Let The Games Begin: Massachusetts Politicos Vying For Vacant Senate Seat

With the passing of Ted Kennedy last week and after the weeklong media coverage of both his life, and his politcal career now over, the media's attention has now been turned toward just who might fill the empty Senate seat occupied by Senator Kennedy.

Even going so far as to call it "a Kennedy seat," in the liberal media press.

And the term liberal spreads on both sides of the aisle, since a "liberal" is merely one who "liberally" construes the Constitution by not consulting it in any manner whatsoever.

Sort of like what is occurring now on the discussions and debates on the health care issue. Not a federal function in any manner whatsoever, but one in which the states and state citizens should decide for their own communities, and at levels that are more locally accountable for indigent or other public health services.

Not foreign ruler. With the exception of regulating those national and global insurers and their practices, not take them over or get into bed with these now huge megaconglomerate concerns, many of which now are not even based in the U.S., but want the U.S. market base without any accountability in the marketing or honoring of their products or services.

Especially since the only real revenue and reason for their existence is due to the ratepayers payment of their premiums, and it is their own divestitures that also have been involved in escalating the costs by using those premiums and stockholder investments to diversity into high risk investments and fields for greater returns. While Washington has sat on its thumbs giving them carte blance in order to so do.

Providing a public option is rather laughable when Congress hasn't done its primary job in overseeing those global and national carriers. And most likely, anyone that is involved in any public option will come from the private sector health insurance industry and bring their rogue practices also with them.

And we all see how well Congress oversees most of those regulatory agencies now, like the IRS and the Federal Reserve (who are, after all, no more than front men for the European banking houses, and we all see whose "economy" the Fed is concerned with. The global one. Not at all America's, but raping American citizens to feed the foreign investors).

Massachusetts, of course, already has such a universal health care plan which was started in its liberalism, and so this push now is also highly suspect since such plans really already exist in some form or another in every state across the nation.

This state's utter outrageous representatives interpretations of our Constitution have unfortunately spread throughout the country (think California, now receiving most of the Iraq war contracts and domestic spying programs for Silicon Valley venture capitalists)due to the untold celebrity this political family somehow created after the death of John Kennedy over 40 years ago on a political career that had as many lows as highs.

Beginning with the starting of the Viet Nam conflict, our first truly non-defensive, interventionist war and which lasted then far longer than it should have to begin with, given the "threat" of that small country to our own. With then the U.S. inheriting thousands of political refugees, not to mention the debt and Americans lives lost or forever changed by that conflict (as also never a legal or Congressionally declared war under a formal Declaration of War).

The entire week's review was rather unbelieveable in its scope, and the rather unbalanced reporting which occurred in any event.

The aura surrounding the Kennedy name at this point is a little overblown in a historical context.

Several U.S. presidents had been the victims of having their lives tragedically ended prematurely, after all. And only Lincoln's has historically also been used fundamentally to aggrandize the true facts and accomplishments while in office. And records historically altered in order to make the tragedies of their deaths in office somehow all out of proportion to what their individual contributions actually were.

Abraham Lincoln, who although was a great statesman, politician and orator, clearly lacked a true understanding that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to state sovereignty, which united to begin with in order to fight a foreign government and oppressor, the British, also provided in our founding documents the right to dissolve the union if for any reason it no longer suited either the state or people's best interests.

And only gave the states, with the people's consent and directive, the power to alter or abolish it, and not the federal government at all in its original form and legal provisions under the "contract," the U.S. Constitution. Which can only be amended by the states, and people, not by federal fiat, in any of the three branches. Not the president, Congress or U.S. Supreme Court without the "consent of the governed."

The South and the slavery issue, after all, was simply what some historians have used as the basis for the civil war in this country for also generations. When actually the entire war was over state's rights, with the slavery issue really even inconsequential to Lincoln.

His solution initially offered to the South when it stated its intention to leave the union, was to afford the slaves free passage back to Africa if they so desired, which is also well documented in Lincoln's papers as one from the industrial north. The lives of those in the Northern states were not a whole lot better than those in the South at that time either. Lincoln himself came from a farming background, after all.

According to his Christian beliefs also, no man without his own consent (such as indentured servitude in exchange for work performed, or more commonly in barter exchanges for room and board ) had a right to claim "ownership" over another. Most farm workers even in the North lived on the farms and were provided food and shelter, but simply migrated during crop season.

Which was fundamentally the disagreement the founders had. Lifelong servitude, as it were.

But the slavery at the time it was ratified was not the same as was practiced in the South and occurred progressively due to also federal transgressions on protecting domestic agricultural production over foreign competition also then at lower costs due to seasonal variations in U.S. production.

Those original slaves who existed at the time the Constitution was ratified were for the most part more than well treated, well respected by those such as Jefferson, and who were sent with those men and their families abroad for further study and education in Europe, after all, as was the practice.

And was such a bone of contention also at the time that it is well documented that the founders eventually forsaw when that issue would need to be addressed and rectified accordingly as soon as this new nation had its first generation of native born new Americans.

And most freed then upon their death as Jefferson did and was provided in his will, which was also recognized as a legal right and private arrangement to be dissolved.

Many slaves were "freed" by slaveowners also upon request for simply repayment of any debts incurred on their behalf since even medical needs and assistance was provided by many.

Most were also sold into slavery by warring tribes in Africa instead of being put to death rather than as history likes to relate, brought here unwillingly by American slavetrader opportunists. Most came by way of Britain, which is where the real active slavetrading had been occurring and also why so many of the founders objected due to this British originated practice.

But it was the "progressives" actually that used them for agricultural purposes, and in the mills and factories, that abused their authority over them rather than a somewhat mutually beneficial arrangement which it originally was which lead to all the slave revoltes.

People naturally wish to escape abusive situations, and that is really what was fundamentally what lead to all the slave revolts. Mistreatment. Not a desire for freedom or independence but more in order to escape mental and physical torment.

But I digress somewhat to even prove a point with respect to Senator Kennedy's passing.

Even after all the accolades and tributes made by those in political office and his Massachusetts constituency, the nation is now being made to be witness to this transfer of power rather than simply a matter of filling a public service position with another American to so do.

And it was the "progressives" in both parties in Congress and the President that fired many of those hardworking, middle class GM workers in Detroit, a city historically with a large number of unemployed due to the outsourcing and insourcing which has occurred now throughout the nation and escalated under both Democratic and Republican Congresses.

And in leaps and bounds during the past twenty years to the point where it is the Americans now who are subsidizing through their taxes those foreign now industries and labor workforce.

This week also reminded me more of what occurs after an employee of any of America's largest corporate entities is either fired or resigns. Before the door is closed behind them, the vultures remaining seek out anything in the former occupant's desk that can be captured and used in then the performance of their job related duties.

It appears a general election is the way Massachusetts has legislated to go in the filling of the seat, and all the political ballyhoo that goes with such a procedure now part of the process.

Not the provisions as provided in our original Constittuion, which would simply call for a replacement to be voted on and selected by the current members of the Massachusetts legislature.

Who would be the best able to fill it, since the Senators were, after all, intended to represent the state and state's interests at the federal level, with the House members supposed to be then representatives of the actual citizens and people.

Which has also been undermined and abridged since both are now selected upon general elections, and in which the original campaign finance laws also are being abridged in that originally in order to retain a representative government, then such candidates in the House could only accept "sponsorship" or donations from those in their own legislative districts - so as not to be tarnished in their representation from outside "foreign" monies and interests.

Which is the major reason why today we are living under global corporate socialism.

Due to a very fundamental Constitutional violation at its core, which has hijacked our intended form of government and replaced it with something not even close to that which the founders created and envisioned.

And the natives are clearly getting restless with the "misrepresentatives" and not "duly elected" individuals now holding court in both the state legislatures, and most of all the clearly "pretenders" on the Hill serving more as CEO's of U.S.A., Inc. now instead of our intended free republic.