Government Without Constraints…

…knows no limits:

A handful of local officials in California who say the housing bust is a public blight on their cities may invoke their eminent-domain powers to restructure mortgages as a way to help some borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.
Investors holding the current mortgages predict the move will backfire by driving up borrowing costs and further depress property values. “I don’t see how you could find it anything other than appalling,” said Scott Simon, a managing director at Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco, a unit of Allianz SE.

But it is just “for benefit of the American people”, well some of them anyway:

Various California communities are exploring — with the help of Democratic investor cronies connected to Bill Clinton and others — their eminent domain powers to seize mortgages owned by private investors. These mortgages would then be sold to a newly formed investment company who hope to buy these mortgages on the cheap and profit from them in the months and years to come.

46 thoughts on “Government Without Constraints…

  1. Kelo vs. City of New London, 2005, made the above scenario ‘okay’. Changing the terms of the mortgages without the consent of the investor? Well, that’s a new one. Bet we are looking at the beginning of a spate of such outrages.

  2. This is EXACTLY what Germany did in the 1930’s…

    [Note: the trial balloons to do this nationally, by Presidential decree, have already been floated – as has the balloon to forgive all student loan debt.]

  3. “kiss the ring” and you’ll become rich thru the government “giving” you other’s people’s property….It is not fair they have so much, so WE WILL take it and give it to you. You deserve to have more since you support us…..

    Let’s see,
    The “killing” of the Super Collider in Texas….
    >Now Europe has the honors…
    >The killing of NASA, Russia, can we rent a ride? (which is or very soon will be, more expensive than paying our own people to do the same thing)
    >the first round of mortgages which caused this mess.
    >now the second round of theft for mortgages people could not pay
    >GM and Chrysler, stockholders, and debtholders, illegally losing their investments, AND GM continuiing to lose money…
    Just buy one of the 30,000 or so VOLTS no one else wants to buy because they don’t work….
    >”Tyson chicken” debacle, which “no one” heard about…I only know of it because one of the attorneys who worked on the re-organization…..Oh yeah, never mind the thousands of people who lost their family farms when Tyson defaulted….. They didn’t deserve to have that property anyway….
    >the continuing solar panel defaults…
    > wind power that costs “how many times” more to make electricity than Coal or natural gas?
    >prevention of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico,
    >prevention of drilling in Alaska
    >prevention of drilling in the “new” largest oil find out west (Utah, where is that, under 4 different states)
    >these shovel ready jobs which cost a million dollars per job
    >creation of a new Governmental Entity which states it goal is to provide healthcare, with thousands of new bureaucrats telling the shrinking number of doctors how they will practice for fewer dollars…

    Yes, yes, Just like Hitler did with his social welfare programs…. Hitler only had to MURDER 12 million of his own people plus millions of his Neighbors…..

    Is anyone getting the picture? Or Shall I go on? I haven’t even started with Doctors. Of which I have 4 good friends that are doctors…. Most of them supported healthcare overhaul… Then I would say, you really gonna believe and trust an organization that CANNOT deliver the MAIL, to run healthcare? NOW, OMG, you were right.
    Now I’m gonna have to find something else to do because I can’t even pay my overhead, much less me…..
    Yes folks, it is that bad….

    • I’m confused, Texas. Are you for or against the government funding of the Supercollider and NASA? And for or against the corporations that made risky mortgages and made bad investments based on those? And are you for turning over the Postal Service (which is not funded by taxpayers dollars and is provided for in the U.S. Constitution) over to private companies that will have the option to serve or not serve many areas? (UPS already uses the US Postal Service — but charges extra — to deliver to some of those customers.)

      By the way, you missed one attempt at government intrusion into cases involving doctors and free speech, which the NRA supported (they’re a bit selective in which amendments they want enforced). Fortunately a judge overturned it:

  4. I guess it is okay to play the Hitler card on the ol’ Rio Norte, if you are using it against liberals. Where’s the outrage, Utah? B?

    The collider you are talking about was cancelled in 1993, after cost projections rose to 3 times the original estimate of 4 billion dollars, and were likely to keep rising as the actual construction progressed.

    I have yet to meet a doctor who likes Obamacare, much less Obama.

    After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, would you have just said ‘business as usual”? Be real here, if you are capable.

  5. So James, here’s a hypothetical for you. Suppose you have a very liberal doctor who abhors guns and doesn’t think anyone should own a personal firearm? What’s to stop the doctor from writing a mental incapacity report on you. That report goes to the state government and makes it’s way to the state law enforcement department and next thing you know, your permit to carry has been revoked pending a review. Of course, the cost of the review has to come out of your pocket and psychiatric evaluations aren’t cheap. So do you want your doctor to know you own guns? I know I don’t.

    • Why, they would never do that. You can trust them, just ask James, they would never even think of that, a doctor would never ask about guns in your house…oh, wait…that just happened…in Florida…

      From the South Florida Sun Sentinel:

      Don’t be surprised if your doctor asks you about the weather, new restaurants, who should be president, or your ownership of firearms and ammo. Doctors, you see, have First Amendment rights just like the rest of us — and that means they cannot be confined by law to asking you where it hurts or whether you’ve been taking your medication.

      This is the ruling last Friday from U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke. It’s not only is legally sound. It makes good common sense.

      The decision came in a federal lawsuit, Wollschlaeger v. Farmer, challenging a new Florida law. That law had been crafted by the National Rifle Association after it learned that an Ocala doctor not only had the audacity to ask a young patient’s mother about her gun ownership, but then refused to treat the mother’s child when the mother declined to answer.

      • So are you now suggesting that we ignore the First Amendment, or that we require doctors to treat everyone? I’d prefer the latter, but neither seems very “conservative” to me.

        • By the way, Joe can probably tell you what kind of fallacy your comment is, in response to my First Amendment argument. 😉

          • Using the 1st Amendment to justify allowing doctors to violate patient privacy shows a gross ignorance of the intent behind the 1st Amendment. Americans really have become the people of “Idiocracy.”

            • It’s a violation of “patient privacy” only if the information is shared — and those violations are covered by existing law. Adding on a new violation of the First Amendment based on some flimsy connection to Founders “intent” truly would be “idiotic.”

              Again, the First Amendment says I can ask anything I want. You can respond in any way you want, including with a lie–even, thanks to last week’s Supreme Court decision, about military service.

  6. “do you want your doctor to know you own guns? I know I don’t.”

    So in the “hypothetical” case you’re asked, you can either lie or simply say, “I don’t see why that’s relevant to my health.” And then switch doctors.

    The fact is, we don’t base First Amendment or Second Amendment rights on hypotheticals, or I could say, “What about the hypothetical case where you sell a gun to someone who seems depressed about the state of the country, and then he goes out and kills a bunch of people?” Should your gun dealer have the right to ask you how many other guns you have, or what you plan to use them for?

    • Thanks for making my case for me James. Doctors have no business knowing if I own guns or not. Do you tell your doctor you’re a gun owner? (You see, the doctor I hypothetically alluded to doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment, so you see the quandary, right?)

      And my gun shop owner would know better than to ask me how many guns I have, although if I trade with him long enough, he’d have a pretty good idea anyway.

      • “Doctors have no business knowing if I own guns or not.”

        Maybe not–but that doesn’t negate the First Amendment. I can ask you anything I want. You don’t have to answer. And the Bill of Rights applies even to people who “don’t believe” in various aspects of it.

        “Do you tell your doctor you’re a gun owner?”

        That depends on the doctor. My chiropractor is a hunter, so we have discussed our guns. I don’t know that it’s ever come up with my family doc, though in this part of the country he’d probably assume that most folks have guns.

  7. Speaking of doctors casually discussing the weather and then throwing the “do you own a firearm” bomb into the conversation; yes, my doctor did exactly that. I absolutely did NOT answer her, I stared at her. She asked if I heard the question, I replied that I had heard the question and she also heard my answer. She pushed for a verbal answer and I continued to stare at her. She then said she would assume from my demeanor that I do own a firearm. I said she could assume until the cows come home, it is a free country–for a while anyway. So far, unless someone points a gun to my head, I do not have to answer a stupid question that has absolutely nothing to do with the state of my health!

  8. There was nothing in my post that suggested that the doctor did not have the right to ask…but the fact that one already has indicates a predisposition to assume that this is a legitimate conversation to have relating to health care and completely validates Mr.G’s position that there is the possibility that a doctor acting on his own initiative can compromise an individual for no other reason than personal bias.

    First amendment rights are valid but that doesn’t accrue to the right to commit slander or libel in pursuit of a personal agenda and the idea that guns in the home are a “health risk” is already being pushed in the health community:

    Despite the fact that nearly one-third of American households have a firearm, studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit. A new study released in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine (published by SAGE) examined scientific research on both sides of the debate to put hard numbers to this on-going discussion.

    • If you come in to my ER, I am asking you if you have a gun. If you do, we are taking it from you. or removing you from the ER.. Now about having one at home? I care little about that and likely would never ask.

      But a simple truth remains about doctors … they receive death threats. If a doctor feels there is a cause for concern, he/she should ask the question, decide how to move forward with care, or not move forward with care.

      After all, under natural law, we are burdened with self preservation, no? 🙂

  9. If I remember correctly, the doctor asking about firearms debate came when a doctor was contemplating prescribing a minor patient a drug that had been suggested may cause suicidal tendencies. That was the basis of the doctor asking about the parents having guns in the household. I think the question is a valid one in that case. Just as I feel its also acceptable not to answer the question if one feels it’s a violation of their privacy.

    I’m not sure about any other scenarios, but that’s the first one that I heard before this frenzy started over it. We don’t need any legislation because of it. If one doesn’t like the question, then don’t answer it. But if you’re asked about it in the ER as augger said, if you want the treatment, you need to speak up if you can.

    • During a routine physical for school last year, our pediatrician asked my son if we had any guns in our home.

  10. It frustrates me to no end that I can’t paste on this blog. Perhaps I don’t know how.

    Anyway, U.S. District Judge Maria Cooke ruled (on July 4th) barring enforcement of the 2011 state law that restricted doctors from asking patients about guns in their houses. She specifically mentioned that the questions could be pertinent to a mental health case (depression, suicide) in the home (as wmgates suggested). Doctors have been asking the questions for years, in this case. If you (the doctor) are counseling with parents or spouses about the mental health of a loved one, a logical questions is, “Are there guns in the home?”

    Also, I agree with augger that in an emergency room situtation the doctors/staff would absolutely need to know if someone came in carrying a weapon, and if that person was not willing to give it up, they should be removed from the hospital. Just plain common sense.

    As far as a doctor being able to cease care if you don’t answer his/her question concerning gun ownership, or the patients right to change doctors should they ask; hell, I don’t see the need for legislation pertaining to that. If the doctor doesn’t want to continue care, it’s his choice. If you don’t like being asked, go somewhere else. We still have that choice.

      • Yeah, that’s what I thought, too. But when I go to “paste” in the reply box, my “paste button” won’t light up. Don’t have problems on other sites, but don’t understand why I can’t do it here. Perhaps its because I login in throught Worldpress instead of directly into the blog.

  11. Oh, if there are guns in the home, it must indicate a mental illness. “Hospitalization” is probably required to deal with the mental illness of having guns in the home.

    • You’re missing the point, Tex. Some doctors were asking because of the present mental state of their patients. Given the medications they were prescribing and using their knowledge and experience, they thought that maybe the patients could be contemplating suicide so they asked about firearms in the home. Since firearms are the most common way that suicide is committed, I think the question is valid in those instances.

      Also, did you ask the doctor that completed your child’s physical why they asked the question?

      • Absolutely. If you a mental health professional and are treating someone with depression, asking if there are guns or other means for a person to harm themselves is a valid question and the mental health professional would be remiss in his duties if he didn’t ask these questions. Interestingly enough, in 2009, Sheriff Frank McKeithen was of the opinion that he could seize and hold (confiscate) the firearms of a person who had been lawfully Baker Act(ed). He was informed (by Advisory Legal Opinion – AGO 2009-04) that he had NO LAWFUL RIGHT to take these peoples firearms. His “concern” was that once released from the mental treatment facility, that these people would go home and shoot themselves.

      • William, I was not missing the point, I was giving the board a true example. Please see my comments below. In my son’s situation, there was no reason to ask if there were guns in the home.
        My question is WHY ask? Why ask if there are guns in the home when there is no reason for the the question? No medications, no health issues, no mental illness etc.

        • I was speaking on the examples that I posted. Now in your case, that doctor didn’t have any reason to ask that in that situation. I was writing when you posted about your son so I didn’t get a chance to see it before I replied.

          I would confront the doctor and ask why, then ask that any questions be limited to my son’s health and nothing else. All other questions should be directed to the parents.

          Still, I think it should be handled through natural means and not by legislation. If more people complain, the doctor loses business, he’ll stop asking the intrusive questions. Those shouldn’t be just limited to firearms questions, though, but any deemed unnecessary.

  12. In our case, there is no mental illness, perfect condition, athletics, scholastics, musically, etc. The gun question had ZERO to do with anything. In our case.

    I have plenty of experience dealing with mentally ill, drug users, alcoholics, and domestic abuse in my business. In those situations, then yes, firearms in the home would be relevant to potential problems.

    The question was NOT RELEVANT to anything in our situation.

    • My son told me about the question hours later in the evening after the exam. So I didn’t have an opportunity to ask the Doc why. I will if he asks my other son the question. Yes, I want to know if they document the NEW ELECTRONIC FILE.

      • Tex, I agree the question was relevant in that case and I too would be wondering (and probably asking someone) why this particular question was asked. Out of curiosity, how did your son answer the question (I assume he answered – yes) ? Then I would wonder what “electronic file” or where that information went.

  13. To those who would justify allowing a doctor to ask about gun ownership based on the grounds of mental health. As soon as we ‘socialize’ medicine, the problems are compounded:

    You can use any number of mental gymnastics to connect EVERY aspect of an individual’s life to their “health care.”

    The clothes you wear: must make sure they are ‘proper fit’ and ‘approved materials’ with ‘safe’ dyes.

    The stuff you read: “conservatism is a mental disorder,” so report what you read and the web sites you visit.

    Same for America’s founding history: if you study our founding, it means you are likely to be a terrorist, so report what you read/watch.

    The care you drive: too ‘dirty’ for the health of others, too ‘unsafe’ in a crash which leads to increased costs to society.

    The food you eat: do I really need to list this one for you?

    You libertarians: drugs are an increased expense to society – ALL drugs – yes, even your pot. Oh, and that gores for alcohol, too (and caffeine, and nicotine, and…)

    Anyone accepting this irrational argument for why doctors have a justifiable reason to ask questions that are not DIRECTLY connected to your health has already accepted the role of government/society in directing their life.

    • Funny how you gunslingers think some amendments are more important than others. This decision was simple, based on the First Amendment.

        • “Funny how you assume we are ‘gunslingers.'”

          Funny how carelessly you read, on a consistent basis. I was referring to Joe (the person to whom the comment was directed) and folks like him. He’s the one who has previously boasted about his prowess with a weapon.

          “Why are you here?”

          As I’ve told you before, at first it was because I thought I might learn something and have the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue with thoughtful conservatives. Now, though, it’s mostly for cheap entertainment.

      • Jus’ call me “Carolina Red”, fastest gun this side o’ the Chatooga River. This town aint big enough fer the both of us.

        Funny how the Liberal will always invoke the First Amendment that guarantees their right to free speech, even when it’s hateful, obscene and even slanderous, but when Conservatives use their First Amendment rights to talk truth and reason, it’s considered “hate speech” and needs to be banned or censored. Why is that?

        • The people who think that the 1st Amendment protects a doctor asking you about your ownership of a weapon show their ignorance – yes, even the judges. This was NEVER the intention of the 1st Amendment, nor was it intended to cover ‘symbolic’ speech. This is all just a socialist attack on the Constitution and natural rights.

          Anyone who cares to research this will find that the founders routinely upheld restrictions on this sort of ‘speech.’ They understood the 1st Amendment was limited to political speech – not speech that violated the natural rights of others.

          • The founders also upheld restrictions on political speech. They were far from perfect at living up to their own words.

        • Funny how the conservative will always exaggerate or lie about the views of liberals to try to win an argument for which he has no factual support. Why is that?

          In fact, I’m both a liberal and pretty much a First Amendment absolutist (I don’t think the First Amendment protects libel, but there are six aspects of libel that generally must be proven, anyway). I oppose “hate speech” laws and most forms of censorship, including censorship of doctors just because the NRA and its minions are paranoid about questions those doctors might ask. And I have little time or respect for those who sometimes talk about Founder’s “intent” and who at other times say “just look at the words”–depending on which part of which amendment they’re talking about.

    • I don’t agree black. People have the right to ask what they want. You also have the right not to answer.

      Also, yes, if you’re trying to have kids and your sperm count is low the doctor may ask if you wear tighty whites or boxers. That could be part of his diagnosis. If your BP is high he may ask how much salt do you use, if you eat green leafy veggies, or how often do you exercise.

      I would think that’s just part of my doctor doing her job.

  14. To me, the example given by Tex (his school-age son being asked) gives rise to another question entirely. What questions should a doctor be allowed to ask a minor? What if he had followed up with, “Does your father shoot at you with those guns?” What questions can you ask a minor in an unsupervised interview?

  15. A doctor asks me if I have guns in my home, I might get up, tell him to kiss my ass, and walk out. A doctor (person of responsiblity) asks a school-age kid who wants to make the team the same question, what choice does the kid have?

    • Ergo the hypothetical situation I posited earlier. I will grant, however, that Augger, as an emergency room tech, would have a valid reason to ask if a potential patient is armed at the time of treatment. Other than that, fugedaboutit.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.