Bob Schieffer Gives Congress a Badly Needed Reality Check, “They Can’t Do Anything…”

schiefferBob Schieffer delivered an epic smackdown of Congress on Face the Nation this morning, giving special attention to the House of Representatives and their complete inability to get anything productive accomplished. He called them “disconnected to the rest of us” and pointed out how “they can’t do anything even when they want to.”

Here’s the video (via CBS), along with a full transcript of his comments:

Say one thing for Congress — no matter how bad you thought they were, they will always find a way to show you they’re even worse. Last week’s defeat of the farm bill was an example of how they can’t do anything even when they want to. House Republican leaders thought they had the votes to pass the bill, but 60 Republicans suddenly turned on their leaders because they thought federal programs needed to be cut even more. They joined forces with a group of Democrats who opposed the bill, because they thought the programs had been cut too much. So the whole thing collapsed, nobody got anything and nothing got done — a sentence you could use to describe most Capitol Hill weeks. Washington has changed since I came here 44 years ago. There are some exceptions, but many House members especially have come to live in a world unknown and disconnected to the rest of us. They work 3 days a week, they take long and frequent vacations and busy themselves with things that have no connection to the rest of us — fundraising to ensure reelection, traveling, issuing press releases and more fundraising. But nothing that affects the rest of us ever seems to get done. It’s obvious they want to be something — a member of Congress. But when I came to Washington, most members wanted to do something. When did that go out of style?
 

Schieffer is one of the smartest people in TV news, and with over 4 decades in the business he knows what he’s talking about. When Bob Schieffer tells you that you “can’t do anything” even when you want to, you should probably listen and think about what needs to happen for that to change.

But let’s be honest with ourselves here — House Republicans couldn’t care less about what Bob Schieffer or anybody else has to say about their ineptitude. Just take a look at what they’ve been focused on — attempting to repeal Obamacare 37 times (at a cost to taxpayers of around $55 million), unconstitutional abortion bans that seek to skirt around Roe v. Wade, demonizing food stamp recipients and refusing to pass a single jobs bill. (Contrary to what House Republicans believe, pushing for more tax cuts for billionaires does not constitute a “jobs bill” — remember how that worked out during the Bush administration?)

Of course, they’ve also been focused on pushing scandal after scandal in the hopes that one will stick. First it was Benghazi, which we later found out that they had purposefully passed off edited emails as fact to try to make the Obama administration look bad. Then we have the IRS scandal, which Darrell Issa knew wasn’t a scandal from the beginning yet he continued to perpetuate the lie in the hopes of swaying public opinion. As I have said previously, the biggest scandal of all is how Republicans seem to be sabotaging their own party. They’ve proven that they’re not “fiscally conservative,” they’ve proven that they don’t care what the public wants and they only seem concerned with pushing the agendas of their corporate overlords.

Sure, Democrats aren’t perfect and deserve to be called out on their nonsense as well, but Republicans have taken “nonsense” to a whole new level never before seen in politics. Schieffer’s commentary should serve as a reality check to House leadership and the Tea Party caucus that has pushed Republicans past the point of no return — rediscover the art of true “compromise” or face permanent damage come 2014 and beyond.

Thomas Barr

Thomas Barr

Thomas Barr is a writer, editor and activist who's passionate about progressive ideals, with extra attention given to the fight for universal health care, medical marijuana, and saving our nation from decades of devastating trickle-down policies. Thomas is also a dedicated advocate for Type 1 diabetes research and education.
Be sure to check out his archives on Forward Progressives for more of his viewpoints.
Thomas Barr

Comments

Facebook comments

  • patricia spinazzola

    Unfortunately, these yahoos who are intentionally gumming up the works come from gerrymandered districts that are quite unlikely to ever vote for the opposition party. It’s a sad state of affairs when Americans would rather put someone in office who isn’t working for them, than to vote for someone else and show these idiots we won’t tolerate their bad behavior. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though. Too many ignorant people exercise their voting rights. How far America has fallen.

  • Edward Baker

    Great comment but it will fall on deaf ears ….The house is on vacation again and they dont watch your show

  • It went out of style, Bob
    when politics became the last refuge
    of the hopelessly mediocre or
    barely employable.
    John Boehner is the perfect example.

  • Guest

    I have one hue problem with Bob…the fact that he has been there 44 years…And now he is ineffective. He might be just as much a part of the problem as the rest of them. I see this as some sort of grand standing stunt. Heard it before…

    • bill

      it’s time for your check up

    • Informer

      You realize that Bob is a tv journalist and is not a Congressman right?

    • Albert

      Lol dumbass. You are the problem with america.
      He isn’t a politician he is a real journalist nit a college drop out on fox.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        There are so few real journalists left. Sean Hannity doesn’t count.

    • DD

      Perhaps actual reading and comprehension skills should be in your future. What an Idiot you are. I have a huge problem with you commenting on an issue you are clearly ineligible to comment on due to your stupidity!

  • bill

    just a bunch of clowns, for those who voted for them you should be ashamed.

  • Jim Wetherell

    Here’s hoping they are not listening in the hope that enough people will be fed up and can their asses next year.

  • Charles Vincent

    attempting to repeal Obamacare 37 times (at a cost to taxpayers of around $55 million),
    The ACA is a joke and should have never been passed and its only been up for full repeal 3 times and the republicans have attempts to amend, defund, or repeal portions of the bill 37 times and had the democrats taken more time looking at it while it as in committee maybe just maybe the republicans wouldn’t have tried so many time to do all those attempts at “repealing” the total failure of a bill.
    Mr. Shieffer wasn’t singling out a particular party either.

    • tcaruso01

      So trying to have a health care system that works for people who need coverage because of pre-existing conditions or people who can’t afford insurance is a joke to you? Perhaps you think that our previous system that was the most expensive in the world and only benefited the insurance companies is better? The ACA is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction considering what we had before!!

      • larry

        I was going to respond, but you did a better job. I get so pissed at people who judge the ACA as a worthless train wreck, but have no alternative. When is the last time a republican, any republican really did any thing about health care

      • Charles Vincent

        It is a train wreck. We didn’t need to reinvent the wheel we needed to analyze the strengths and weaknesses in the current system and fix the problems there, not dump 2.6 trillion dollars in the toilet that is the ACA. And maybe just maybe if you understood how system analysis worked you could see past the end of your nose on this topic.

      • Charles Vincent

        First of all you don’t fix a train wreck by crashing another train into it. The insurance the ACA provides is just as expensive as what I could get now. Secondly the current system has things that work, some things that need fixing so they work well, and some things that need replaced entirely. We need to not waste 2.6 trillion dollars of money we don’t have over the next ten years trying to reinvent the wheel with this failure ACA bill. We also don’t need the poster child for inefficiency that is our federal government running healthcare. In closing anyone who knows anything about the law of supply and demand understands that this mandatory healthcare artificially inflates demand which in turn drives up price of the health care we want to reduce.

      • Kevin

        See: Canada

        Then come back and tell me something like the ACA is a garbage train wreck.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Back in the 1960s, (Claude) Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

        “The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: “the father of Quebec medicare.” Even this title seems modest; Castonguay’s work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.”

        Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in “crisis.”

        “We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”
        Yeah Canada’s health care is great try again. This sort of health care is failing or falling behind in Europe as well.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I just spent a week with a guy from Toronto and lifelong resident of Ontario who thinks the US health care system is a travesty. He wouldn’t give up his Canadian health care for anything.

      • tcaruso01

        Tell your BS to the people who have already received rebates from their insurance companies or the millions of people who can now get coverage for themselves and/or their children who have pre-existing conditions! Under the system before the ACA, when people didn’t have coverage and went to a county hospital’s emergency room for routine care, who do you think paid for those costs in the long run? Our old system was the most expensive health care per capita in the industrialized world by double over the next closest country Japan!! The only thing that will cause a train wreck is idiots like Rick Perry refusing the ACA’s implementation in his state thus resulting in his own constituents paying the price!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Typical you totally missed what I was saying. We just traded one tax payer funded health care system for a different one. Prove people have gotten rebates where are the numbers on it. The numbers I was using were the cost after rebate. We didn’t need to scrap the old system we needed to reform it but instead we double ding the tax payer cause they have to fit the bill twice now once for the people that can’t afford care and once for the 2.6 trillion dollars the new system is going to cost over the next ten years. Obamas fiscal policy is set to ballon the national debt to ~25 trillion dollars by 2016. Stop focusing on one piece of the puzzle and step back so you can see the whole picture for once in your life.

      • tcaruso01

        Except that under this system, insurance companies can’t deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and the doughnut hole is Medicare will be closed!! Stop focusing solely on the money and your own selfish interests and realize that the ACA helps those who need it much more than the previous system ever did!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Those things could have been implemented in the current healthcare system. The ACA is going to kill the lower class because it made zero effort to implement any sort of cost control on insurance companies and their rates will go up not to mention that employers nation wide are now re classifying employees so they don’t have to provide insurance coverage to the employees. It is not selfish to think that it hurts everyone not just me especially considering that it will be cheaper to pay the 2200 dollar fine that it will to pay the annual cost of the insurance. This isn’t just about the ACA it’s about all those unforeseen things that happen afterwards. An example of this in current events is the patriot act and how it has allowed the government to subvert the 4 amendment people were screaming about it under Clinton when it was called the omnibus and they screamed about it when bush passed the patriot act ant when both he and Obama extended it. People saw it coming then and they see it coming now.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Insurance company rates go up annually regardless of the ACA. Where have you been living. How does getting health insurance hurt anyone?

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s called a budget. When your budget is already on a string adding an addition cost is the different between just squeaking by and sinking. I know that cost go up yearly its isn’t just relegated to health care it’s pretty much across the board. The problem is that when things are mandated by law it artificially manipulates demand because people rush to get the item that was mandated by law and in every economic market when demand goes up so will price. This happened when government mandated auto insurance before it was a law auto insurance was a very low price but after the price went up because the laws artificially distorted the demand by creating a captive consumer base, this is exactly what will happen with the ACA.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Piece of cake. Get out of Afghanistan and slash defense spending. We’ll have plenty of money.

        So why is it we are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have universal coverage? They do and everyone is happy with it. Why the resistance?

        And my auto insurance is still cheap.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The lower class has Medicaid.

      • Charles Vincent

        Have you ever been on Medicaid?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No. I take care of Medicaid patients. However, I have been uninsured. We take it up the butt.

      • Charles Vincent

        I never had an issue with being uninsured in fact when I had kidney stones they took about 20 % off the bill because I paid cash.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Then you obviously have far more cash than the average person. A local barmaid, uninsured, had a heart attack, similar to my brother in law who has great insurance. Both got a $100,000 charge. The Blues knocked BIL’s down to $32,000 and paid all but about $1,500. The barmaid, however, probably makes somewhere in the neighborhood of $25K/year. The hospital called her and in all sincerity said, “If you can give us $60,000 in the next three months, we’ll call it even.” Every time I relate that story, I hear gasps and cries of indignation.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually I am a barmaid I work in food service and make that low wage, and I set up a payment plan to pay x amount per month.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Boo Hoo. Where were you when Reagan and Bush were tripling and doubling the debt? And I don’t really care about the debt.

      • Charles Vincent

        Do you understand the difference between debt and deficit? We’re not talking about bush senior or Reagan we are talking about the here and now and how the ACA doesn’t even come close to addressing the problem, and debt is part of the picture now flor several reasons and the 2.6 trillion that the ACA is adding to that debt is a big problem.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, I do. Reagan tripled the debt. Bush doubled the debt. And the debt really doesn’t matter. It wasn’t a problem when Dubya was in office, but the right seems to think Obama created a $10 trillion debt on January 20, 2009. No one was complaining before that.

        In the long run, the ACA will save money. Gotta bite the bullet. Health care for all.

      • Charles Vincent

        The national debt when he took office was $10.6 trillion, and it currently sits at $16.4 trillion. That’s an increase of $5.8 trillion, or as I like to call it—not greater than the $10.7 trillion.
        This is deficit not debt.
        George bush inherited ~3.3 trillion in debt from bill Clinton’s presidency. George bush added another ~3.3 trillion bringing the debt to ~6.6 trillion
        The total debt at the end of 2012 is ~11.3 trillion which means Obama increased out debt by ~4.7 trillion dollars in 4 years. Compared to ~1.6 trillion per four year term during bush.
        This ~4.7 trillion is definitely more than every president up to Clinton. And it’s more than bush spent in eight years by ~1.4 trillion and ~3.1 trillion more than bush spent during either of his 2 four year terms. You clearly don’t understand debt/deficit or how it ballooning is very bad for us.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And again, so what? How is the debt a problem, except in the mind of the GOP, which didn’t think it was a problem when Dubya charged the cost of two wars on a Chinese credit card. THAT was the time to be upset, not now.

      • Charles Vincent

        It was then and it is now a problem. We are living on a credit card now and eventually when you spend more than you’re bringing in in revenue you go bankrupt. And when the federal reserve prints 2 trillion dollars it devalues the currency you can see this in history with the hyperinflation crisis that happened in 1922.

        “If the government spends more than it takes in over the course of one year, then it has run a deficit. A deficit applies to just one year.

        So, if the government takes in $10 trillion dollars but spends $13 trillion dollars in one year, then it has run a $3 trillion dollar deficit.

        When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference.

        A debt is completely different. Think of debt as accumulated deficits.

        If the government has to borrow money every year, then its debt will continue to grow year-after-year. This debt does not disappear unless the government elects to try and pay it down (rare occurrence).”
        In our case the federal reserve has been printing fiat money to lend to our government. And then the fed has been selling that debt to china in the form of us treasury bonds. And in order to maintain the debt the fed has kept interest rate at 1% just so the interest payment can be made. See the problem?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        First, admit our debt is largely the result of Bush’s getting us into Iraq and then charging the cost. THEN I’ll maybe agree the debt is a problem.

      • Charles Vincent

        The debt isn’t all bush’s fault, neither is he blameless in this and Obama bares just as much culpability in the current debt crisis

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Agreed, but I’m far more agreeable to Obama’s spending which is paying down the debt for the wars and kept us out of a second great depression.

      • Charles Vincent

        Paying down a fraction of a percent of the debt is inconsequential when your fiscal policy balloons the debt to 25 trillion by 2016.

      • Charles Vincent

        There was a year when our government had paid off the debt. It was under Andrew Jackson and lasted between 1835 and 1836. Unfortunately the democrats went hog wild on spending in 1837 and Jackson implemented policies that caused a depression that lasted approximately 10-12 years. Modern debt has Been far worse of an issue since the fed was created in 1913. There are plenty of resources that show debt before the fed and debt increase prior to the fed was relatively flat, after the fed debt really goes through the roof so to speak.

      • Charles Vincent

        As to Reagan or bush those things are long past and we can’t fix them. We are on the horse now and what we can fix is the here and now and Obama ballooning the debt is now and something we can fix now.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Bush is not “long past.”

      • Charles Vincent

        Bush senior

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Bush Junior is the root of our problems.

      • Charles Vincent

        I misunderstood that you meant bush junior not senior.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Got news for you. We’ve been paying for the uninsured one way or another for as long as there have been uninsured patients.

        And again, what is the problem with the debt? People have debt all the time. If they didn’t none of them would own houses.

      • Charles Vincent

        Housed develop equity the debt china has doesn’t and when the interest rate normalizes the dollar could collapse just like the currency in Austria did.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We wasted money on Iraq and Afghanistan and you didn’t seem to care.

        The only program that government RUNS is the VA. Otherwise, the government is FUNDING health care. Big difference. And telling you what they will pay for is no different from insurance companies doing the same.

      • Charles Vincent

        Those are separate topics and not in line with the subject at hand which is the ACA and its lack of efficacy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Explain the “lack of efficacy” when much of it won’t go into effect until this year and next. I can tell you a lot about lack of efficacy in the current system, given I’m a physician working in it.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re avoiding my assertion. We could have made the necessary changes to the current system for a smaller cost. The ACA does nothing to adress the cost of the actual insurance premiums. If your working in it show factual numbers supporting what you say. I have been using numbers from several sources to base my argument on.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Making changes in the current system would have required voluntary participation by the insurance companies, not the government. Given they are in the business to make money, not provide health care, that would never happen. They also pretty much wrote the ACA.

        My statement about efficacy comes from actual experience. We’re spending one hell of a lot more money than we were 10 or 20 years ago and have very little to show for it. ESPECIALLY in OB/GYN.

      • Charles Vincent

        We’re spending one hell of a lot more money than we were 10 or 20 years ago and have very little to show for it. ESPECIALLY in OB/GYN.
        This is a direct function of supply and demand.
        “ESPECIALLY in OB/GYN.” More children being born means more need for OB/GYN. Econ 101 here more demand low supply of OB/GYN = rising cost.

        Making changes in the current system would have required voluntary participation by the insurance companies, not the government
        This is patently false the government has the ability to regulate exactly those things under the ICC clause in the constitution. They do not need them to voluntarily participate. I am not for regulation but this would have been a worthy endeavor.
        They also pretty much wrote the ACA.
        Wo wrote the ACA? The insurance companies? That couldn’t possibly go wrong.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        YOu miss the point, bunkie. We spend a lot more on OB/GYN care for little or no benefit. I’m not talking about cost. I’m talking about useless testing and interventions. Try to keep up with the conversation. And, actually, the birth rate has been going down.

        The ACA, IMHO, is the first step towards a single payor. It wasn’t the greatest idea, but it was better than doing nothing.

      • Charles Vincent

        You weren’t specific about the former. And I know the birth rates are going down in this country I was trying to illustrate the connection of supply vs demand. Useless testing is not an insurance issue other than billing it, if its a useless/unneeded test then doctors/nurses shouldn’t be performing them.

        We could have performed an industry wide system analysis of both health care and insurance for health care and implemented the necessary changes to the current systems instead of building a completely new system with probably just as many flaws an bugs if not more than what were in the old system.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The reason government forced the changes is the industry wasn’t about to change on its own.

        Are you amenable to continuing this discussion privately? Wading thru the comment sections is inefficient.

      • Charles Vincent

        How would you propose continuing the conversation?

    • nativemama

      proving a point…your an idiot..to believe we did not need heath care…only a moron..which you qualify as…or a Republican’t..which you probably are..believes we did not need it ..even your party tried and failed…repeatedly to pass…Obama got done….(insert) applause and clapping

      • Charles Vincent

        See the above reply and stop patting yourself on the back before you hurt yourself. Two only a “moron” like you would suggests something as asinine as “which you qualify as…or a Republican’t” or “your an idiot..to believe we did not need heath care”. Take your ad hominem attacks back to the playground and come back when you can be more constructive.

      • Jo Hargis

        The only “idiot” I see here is you, Charles, for thinking that anyone cares any longer that you don’t like the ACA. Get over it. It’s here to stay, it’s been ruled constitutional, and your Congress is wasting millions of dollars on symbolic repeal efforts.

        I know, I know. It just chaps your lily white arse that some little brown skinned kid might actually get to see a doctor. Tsk tsk.

      • Charles Vincent

        Slow your roll chief read my comment again cause you didn’t comprehend it when you read it the first time. Second don’t put words in my mouth I never said anything about race creed color or anything of that nature. Third your ad homenim attack tells me you 1) have all the maturity of a first grader 2.) have no real argument or solution because all you can do I name call and insinuate any number of vile things about someone that doesn’t share your view point.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What EXACTLY don’t you like about Obamacare?
        Keeping kids on parents’ insurance until they are 26
        Being able to get insurance with pre-existing condition?
        Forcing insurance companies to spend money on health care rather than advertising and executive bonuses?
        We really need a single-payor and get profit out of health care. Obamacare ain’t perfect but it’s a start.

      • Charles Vincent

        Being able to get insurance with pre-existing condition? It’s is one thing I like about it but this could have been done to the current in the frame work of the current system.
        Keeping kids on parents’ insurance until they are 26. This is the dumbest idea ever as it doesn’t teach children to be personally responsible.

        The government is taking health care over they are just handing off the administration of it over to the IRS.

        I don’t like the fact that I am forced to carry insurance since I rarely go to the doctor and when I do I set up a payment plan and pay cash. I also hate the fact that the IRS can fine me 2200 dollars for not having it.
        I don’t like that the idiots in our government felt the need to reinvent the wheel instead of looking at the current healthcare system and analyzing the system to see what’s broken, what works and then fix what can be fixed and replace the things that can’t be fixed. And as for Canda even the guy that invented their system thinks its going down hill fast.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        1. People with pre-existing conditions can only get insurance through someone else as part of a group policy. Heart attack, AIDS, cancer, mental illness? Forget about ever being underwritten under the old system.

        2. Why is keeping kids on their parents’ insurance dumb? Consider that record numbers of college graduates aren’t getting jobs and work fast food or not at all. Only 60% of employers offer benefits; only 37% when you include only small/medium companies. Do you have any idea how much policies currently cost in the individual market???

        3. How has government taken over health care? What physicians are now employed by and hospitals run by “The Government?”

        4. You have a car and drive, you are forced to get tags and a driver’s license. You might be able to afford $100,000 for a couple of days in ICU for a heart attack, but I don’t know anyone else who can do that. Or how about a major trauma with a year or two of rehab>

        5. What’s wrong with the current system is insurance and for-profit health care.

        6. The guy responsible for Canada’s single payor system was Tommy Douglas, not “the guy.” and I know of no Canadians who want to replace their system with ours. Sorry, Charlie.

      • Charles Vincent

        I will answer your bullets top to bottom
        1.) that’s one part I actually like, and it could have been implemented into the current system
        2.) yes I know how much they cost in the current market and the ACA is doing nothing to address that. The employer numbers you quoted will shrink and already are look at companies like Walmart, Olive Garden, papa johns, etcetera… Leaving them to fend for themselves and cutting their hours per work week in order to reclassify them as part time so the employers can lawfully not provide them with coverage.
        3.) when the government fines you for not having insurance that’s them taking over.
        4.) we have already gone over the insurance and car driving on another thread and I quoted you a bunch of case law and definitions from blacks law on this subject. I can’t afford that and thank god I have been healthy my whole life and when I have been to the doctor my cash bills and all been under 500 dollars.
        5.) health care is a business and so is insurance, no one goes in to business to lose money they do it to make money.
        6.) from what I have read Mr. Douglas too notes from Claude Castonguays model that was implemented in quebec, in 2007 the Canadian government appointed castonguay to a closed door panel in which he said that the public health care model was an unnessacary burden on government finance and should be run by private sector companies. I also misspoke he was one of the pioneers of socialized medicine not the father of that Canadian system.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        1. Good
        2. I agree the ACA didn’t address the cost, but at least there are exchanges in California which seem to be offering insurance for less. However, the ACA was a giveaway to the insurance industry the way Medicare D was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

        But employers have been screwing employees for decades. Microsoft was notorious for armies of “temporary” workers. ACA just gives them a convenient excuse.
        3. Sorry charlie, we live in a communal society. Government is NOT running health care, no matter how badly you want to believe it.
        4. Government still tells you to get a license and tags., Black’s law notwithstanding. Let me know how that cash model works out if you suddenly find yourself having to come up with $75,000/yr for cancer treatment.
        5. You can make money, and you can make obscene profits. The latter is what pisses people off. If health care was truly a free market, no one would be buying because no one could afford it.
        6. The Right in Canada wants to change things to an American system. The Canadian people aren’t happy about that idea. Private sector companies are in the business to make money, not provide health care. The latter is, to them, a disgusting but necessary evil.

        For the record, I think everyone should have to pay something, because anything that is free loses value. But routine care should cost about the same as routine auto maintenance. I get blood work through an online company that contracts with Labcorp for a fraction of the hospital rates. I considered opening a cash-only clinic for low-income uninsured working women but couldn’t afford the startup cost nor the liability insurance.

      • Charles Vincent

        Sorry charlie, we live in a communal society.
        Wrong we live in a society that was built on individual liberty. It’s is why people have a problem with you telling them who they should live or what car to buy or which insurance is best etcetera.

        The Right in Canada wants to change things to an American system. The Canadian people aren’t happy about that idea. Private sector companies are in the business to make money, not provide health care. The latter is, to them, a disgusting but necessary evil.
        I don’t like socialized medicine but this is as bad an idea as us going to the ACA.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Individual liberty my butt. So, it has always been every man for himself? That isn’t the country I grew up in.

        ” law you cannot be required to hold a license or registration by either the state or the federal government.” Let me know how well that works for you the next time a cop pulls you over for no license plate and asks to see the driver’s license you don’t carry.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well I am currently researching the license thing and I have seen probably twenty documented cases where the state was beaten in cases like these both here and in the UK. And from what I can tell there are ~300,000 people in the US doing exactly that and I showed you the case law to prove it. As I said there are things a person has to do for it to be legal and that’s what I am researching currently.

        The founding fathers were very clear that individual liberty was one of our founding principles (see the bill of rights). This doesn’t exclude people forming communities but when they chose to it was a voluntary thing. Also communities come in two categories from what I understand they are unincorporated, and incorporated the former is one that has no elected officials but is a town by tradition if that makes sense, incorporated towns have elected officials and are chartered by the state. Either way they are voluntary collections which is the essence of individual liberty.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I guess I have better things to get upset about than the pittance I pay for a license plate and the drivers license I pay for every 4 years. If you don’t like regulation so much, why not emigrate to some place that doesn’t cramp your lifestyle so much. How about Somalia? No government interference there.

        And you do realize we don’t live in 1776 anymore. Things have changed. And your “individual liberty” is a bit overrated.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually it isn’t about Regulation cramping anyone’s style it’s about government staying inside their constitutional bounds. If you don’t think individual liberty is a valid concept now you’re less intelligent than I give you credit for. So if you don’t like the concept of individual liberty perhaps you should move to Cuba or some other communist country where life is more to your way of thinking and fits your ideals.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Show me where in the constitution it says government can’t force you to buy license plates and a driver’s license if you drive a car. There were no cars in 1789. And I’m better there are many things you do because you’re forced to, including paying taxes. Otherwise, you’d be writing from prison.

        Again, show me a country that doesn’t do this.

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s laid out in the ICC clause in the constitution which clearly states that government only has the authority to regulate commerce, the cannot regulate travel which is not commerce. Again please refer to the definitions in blacks law dictionary they define motor vehicle, and automobile and provide a clear distinction between which is used for commerce and which is used for travel . Taxes like income tax are very debatable as to their constitutionality.

      • Charles Vincent

        The united 50 States of America

        Secured Party Declaration And Notice

        Under Uniform Commercial Code and Constitutional Law

        Name of Sovereign: ___________________________________________________

        City: ___________________________ Sovereign Nation/State:_______________ Zip: [________]

        Date of Birth: ___________ Male: _____ Female: ______ Eyes: __________ Hair: ____________

        I Declare Myself a legal Sovereign, Operating Under Common Law, Title 4, U.S.C, 1, Flag of Peace and secure all my rights under U.C.C 1-207. I am NOT a corporate being dealing in commerce requiring a license of any kind. I travel by RIGHT, not by Privilege. Anything you say or do in violation of my Rights, can and will be used against you in a court of law.

        Signature of Sovereign: ________________________________________________________

        *************************************************************************************

        Sovereign Right to Operate a Private Vehicle

        “NOTICE” TO PUBLIC SERVANTS intending to violate my free rights under law:

        The Bearer, being an un-enfranchised Sovereign, is authorized under statute at large, First Congress 1789, Session 1, Chapters, page 52; Articles of Confederation, Article 4-3-1-1781; MC 38: Title 18, Section 241, USC Title 42, Section 1983, 1985, 1986, of the unhampered use of all navigable waters and all common law highways, roadways, and byways which are used for transport either private, public, or commerce anywhere in these United 50 States of America. Said driver/operator is affirmed in obedience for the protection of the Constitution for the United States of America and may be detained only upon sworn complaint of an injured party as per the Bill of Rights, Article IV, and common law. The undersigned claims his rights at law as a Sovereign citizen (NOT a resident) of Colorado state, and rejects, and is not subject to, the contract obligations in equity known as the Motor Vehicle Codes of the respective states, via U.C.C. 1.

        Notice: The “driver’s license” demanded, and provided under duress, which is issued by the state of Colorado, is NOT legally issued to me as a secured party with respect to the named party on the license, JEFFREY T. MAEHR, in all caps.

        Case Law: (Emphasis mine throughout)

        Americans’ “freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution,” according to multiple cases including Williams v Fears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908), as listed in the case of United States v Guest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC 241).

        Case law shows that the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one’s life, family, and private pursuits. See Meyer v, 262 US 390, 399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93 S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is obviously driving.

        In effect, as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed (1867), speed limits and other traffic control devices, being non-fact-based, are simply an unlawful tax or impost on travel, and thus unconstitutional for the reason cited in Crandall. (Crandall involved a tax on travelers! which is what in essence speed limits, unscientific stop signs, etc., simply are, stripped of all the phony fraudulent politician folderol pretending them to relate somehow to safety, not to mention that are extortion violating the federal anti-racketeering act (RICO), 18 USC 1961 and the law against obstructing federal rights, 18 USC 241).

        42-2-101. Licenses for drivers required.

        (1) Except as otherwise provided in part 4 of this article for commercial drivers…

        Colorado Article 42-2-101 clearly states, licensing is for commercial drivers, not private citizens..

        “…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…” State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

        “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”

        “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

        “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.

        “Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them… to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen…” Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941).

        “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 (“Regulated” here means stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. – licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes.)

        “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

        “The right to travel is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.”

        “Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment.”

        Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. V. Operation Rescue, 948 F2d 218; International Org. Of Masters, Etc. V. Andrews, 831, F2d 843; Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55, 102 Sct. 2309.

        “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).

        “License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.” Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

        “The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do.” City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

        “The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it.” Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

        “A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

        “A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege…River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

        “A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted…”American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

        “A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

        Public roads belong to the people, since we pay for them, therefore exercising one’s liberty upon them is a natural right. The right to travel, or to locomotion, is upheld in the constitution, and actually predate the constitution;

        “These are rights which existed long before our constitution, and we have taken pride in their maintenance, making them a part of the fundamental law of the land.”

        “Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion,—to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one’s business or pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. . . .

        “Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights which our Constitution guarantees.” Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573, 584; 44 NW 579, 582-583 (1889).

        The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

        “The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions.” Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.

        “…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.” City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

        “Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.

        “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

        “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

        “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…” Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

        “Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

        “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

        “Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

        “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

        “For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

        There is no question that there is NO injured party involved here, and a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, or jail/incarceration for any cause including no valid driver’s license, registration or insurance, and save for criminal activities involving an injured party, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a crime.”

        “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 IIL200,169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago 139 III. 46, 28 NE 934. Booney v. dark, 214 SW 607; 25 A M JUR (I’1) Highways, Sec. 163.

        Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law. Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, U.S. 356 (1886)

        “Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-6O.

        “A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113.

        Compelling me, a sovereign individual, into a contract with Colorado by securing, for money, a “driver’s” license or vehicle registration, or face fines or imprisonment for non-crimes, is a direct violation of my rights under law. My rights have been secured via my Uniform Commercial Code 1 filing with the Secretary of State of Colorado, and accepted.

        The Claims will produce forensic evidence showing how the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION issues LETTERS OF MARQUE via Colorable de facto Laws, Statutes, Public Policies, Codes, Rules Administrative Procedures etc., to Agencies and the Agents in turn function as the Insurgents committing hostile and warlike acts of blatantly, directly, forcible, employing intimidation, fear, threats, actions such as coercion, terrorism, racketeering, privateering under the Color of Law and Color of Right, conspiring against, abridging and depriving the Defendants, and access to the Rights and Constitutional Exemptions of the Defendants and that are Secured and Protected by Law from such actions.

        1. Belligerency – the status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of insurgents, by which their hostilities are legalized. The international status assumed by a state (i.e. nation) which wages war against another.
        2. Belligerent – One who is hostile or combative which as a state is hostile, combative and wages war hostilities and aggression against its own citizens by a body of insurgents by which their war hostilities are presumed legalized.
        3. Privateer – A vessel owned, equipped, and armed by one or more individuals, and duly commissioned by a belligerent power to make war upon the enemy, usually by preying on his commerce. A vessel is commissioned by a state or a nation by the issue of a letter of marque to its owner to carry on all hostilities, presumably according to the laws of war. Formerly a state issued letters of marque to its own subjects, and to those of neutral states as well, but a privateersman who accepted letters of marque from both belligerents was regarded as a pirate. Piracy and Privateering are Federal offences 18 USCA 1692 et seq. See Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 1195
        4. Letter of Marque – An authorization formerly granted in time of war by a government to the owner of a vessel to capture enemy vessels and goods. See Article I 8 US Constitution.
        5. War – For there to be a war a sovereign or a quasi-sovereign must engage in hostilities. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., C.A.N.Y., 505 F.2d 989,1005.
        6. Piracy – Those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas, which if committed on land, would have amounted to a felony. Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life. 18 USCA 1651. Piracy and Privateering are Federal offences 18 USCA 1692 et seq. Blacks Law Dictionary

        Further potential crimes:

        -Title 28- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Chapter 13 Civil Rights, 241 Conspiracy against private property rights.

        -Title 28- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Chapter 13 Civil Rights, 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law.
        -The 4th Constitutional Amendment; Deprivation of security of the Private Property Right from government invasion.
        -The 5th Constitutional Amendment Deprivation of Liberty and Private Property without Just Compensation.
        -The Theft of the Personal Private Property by Taking without Just Compensation.
        -The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I 1985-Conspiracy interfering with Private Property Rights.
        -The United States Code Annotated Title 18 1651 et seq Piracy and Privateering activities conducted on vessels at dry dock under commercial law by a body of insurgent Privateers.
        -The United States Code Title 18 152 and 3571 provides fine up to $500,000.00 or imprisonment for up to 5 years for the presenting of fraudulent claims, fraudulent indictment, fraudulent evidence.
        -The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter II obstructing the evidence in the witnesses through the modification of language creating Federal Racketeering; Influenced and Corrupt Organizations activities extorting financial means creating economical damage point beyond recovery.
        -The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter III deprivation of the evidence in the witnesses through modification of language creating acts of Federal Racketeering; Influenced and Corrupt Organizations; Terrorism; Privateering.
        -The United States Code Title 42 1986 For knowledge and the right to stop and correct a wrong,
        -The United States Code Title 28 USC 1746 and Title 18 1621 Perjury and conspiring to commit perjury.
        -The United States Code Title 18 1001 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b). Extorting private property through the modification of language.
        -The United States Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 95 1651 Interference with commerce by threats or violence.
        -Acting without establishing as a matter of record, Proper Jurisdiction over me.
        -Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Upholding the “Oath of Office” and Upholding the Office of Public Trust.
        -Acts of War against the United States Government Treaties and Organic Constitution Constituting Treason.
        -Violation of Substantive Rights and Private Property Rights Secured and Protection by Constitutional Law.
        -Employing Intimidation to affect Identity, Nationality, Birthright. Thief Using a Fiction, Artificial Person Name to Impersonate and Steal the Sovereign De Jure Identity.

        Federal law 18 USC 1961 bans engaging in a pattern of crime. When state and local officials in essence extort money, they are committing federal felonies and are in essence “racketeers” as per the law.

        Under penalty of perjury, I affirm that the information contained in this document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. All Specific Rights are explicitly reserved, without prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207, Common Law, Law of Nations.

        Signed:_______________________________________________ Date: ________________

        I declare under penalty of perjury that the identified Sovereign named above appeared before me with picture identification, and acknowledged this document before me as his personal testimony on;

        Date: __________________ /s/ ____________________________________________

        (NOTARY PUBLIC’S JURAT)

      • Charles Vincent

        Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.”[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the “privileges and immunities” clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883

      • Charles Vincent

        AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE

        There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

        “The word `automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
        American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

        While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

        “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
        International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

        The term `motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word `automobile.'”
        City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

        The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

        “Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
        “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
        Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

        TRAVEL

        The term “travel” is a significant term and is defined as:
        “The term `travel’ and `traveler’ are usually construed in their broad and general sense … so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure.”
        25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717

        “Traveler — One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health.”
        Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
        Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309

        “Travel — To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey.”
        Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034

        Therefore, the term “travel” or “traveler” refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.

        Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase “for hire” never occurs. This term “travel” or “traveler” implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.

        Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.

        DRIVER

        The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler,” is defined as:

        “Driver — One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle …”
        Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940

        Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be “travelling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

        OPERATOR

        Today we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver,” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is not the case.

        “It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator’ and `driver’; the `operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver’ is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both “operator” and “driver.”
        Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658

        To further clarify the definition of an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

        This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the “privilege” of using the road for gain.

        This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:

        Travelling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
        Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
        TRAFFIC

        Having defined the terms “automobile,” “motor vehicle,” “traveler,” “driver,” and “operator,” the next term to define is “traffic”:

        “… Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state … will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear …”
        Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26

        Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the “privilege” to use the public roads “at the expense of those operating for gain.”

        In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.

        “Traffic — Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money …”
        Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307

        Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e .., vehicles for hire.

        Furthermore, the words “traffic” and “travel” must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:

        “…in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them.”
        The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:

        “The word `traffic’ is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities.”
        Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18

        Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word “traffic” (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term “traffic” is business related and therefore, it is a “privilege.” The net result being that “traffic” is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.

      • Charles Vincent

        LICENSE

        It seems only proper to define the word “license,” as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:

        “The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.”
        People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4

        “Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.”
        Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118

        In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.

        This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See “Conversion of a Right to a Crime,” infra.)

        In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is:

        “a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power.”
        Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203

        This definition would fall more in line with the “privilege” of carrying on business on the streets.

        Most people tend to think that “licensing” is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the licensor which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the licensor.

        “A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.”
        State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487

        The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.

        Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our “enforcement agencies” been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they “check” our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?

        How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her blender or mixer? They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        A driver’s license implies one has a modicum of ability to drive safely. And you get your papers “checked” when you get pulled over for doing something you shouldn’t, such as running a red light. Cops don’t normally stop people for no reason (unless they are minorities). And trust me, it’s ALWAYS about the money. I applied for a medical license in Illinois. I got the license in 3 months but they cashed the check in 3 days.

        You don’t drive a lawn mower or a blender on public streets where safety is an issue (at least you SHOULDN’T be doing so). You sound like the people who think gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals. Be reasonable.

      • Charles Vincent

        Safety rules still apply as does common sense when applying this to the real world and there are plenty of privately owned driving schools and drivers education courses run by private corporations. More later when I am home after work.

  • julee Johnson

    well it seems that the whole bunch of them do not work for the people of the USA. they work for themselves and their own agendas and private investments.. it seems that voting doesn’t do a thing to change the problem. democrat or republican I feel that party doesn’t matter anymore they are all bullshitters sucking off the tit of hardworking, mostly underpaid taxpayers who continue to get the shaft anyway we turn (education, home ownership, taxation,gas prices, environment, food production, womens’ birth control) etc.. If this system of corruption continues I and many others feel that revolution will be the only way to change this poisonous capitalist disintegration of our planet!!!

  • 503me

    We the people hold the key to change, and that is by uniting our voice, and to stop letting them create divisions and demonizing, as that just serves to keep the people divided. We can enact great change, but only if we unite That means keeping engaged and educated and sharing that with everyone. Then when it comes times for elections, we ensure that the right people get voted in to office and then hopefully soon, the GOP will fade to obscurity to join the whigs

  • Vernon L Landry Sr

    Could stupidity also be classified as a disease? It seems to have affected the entire republican party and it appears to be spreading everyday. listen to the nonsense they talk about when somebody places a microphone in their faces. Their mouth opens and the stupidity just erupts before their brains are engaged. They are used to saying anything because their voters were people who would listen to it and did not care about the truth or facts. This epidemic is running a full course and there seems to be no cure for it in the republican party. It has affected a few Dems but our ryes are on those who seem to stray away from reality.

  • Vernon L Landry Sr

    Republican voters are under the ideas that their representatives will do things to keep minorities down yet have not seen how their lives have been affected. The would rather cut off their noses to spite their faces than see everybody prosper and lead the type of life that America has to offer for all its people and not just the rich. Maybe republican voters will see the light once their food stamps are denied by members of their own party, because it just not minorities who are on them. The majority of people on food stamps are white and growing. That’s what little government will do for you when you try to bring down others and your own living standards are in peril.

  • Tom Scott

    I am sure Bob is a nice guy but I don’t need grandpa telling me about the good old days. You might recall those days we had the Viet Nam War. I am sure Bob was out in front against that war right? In his own words on You Tube he says he was pro war till he got there and lived it. Reality can kick you in the butt some times. Bob has been in Washington for over 40 years all of those people in the beltway are his friends. Isn’t it time for Bob to go back to the “war”? To go outside the beltway and see how the rest of the country is living. if he doesn’t that’s fine he has his little fiefdom good for him. But please Bob don’t tell me how good it was back in the day because it wasn’t

    • Maggie

      Oh and we haven’t had any wars since the Vietnam war! What about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which we still have troops over there getting killed or injured. We are still paying for these wars.
      All these people that complain about Obamacare must of never had to deal with having no insurance or being told that a chronic condition is not covered, due to a preexisting condition. You tell your loved one that they can’t get help, because the insurance company won’t pay for it! A lot of people die because they can’t afford the treatment, Yet we have branches of government getting bonuses, while some employees have their jobs or hours cut. Oh yes, let not forget about the cancer patients that cannot get their medicine because of the sequester. The people in the congress have to start thinking about the people they represent. That is what they are paid to do, just in case they forgot.
      If you are not happy with this congress, for God sakes vote them out in the next election! We need to have people representing us the American People, not the special interest.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      I think Bob knows quite well how the rest of the country lives.

  • dave.lefevre

    I think the thing he forgot to mention is the only things that ever get done are for corporate lobbyists. These jerks are ONLY there for themselves, not the greater good of the country or their consitutents. They are mostly there for the cushy corporate revolving door job that will come afterwards…

  • Beth1957

    Every time I read one of these articles and then look at the comments, I really despair. We complain about how Congress cannot get along and compromise, but I *always* see the same thing in the comments section with us citizens. Opposite points of view, instead of evolving into a productive discussion which shows us to be smarter and more enlightened than our government officials, always seems to de-evolve into name calling. It’s just sad. How can we ever make any sort of progress at all in this country? At what point are we going to just stop and decide that our country is worth working for together?

    • Scottilla

      Must be a Democrat!

      • FatDude

        I think Scottilla is actually Stephen Colbert.

  • jeff colling

    Republican’s just don’t care and some Democrats have no spine to stand up for what’s right

  • wgaf

    The “DO NOTHING CONGRESS”……still Doing Nothing. How long are we going to put up with this? “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” …..Unknown….. Please Congress…..carry on in committing Political Suicide.

  • lindylou

    At the risk of turning 70 too soon, I can hardly wait until 2014.

  • Carol Spinder

    Congress couldn’t find their way out of a paper bag, with both hands and a flashlight!! And the American people pay the price