Commercial Stakeholders Wrote ObamaCare, Remember?

To Any And All Constitutional Conservative Americans:

This week while all the mass media attention has been now focused on the death of the liberal Ted Kennedy and his "contributions" to American politics, much is being used also with respect to his fight for "health care reform" printed by the mainstream media.

What? And Why?

Massachusetts is one state that already has a socialized "comprehensive" health care program which was enacted under Mitt Romney, another liberal, so at a loss why now there is all this focus on Kennedy's fight for health care reform when, as a federal legislator, his true constituency and concerns had already been addressed at the state level in providing such care for those who are unable to get insurance, or for catastrophic needs.

As has every single state in the union now such health care plans, funded by state taxation at varying levels and accountable then much more at a local level as intended by the founders for such legislation as this.

This legislation does appear nothing more at this point than a "Health Care Actuary Tax" and another move to centralize more power in Washington, than at the state level per Constitutional intent. Congress's main duties in domestic matters are limited, after all, to regulation of commercial interests at the public's expense, not consulting with the commercial interests ("stakeholders" in the now politically correct redefinition) for their benefit and welfare at the public's expense.

The new buzzword now being used for political correctness in more and more legislation for the commercial special interests lobbying for more and more share of the public's purse in government welfare appears to be "stakeholders."

Stakeholders are being consulted on the border issue now also by Ms. Napolitano's office. And just who are these "stakeholders" that are being consulted? Certainly not the victims or their families who have been robbed of their lives and property progressively during the past twenty years since the first Reagan amnesty passed also without addressing the open borders situation or criminal "hoppers", but the big businesses and commercial interests actually profiting off of the open borders.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce members, and gadget industries of Silicon Valley most of all. And, of course, the illegal immigrant focused special interest groups like LaRaza.

Whose only real apparent interest stepped up when some of those state level employer sanctions laws were being placed on ballots in the Southwest due to the American citizen initiatives initiated by many of the literally thousands of victims of illegal immigrant crimes over the past two decades, which concerned them greatly as a threat to many also Latino businesses which also hire them or could be penalized. Or apparently some of that motivation I'm sure can be traced to simply wishing to get some of their relatives off the couch and into homes of their own.

Since without those borders being secured, those illegals would be dumb to take Uncle Sam up on such an offer.

To do so most likely would result in losing those "jobs Americans don't want in construction, manufacturing, agriculture and technology now to next month's new crop of illegals or even a number of those bulk foreigner work visa imports, and that new cheap housing they were able to qualify for in the process due to the depression in the market which has been manipulated this past four years in order for them to qualify, relieving them then of their savings for those junk fees and heavy front end costs for the "creative" loans which are still being sold since the true cause of what occurred has not been addressed in the slighest by either this or the last Administration.

Simply American taxpayer money and more debt incurred for the Fed bankers and to pump up those banks stocks on Wall Street and in order to use those banks as the government's agents to "buy down" those foreign investor debts at the American people's and those homeowners expense and flip those properties to potentially you new non-English speaking patsies.

Nothing more than a massive governmental Ponzie scheme, as it were.

So when you hear the term "stakeholder" used by the federal government with respect to upcoming legislation, substitute the words "taxpayer welfare recipient" and "government joint venture co-conspirator and state actor" instead.

In order to be truly "politically correct."