to injure or diminish anything or anyone not already publicly tarnished (Nashville for the 21st Century, inter alios; cf., BBB Wisconcin report). Posting on your own personal Web log your own personal accounts, experiences, observations, opinions, and conclusions which directly affect you and potentially others in a most personal way — whether that way be benign or profound, pleasant or disturbing — is materially the full intent and meaning of what the person you're threatening with further harassment wrote. Malicious, on the other hand, is what a reasonable person would view your untoward demands accompanied by threats of Dire Legal Consequences, all clearly intended to intimidate, coerce, and distress any of your letters' recipients, to be. It's clearly not what the writing you're clearly intentionally mischaracterizing here is.

Moreover, even if statements are literally true, the publisher of those statements is subject to monetary damages where "the meaning reasonably conveyed by the published words is defamatory." Memphis Publishing Company v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1978)

Before the Big Stink, which is solely the result of your written demands and threats, there was no publication in any reasonable sense of the word. If I put up a sign in my yard that says "Mount Sinai Law Office's Entertainment Section Associates Are A Mean-Spirited Bunch of Bullies" I am expressing in writing my opinion to no one other than my neighbors and any random passers-by. I am not going around attaching that sign to every side of a building and telephone pole in my neighborhood, city, state, nation, or world. If a Mount Sinai Law Office Entertainment Section Associate happens to see or hear about that sign, goes into a tither, and has his lawyer write me an obnoxiously contentious letter demanding I take down that sign or else, that lawyer will have no one but himself to blame when I become distressed and tell my neighbors about the trouble I'm experiencing, they become infuriated, copy my sign and put it up in their own yards, the driver of a passing TV-7 van sees them all and asks the station to get together a camera crew so they can film the spectacle for a report on the next six o'clock news, and thousands upon thousands see that report and become infuriated themselves, rinse, repeat.

Where once was a single sign posted by one homeowner in his own yard — a sign that's seen by just a relatively few — there's now a full-blown message ringing throughout the whole community.

Even absent all this exacerbation and escalation, the fundamental question remains. What law says I can't publicly complain about the practices of any business which I personally perceive had in any way took undue advantage of, upset, or otherwise injured me? Is it not among my most basic duties as a citizen and member of my community to do everything I believe I can to warn others about those practices so they won't have to experience, unawares, the same bad things? Or am I required to suck it up, keep quiet, cower in fear of Dreaded Lawsuits, stand idly by, and merely allow that business to inflict such things on the next poor sucker? I wouldn't be a very good citizen if I did the latter; nor would my government and its courts be very good servants of the people if they compelled me or anyone else to do that.

Thus your citation of Memphis is inapposite here since the statements regard not an individual's reputation but a public concern. Specifically, a business and its practices affecting members of the public who may seek its services.

As the "publisher" of your blog, you control, and are responsible for, the content appearing in it. References by persons posting to your blog to JL Kirk Associates as "crooks" and its services as a "scam" are equally false and defamatory as your own.

Leaving aside for now the fact that "crooks" and "scam" appear nowhere in the original "publication" by the person at whom you're targeting your demands and threats, you cannot pluck out a word here or phrase there from some textual matter and declare, based on that word or phrase alone, your client was defamed. You must base such declaration on the matter's content as a whole. Accordingly, if you're attempting to include non-parties' comments subsequently posted about and with that "publication," you first must clearly define exactly what content you're declaring "equally false and defamatory." Are you referring to that "publication" and its comments dated on or before April 10 of this year, found only on the Internet at the following Uniform Resource Identifiers?

http://mycropht.blogspot.com/
	http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
		http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117264828992420618
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117264828992420618
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117266595910317267
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117266695495069629
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117266703524181180
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267110685506728
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267241367839003
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267434311354971
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267458665990510
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267472901575592
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267679221523563
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267691868961973
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267734112879238
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267806247793220
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117268040530047623
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117268893573658048
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117270159945776382
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117270338967531989
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117270343499426578
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117270859739161952
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117272444315644297
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117276956844871211
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117277245221766181
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117277410298073041
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117281092678162862
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117303222280934504
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117307153116898975
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117373424462795366
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117406625138254294
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117406630128015040
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117406634042341428
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c7199517920511662462
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c4095895917210257015
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c6961743804336514533
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c1741760870642845816
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c1158728026419332796
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c7224947705576758130
			http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c8036348399155477450

(That is, before the entire Web log and its earlier posts and comments were respectively moved and copied to a new Web address on or around March 16.) Or to the copy of such "publication" and comments along with different comments, similarly dated, found only on the Internet at the URIs below?

http://mycropht.wordpress.com/
	http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/
		http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6060
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6061
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6062
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6063
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6064
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6066
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6067
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6068
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6069
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6070
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6071
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6072
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6073
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6075
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6076
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6079
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6081
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6082
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6086
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6088
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6101
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6103
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6105
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6111
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6131
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6133
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6203
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6259
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6260
			http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6261

Or both?

For those keeping score at home, the only correct answer is neither.

You cannot legally hold anyone accountable for the uncoerced, independent actions of another person. Doing so would be the worst injustice imaginable. Applying that maxim here, there's no justice in making the "publisher" liable for comments the submission of which are open to everyone, including your client and its representatives — a circumstance it clearly took full advantage of when someone claiming to be such representative submitted a comment at one of the above URIs, as did whoever anonymously submitted a separate comment in its defense, viz.,

The "publisher" cannot predict and therefore has no control over what her commenters submit in such open forum.

In addition to your liability for defamation, under Tennessee law, the defamatory statements made in your blog are, by your own admission, intended to "discourage anyone who stumbles across this entry from even going through the JL Kirk & (sic) Associates 'interview process'." As such, you may be subject to liability for monetary damages for tortuous interference with the business relationships of JL Kirk Associates. See Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company et al[.], 71 S. W. 3d 691, 701 (Tenn. 2002).

No, you see "public concern," supra.

Businesses, even in Tennessee, aren't free to strong-arm potential customers with impunity, scare or upset their spouses with shameful manipulations, do a bait-and-switch with some out-of-the-blue credit card "offer," or be less than totally up-front with what all they're getting themselves into if they turn who all knows what over to it. See Unsavory v. Entirely Forthcoming, 1 G.Y.P. 2 many (Anywhere 2007).

Claims that a person's exercise of his duty to warn as best he can his fellow citizens and other members of the public, either close by or at large, about any threats or dangers to their lives, liberties, property, or pursuits of happiness which he in good conscience believes exist, is in some way wrong have no legal standing. That person's intent is not to cause harm but to help prevent it from being inflicted on any otherwise unsuspecting person. In the case of a business he's seen firsthand engaging in a number of things that clearly smack of shady practices he has a clear duty to warn whoever else may be affected by them about those practices. For example,

She was particularly concerned that JL Kirk was looking for nearly $5,000 in payment for their services. Those who have been on either side of a placement by a headhunter know that this is not industry standard. Customarily, at least in my decade-plus experience as a VP level hiring manager on Wall Street and CFO/CAO of a start-up oil services company, the company pays the headhunter's fee, even for entry level positions, and even for temporary help.

Consumer complaints such as these, which warn members of the public about a business' practices that could adversely affect any of them, are acts of good citizenship, not "tortuous interference" with its relationships. Indeed, your attempts to exact what amounts to legalistic retribution against any consumers who, in good faith, publicly complain about your client's business practices, should be deemed a tortuous interference with their lives, liberties, property, and pursuits of happiness.

Fortunately for the people they're still intended to serve and sworn to protect, our laws and courts brook no "law" firm's meritless attempts to exact these retributions against them.

We hereby demand that you take down the blog entry regarding JL Kirk Associates together with the entire thread of comments.

Does anyone at this point still wonder why there's so much public hatred of lawyers?

She's required to "take down" no such thing when she allows real opportunities for rebuttals and contrary opinions by anyone, including your client.

It's also, given the indelible nature of Internet records, impossible for her to really "take down" anything. That entry and every one of those comments are all permanently stored, each in their entirety, in search-engine caches such as Google's, which are even further beyond her control. (If you want to get laughed at by the best of them, try suing Google, which claims no responsibility for the content of its caches: "Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.") Seeking their "taking down" is akin to demanding that a newspaper physically destroy, in whole or part, all issued copies of any of its editions which allegedly contains defamatory content.

In short, your demand that anyone "take down" anything anywhere on the Internet will always be completely without merit.

We further demand that you cease and desist from any further attempts to injure and interfere with the business of JL Kirk Associates.

What is this "further" of which you speak?

So far, a consumer has faithfully exercised her duty as a citizen to warn the public about what she perceives are corrupt business practices that have personally and adversely affected her. A warning that was (Sir George): made upon a proper occasion (promptly following the infliction of those practices on her), from a proper motive (to warn others about those practices so they can avoid being inflicted by them as well), and based upon reasonable or probable cause (those practices as described and directly witnessed by her).

You, on the other hand, are here engaging in an abusive behavior that can only further discredit what generally is already an all but thoroughly discredited "profession."

It is regrettable that you decided not to engage the services of JL Kirk Associates.

Successfully escaped the full brunt of those "services" is more like it.

Who with a number of functioning brain cells greater than an average amoeba's could reasonably regret that?

That, however, does not entitle you to publish defamatory statements in an attempt to interfere with its business.

However, it does entitle her to publicly express her opinions and concerns about it. Which she has done immensely to her credit and, due to this onerous stone tablet carved by your "law" firm, with the gratitude of a much wider public.

If you do not comply with these demands on or before April 13, 2007, JL Kirk Associates intends to sue you for damages. Please direct any communications regarding this matter to the undersigned.

Respectfully,

[Signature]

Alan E. Korpady

cc: Mr. Kirk Leipzig

Wonder if Shakespeare completely understood the course of action he had in mind would just wind up eternally consigning its condemned subjects to that lowest tier in Hell reserved solely for them.

Labels: consumer rights, robed masters in training

	4:17 AM   0