The case for total prohibition is argued at National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA). It was founded by Joseph Califano, a Harvard Law School indoctrinated lawyer. The lawyer depends on criminalization for a living, and has an irremediable conflict of interest. The estimated, mostly in health, costs is put at $485 billion in 2005.
*****
President Obama will be the first stoner President. This election saw little criticism of that past drug use, not even by his Republican opponent, a fan of a few adult pleasures himself. Indeed, Obama seems so mellow, he should release the result of his urine screening for illegal drugs. The nation has or is ready to legalize just about all adult pleasures. The problem? We cannot have a duplication of the consequences of smoking and alcohol abuse. How can we make adult pleasure policy logical, coherent, yet prevent a health catastrophe?
As a rule, 90% of people can enjoy most adult pleasures without destructive consequences. Of those who have smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years, only 1 in 7 will get lung cancer. Experience in other countries implies, availability by legalization will increase not just use, but also addiction, and the health and social consequences, but among the 10% who cannot control the use. In our country, we have seen that opening a casino increases gambling addiction four fold within 50 miles, worse in adolescents. Making adult pleasures illegal has caused great damage to our economy by exporting money to our enemies, by not generating jobs, by not collecting taxes, by costly massive imprisonment, by diverting police from violent offenders, by dropping the value of close in, downtown property for herding crime into usually minority areas, by making large numbers of people lawbreakers, by the hypocrisy of legal alcohol and tobacco, killing 500,000 people a year, and by causing allies to almost become failed states by the enrichment of drug cartels. About half the people in the drug trade die by murder. There is little left to deter them.
How can the majority of users causing no problem be left alone to enjoy their pleasures in moderation, while restricting those prone to addiction, causing problems? Try licensing the buyer.
Licensing the buyer would increase freedom, yet, restrict people not controlling themselves. It would end the hypocrisy of the legality of alcohol and tobacco that kill 100's of 1000's of people a year. There would be no more costly and ineffective Wars on Whatever. Prisons would empty, making room for vicious predators, now attacking people with near immunity. It would grow the economy by an amount now going to terrorists and organized crime gangs, perhaps a $trillion. It would increase tax revenues and may end budget deficits.
At eighteen, one gets an adult pleasure license. Those who already went to rehab at age fourteen would not, nor would those with proven behavioral or mental problems. Everyone asking to buy a drink would have the license verified, like a credit card. The police report a drunk driving offense. The license gets a point. The girlfriend officially reports, she got roughed up when the person was drinking. Another point. An emergency room doctor reports the person fell down the steps, broke an arm, and is legally drunk. The third and final point is registered. The license gets pulled.
Anyone serving alcohol to this unlicensed person is held totally responsible for any future consequence in criminal law and in torts. So, he beats up the girlfriend while drunk again. The buyer goes to jail, and the liquor store clerk does, for the same sentence. The person kills a pedestrian driving drunk. Because serving an unlicensed person is a felony, the death of the pedestrian is a felony murder. The liquor store clerk could get the death penalty. The owner of the liquor store could be held responsible in a lawsuit.
This change should have the support of the majority, and should not get rammed through, as Prohibition was. The change should be tried in small venues, to test for unintended consequences. Then a Constitutional Amendment should enact the change.
What about abuses of the license by government? The Amendment should limit the price of the license to the actual cost to government, such as $1 to verify each purchase. Those who do not indulge in adult pleasures pay nothing for the license.
All records of adult pleasure purchases should be destroyed after 3 months. Only investigators of crimes should have access to them prior to their Amendment mandated destruction, with a court order, after showing probable cause for the search.
Legalization is here, in the case of gambling, cigarettes, alcohol. Prostitution and marijuana smoking are rarely prosecuted. This proposal advocates tighter controls by licensing, to hold back the damage tsunami.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Empirical Support for One-Two-Three Violent Offenses and Dead
The majority of murderers and manslaughterers had prior records. Had they been deceased, a murder would have been prevented.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Law School Reform
Prof. Douglas A. Berman, Ohio State University, referred to a preliminary plan to delineate suggestions to improve law education, LEARN (Legal Education Analysis & Reform Network).
Here is a list of subjects the responsible insiders did not think about.
1) Every lawyer who has ever expressed himself on this subject, has said, he learned nothing in law school that he could use day 1 of being a lawyer. They have to get the advice of their secretaries on what to do. In all other fields, the grads emerge as just less experienced colleagues, because they have done the real work under supervision, and not as total novices cruising on summer intern experience.
2) The project proposes some audio-visual enhancements. No. Brick and mortar schools are dead down to kindergarten. The building and the mediocre staff is a total waste. The best kindergarten art teacher in the nation will get to teach kindergarten art to all the kindergarten students of the nation. There is not a hint these Deans have any awareness of such. All buildings, all paper, all on site work must be ruthlessly eradicated.
3) The indoctrination into supernatural, unlawful, core doctrines must stop. I do not want to argue this point. I invite the students to apply their personal experience to the following table. See for yourself which column best applies to law school. Contact me if anyone wants further discussion on this point.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst2.html
4) The education is biased. The textbooks are Mein Kampfs for plaintiffs and for criminals. There is no balance about the severe damage the lawyer does to the nation. The lecturers are extreme left wingers. This bias makes the profession heinous. The law education is basically hate speech, devoid of facts or evidence for its biased teaching.
5) No fundamental questioning of assumptions is permitted, such as the profession is a criminal cult enterprise. One may only criticize the profession along lines that will generate more jobs, for example feminist, homosexual, terrorist, animal rights advocacy. OK, because they promote lawyer rent seeking, however bitter or strident the complaints by crybaby, overly lawyer entitled, parasites. Question the damages done to the country, and one is shunned.
6. Obsoleteness. Nothing from 1250 AD or 1870 AD is acceptable in current practice (except for the opnion of OW Holmes). There would be no lawsuit if any other product or service provider were to use practice from those days. There would be arrest to protect public safety.
7. Lawyers run the government. They are 100% responsible for all social problems, for the economic crisis, and the stagnation of our nation, instead of its pulling ahead by 9% a year. They run the government and very badly. They need to leave the government or get banned from it. If this debate does not happen in law school, where will it happen?
8. Prelaw courses should be required. These include Psychology 101. Punishment is the sole tool of the law. Technical aspects exist. Few judges or lawyers know them. I would start a Psych 101 For Lawyers Course. It would emphasize law relevant psychology other than operant conditioning. It would heavy on perception, psychopathology, cognition, with an emphasis on memory. I would suggest Sociology but the faculties are so biased to the left as to make them more damaging than useful. Another would be the philosophy of science, so that the term, evidence, in law and in science may merge. Consider testing the content of such courses on the LSAT, replacing some of the testing of the least wrong answer about a passage of inscrutable BS.
9. Explicit, Black Boxed Warning about Grads. No graduate of law school is fit to be a judge, a legislator, or to hold any responsible policy position in the executive branch. The Rent Seeking Theory and Cult Indoctrination cause an irremediable conflict of interest. Furthermore, judging is a nearly unrelated profession to lawyering, analogous to engineer and construction worker.
10. Eliminate 3L. Replace it with mandatory rotating internship in a general law firm or government agency. After that, have 3 years of practice in a specialty firm for specialists. These should take a specialty exam at the end of the three years, as a marker of minimal quality for the public.
Here is a list of subjects the responsible insiders did not think about.
1) Every lawyer who has ever expressed himself on this subject, has said, he learned nothing in law school that he could use day 1 of being a lawyer. They have to get the advice of their secretaries on what to do. In all other fields, the grads emerge as just less experienced colleagues, because they have done the real work under supervision, and not as total novices cruising on summer intern experience.
2) The project proposes some audio-visual enhancements. No. Brick and mortar schools are dead down to kindergarten. The building and the mediocre staff is a total waste. The best kindergarten art teacher in the nation will get to teach kindergarten art to all the kindergarten students of the nation. There is not a hint these Deans have any awareness of such. All buildings, all paper, all on site work must be ruthlessly eradicated.
3) The indoctrination into supernatural, unlawful, core doctrines must stop. I do not want to argue this point. I invite the students to apply their personal experience to the following table. See for yourself which column best applies to law school. Contact me if anyone wants further discussion on this point.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst2.html
4) The education is biased. The textbooks are Mein Kampfs for plaintiffs and for criminals. There is no balance about the severe damage the lawyer does to the nation. The lecturers are extreme left wingers. This bias makes the profession heinous. The law education is basically hate speech, devoid of facts or evidence for its biased teaching.
5) No fundamental questioning of assumptions is permitted, such as the profession is a criminal cult enterprise. One may only criticize the profession along lines that will generate more jobs, for example feminist, homosexual, terrorist, animal rights advocacy. OK, because they promote lawyer rent seeking, however bitter or strident the complaints by crybaby, overly lawyer entitled, parasites. Question the damages done to the country, and one is shunned.
6. Obsoleteness. Nothing from 1250 AD or 1870 AD is acceptable in current practice (except for the opnion of OW Holmes). There would be no lawsuit if any other product or service provider were to use practice from those days. There would be arrest to protect public safety.
7. Lawyers run the government. They are 100% responsible for all social problems, for the economic crisis, and the stagnation of our nation, instead of its pulling ahead by 9% a year. They run the government and very badly. They need to leave the government or get banned from it. If this debate does not happen in law school, where will it happen?
8. Prelaw courses should be required. These include Psychology 101. Punishment is the sole tool of the law. Technical aspects exist. Few judges or lawyers know them. I would start a Psych 101 For Lawyers Course. It would emphasize law relevant psychology other than operant conditioning. It would heavy on perception, psychopathology, cognition, with an emphasis on memory. I would suggest Sociology but the faculties are so biased to the left as to make them more damaging than useful. Another would be the philosophy of science, so that the term, evidence, in law and in science may merge. Consider testing the content of such courses on the LSAT, replacing some of the testing of the least wrong answer about a passage of inscrutable BS.
9. Explicit, Black Boxed Warning about Grads. No graduate of law school is fit to be a judge, a legislator, or to hold any responsible policy position in the executive branch. The Rent Seeking Theory and Cult Indoctrination cause an irremediable conflict of interest. Furthermore, judging is a nearly unrelated profession to lawyering, analogous to engineer and construction worker.
10. Eliminate 3L. Replace it with mandatory rotating internship in a general law firm or government agency. After that, have 3 years of practice in a specialty firm for specialists. These should take a specialty exam at the end of the three years, as a marker of minimal quality for the public.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Statute and Regulation Do Not Require Scientific Validity: Supreme Court
This subject was recently reviewed by an attorney who prefers to remain anonymous.
We have few scientifically certain criteria of legislation, and as it often is difficult to mark the line where what is called the police power of the states is limited by the Constitution of the United States, judges should be slow to read into the latter a nolumus mutare as against the lawmaking power. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911)
To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations,-illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void under the 14 Amendment; and such judgment cannot be pronounced of the ordinance in controversy.Metropolis Theater Co. V. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913)
Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
We do not demand of legislatures `scientifically certain criteria of legislation. (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 642 -643 (1968))
But, it is argued, there are no scientific data which conclusively demonstrate that exposure to obscene material adversely affects men and women or their society. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that, absent such a demonstration, any kind of state regulation is "impermissible." We reject this argument. It is not for us to resolve empirical uncertainties underlying state legislation, save in the exceptional case where that legislation plainly impinges upon rights protected by the Constitution itself. (PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973))
." Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
These anti-scientific views are obsolete, given our changing values.
Here are counter examples. Rejecting scientific racism as unscientific,
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495]in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. [Ref 11 is K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of [347 U.S. 483, 495] Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).] BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
We have few scientifically certain criteria of legislation, and as it often is difficult to mark the line where what is called the police power of the states is limited by the Constitution of the United States, judges should be slow to read into the latter a nolumus mutare as against the lawmaking power. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911)
To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations,-illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void under the 14 Amendment; and such judgment cannot be pronounced of the ordinance in controversy.Metropolis Theater Co. V. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913)
Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
We do not demand of legislatures `scientifically certain criteria of legislation. (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 642 -643 (1968))
But, it is argued, there are no scientific data which conclusively demonstrate that exposure to obscene material adversely affects men and women or their society. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that, absent such a demonstration, any kind of state regulation is "impermissible." We reject this argument. It is not for us to resolve empirical uncertainties underlying state legislation, save in the exceptional case where that legislation plainly impinges upon rights protected by the Constitution itself. (PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973))
." Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
These anti-scientific views are obsolete, given our changing values.
Here are counter examples. Rejecting scientific racism as unscientific,
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495]in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. [Ref 11 is K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of [347 U.S. 483, 495] Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).] BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
What Foreseeability is Just to Trigger a Duty?
Thanks to Prof. Bill Childs, Associate Professor of Law, Western New England School of Law.
The jury is the only thing between the productive party and the land pirate and the parasitic clients.
This case brings up another question. What is the quantity of foreseeability that triggers duty? Is it 1 in 1 million, as the husband estimated in his deposition? Is it over 51% chance, equivalent to the burden of proof, and a natural landmark?
By the lack of quantification of foreseeability, the civil defendant has not received notice. All foreseeabilities in between should be unlawful by statute.
The jury is the only thing between the productive party and the land pirate and the parasitic clients.
This case brings up another question. What is the quantity of foreseeability that triggers duty? Is it 1 in 1 million, as the husband estimated in his deposition? Is it over 51% chance, equivalent to the burden of proof, and a natural landmark?
By the lack of quantification of foreseeability, the civil defendant has not received notice. All foreseeabilities in between should be unlawful by statute.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Mens Rea Violates the Establishment Clause
1) Per se. Mind reading is a supernatural power. The supernatural is religion. Half the major violent crimes are committed by folks legally drunk. The criminal himself cannot honestly judge intent, if the crime is recalled at all. I understand no recall is needed to infer intent from conduct. The word, infer, is a synonym for mind reading, and not a rebuttal with objective evidence.
2) Origination. A French monk applied the Scholasticist doctrine that God would know intent and judge it after death. Intent came from the elements of mortal sin and a church catechism. So what? So what if the law were based the Koran? In the 1200's that was an humanitarian advance, a loophole to escape the sole punishment of the 1200's, death.
3) Policy. Where is the evidence the hunter who shoots another thinking him a deer is less dangerous than the hunter who shoots another after a $10,000 payment from the other's wife? (In that scenario, the money is objective evidence of intent.) But there is no evidence mens rea contributes to safety. There should be strict liability, with a judgment of dangerousness by the executive branch based on the past. Future victims should be able to sue the probation department for deviations from assessment standards that result in victim injury. The probation department is just counting past behaviors from all sources, including childhood records, after conviction, and not functioning as God does. Intent has no scientific, validated meaning, such as a measurement scale, or brain imaging showing anything happens in real life. It does not exist. The reason? It is from the thinking of Medieval monks, not more recent scientists.
4) Indoctrination without consent. Modern students do not believe in the supernatural outside of their spiritual adherence. To get them to believe in the mens rea, they undego an indoctrination so good, no one knows it took place. But people who pass 1L believe minds can be read. The indoctrination violates the Establishment Clause. The use of mens rea by any judge does too, since it imposes a supernatural belief of a very specific church, with the force of government.
5) Latin. All Latin violates the Establishment Clause, being the foreign language of a church. We need a statute voiding all legal utterances containing Latin, and canceling any severability in the legal utterance.
2) Origination. A French monk applied the Scholasticist doctrine that God would know intent and judge it after death. Intent came from the elements of mortal sin and a church catechism. So what? So what if the law were based the Koran? In the 1200's that was an humanitarian advance, a loophole to escape the sole punishment of the 1200's, death.
3) Policy. Where is the evidence the hunter who shoots another thinking him a deer is less dangerous than the hunter who shoots another after a $10,000 payment from the other's wife? (In that scenario, the money is objective evidence of intent.) But there is no evidence mens rea contributes to safety. There should be strict liability, with a judgment of dangerousness by the executive branch based on the past. Future victims should be able to sue the probation department for deviations from assessment standards that result in victim injury. The probation department is just counting past behaviors from all sources, including childhood records, after conviction, and not functioning as God does. Intent has no scientific, validated meaning, such as a measurement scale, or brain imaging showing anything happens in real life. It does not exist. The reason? It is from the thinking of Medieval monks, not more recent scientists.
4) Indoctrination without consent. Modern students do not believe in the supernatural outside of their spiritual adherence. To get them to believe in the mens rea, they undego an indoctrination so good, no one knows it took place. But people who pass 1L believe minds can be read. The indoctrination violates the Establishment Clause. The use of mens rea by any judge does too, since it imposes a supernatural belief of a very specific church, with the force of government.
5) Latin. All Latin violates the Establishment Clause, being the foreign language of a church. We need a statute voiding all legal utterances containing Latin, and canceling any severability in the legal utterance.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
When a Member of the Criminal Cult Hierarchy is Attacked, the Death Penalty is on the Spot
No $10 millions spent on bogus appeals.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Wyeth v Levine
No pre-emption by FDA approval on product liability.
The Rent Seeking Theory of Appellate Decisions trumps all ideology and political affiliation. This decision was predicted at the time of cert.
The Rent Seeking Theory of Appellate Decisions trumps all ideology and political affiliation. This decision was predicted at the time of cert.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Dade Bar Apologizes for Segregation Sins, Misses the Genocide of Blacks by Lawyers
This water fountain caper was a trivial offense, of hurt feelings.
No one is apologizing for the 5000 lynchings that took place. These had a business model. They went after the prosperous black merchant or professionals.
The KKK was lawyer and judge founded and led. It is impossible to kill 5000 people without immunity and collusion of prosecutors, judges, and police. These had to be paid off.
Lawyer question. Can a deed obtained by murder ever get quiet?
Instead of dumbass reparations movement seeking to attack our corporations and banks, the compensation of the heirs for the seizure of all those properties by murder awaits the right lawyer.
No one is apologizing for the 5000 lynchings that took place. These had a business model. They went after the prosperous black merchant or professionals.
The KKK was lawyer and judge founded and led. It is impossible to kill 5000 people without immunity and collusion of prosecutors, judges, and police. These had to be paid off.
Lawyer question. Can a deed obtained by murder ever get quiet?
Instead of dumbass reparations movement seeking to attack our corporations and banks, the compensation of the heirs for the seizure of all those properties by murder awaits the right lawyer.
Trial Lawyer Boss to Run US Health Care
This trial lawyer will dictate, crush, and oppress clinical care with impunity. Her minion land pirates will plunder it, as a Mafia clan takes over a business. When they have exhausted plundering its assets, they burn it down to collect the insurance. The sole hope of clinical care is the Hilarious Law of Political Irony applies to this feminist extremist, mass murderer of the unborn, party thrower for Dr. Death of 60,000 unborn babies (after a $120,000 contribution from the butcher), Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Once she starts her plunder and destruction, doctors will have to fight back.
I predict they will fail at all airtight rigged, legal means.
I predict they will fail at all airtight rigged, legal means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
