Obamanoids try a Drive by Shooting:
They should have taken lessons…
By Patrick Sperry
One thing that you can say about the Crips, Bloods, and MS 13. They get the
job done. The obama administration isn’t quite as good as the gang banger’s at
what they do when they go after someone, or an organization. First it was the
Fox Network, and now? Gun Owners of America. The SPLC must be reeling at this
fiasco after labeling GOA a radical organization… More obama epic fail? I think
so. Read on…
GOA Responds to administration attacks
November 25, 2009
The White House is pulling out all the stops to pass ObamaCare, including an
attack on Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment.
Unable to pass a bill that is openly hostile to millions of gun owners, the
President and his anti-gun allies are forced to try to attack us through
deception.
On the official White House blog, deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer
denied that the health care bill would affect gun owners. After all, he writes,
“there is no mention [of] ‘gun-related health data’ or anything like it anywhere
in either the Senate or the House bills.”
Well, unlike so many in Congress, GOA attorneys have actually read the bills,
something they have been doing since before Mr. Pfeiffer was born.
So, how would this bill attack gun rights?
First of all, the fact that the bills do not mention the words “gun related
health data” is meaningless. Those who know even a little bit about gun law
understand the increasing use of statutes which do not mention guns – and common
law which was not intended to apply to them – in order to vent hatred for the
Second Amendment.
For example, within the past year, the federal district court for the District
of Columbia used the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to overturn Bush
regulations involving guns in parks. NEPA did not purport to apply to guns.
Increasingly, zoning ordinances are being used to put gun ranges and gun dealers
out of business. These ordinances do not mention guns.
Thirty-five jurisdictions have brought lawsuits to try to put gun manufacturers
out of business, arguing negligence, product defect, and nuisance law which was
not previously thought to apply to guns.
And, over the last decade, veterans suffering from PTSD have been denied the
right to purchase a gun. This was not supposed to happen when the Brady Law was
enacted in 1994, but that did not keep Clinton’s Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) from using the law to disarm thousands upon thousands of veterans, without
any due process.
Turning to what is written in the health care bill, section 1104 would give the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (currently anti-gunner Kathleen Sebelius)
broad authority to promulgate rules with respect to “electronic standards.”
Subsection (b) (2), for example, amends the Social Security Act to require the
Secretary to “adopt a simple set of operating rules … with the goal of creating
as much uniformity in the implementation of the electronic standards as
possible.” The same section goes on to require health plans to certify, in
writing, “that the data and information systems for such plans are in compliance
with any applicable standards …” It goes on to provide that a health plan is not
in compliance unless it “demonstrates to the Secretary that the plan conducts
the electronic transactions … in a manner that fully complies with the
regulations of the Secretary … “
Furthermore, anyone who provides services to a provider must comply as well.
Again, the section requires health plans to certify to the Secretary “in such
form as the Secretary may require, … that the data and information systems for
such plan are in compliance with any applicable revised standards and associated
operating rules … ” The Secretary is authorized to conduct “periodic audits” to
insure this is so, and substantial penalties are provided for.
What health-related “gun” data do we fear would be required to be submitted
under these rules? Increasingly, protocols are requiring that kids (and adults)
be asked by physicians about loaded firearms in the household. A keyword search
by BATF of a federal database created by section 13001 of the stimulus bill –
but enforced by the Reid bill – could produce something pretty close to a
national gun registry.
In addition, between 115,000 and 150,000 veterans have had their gun rights
permanently taken away from them because the VA has appointed a financial
guardian for them when they received counseling for common illnesses such as
post-traumatic stress disorder – and all of this with no due process or trial in
a court of law. Under BATFE regulations promulgated during the Clinton
administration, a diagnosis by a psychiatrist in connection with a government
program (such as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, Medicare, etc.)
is sufficient to declare the person a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)
(4).
Hence, BATFE could similarly take the position that a finding of Alzheimer’s,
PTSD, or ADHD should result in the loss of gun rights. And, under the Reid bill,
this information could be obtained by BATFE under a keyword search of a federal
database.
Incidentally, HIPAA’s privacy protections do not apply to law enforcement
agencies like BATFE.
Pfeiffer also writes: “NOTHING IN THE SENATE HEALTH REFORM BILL WOULD LEAD TO
HIGHER PREMIUMS FOR GUN OWNERS … Section 2717 section [sic] … specifically lists
what types of programs would be involved – such as smoking cessation, physical
fitness, nutrition, heart disease prevention …”
Well, as any lawyer would know, that list in section 2717 is “inclusive,” but is
not “exclusive.”
Section 1201 of the bill (inserting section 2705 into the Public Health Service
Act) creates “wellness” programs which allow consideration of behavioral issues
in setting premiums and, presumably, determining activities which are so
dangerous that coverage might be suspended.
The definition of “wellness” includes some very broad issues, including obesity
and “lifestyle.”
But even these broad categories are not exclusive and do not prevent, for
example, the consideration of firearms ownership, as State Farm and Prudential
have already, on some occasions, done.
Section 1201 specifically prevents consideration of the health of a person for
purposes of setting rates, but, for any other “health status factor,” premiums
can vary up to 30%, which may be increased to 50% under the discretion of the
HHS Secretary. A “reward may be in the form of a discount or rebate of a premium
or contribution, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism (such as
deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance), the absence of a surcharge, or the
value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan.” A
“wellness” program qualifies under this section if it “has a reasonable chance
of improving the health of … participating individuals.”
One of the more intriguing aspects about the copious fraud which is being
promulgated on behalf of ObamaCare is that the liars almost always accompany
their deceit with a heaping dose of arrogance.
We have dealt with these self-appointed “experts” before. “Politifact” [sic]
called us to assert that only age, family size, and location could be used to
set premiums. When we blew their theory out of the water over the phone, using
the previous week’s Washington Post as our source, they jettisoned their phony
argument and attacked us on other grounds, without giving us an opportunity to
respond.
The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have spent the last several
months lying to us, trying to defraud us, and working to take away our
constitutional rights. GOA will continue to oppose ObamaCare – as well as any
similar plan to slip gun control through the back door.
I choose not to participate.
Molon Labe!