The Gates Story: Spin, Deflect, Distract

This week another "politically" generated news story has literally been beaten to death in the mainstream and web media, and that is the story regarding the arrest and detainment of a black Cambridge professor by a white police patrol officer, who just so happened to be a close personal friend of the current resident of the Executive Office on the Hill, Barack Obama.

This story has gotten more media coverage than it would appear the actual facts of the case would engender, as have quite a few in more recent years due to the turn our news sources have taken from being factual and informative watchdogs with respect to reporting real hard hitting news on current political events to more of a National Enquirer on celebrities and politicians personal lives, or on the flip side, PR press agents and media spinners in cahoots with Washington with respect to any and all real political reporting.

For heaven sake, Colin Powell now was even given air time on Larry King dissecting this situatuion, of course as ex-military using his military experience to put in his two cents. Unfortunately, what Mr. Powell fails to realize is that your average neighborhood isn't Iraq, and the police actually work for the U.S. citizens and the police are not our commanding officers and can and do overstep their boundaries more and more so it appears due to the focus now on training police to suspect everyone and anyone of "terrorism" making the police now terrorists themselves, especially young graduates with this "new" training.

He also spoke of an "adult" supervisor being called in. Weren't these two men both adults? Or at least over 21? And this entire incident with all the publicity now surrounding it seems there is an agenda here to either keep the racial thing an ever present "threat" (terrorism) or also to threaten the public that if the police should attempt to arrest you on your own property, then don't simply comply with their requests, but don't dispute their assumptions or work even verbally?

Officers are now pulling guns for traffic violations in some areas of the country. And it appears the federal government is facilitating now not only this domestic surveillance, but civil unrest due to just such tactics in no longer recognizing that Americans do have "unalienable" and civil rights. Or maybe these jack boot police methods are simply meant to stimulate the economies of the industry which wrote some of those unconstitutional "Acts" post 9/11 - the lawyers in this country. After all, we have more than all of Europe combined at this point, most of which are not trained in the true law at all. Our Constitution.

And at this point with all the brouhaha surrounding it, is begining to sound more and more suspect as another attempt to keep the racial thing alive and in the media. Stories such as these given so much press, and especially due to the fact that this conveniently was an acquaintance and friend of Obama's, means there is an agenda here, folks, and it is to deflect and distract.

A legal tool those educated in America's law schools or who have worked in that now "industry" are quite familiar with, and whom hold many seats in government and also dominant the staffs of most Congressional members and the Executive office. It's the old "smoke and mirrors" defensive tactic now being utilized nationwide in conjunction with the corporate news media organizations.

I guess government classes were also skipped by those majoring in journalism in our universities and the "dumbing down" of America progressively which has occurred has actually been facilitated by Washington itself now that the Department of Education is determining local school curriculums now more and more.

No wonder more and more parents are choosing to home school their kids. And their tyranny now even is beginning to rear its ugly head in this respect.

Several state and some government agencies are now using their regulatory powers to attempt to preclude homeschooled or "alternatively educated" citizens from working within the federal or state government. We now have "education discrimination" rearing its head in order to socialize education in this country. State and federal laws also dictate even private school curriculums at this point. These new requirements which are now being concocted expressly state in some of their published material that a "public school and public university" education is required for the jobs listed.

Good way to also water down and use the regulatory agencies then in order to simply "regulate" away any and all private or charitable religious or faith based schools while not directly attacking the Bill of Rights Constitutional protections in the process. So far it appears little progress has been made on this due to its blatant Constitutional abridgment. It appears Big Daddy government wants not only now to socialized medicine and decide who lives and dies ultimately in this country, but socialize education and control, and parent the citizens from birth to death in the process.

Even though with the current tax structures the way they are, whether Americans use the public education system or not, they are paying for it one way or another.

What was interesting about this Gate case was the fact that it not only made the news (and national media attention) at all, but just where did this "scoop" come from anyway?

And who reported the "crime in progress" since it would appear it would have had to have been one of his own neighbors since it is rare indeed now that officers even patrol neighborhoods anymore, rather are too busy earning that federal grant money parking outside local sports bars and restaurants in order to catch the social drinking crowd as now more and more revenue collectors for the states rather than "common defense" for the communities as in past generations.

Thus, neighborhood security is another one of those former governmental functions for which the taxpayer pay local taxes and for which they now do not receive those services, and more and more neighborhoods across the country have been placed in the position of then having to pay for private security. We are now "privatizing" another governmental function and supporting the science and technology bottoom lines in home security devices through again state and federal negligence in using those public sums for public purposes. Crime now actually has become a "job stimulus" and Washington's "jobs and the economy" focus seems a little bent at this point insofar as whose jobs and whose economies they are truly interested in stimuluating, and at whose expense.

It appears the foreigners and criminals are actuallly now unofficially the "citizens" Washington truly is now representing. Or purposely enabling to commit their crimes, shall we say.

Since without their help and support, those campaign donations from their corporate benefactors might dry up. Truly address crime prevention, or secure our borders and just look at how many industries bottom lines might be compromised. The home security and gadget companies. Silicon Valley. Medical & health profession. Pharmaceutical industry. Behavioral health specialists. Funeral directors. The greatest industry that has been stimulated post 9/11 is the first in the list, the gadget industry, and in additional now online web schools majoring in "degrees" in Homeland Security now for a few thousand for their "bachelor's" programs. But the real beneficiaries especially are....

The lawyers most of all, who dominate all three houses of government in some capacity or another. In fact, they are now writing 1,000 page bills which our Congressional representatives are voting on without reading as a further "job stimulus" for the legal industry. Of which our Pres claims to be one. But certainly not a Constitutional lawyer, that much is clear.

Property theft and other such property crimes in fact are the highest crimes bar none than any other in most metropolitan cities and states, and has increased in leaps and bounds the past twenty years as the local governments collect more, but provide less in public services for those taxes, while paying out more instead to their private grant and no bid contract recipients.

And if Dr. Gates was a Cambridge professor, upon this officer's investigation of the "crime in progress" with his attempting to break into his own home in which he was locked out, wouldn't the officer have patted him down or requested he empty his pockets before actually arresting him and thus easily able to confirm that it was his own house that he was breaking into?

This entire story seems another simply to "humanize" President Obama as the "good guy" and more a public relations stunt in order to charm the public, a public that is getting increasingly angry over the quite evident lack of any true "hope" or "change," and nothing more than a new Administration focused on feeding Wall Street and their own political careers most of all, rather than performing or restricting themselves to their Constitutionally outlined duties and functions.

Like ending the war. Taxing the insourcing and outsourcing corporations which have resulted in the loss of literally thousands of American jobs. Securing America's borders.

You know, the boring stuff of public office.

We are, after all, still in this "no win" war, the middle class in Detroit was just stripped of their jobs, unemployment, joblessness and homelessness are at their highest levels since the Depression, and Mr. Obama's L. Ron Hubbard Orwellesque Health Care Reform and its increased costs and wayward spending agendas instead of addressing the bad legislation and negligent actions with respect to regulatory functions on many of these industries which occurred under many prior Congresses and Administrations and which is what lead to this economic disaster, and the continuing now war I suppose wouldn't increase the rating numbers enough to hike up the rates by those networks for the ad spots for those beer commercials.

But Dr. Gates, the officer and Obama will be having a beer, demonstrating what a "regular guy," and Average Joe the Pres actually is with his domestic diplomatic skills. Great guy, that Pres. Remember that when the pink slip arrives, how much he promised to "change" the tax burdens and increasing homelessness of the average middle class guy, after all.

You know, when all that new taxpayer stimulus money was earmarked fundamentally for "new home buyers" or simply to temporarily renegotiate some of those usurous loans which were sold to the public, without any changes in the practices of the banks and lenders in those predatory loans to simply trap a new generation of middle class buyers or prolong the agony of those currently in danger of losing theirs especially now when the inflationary and those new "Cap and Trade" taxes kick in increasing your utility payments for those Wall Street bankers profit margins yet again.

Interesting also that a great many university professors, especially East Coast Ivy League professors, also belong to the Council on Foreign Relations, that New York "think tank" that also is populated with Fortune 500 Wall Street companies and under Rockefellar grant monies (who also fund the ACLU) directly determine through their members and their members within the Senate and House Foreign Affairs committees, our foreign policies. Like the war now in the Middle East. Apparently the Council's legal counsels and members are advising them on the "smoke and mirrors" defense also.

And also new legislation. Such as the "Cybersecurity Act" that resulted in the House Energy Committees switchboard being shut down during the Cap & Trade debates for Wall Street and the bankers also bottom line due to being "overwhelmed," by faxes and emails from the public, while they then just went ahead and passed the bill anyway. Illegally, actually, since such a tax is fundamentally illegal under our existing Constitution as not at all a function of the federal government in the slightest, and based upon fabricated and inconclusive "evidence," funded by the banks, utilities and energy companies who will be the beneficiaries. And some of those "scientist" professors also on the Council on Foreign Relations.

At least this one pushed the "First Dog" stories and Michelle's wardrobe choices off the front pages.

Spin, distract, deflect.

The new political tap dance is getting real, real old - and most of today's journalists do appear to now be receiving their salaries through federal grant monies. Through either their "corporate" employer, or directly.

Obama's Questionable Citizenship Challenges Status Subverted by House

For Any And All Constitutional Conserve-atives

Yesterday it was reported in some of the mainstream media news sources that the continuing questions with respect to the actual citizenship status of Barack Obama, who is currently holding the Office of the Presidency in the Unied States was finally "resolved," at least in the "House of Misrepresentatives."

And how was this "resolution" of this contentious issue resolved?

One of the House members from Hawaii, Dean Abercrombie, attached a "rider" to one of the House's ludicrous "official acts" in effect congratulating and acknowledging Hawaii's 50th Anniversary as a state with a little introductory paragraph which stated: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii...."

The "resolution" passed 378-0, with a few of the Republican Global Neocon Socialists who are up for re-election in 2010 "abstaining" rather than actually exhibiting some backbone and voting "nay," until some verifiable proof has been produced due to the fact that Mr. Obama spent much of his youth outside the United States in his formative years and received much of his education also outside the United States, and one of his parents was never a United States citizen.

The founders included that provision for a very specific reason. You cannot "pledge allegiance" and loyalty to the United States if you are either not a natural born or naturalized citizen. And actually it was their intent and belief that those provisions, as this country grew and there were fewer and fewer foreign born individuals immigrating and progressive generations of Americans after the first generation, that in order to hold the highest office in the land, the deeper the roots, at least in the formative years, the better.

Thus the 14 year requirement. Most successive generations then would have been educated in this country prior to the customary "European tour" that most of the gentry engaged in during their teen years in order to learn languages and cultural differences. That was what was behind the original provisions. Since geographic ties are built during the formative years most of all.

Mr. Obama has hired a team from three different law firms to block the continuing challenges to his natural born or naturalized status.

And an "Act of Congress" cannot "resolve" that question independently actually, in a government of the people, without evidence and proof if there is even the remotest possibility that he does not even meet those minimum requirements.

And since they have not changed since that first generation by any legal amendment of the people, they are very, very minimal.

If the past eight years alone are not proof of just how treasonous and "misrepresentative" those now holding Congressional office have truly become and how blatantly contemptuous they are to the actual true law in this country, the United States Constitution, then this attempt to circumvent the people once again is simply another piece of documented evidence that they are all in violation of their oaths of office, which actions are increasing at a rather rapid rate in this now Obama Administration, and thus guilty of treason under it.

The highest criminal action also under it, and in accompanying codified federal statutes in accordance with it.

So when IS that Sargeant at Arms going to start earning his taxpayer paid salary anyway and start arresting these traitors? Or at the very least, the Electoral College serving their function since they are also taxpayer funded and require verifiable proof to the public since it is the public that funds those election campaigns also, although the two mainstream political parties have clearly hijacked our election process.

There have been AT LEAST six different lawsuits filed over this issue, also politically refused by the United States Supreme Court for various "technical" reasons. And it appears that they were running out of excuses, so this little subterfuge instead by the House is clearly nothing more than an attempt to give the Supreme Court somehow an excuse to continue to do so. And any Supreme Court decision then would also become a matter of public record, and the evidenciary material also legally required to be produced under the Freedom of Information Act, since "natural security reasons" could hardly be used to circumvent public disclosure laws in such instance.

Maybe this is one of the moves of the House similar to many which have occurred recently on unconstitutional legislation, such as the Patriot Act, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, Cap and Trade, Economic Recovery Act, and a host of others.

The newest legal maneuver is to pass unconstitutional measures in the House, but leave them in the hopper in the Senate and thus they are not "officially" laws, but are then enacted through the various regulatory bodies as if they were. According to my research, such is the case with the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act. Since the Senators actually represent the states themselves, this is an attempt to absolve the states also from their liabiity for some of these Acts enforcements against Americans which take state compliance and assistance to enforce.

Another piece of evidence in the treason that is going on. They are now blatantly skirting around the Constitution more and more each session using legal manuevering and technicalities, the media and their regulatory bodies in order to purposely violate it.

This now cannot even be blamed on ignorance anymore, it is "willful" criminal conduct using such measures.

Which is nothing more than tyranny. Another treasonous act under the Constitution.

So when ARE those criminal warrants going to be issued?

America: Returning To Constitutional Representative Government Again

Since Barack Obama assumed the Office of Presidency in January, there has been much activity going on in Washington in attempt to reportedly "fix" the economic and other problems which were facilitated under the former Bush administration and salve the discontent in the United States that the majority of the citizens now have with the goings on in our nation's capitol.

While Obama has been on whirlwind tours of the United States and Europe promoting his economic solutions, and throwing money right and left at whatever fire springs up (such as the GM bailouts, and his "foreclosure" solutions), his policies have left much to be desired and actually have further sunk this country into an economic quagmire without truly addressing any of the problems which lead to this.

Self-serving politicians who have consistently for decades acted for their own political interests and benefactors, rather than the Constitution and citizens of the nation in their proscribed duties and functions.

It is difficult in this day and age to get elected to state of federal offices without a huge campaign war chest. This was not so in prior generations and it got me to investigating just why, particularly in this last half century, most campaign elections have become more and more costly, and yet less and less effective in bringing about any true change in governmental policies, or even sound and Constitutional government.

And the answers I found were actually quite simple and enlightening.

You cannot have a true Constitutional Republic and "representative" government when those "representatives" are not "representatives" of the districts of citizens they are elected to represent.

And this has been the case now for well over seventy-five years.

How did this distortion of our true intended form of representative government come about?

By veering from the "intended" provisions of the founders of the country in the election of the leaders at both the state and federal levels. Although not "written in stone" in the Constitution, it was a very simple restriction and gentlemen's agreement that the founders felt didn't even bear inclusion in the Constitution at all, since it was assumed within the framework of the document itself.

Any and all donations to candidates running for elective office for any seat in any public service position throughout the country would necessarily have to be both a resident of the district in which he represented, and also restricted to financing and promotion by only those living within his respective district.

In other words, a candidate could not accept any sponsorship or donations from outside his legislative district, in order that he truly was a representative of his constituency within that district.

And returning to those "legal" yet unstate provisions once again would turn help also dilute the influence of the "corporate" and special interest groups that reside on K Street and hang around the Halls of Congress with their hands out seeking their "corporate" welfare on the backs of the American people rather than working for a living.

Such as those now in the energy and health care field, and Wall Street, who are looking for handouts at the American public's expense, when they have already made a good portion of the population right now literally homeless and jobless.

Congress had no inherent authority to institute "campaign finance" laws at all, other than to restate the obvious: Any and all candidates for federal or state office must both reside in their districts, and were precluded from accepting ANY outside donations other than from those in their own representative district. And for any and all "corporate" donations (which were precluded since "corporations" were not people actually at all), then the address of the principal or statutory office would be used as their district.

Wake up, America. These Congressman and Senators have been accepting unlawful campaign donations and been in violation of the true campaign finance laws for literally decades, in order to pick and choose which industries will benefit them personally the most and ensure their political survival.

And rewinding to the "intent" within the framework of our Constitution, might just bring about true change, rather than the Obama (Bush in drag) version.

Father Of The Bill Of Rights: Patrick Henry's Virginia Assembly Speech 1788

June 16, 1788: Patrick Henry demands and gets a Bill of Rights
Virginia Ratification Convention ^ | June 16, 1788 | Patrick Henry


Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before.


... Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject. At the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down those great rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred. Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly, certain rights.


When fortified with full, adequate, and abundant representation, was she satisfied with that representation? No. She most cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured those invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges, which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, or ever can, abandon.


She is called upon now to abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured them to her. She is called upon to accede to another compact, which most infallibly supersedes and annihilates her present one. Will she do it? This is the question. If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for, if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up.


How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government.

Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control. And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman.

When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.

That system of law which has been admired, and has protected us and our ancestors, is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights.
By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are thrown away. Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights?


By the ancient common law, the trial of all facts is decided by a jury of impartial men from the immediate vicinage. This paper speaks of different juries from the common law in criminal cases; and in civil controversies excludes trial by jury altogether. There is, therefore, more occasion for the supplementary check of a bill of rights now than then.


Congress, from their general, powers, may fully go into business of human legislation. They may legislate, in criminal cases, from treason to the lowest offence — petty larceny. They may define crimes and prescribe punishments. In the definition of crimes, I trust they will be directed by what wise representatives ought to be governed by.


But when we come to punishments, no latitude ought to be left, nor dependence put on the virtue of representatives. What says our bill of rights? — "that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Are you not, therefore, now calling on those gentlemen who are to compose Congress, to prescribe trials and define punishments without this control? Will they find sentiments there similar to this bill of rights? You let them loose; you do more you depart from the genius of your country. That paper tells you that the trial of crimes shall be by jury, and held in the state where the crime shall have been committed. Under this extensive provision, they may proceed in a manner extremely dangerous to liberty: a person accused may be carried from one extremity of the state to another, and be tried, not by an impartial jury of the vicinage, acquainted with his character and the circumstances of the fact, but by a jury unacquainted with both, and who may be biased against him. Is not this sufficient to alarm men? How different is this from the immemorial practice of your British ancestors, and your own! I need not tell you that, by the common law, a number of hundredors were required on a jury, and that afterwards it was sufficient if the jurors came from the same county. With less than this the people of England have never been satisfied. That paper ought to have declared the common law in force.


In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your declaration of rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? — That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany — of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime.


They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity.


We are then lost and undone.


And can any man think it troublesome, when we can, by a small interference, prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government, give them knowledge of the extent of the rights retained by the people, and the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds? But if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by implication.


A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? — That our rights are reserved. Why not say so? Is it because it will consume too much paper? Gentlemen's reasoning against a bill of rights does not satisfy me. Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rights is a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people of the other states likewise. It may be their prejudice, hut the government ought to suit their geniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will exclude the possibility of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the best way is to have no dispute. In the present Constitution, they are restrained from issuing general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of a fact, &c. There was certainly some celestial influence governing those who deliberated on that Constitution; for they have, with the most cautious and enlightened circumspection, guarded those indefeasible rights which ought ever to be held sacred!


The officers of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of paramount federal authority. Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and measure, every thing you eat, drink, and wear. They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds.


With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will intermeddle with that palladium of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."



____________________________________________________________________________________



Hence, the "common law" at the time of the ratification which had stood for literally centuries with respect to civil and criminal laws, trials by juries, search and seizure, fines & punishments, etc., which England had at that time abandoned, was what Patrick Henry was referring to. That the 'common" or "natural" laws were pre-emiment when it came to individual citizens rights, and absolutely needed to be set forth in the U.S. Constitution, as it was in the Virginia Articles of Confederation at the time, or he would not sign it. And he and George Mason were the two that insisted the most vocally, and were responsible for that first ten amendments which were promised if either gave their support at the final ratification as the first order of business, so as to also comply with the State of Virginia and other states already existing state "constitutions" which were drafted at the time of the Declaration of Independence and prior to the Revolutionary War or at that time "Articles of Confederation."


And notice what he has to say about trials by juries, the authority of the citizen jurists to determine facts and law, search and seizures, free speech as fundamental natural and God given "rights" under the common and natural law, and not to be ursurped or abridged by either the state or federal governments for ANY purpose as inviolate.

I wonder. It wouldn't appear that Sonia Sotomayor has the same understanding of the Bill of Rights and actual "Law" of the land and those Bill of Rights protections as "inviolate" for the people and unalieanble and "set in stone" (not government, nor "corporate") as this lawyer did.

I don't think she referred to the Constitution actually very much at all. Simply judicial and judge (state) made "precedents." With the same lack of understanding and lack of reverence, it would appear, as our current and former President, Congress and Administration.

And would hold more with the countries referred to in "foreign precedent" insofar as the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo, and now with Obama, continuing an "unlawful" and "illegal" foreign engagement outside Constitutional authority.

And "treason" of it is the highest criminal offense of all.

Obamacare: Using Corporate Business Models To Determine Health Care

For Any and All American Constitutional "Conserve"atives:

Last night I listened to part of Obama's new "road trip" and public relations spiel regarding the health care reform he and the Democratic Congress (and their Republican also Global Socialist members) are hatching in Washington.

At the end of the spiel all I could think of was that his health care "reform" is nothing more than "reforming" medicine and health care along the lines of any corporate enterprise. On a cost/benefit business model with an actuary in Washington then determining what types of treatment will be "approved."

In other words, Obama is now creating a new position within his administration whoever the new "health czar" will be.

God.

Or at least that is what the job description should read with the power which will be given over human life and death in this country.

Listen up, America. Do you really want some federally trained lackey in Washington determining whether or not your spouse, child or other family member "deserves" or is worthy of treatment for their health care needs?

And just who are you going to sue or bring charges against if that treatment is denied, anyway? It is you who are paying for that coverage, yet the only recourse that would be available to you would be to file a claim with the same entity that denied you the treatment to begin with.

The federal government.

And what if you have religious beliefs that preclude invasive medical treatments, or also rely more on homeopathic remedies rather than running to the doctors at the first sign of a cold or flu?

Should you be forced to pay for medical treatments and costs that will continue to escalate beyond your ability to pay at some point, as I do believe there will also be differences in the costs to citizens included within that bill according to their age?

And just how can the government "fine" you for not purchasing a government issued "product," or "service" which is what it is, because it is the government and not the health care provider or doctor who will be in charge of your treatment plan?

Do "business models" work for a vital service that all Americans most likely will need at some time or another in their lives? And what about the state plans, will citizens still be paying taxes for those state social service agencies on top of the expansion of DHHS that will be required in order to administer this massive plan?

Or will those state plans be "merged" with the states ceding more of their duties and functions to federal control, with then more state revenue to spend indiscriminantly in not having to come up with those matching sums? Just when will we phase out state government altogether, because that would be a huge tax savings to all Americans at this point since this does appear to be the plan from all appearances?

How much of those health care taxes will then be going into administrative costs for more federal government workers and THEIR salaries and benefits?

Is this the type of "jobs stimulus" Obama was referring to, expanding government to the degree that pretty soon everyone in this country will be somehow working for the U.S. government with Uncle Sam then doling out the spoils?

Isn't that the definition of pure communism?

The health care industry is licking its lips over this one, because it will be "bare bones" coverage and they will then get the opportunity to market those "supplemental" plans that they most likely will never have to pay off on.

Just why DO you think the AARP is involved in these talks? Who do you think has a huge share of the market with respect to their "supplemental" medicare plans at the present time?

And just why is it that this is being tailored to meet the needs of the industries which are raping the American people for their health care costs now as it is?



Obama and this Congress and Administration are getting scarier by the moment.



This is Soylent Green & Hitler wrapped into one, yet being marketed as a "solution," to a government created situation to begin with in not performing its governmental function in regulating some of those industries sufficiently but rather getting into bed with them for politicians personal political careers.



Warren Buffett must be making plans to buy Africa as a real estate investment in order to shelter some of that windfall profit he will be making, since included within the bill are measures which require the public to use "approved" health care providers for the cut rate plans.

Maybe that is also part of the plan, installing owner/CEOs in the various third world countries funded by their corporate holdings (of course funded also by the public in their public offerings, which market is then manipulated by the European bankster/owners) in the industrialized West and Far East so that the G-20 conferences are in truth of fact nothing more than corporate Board of Directors' meetings for Earth, Inc. of the principal owners with the world's population at that point nothing more than disinterested shareholder/members working for the planet's "corporate" greater good. Robot workers, in other words, at the mercy of the planet/state.

Did L. Ron Hubbard or Orwell write this script?

After all, Obama and this Congress and Administration are big believers in "science" based technology. Even predicting the planet's demise thousands of years down the road is within their grasp (although not tomorrow's ice storm or path of the next hurricane).

Maybe they left a word out. "Science fiction" based technology, perhaps?

And the little workers bees worth in the event of downtime then determined according to actuarial tables configured according to job position and risk/benefit losses at time of injury or their life expectancy.

At this point, all those on the Hill need to have a mental health check and/or check in to the nearest psychiatric ward.

After all, WE'VE paid for their coverage for years.

National Association of Realtors: More Spins on The Housing Crisis

During the last week there has been a great deal of reporting on internet sources that the mortgage crisis and home foreclosure situation is looking up, and that there has been an increase in sales for the third straight month of homes sold throughout the nation.

And just where are those figures coming from?

No surprise, the National Association of Realtors who just might have an ulterior motive in spinning or inflating the numbers due to the market conditions at the present time, and number of jobless and homeless now which has swept the nation since the manipulated "mortgage" crisis and bank bailouts which just so happened to occur during the last presidential election cycle.

In fact, the June 19-21 headline of USA Today also said it all: "Foreclosures Heading Through The Roof."

More Americans are lining up at the soup kitchen, than at the realtors offices, since the homeless now and jobless stats are really off the charts and not this high since the last great depression, also manipulated by the European owned Federal Reserve, branch bankers and Washington.

As far as my personal knowledge and reports from my former home state of Arizona, one of the states hardest hit due to the boom and bust cycle and the many retirees on fixed incomes that also were hard pressed to come up with increasing property taxes and insurance which contributed to some of what is occurring also left out by the media, and those predatory "interest only" and other "creative" loans sold mostly by regional and national California domiciled banks.

Although the State of California doesn't share the entire blame for the now mostly Western and Southwestern home situation, since most of those loans were also underwritten with extra "propert stripping riders and provisos over and above the actual loan documents themselves by the governmentally created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. How Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could have been "bankrupt" at all due to some of those usurous loans and terms really is quite inconceivable as one who was forced into such a refinance position and had to refinance a home in 2004 can attest.

It would appear this claimed increase in sales and "recovery" appears to be wishful thinking.

In Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada and Florida due to also progressive overbuilding in those states for literally decades, and now thousands unable to qualify for fixed rate low interest loans with black marks on their credit records at this point, it will take literally decades - if ever - for the housing market to stabilize, from this 45 year Arizona resident.

In those western border states now in particular, due to the open borders situation and escalating drug war violence which I'm sure that also has affected the marketability of those houses significantly, since who wants to live in a state in which there is a foreign invasion and civil wars now going on due to federal negligence in "providing for the common defense," its actual primary function. Instead of now attempting to "reform" the health care industry according to a "business" model ala Soylent Green and Adolph Hitler on cost/benefit actuary "business" modes and standards.

Plus the fact that few now in this country trust the banking industry now in general. Nor are willing to go into those sliding scale and interest only loans that they are still marketing, some of which are not even based on the U.S. prime interest rate, but the European market.

Nothing essentially has changed which lead to this catastrophe to begin with. And most in the World War II, boomer generation or younger have moral difficulties paying "usurous" sums in order to purchase a home, a home which is now in many areas of the country due to the loan terms and assundry restrictive "use" restrictions and additional costs and provisions, and associated junk fees and charges tacked on for those purchases, nothing more than a foreclosure contract to begin with.

So...nice try, realtors. Since a great many of you also pushed and marketed to many of those retirees and others more home than they really could afford in order to get higher commissions also in the process, the trust in your "industry" also now is about zilch.

Especially those of us who lost ours, and who have made sure we speak the truth, rather than the spins, on just what lead to this, and the commercial and banking interests that were truly responsible - of course, along with the criminal element now residing on Capitol Hill and in our state legislatures who have been in collusion with the corporate interests and their primary "special interest" campaign backers for literally decades.

And the National Association of Realtors is high up on that list also.

Along, of course, with the bankers and their minions - the foreclosure lawyers and scam artists and their breathren in federal and state government.

NeoCon Lindsay Graham To Back Sotomayor Appointment

Mainstream news sources reported today that Senator Lindsay Graham, the NeoCon Republican from South Carolina, has given his support for the Sonia Sotomayor appointment of Barack Obama to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.

Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.

I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.

It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.

Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.

So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.

The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.

Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.

And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.

The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.

Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.

Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.

The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.

Obama and Congress's Non-Universale Health Care Plan: Are States Ceding Powers?

What is now being presented in "politically correct" terms as is being reported on the universal health care plans now being "hatched" in Washington is nothing more than using "politically correct" corporate logic and analogy to justify a plan under which the Nazi's operated.

Evaluate life on a cost/benefit ratio, and genetic superiority by subjective criteria. And that criteria will be some lackey in Washington trained as an actuary according to the health care provider (since this will be a huge government contract, I would imagine that it will be Warren Buffett and AIG, the global insurer "bailed out" on the backs of the American people that get the contract, in another public/private partnership to "stimulate" the global economy and as payback for Mr. Buffett's campaign support of a great many of those on the Hill over the years no matter which party "officially" was in office, since he has expressed interest in expanding his empire to global investment as recently as two to three years ago).

And Buffett is a zero population growth guy (although has three children of his own, so zero growth must not apply to those who consider themselves as genetically superior and apparently own businesses that provide fundamental "life" costs and owe their very livelihoods to the public as now more a financial services company than a solely publicly funded "product" which it is).

What is needed is regulation over the health care industry, which was actually circumvented under Nixon who allowed medicine to be corporatized with that HMO concept. Which has resulted in Boards of Directors, rather than doctors, now determining levels of treatment. And the "caps" placed back on punitive damages for medical malpractice awards that stood at the treble levels under the common law throughout our nations history until the TLA went across the country getting those lids removed for their own "welfare."

Not getting into bed with the unions and insurers, or taking over health care which is determined then by the "distant ruler." And also evaluating just why it is that the costs to train new doctors has far exceeded the cost of living and bears no relevance at all to the actual costs.....since the taxpayers themselves fund those universities in which they are trained.

This is a nightmare, and all those that think this is a solution, you are talking Orwell here now.

Not to mention that even at its most basic level, the entire socializing of our health care is actually not at all a governmental function under our existing law, the U.S. Constitution.

What is needed is what the founders provided. Strict regulation of those national and global insurers, and also better oversight of doctors independent of the AMA, and also breaking up those "monopolies" and health care networks that are using business models now in order to evaluate health care provision, and incompetent and morally challenged doctors who are supplementing their practices and services for governmental cut rate costs by upping their charges on the insureds and those who they profile CAN afford the higher costs.

Some of their support staff know how to work those health insurance forms to the max, and are actually given bonuses if they reach certain quotas set by these health care networks and mega doctor's practices.

Neither business models, nor governmental actuaries have any moral fibre or background. And if anything this is not an "industry" at all, it is a basic service that is a need at one time or another for all Americans.

So the lax oversight of this industry and favoritism for the health care leeches such as the unions and providers is what has lead to this. And Nixon's crap with the HMO concept, and over-inflated costs to train new doctors for the banker's profit margins which makes most of them bankrupt before they even begin their practices.

But I think what is being missed by most Americans is that whether or not to provide or "socialize" health care really is a state issue, not a federal one at all. That is why the local governments were to be the most powerful, not the federal government for such matters as public education, and health costs.

And that the states are voluntarily ceding their power to the federal government, all representations in the 10th Amendment movement to the contrary. Because then the states don't have to come up with those "matching sums" and then have more of the public purse to spend on unaccountable and pork projects for their campaign backers.

So I think the true picture here is being obscured by both Congress and the media reports. Because right now the feds are already providing health care for the underinsured and less fortunate, and also now even "illegal" and non-Americans. This "universal" health care that Obama is proposing is nothing more than putting another party, the federal government, now DIRECTLY involved in determining care, rather than the state.

And Americans will have no recourse then other than suing the federal government if denied coverage, and there is a federal statute that provides only for the reimbursement for the actual demonstrated losses, not punitive damages or even the costs or bringing the suit itself. This entire plan will remove actually any and all accountability for health care provision from insurers and also the medical community. Which is why, also all "public faces" to the contrary, the medical community and insurers are also behind it.

That way the insurers can also sell those "supplemental plans" at ridiculous rates, but then fail to pay on them and blame the federal government (the primary insurer) for the denial of also their provision if the federal government denies the coverage.

The truth is actually much more Machiavellian than what is being portrayed. And the headlines so far really tell it all. It is "cut rate" and loss/benefit care, and it appears the boomer generation is one which the federal government would like to get rid of at the earliest opportunity. And also those that are not productive, and each successive generation thereafter.

Until pretty soon, the life expectancy in this country will eventually equal the birth rate survival and be less than third world countries.

I just love that NO ONE ever thinks to examine just why in most of these areas we now are where we are with respect to health care, and our economy. No one examines our history to see how veering from the Constitution and Constitutional intent, has brought us to where we are.

And I disagree on the economy. The reason things haven't "picked up" is because the market is speaking, and by that I mean the American people. Who would buy a home today with the way those loans are written, since the terms of the loans which also created this disaster have not been addressed or changed in some of their usurous terms and rates?

Nothing has changed, Obama is simply attempting to entice the new home buyers and refinancing in order to trap another generation in the boom and bust cycle -which is the fault of the unregulated and uncontrolled Federal Reserve and its policies.

No one is buying into the stock market, because Obama and Congress proved that when push comes to shove, it is the unions and foreign investors that are protected, not the individual American investor.

Do you really think these lessons have not been lost on most educated or aware Americans? And how many that have lost their homes now can qualify for new ones, what with the lack of regulation also over the credit reporting services?

These guys are in their own bubble. The market is speaking, and so are the Americans. We aren't buying your products because you are all a bunch of scam artists.

The people have spoken.

Auditing The Federal Reserve: Is A Bill Required?

FYI: For All American Conservative Constitutional Constructionists

On several of the liberty focused website there has been a great deal of buzz and announcement with respective to Ron Paul's sponsorship of a bill in order to audit the Federal Reserve. So far, I believe it has over 200 sponsors, and I guess I am perplexed with this "solution" to getting some accountability with respect to the operations of the Federal Reserve and its Board and owners.

Congress actually created the Federal Reserve under an Act of Congress called the Federal Reserve Act back in 1913. Why it would be necessary to initiate legislation in order to "audit" an entity that Congress itself created defies the imagination.

What WOULD be necessary is simply a motion made on the floor in both the House and Senate, and a roll call vote. Not a formal bill.

This actually seems again nothing more than a movement in order to quell the masses who are demanding some accountability and continued to be outraged at the goings on at our nation's capitol.

From my understanding also within the Federal Reserve Act is a provision that our government can "buy back" our economy from the Federal Reserve for a set amount.

And it is unconceivable that the members of the Senate and House Banking Committee members would not be receiving regular reports from the Fed, and also be sitting members on its Board as a government created entity.

But why a formal bill, again, to "audit" an entity that was legislatively created to begin with? This two party system is getting more and more cohesive in their spins for the populace through their PR reps it appears each and every session. Perhaps Rep. Paul's lawyers are also, as it is clear many are not, serving their functions in advising him with respect to such matters and what would be really required.

Since they are writing bills more and more that have absolutely no foundation in our Constitution, and now expanding them to over 1,000 pages in order to obviously create more and more work for themselves and thus logjam our courts even more than they already are. It appears lawyers, bar none, are the largest "welfare" recipients in this country now of all as a group in some way or another. And are primarily responsible for the hijacking of our Constitutional government, the health care now crisis, and banking mess also due to their "contracts" which are not really" "contracts" at all in the sense the founders were referring.

And this entire movement seems similar to the 10th Amendment movement. Simply another distraction and attempt to quell the masses. Since why would the states need to "reaffirm" or "resolve" their status as pre-eminent in most matters over the federal government since it is already written in stone in the Constitution to begin with?

With the exception of those unalienable Bill of Rights provisions (which cannot be "contracted away" as "unalienable" to begin with, nor "legislated" away by the states or federal government with the consent of the governed, not even by federal statute or the Supreme Court), and those specifically designated to the federal government? Just why would a redundant resolution be necessary in order to assert those already given? Ludicrous, and merely another diversionary tactic used by both levels in order to silence the outraged now masses.

I guess this is another example of where our high school American Government classes and particularly our American collegiate law schools and liberal arts programs, are again failing.

California's Budgetary Morass: What A Spin!

It was reported in the mainstream media that a solution to the California budgetary crisis is expected by Sunday. Apparently, there has been some concern in the Golden State due to the fact that it has been reported that some of the banks are refusing the IOUs which have been issued in order to fund governmental contractors which have not been paid due to this crisis.

And it is clear this is no more than a P.T. Barnum spectacle in order to gain more and more leverage with the California residents in the mess that has occurred due to that states progressive liberalism over the years.

Since California most of all, due to the continuing war in the Middle East, should be in the black and not the red at all if they were utilizing those public sums primarily for the state government's true Constitutional functions, rather than also funding special interests primarily with grant monies and no-bid contracts as occurs throughout the nation now in the corruption in state and municipal governments.

After all, Silicon Valley is the largest producer of all the now high tech security devices that are being installed throughout the nation, and one of the largest holder of federal contracts for technology needs in this continuing war, and are huge mega holders of U.S. government contracts.

And I wonder if this is actually the case, why the Hollywood elite have not thought of having their own benefit for the State of California instead of the next AIDS or PETA benefit.

Most of them due to their wealth and global holdings could float the state for a number of years if they were taxed at the rate the middle class actually is, or even the lower income workers - rather than having access to their offshore accounts, and tax attorneys who work the "privileges and immunities" on capital gains so well for all of them for their shell corporations, and trust accounts. Rather than being taxed on the truth "worth" of their holdings or "property."

And California is primarily a liberal Democratic state or "blue" state, yet many of whose individuals are the direct beneficiaries of the claimed Republican favoritism for the wealthy on those capital gains benies. Go figure.

In fact, while many of the people throughout the country are now facing homelessness and joblessness in increasing numbers, I read an article this week that David Arquette is planning on holding a sit in for the global Food for the Hungry in New York shortly in order to raise a few million in order to feed those living in third world countries.

I wonder if he has visited his local Los Angeles soup kitchen lately, since the class of individuals now is including the former middle class in increasing numbers.

Or why he didn't simply write a check from his own excess wealth instead of using it for a PR stunt and in order to "socialize" the donations for a cause in which he individually supports and believes? He could donate his own wealth and it would take care of quite a number, I would suspect. Or maybe the sums he pays to his tax accountant.

It was also interesting to note that California is not a right to work state, so many of the California public employees are outraged since they now feel they are being victimized by this also "budget crisis." Since they are state employees and public servants, I wonder where in the California or U.S. Constitution it gives public employees the right to "unionize" in order to gain more taxpayer sums for themselves? The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is also playing politics with the issue (and just what other citizens in other countries does this U.S. "corporate" union claim it represents?)

Municipalities are nothing more than "state actors" for the states themselves, so this is truly confusing that state employees would be allowed to unionize to get more of the taxpayer bite to begin with.

Although the CPI and statistical data published by the U.S. Department of Labor is a joke in and of itself (artificially concocted due to the fact that most union contracts and salary increases are tied in directly to the CPI, so there is some also "creative accounting" on those figures that bear no actual relevance to the true increases in costs for many products and services), teacher's salaries have gone up at three and four times the rates of inflation, as have several other of the public service occupations.

And with California also primarily one in which there is an additional layer of government in most newer suburban areas in the form of homeowners associations collecting taxes for former municipal services such as street repairs, street lighting and such, just wonder where all that revenue that the state has collected truly has gone? Since they are collecting more revenue, but providing less each and every year and transferring those costs back onto the public in those "socialized" land ownership communities.

If they are under "balanced budgets" initiatives, just how are they also then entering into multi-year contracts then with developers and other government contractors to begin with? How is that "legally" possible?

Sounds more like the classic case of fiscal mismanagement and misappropriation of funds is the true root of California's claimed budgetary woes. And maybe a few too many of those Sacramento pow-wows and state benefits given to the likes of the Donald Trumps & Co. at the state resident's expense for the global tourism industry and U.S. Chambers agendas in turning the U.S. into nothing more than a tourist attraction and investment opportunity for foreigners.

All at the cost of their fellow countrymen and their jobs and earned and owned "property" for their global monopolies and executives and fellow "corporate" brothers and subsidiaries benefit packages in the process at the price of the small businessesmen and any and all emerging American entrepreneurs due to their strangleholds now on the market due to favoritism and their "greased palms" political connections.

The delusion goes on. And nowhere more than the home of the "OC," "Desperate Housewives," and "Californication."

That state is a world unto itself, whose delusion and fantasy extend far beyond Disneyland.

Hate Crimes Bill: Federal Overreach Again Undermines States, Citizens

Apparently, the "Hate Crimes" bill which passed the House last April is now coming up for a vote in the Senate as reported in the mainstream media earlier today.

The Democratic Global Socialists, of course, are ecstatic since it appears this time they may just be able to sneak this one through due to their majority status, of course with the assistance of a few of the Republican Global Socialists who are not up for re-election in 2010.

As most citizens have become aware, the federal government in the last decade now has become nothing more than dictatorship of 535 out of control nutjobs. The only time reality actually sinks in is apparently close to election time, or when the budget requests come through for more and more increases in expenditures for added security measures for federal and state office buildings.

You would think those requests and measures alone would provide a clue to the discontent of many in this nation with the Washington wackos.

This measure is being pursued in order to expand a prior unconstitutional measure addressing ill defined "hate crimes" against selected minority groups. The degree to which these "misrepresentatives" defend the bill as simply an "enhanced version" of existing law, and not in any way meant to criminalize "perceptions of intent," or infringe free speech of various religious groups in their biblical teachings speaks volumes right there, since the inclusion now of both homosexuals and the disabled are being included.

The disabled were included for purely political reasons apparently, since targeting a truly defenseless person either mentally or physically handicapped actually is something most juries throughout the country at least in this generation would find repugnant and reprehensible.

Homosexuality, of course, is a little different to a great many in this country since there is a biblical moral prohibition to its practice, and fundamentally has religious then overtones in all three of the major religions, and many groups fear politically motivated actions then also potentially could be the result because of the rather open ended language contained in the bill.

Legislation now is written primarily in order to stimulate the economies of the judiciary members (lawyers) it appears most of all. Since they, of course, are huge contributors to both federal and state public office campaigns.

In fact, there are still a few rather outdated laws on the books in some states prohibiting its practice (most of which have not been enforced, however, for literally decades), so the federal government is actually attempting to again assert its authority over the states and local governments on this as it has in so many other areas, and never more so than during the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now eras.

Of course John McCain, in order to keep his name and presence in the media and in the forefront due to his upcoming re-election run in 2010 is objecting on religious and moral grounds as also potentially a bill which could target pastors and religious leaders for teaching biblical doctrine with respect to homosexuality, although did bring the Constitutionality issue up as a side note.

Arizona does have a heavy Mormon population, and also formerly was a more "conservative" state, although that has not been the case for many years due to the number of California refugees and East Coast retirees now living in Arizona after fleeing their own states due to impact in taxation of their former states liberal agendas, and Arizona's was formerly less expensive than some of those more liberal states as a result of its conservatism. That was about 25-30 years ago, however.

But the true measure actually of how redundant and unconstitutional it is is that there are already laws in 45 states addressing these "mitigating" circumstances in any criminal proceeding. Since the states have authority over criminal matters which occur within their boundaries as "crimes against the state," in general and not simply against the victim.

Pre-meditated murder, stalking, assault and other criminal actions targeting anyone for any reason are punishable in every state in the nation, irrespective of the motivation other than self-defense, or proveable precipitating circumstances.

Our criminal code is already a matter of settled law with respect to criminal actions based on proveable evidence, and such motivation is clearly something for a jury to determine. Upping the penalties for those crimes against anyone equally is Constitutional, not "piling on" additional punishments and penalties based on purely motivation, since there is leeway in the sentencing of many of these crimes also - and the more evidence and proof of criminal intent and motivation, the harsher penalty most juries or judge if they are also fulfilling their legal duties and functions would be.

It does appear at times our federal government just simply wishes to flex its muscle, or prove that those Senators and Congressman deserve those six figure salaries, pensions and expense accounts.

Since in a Republic, it is clear these would be matters for the state and "people" against whom that crime is committed in their communities, and not the "distant ruler" to "lawfully" under our existing law determine.

And with a foreign war now going on eight full years with no end again in sight but following the Bush plan and with America's southern border the true national security threat, an economy in the toilet due to federal negligence with respect to oversight and regulation of the banks and lending institutions in this country and their practices, and homelessness and joblessness increasing by the day yet passing now additional taxes on the air Americans now breathe, the moral outrage most Americans at this point have isn't at all directed in any respect for the gays or gay community - but those on the Hill.

Who truly do not acknowledge the boundaries of their power, nor true legal responsibilties.

And it is interesting to note that a push for this bill would also be made now publicizing also the former "hate crimes" legislation, just prior to also another contentious measure in which Washington is attempting again to put its will over that of the rights of the lawful American citizens and their Bill of Rights, the illegal immigration "reform" bill - of course, without addressing the state of our open borders and daily flow which will not cease until those borders are secured, and now also eight years after 9/11 and three years after the Secure Fence Act was passed, and after many Americans have died since at the hands of unlawful foreigners - appears also the timing is politically related as a precusor to another "in your face," Washington move.

Sotomayor On Applying The Law

Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.

These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."

She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?

It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.

With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.

In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.

Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.

And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.

Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.

For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.

I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.

And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.

As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.

I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.

I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.

I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.

It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.

She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."

And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.

Obama: New Bob Barker for Global Price Is Right?

Due to abridgements of our Constitution regarding taxation and lending since the Wilson era, the government under Obama is actually now facilitating debt and promoting it.

Case in point: On almost every website lately there are banner headlines and "screams" of "Obama states moms should go back to school, let us help you!" Sucker ads along the lines of his recent pleas with respect to the current depression (we are now at over 16% unemployment) that we are all in this together, and need to make sacrifices in order to pull ourselves out of this governmentally created flatline.

Which scenario was also repeated at the recent axing of many long term employees of GM in also the reductions of some of their pensions in addition to their jobs, while the Mexican and Chinese plants are humming right along.

Meanwhile, of course, ordering pizza deliveries for invited guests from St. Louis, and gasing up Air Force I for a date with the Ms. in New York. Not to mention an inaugural that would have put Julius Caesar to shame, and set this nation back a pretty penny.

We are a debt-based society since Wilson, when our banking system was illegally and unlawfully hijacked and privatized under the Federal Reserve.

It is apparent that a good portion of this nation is actually clueless in the hows and whys of where we are. The Fed, after all, manipulated the first depression, and it is manipulating this one. And dictating policy, that is clear, with respect to the the war in the Middle East. They ARE, after all, European bankers for the most part that are the head honchos and owners of this public/private bank. And really have no country loyalty, after all.

And the most hypocritical thing is, unless you have a "credit" record or at least credit-worthy under the undisclosed methods which are used for compiling credit reports (your financial fingerprints), you can't get credit.

So the system is set up to encourage debt and credit. For the bankers profit, of course. Although those $1.00 notes cost less than .06 cents to print, and with online banking, actually nothing. So every note circulating is actually profit, at an enormous rate that exceeds the loan shark terms which the depression era mobsters used to charge. And the more in circulation, the more profit.

After the "bailout," it is clear Obama works for the bankers, just as Bush did and every single member of each Administration since Wilson.

Which is why apparently he is on his world tours and road trips. To promote their agendas. With carbon footprints now the size of Big Foot.

That bank bailout was nothing more than a fraud. The banks have been making money hand over fist with their usurous loans, and assundry fees and charges.

It used to be you got free glasses or a toaster when you opened a checking account. Now you get a bill and a $2.00 charge if you use an ATM anywhere but at one of their "chain" banking institutions, although they are all tied together through "ownership" by the Fed.

And while he's on the road trips hawking his spending liturgy and religion, those mortgage loans haven't changed, but the terms of those loans have since the 1970's and 1980's. Now there are few "fixed" rate loans unless your credit is platinum, and are precluded for first time new home buyers. Assumable loans, VA and FHA guaranteed loans have also gone the way of the horse and buggy.

That is clearly why all Obama's actions were directed toward refinancing or first time home buyers. Not the literally thousands that have lost theirs during this tsunami. In order to "hook" another generation for the bankers to fleece during the next economic downturn, if we ever pull out of this one without bankrupting the biblical seven generations down the road.

In fact, yesterday I saw a Bank of America commercial (which is now owned by Merrill Lynch) where they are now hawking their great mortgage loans from those sums received in the bailout at the American public's expense nationwide. Essentially it boiled down to: Come on in America, we want to loan your money back to you, and at an adjustable and usurous rate and with non-judicial or seizure and foreclosure terms just like those old loans (which terms now go so far as to dictate maintainance, upkeep, and insurance riders for most of these properties that would make Martha Stewart blush)! Oh, and by the way we need you to sign on the dotted line within 24 hours in order to "lock in" that sliding and adjustable rate (based on the European market and not even U.S. prime)!

So much for truth in advertising.

House Website Shut Down During Cap and Trade Fiasco

Last week the House passed one of the most contentious and potentially the most expensive legislation for all Americans in the history of our country.

The "Cap & Trade" or "Energy Stimulus" bill passed at the behest and direction of newly inaugurated president (small "p" until that birth certificate is produced) Barack Obama. Obama lobbied heavily on the House Democrats to pass this centerpiece legislation for his "green jobs," agenda. Although if history is any indication, there will be more loss of jobs than gains due to this legislation.

After all, Congress has been handing out corporate welfare to the energy and petro companies for literally decades for their research and development costs in order to promote cleaner forms of fuel and energy. And where has that gotten us?

Nowhere, but has made a bundle for the banks and financiers on Wall Street and shareholders of those energy companies and concerns. As most likely will this fiasco of a bill.

You see, part of the "global economy" plan for this "globally planned" agenda is that the certificates for carbon credits can be exchanged or sold so that companies that are not in compliance can "buy their way" out of their violation.

And with the profits these companies are making on their products and services due to their favored status with Congressional members, who truly believes that this will "stimulate" green jobs and searches for alternative fuels? Not most rational and sane adults, anyway.

Simply addressing the lack of insulation and "chicken wire and stucco" homes that are now being built by the large national and global builders would reduce energy consumption around the world in a matter of months. And eliminate the need for some of those nuclear power plants that are also quite pricey, and then involve more taxpayer costs in order to protect those generators from both internal and external meltdowns.

The building of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station outside of Phoenix, Arizona in the last several decades certainly did not reduce energy costs to local residents. Nor did it reduce the pollution in any significant matter, since the fact is the Phoenix area is now populated by refugees mostly from other states, and also those literally missions of non-Americans using the state as either a place of commerce, or secondary income source working for the drug cartels.

It was interesting to note that last Friday as the "Cap and Trade" bill was being voted and amendment up to the final hour and vote Friday evening, the website for the House Energy Committee posted a notice stating that due to the amount of emails that they were receiving, the website was shut down until further notice.

As with the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act," it appears the new modus operandi for the sanctuary on the Hill is to "officially" pass unconstitutional legislation in only one house of Congress, and then either hold it in the hopper or pass it without any media attention during a "diversionary" story in the other. And then fund some of those "unofficially" passed bills as if they were the force of law through the various regulatory bodies.

To my knowledge, the memos Ms. Napolitano sent out and the Fusion Centers which are being used to train local law enforcement on these crimes of "perception of intent" have been funded by Congress, although the bill under which such authority would be granted has yet to be passed by the Senate.

Maybe this is self-preservation in order to save face and political careers, and also as a protection against any and all charges of treason or "high crimes and misdemeanors" that could or would be applicable under the circumstances.

Another rather open ended bill was introduced also this session having to do with cybersecurity, the "Cybersecurity Act of 2009," in which Congress was going to authorize the executive office to have final say and jurisdiction regarding the shutdown of the internet and governmental service providers in the event of cyber-attack.

The language was so open ended it afforded the president ultimate authority in such an event of by including not only the event of an outside or foreign bug or virus, but "for other reasons."

I wonder if the shutdown of the House Energy Commissions website last Friday was determined by the president to be one of those "other reasons."

After all, Mr. Obama excels at making apologies for this country and its citizens, and since this was truly a bi-partisan act of treason with presidential support, it would appear that such language was interpreted by those lawyers both within and employed by members of Congress to be within the broad scope of "and for other reasons."

And the most ironic thing about the entire "Cap and Trade" scam further amalgamating the U.S. economy and government with that of the "global community" (global socialism) is that it was passed one week before Independence Day.

A day I predict will live in infamy for our children, and great grandchildren as the greatest act of treason under the existing law of this country, America's Constitution.

A celebration in this country honoring the founders sacrifice in severing their ties and bonds with the global community. Whether intentional or not, a slap in the face of those founders, and all Americans who value their sacrifice and their intention to form a "more perfect union" apart from any foreign influence.

This, America, is your transparent and accountable government.