Supreme Court, Obama and Congress Pass The Scepter

The political battle rages on post the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with respect to campaign financing, and its horrendously unconstitutional new "interpretation" of the First Amendment.

In light of all the commentary that has been made with respect to the decision "rolling back" the campaign finance laws in order to afford unlimited corporate spending by special interests groups in national campaigns, quite a bit has been left out in just what an egregious decision this actually was, in my opinion.

Starting off with truly "rolling back" the campaign finance laws by the Supreme Court would have negated "corporate person-hoods" as having any place in Bill of Rights protections in the first place.

Meaning, that in order to have a truly "representative" government, no political candidate vying for public office should be afforded to be able to accept ANY campaign financing outside his own legislative district, whether corporately or otherwise.

The fact is that in the commentary and published opinion, it appears, there was not even any distinction made between grassroots citizens groups funded primarily with individual contributions, corporate commercial concerns, national domestic corporations with their primary home offices in the United States, or foreign global corporations whose domiciled home offices are outside this country, although of course it WAS a U.S. based PAC organization that brought the action, and thus would seem only applicable to PAC organizations gaining most of their revenues from individual contributions, but already the drums are sounding as the corporate lawyers gear up to broaden now this rendering, which I would imagine was the entire reason those Supreme Court justices selected this case to begin with. (Since this action was simply brought against a federal regulatory agency, the FEC, by a "corporate" PAC grass roots purportedly special interest organization, and most likely the states, as history is replete with examples, will now follow suit granting unlimited special interest contributions also at the state level which also was one of the primary purposes in the Court "selecting" this matter to begin with, I'll bet. That and the feeding frenzy the true agenda of this case was meant to insure, as a job stimulus for the corporate lawyers also throughout the land in all the cases that will be brought due to this "precedent" expanding this rather narrow holding into making it applicable for national and even global "commercial" corporations).


So that it may be used as a "precedent" and expanded, and expanded and expanded. Sort of like Roe.

And then if there are any further appeals, just watch those Supremes in the future, for political reasons, "refusing" then to clarify this broad based travesty of an interpretation of the CITIZENS, and definitely not national or global commercial corporate concerns, right to free political SPEECH which corporate money for campaign expense purposes is not "speech" per se but campaign funding, and only public monies should be used to fund any and all candidates for public office in amounts according to the number of voters in any electoral district.

Just wait until AIG (a London based global insurer) selects our next president, or Goldman Sachs by contributing to key legislative districts with committee leadership positions at stake - alone.

It was bad enough what occurred in those bank paybacks for the 2006 candidates for their donations, just watch now what happens in the years ahead.

Maybe new disclosure laws should quickly be enacted making it mandatory that in the future all candidates for public office should be required to wear patches like those Indy 500 drivers do for all contributions over $1,000, say.

That way those corporations can also get free advertising and more bang for their bucks.

Mark my words, this decision opens the door and will become a feeding frenzy for the lawyers to bring case after case stripping away the narrow holding the Court actually made with respect to a purported "grass roots" citizens group (although with a claimed "educational" focus I'm wondering if this group actually also receives federal grant monies and funding, which would really mean that this case was partially funded by the taxpayers in this country - the actual citizens - in order to strip them basically of their Bill of Rights protections and voice in the election process over the "corporate.")

Which seems to be becoming more and more the case with many of these grassroots organizations with an "educational" focus now, many of them actually nothing more than "liberty as commerce" commercial concerns with conventions, T-shirts and book displays the actual reason for their existence - many of which are actually headed by lawyers or educators in order to divert and deflect the American people from what is truly going on here.

None of these groups are bringing the civil suits or filing the charges necessary against some of these Congressmen and judges for "high treason" as is the actual provision within the Constitution for continuing to undermine its provisions and amend its terms outside Article V and the 9th and 10th Amendments due to this progressive political party agenda on the part of both parties who have actually hijacked the entire election process progressively.

I wonder if the nationally based companies now vying and competing against those foreign based domiciled corporations will be as happy with this outcome as they actually appear to be since it is basically only the "global" Fortune 100 companies, and some of those international unions which will ultimately be benefitting, especially in those countries whose currency is higher than the U.S. dollar due to the currency exchange rates, such as the European countries and China.

Thus, the foreign bankers can use foreign governments and countries in order to influence and reap more and more foreign aid redistributing the wealth once again - global socialism does appear to be the goal here and the United States through that Supreme Court decision appears to be the country that is being "taken over" by those foreign bankers through our misrepresentatives in Washington.

Much like the East India Company and their "sovereign status" with King George that lead to the first American Revolution in this country, so have become the foreign bankers.

In other words, the Supreme Court took a step taking this country actually more and more toward British government once again (since the London banks and bankers are the majority shareholders in our Federal Reserve), and global corporate socialism, not simply in violation of the Constitution, but in violation of the sovereign status of this nation and also its people from foreign governmental or corporate interests and control.

It opened the floodgates to a massive "takeover" of our government and political process by China, Great Britain or any other foreign interest or government through currency manipulation, or a wealthy "immigrant" whose loyalties still may remain with his birth country or due to his family's holdings in other countries, even more so now than what already occurs, such as the buying up of much of our media and print newspapers by an Australian, Mr. Murdoch, and his Fox networks (which is, after all, the national animal of Great Britain).

Our entire Federal Reserve Banking System is funded by the British bankers, by and large, the result of that first unconstitutional public/private partnership under Wilson, and has resulted in our continued financial and military support to foreign nations long past World War II has ended up costing this country a bundle in both blood and treasure also "progressively", fighting on behalf of the British, a country which took in the majority of the Jewish refugees from World War II even though the Balfour Doctrine establishing the Nation of Israel pre-World War I was based on a British accord, and not a U.S. one at all.

It appears the goal is that ultimately the United Nations and their dictates will continue to supercede the true Rule of Law in this country and undermining its national sovereignty in a great many of the war resettlements, and in redefining the boundaries with respect to Israel after the '67 war.

Our federal government actually just sold out this country lock, stock and barrel to foreign interests without a shot being fired, simply the stroke of those Supreme Court justices pen, of course since the federal judiciary I predict will "liberally" construe the Court's holding purportedly in order to "guarantee freedom of speech" protections for not simply individually funded grassroots organizations(?) such as in the case before the Supreme Court, but commercial corporations also.

And would bet this finding was made with that entire agenda in mind, since it will be the corporately owned medias (Fox, CNN, etc.) that will gain a bundle for these ads for their corporate profits and bottom lines. In fact, I wonder if any of those justices just might become "political commentators" when they retire from the bench for one of the mainstream media networks, like Mr. Rove, Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Palin have become? When will we have our first former Supreme Court justice as a political analyst and commentator?

I wonder if Mr. Souter has been approached at this point, and wouldn't at all surprise me at this point.

Wonder where all your premium dollars will go, America, for that mandatory health care and your mandatory auto insurance? I'll bet a major portion will be set aside for their new marketing representatives, their local Congressman's next campaign.

Between the "extra" fees and costs levied on those policies in order to pay off dividends to those shareholders, fulfill those executive bonus contracts outside shareholder approvals, and make donations to candidates throughout the nation - I wonder just how much higher those premium costs will soar, or how much reshuffling now there will be of priorities with those premium dollars Americans will be forced now to pay, much of which will go to candidates that many of those insureds have been calling for true "change" in booting the entire Congressional delegation at this point out of office since approval ratings are at an all time low, and the two mainstream political parties losing their members now progressively.

In fact, in my former home state there actually was an initiative in order to "privatize" voting even proposing that a lottery be instituted with a cash prize awarded from the voting pool simply for voting, turnouts have become so low in non-presidential year elections.

Meanwhile Mr. Obama, one who was foremost in his leadership role during the banking bailouts and crisis, and also government takeover of General Motors and pushing the bankers agendas in the housing crisis focusing on "refinances" and "new home buyers," yells the proverbial foul mostly for his corporate political party for this latest Court unlawful amendment.

Even those two political parties that have also overtaken the U.S. political process and who have "progressively" hijacked our Constitution in the process scored a win in this one, since both are "corporately" also funded by most of those special interest groups in one form or another. Great way to also continue to guarantee that party platforms, rather than the U.S. Constitution, will continue to be the order of the day on Capitol Hill.

You know, the two political parties that more and more Americans have left due to their "corporate" agendas also superceding the Constitution now "progressively."

Now even the sham of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has been removed and instead it is now whichever industry or CEO has the most wealth which will be in power, or whichever foreign global special interest - especially those foreign lenders and bankers.

Interestingly, a chastizing by the Service Employees INTERNATIONAL Union has been much publicized in the mainstream media reports.

An international "corporation" that is and will also benefit "corporately" with those excessive union dues it collects, although apparently doing so to save face and present an image that it is, once again, there for their members and not their corporate "global" special interest who spread their members cash from their labors to select candidates whether their dues paying members support some of those candidates generally or their platorms, or not.

The unions, insurers, homebuilders and such really have no chance over any future legislation actually, since the entire wealth of this country is held, when push comes to shove, by those European bankers manipulating and valuing our currency outside Congressional oversight, and which was a major duty and function of our Congress - not a shell corporate entity (the Federal Reserve) for the British banking houses.

It is the bankers since Wilson's Administration that hold our gold, as security for their "debt notes" until, of course, those "debt notes" are eventually called in and our entire currency - and that of the world - will be through interbank transfers using those computer transfers and keystrokes and plastic instead rather than expensive paper, which can then potentially shut down the entire world's economy at the push of a button, or manipulate it really almost at will from country to country in a matter of seconds.

And save the cost of then printing all those dollars, euros and yen.

And while Mr. Obama continues to yell "foul" wasn't he also the candidate that refused to accept public taxpayer monies to fund his campaign, and instead relied on those "corporate" special interests dollars who apparently are now being paid back at the American public's expense in spades.

I'm surprised these guys, in all honesty, can continue to conduct these press conferences, or "townhalls," and look their fellow Americans in the eye. Or read those teleprompters without choking.

Hail, Britainia.

Your "legal" representatives just handed over the scepter. Almost 250 years it took, but just goes to show you that the pen actually is mightier than the sword.

I guess that is why those U.S. Supreme Court justices wear black, and not the red, white and blue. They just don't wear those wigs.

Anyone ready to consider throw throwing their dish satellite into Long Beach Harbor or for those that have cable, at least think about seriously cancelling that subscriptions before the propaganda, ala the Boston Tea Party, because these 2010 elections are going to be chock full of political incorrectness, and promises, promises, promises that none of those unduly elected representatives intends to keep just like the last one and all that redlining, ending the war, flag waving and Joe the Plumber rhetoric.

And just wait until 2012 and the long two years worth of analyzing by those corporate media pundits of the prepared speeches, double speak and propaganda once again for those keys to the White House, and that expense account with the three new presidential jets that have been ordered in this ever downward spiraling depression/recession with more and more becoming jobless and homeless by the day, which began in 2006 as a "stimulus" for the politicians and their political parties platforms and those bankers profits as payback for their "contributions" for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I wonder what terrorism threat or economic crisis will be manipulated by those bankers and politicians for the next one?

It does seem that such arrogance and political tyranny as what has been coming off the Hill post 9-11 appears that either those in Washington are clueless as to the actual pulse of the American people at this time - since it seems they are attempting to facilitate another war from within with such absolute disregard for the rights of the people over the corporate special interests.

Since that was, of course, the entire reason in addition to taxation (such as the new global warming taxes - taxing even the air Americans breathe at this point) those founders fought that original war due to the British monarchial rulings and favoritism granted to "sovereign subjects" such as this one the Supremes have ruled are "corporately" entitled to under the Bill of Rights which was clearly meant to secure the rights of the people against corporate abuse, governmental or otherwise.

States Now Statutorily Redefining Terms Of Living Wills?

Post the Terri Schiavo case so long ago, it appears that many states throughout the nation are using both the courts, and new statutes in order to redefine the provisions of many of those "living wills" that are being marketed and sold to a great many Americans as part of their estate planning.

Recently, a story was related to me by a resident of the State of Louisiana that demonstrated just what is occuring after the death of Teri Schiavo - who died, of course, under a judicial fiat in Florida a few years ago deeming that feeding and hydration intubation also was a artificial life support, rather than the definition that had held and was understood by most Americans to be "mechanical methods" such as respirators or other devices gave little hope for a recovery without major heart/brain or other organ function damage and was or would be irreversible.

It seems this young woman's grandmother had suffered a stroke at a rather young age according to life expectancy charts, and was being fed due to her inability to swallow post the stroke and was being fed and hydrated by artificial means by feeding tubes and hydrated intravenously. She was still aware and alert although had some minimal brain damage due to the stroke, which doctors felt even could be reversed.

Apparently, one of the members of the family thought and felt differently, and hired a lawyer to challenge and remove the feeding tubes and hydration methods per what occurred with Ms. Schiavo.

The grandmother had executed a "living will," although at the time the will was executed, Louisiana law did not view hydration and feeding intubation as "artificial means" but "basic sustenance" which is needed by all humans in order to survive.

Remove hydration, especially, and the organs progressively begin to shut down one by one. In fact, this is the worse method for any human life to end since the body literally then feeds upon itself in order to survive.

After the Schiavo case, this young woman learned during the court proceedings that Louisiana law was change in order then post Schiavo to redefine and include "basic sustenance" also as "artificial means," and a judge so ruled again in that state that the feeding and hydration tubes should be removed per the terms of her grandmother's living will.

Now even included in hospital admittance forms some states are including such language as "artificial" life support, without also including upon the admittance of those patients that state laws are changing with respect to the clear definition of just what is, and what is not, "artificial life support."

And how many patients, or their closest relatives or spouses charged with signing all those lengthy forms now upon admittance have the time or even awareness in such a time of fear for their loved one or emergency to ask some of those very relevant questions prior to treatment? In the future, could not, say, an insurance company as the payor then also bring suit in order to discontinue payment for provision of such measures under these now changing laws throughout the nation?

Even now the laws regarding euthansia are being written, however, how many patients really at the time such a decision might be broached by a doctor or even relative, can make a sane, rational decision in such respect when many are even under medications that make even those "sound mind" common law provisions with respect to the execution of legal documents questionable?

Taxing not only citizens while they are living, but also now even their accumulated assets after death (upon which taxes actually have already been paid, absent the current year's assets or accumulations) does appear that greed at the state level and the commercial interests that also are involved such as those insurers and even beneficiaries without having any "legal" authority or powers of attorney "rights" given who favor death over life for personal or corporate gain are gaining legal "rights" in leaps and bound changing many of those living wills executed in years gone by fundamentally in the process.

All those boomers that are now aging to retirement age take heed.

I mean, as with the Schiavo case, whose to say that a cure for the degree of brain damage Ms. Schiavo suffered might have been found before her natural life expectancy was reached, or even due to the fact that she had never had any physical rehabilitation whatsoever and had other relatives willing and able to provide for her care absent her already "married" for all intents and purposes spouse, that the "state" or a relative with no legal authority per any executed power of attorney, should have any rights to dominion over another with respect to providing "basic sustenance" which any newborn or incapacitated person must have in order to survive.

Irreversible today, does not mean irreversible tomorrow, as research and technology strides in medicine are proving each and every day.

Nor should any third party payor have any inherent "rights" to use the states in their lobbying efforts in order to increase their profit margins, or their risk factors at the cost of human life, which is occurring more and more rapidly in each and every state across the nation.

And will increase now in leaps and bounds at the federal and state levels since the recent Supreme Court decision affording "unlimited" contributions to political office candidates from those financial industry lobbyists now undermining the First Amendment rights of all Americans now liberally and progressively in favor of the "corporate."

I hope those Supreme Court justices have a living will and are inserting a few words and redefining just what their definition of "artificial life support" is, and re-evaluating their positions to remove those "unalienable" First Amendment provisions more and more from the "people" and redistributing both the American people's wealth, and their lives, to the corporate before they find themselves in one of those federally funded corporate hospitals, or one of their nearest and dearest, after refusing to hear Schiavo.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/la/consent/la-living-will.htm

The Supreme Court Does It Again: Desecrates The U.S. Constitution

The Supreme Court has done it again.

Desecrated the U.S. Constitution in a recent holding granting corporations (global ones, at that, since there was no distinction even made in their opinion between U.S. based or global corporate entities) the ability to contribute unlimited funds to candidates for state or federal office.

In a roundabout way, it did nothing more than reaffirm that under the First Amendment, the language regarding the rights of the "people" also can be interpreted to mean the "corporate" and that corporations are not property (which they most definitely are, since they can be bought and sold and for which many are publicly funded even at this point in our history, and even sold over a "global" exchange, building foreigners wealth and thus foreigners gaining now more and more influence in our political system progressively) but also persons.

Corporations cannot be both - people and property, but this decision in effect stated exactly that, as did the errant ruling which started this progression into corporate socialism way back when in effect inserting another entity under the Constitution and Bill of Rights the founders never intended, "corporate personhood." (Remember the Boston Tea Party and East India Company for a clue how they felt about global corporations, and thus granting privileges and immunities to corporate "sovereign" subjects of the "crown.")

What has happened to our Constitution, and a judiciary that has strayed so far from both the intent and actual language contained within that document resting not a mile from those hallowed halls?

Where are our lawyers being educated now in this country, and who is in charge of the teaching programs at our law colleges?

The American Bar Association, it appears, a British based association at that and carryover from Great Britain which appears that the agenda is reinstituting "progressively" British monarchial style sovereign rights and sovereign rule over the citizens of this country by now our federal (and state) governments without a new Constitutional Convention, or the "consent of the governed."

Amending the Constitution now even more progressively, without the power to so do, just goes to show the arrogance now of those on the Hill of all three branches of our government, and the political nature now of the U.S. Supreme Court which was supposed to be a "check" on the government with respect to Bill of Rights protections for the PEOPLE against the CORPORATE, especially commercial corporate entities as "commerce" to be regulated actually not given rights at all (since it does state "We the People" and not "We the Corporate") and definitely not a facilitator of the new government it is progressively instituting with each and every decision now coming down the pike as of late especially, "global corporate socialism."

How can you have a representative government of any nature when global and national companies can now donate massive sums throughout the nation in each and every district in order to facilitate their agendas, most of which are at the cost of the general public at large?

The founders understood that the entire basis of a representative government demanded that no candidate for any public office would be allowed to accept "backing" or "funding" for his political aspirations from any person or entity residing or with their legal "home office" domicile outside their legislative district.

Is that concept so totally "foreign" and convoluted for the U.S. Supreme Court justices, who are holders of doctorate degrees in the "law" mind you, to understand?

Where were these justices educated? Great Britain?

I would state that this case was purposely brought in order to set another unconstitutional "precedent" now throughout the nation, although the Supremes actually also have "legally" no power granted except to render decisions on the matters placed before it based on the facts of the particular case "at bar."

Not broad based precedent power for their decisions, but limited jurisdictional powers in both original and appellate jurisdictions, and even those provisions have progressively been misconstrued, broadened and thus also circumventing the Constitution now being made applicable in some form or another throughout each and every state down to now dictating and minimizing in again inserting or redefining the English language the provisions with respect to trials by jury for civil and criminal matters in some of their recent determinations.

While the court fails to hear lawful petitions brought before them on Bill of Rights issues by the people, or even such matters as the legal citizenship status of the holder of the highest office in the land, it accepted this case in order to once again circumvent the Constitution, and all those founders fought and died for.

A government "of the people, by the people, for the people" and not the commercial corporate interests in any manner whatsoever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204341.html

New Home Buyers: Beware the LIBOR

Although the mortgage meltdown is still continuing primarily in the West and Southwest and Sunbelt States since the only real assistance that has been facilitated by the new Obama Administration has been directed toward new home buyers and pushing refinancing (which actually stimulates the bankers and Wall Street once more with all those upfront fees and costs for those new loans), hopefully take the advice of one who lost hers in this tsunami for various reasons - escalating property taxes due to the short lived "boom", property insurance costs due to its then increased valuation tied to those rates, auto insurance costs due to the open borders thefts and higher than normal accident rates for the Phoenix metro area, and ease and enjoyment of it due to covenants and restrictions on the property that increased in severity and costs of my enjoyment of it inflicted by "the state" after its purchase during my 12 year "ownership" of it.

Read the fine print, especially with respect to the basis for the loan itself.

My loan actually was sold by one of those "riskier" lenders due to a refinance that I was forced into for some of the above reasons, and was based upon a London market based rate - the LIBOR.

Not even U.S. prime, mind you, but a London banking rate.

Since the British pound or Euro is at higher levels in the currency exchange market, of course, that also made the increases in the ARM rate that was also a part of the loan terms increase even more than one based on the U.S. dollar and U.S. prime.

How those banks could sell loans based on the British market in this country, I haven't a clue.

But new home buyers and refinancers look out and read that fine print and make sure it is based on at least U.S. prime, since it doesn't appear any further regulation of those banks was at all part of this "rescue" for those still at this juncture losing theirs.

In fact, absolutely no regulation at all has been included addressing the terms of some of those loans in their "usurous" terms and interest rates, and of course the huge junk fees that were charged in order to even get some of those loans to begin with.

Last month again saw more foreclosures, and also a slower market than the year before.

Apparently, the buying public is getting wise to the fact that a home purchase at this point in this country is becoming more of a liability, than an asset and a "high risk" investment that can be snatched from them during the next banker/Congressional manipulated meltdown.

Take a clue from one who learned at an advanced age (56) and after 12 years of "non-ownership" and one who this was not the first home purchase, and had legal knowledge and experience - be careful before signing on the dotted line since it seems the market is now geared toward the sharks, and not the Constitution with respect to home or land property rights and ownership.

The tsunami was one huge "taking," facilitated by Congress and the Fed in their negligence since those loans were primarily sold in the West Coast market and strangely Michigan for several years during that boom and bust cycle, and fixed rate and assumables have almost gone the way of the dinosaur for added banker profits - meaning you may qualify for that home today, but since those rates are based on a foreign currency and market better now than that of the U.S. - it will be, of course, Americans and not foreigners (from Canada and Europe now living in the U.S.) who will lose those homes.

Or those that can't speak English in order to even read those now forty to fifty page loan documents to begin with.

And remember that any lawyer legally required at closing by the states, works more for the industry than for you since most are referred by those title companies, banks or realtors getting those huge fees also at close of escrow.

Beware the LIBOR.

Al Qaeda Now Blamed For Christmas Incident?

It appears now the "top story" that has gained media attention once again in order to deflect the Christmas Eve passage of the Senate of the largest unconstitutional tax on the American people during a time of economic recession that has ever come down the pike (the Health Care Deform Bill), is the story of the attempted bombing of a U.S. bound airline on Christmas Day by a citizen of Nigeria now connected by the Obama Administration to Al Qaeda, with a Yemen connection to a sect of this terrorist group operating there apparently.

It has amazed me and many other Americans how conveniently some of these terrorism attacks are planned and announced to the U.S. public. A public that has become increasingly disturbed at the turn this "War on Terror" has taken now for nine long years, and in which Mr. Obama was actually voted into office based on his positions that he would be the "alternate" candidate to the Bush Administrations "pro-interventionist" agendas with respect to the Middle East and the continuing war in Iraq, as opposed to the actual original Congressional authorization addressing directly those that claimed responsibility for the civilian and military attack on the U.S. in New York those many years ago.

The excuses now and rhetoric coming out of this Administration parallels once again those of the last. And it appears an agenda more so in order to ratchet up the terms of the Patriot Act and those "science based technology" and gadgetry measures that have been initiated by the new huge and ever-increasing Department of Homeland Security.

Which Department, by the way, was the biggest job stimulus and also tax increase also on the American people for both the government and its budgetary needs, and also Silicon Valley in addition to the ongoing war and profits they are making in the war and military industrial sector.

Ms. Napolitano, of course, is pointing fingers along with Mr. Obama at "security failures" that lead to the attempt. Which was carried out in Amsterdam, apparently, on a flight bound for the U.S.

Of course, this country also has afforded VISA waivers post 9-11 during the last 100 days of the Bush Administration for citizens of over 34 different countries to enter here merely upon a 48 hour security check over the internet.

And also has afforded most of the U.S. national and international airlines to afford foreign governments and individuals to invest in a great deal of America's infrastructure.

Including its airlines.

So if foreigners and foreign governments are allowed to become major shareholders in the U.S. airline industry itself, just how is Homeland Security going to deal with the fact that many and most of those foreign governments, if they own major stock in many of those airlines, also have access to intel on much of the security measures that are now in effect throughout the U.S. due to their ownership itself?

How convenient that this attack also was planned on Christmas Day, as the attacks of 9-11 using a U.S. emergency code in order to carry out the plan - a code that is unique really to this country, and holiday that is celebrated by Christians throughout the world.

If it was al Qaeda, don't you think these terrorists would be using their own religious holidays in order to facilitate this "holy war" and attacks on the U.S,, rather than Western holidays and cultural practices? I mean, this is suppose to be a "holy war" as portrayed by the media by this group of extremists that the U.S. just so happen to train during the Clinton Administration and wars with the Soviets in Afghanistan, right?

Even though those which claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9-11 were actually Saudi citizens, by and large, and not from Afghanistan at all.

Mr. Obama and Ms. Napolitano could be exchanged quite easily on those podiums for George W. Bush and Michael Chertoff, the rhetoric now so eerily familiar to most Americans.

And so, apparently, is the timetable for this continuing "war," and apparently the methods and madness of using "terrorism" threats and attacks, and patriotism, in order to continue to justify a war that appears to be expanding under this Administration, rather than being effectively ended as "unjust" (and clearly unconstitional, under America's "legal" form of government) at this point, to begin with.

And now merely the main job stimulus for the media, the ever increasing government security departments and divisions, public/private governmental contractors, and Silicon Valley and its "science based technology" fields.

And also strange that this "attack" would originate in the Netherlands, the home of the international and world government "courts" that also have been questioning the U.S. continued agendas in the Middle East in expanding also this "redress" now for over nine years, isn't it?

Is this rather small terrorist group being portrayed as engaged in merely a "holy war" for their Muslim extremist beliefs, really that politically savvy and adept in both choosing their targets, and their dates of attacks using Western "holidays" and cultural customs as their strike dates and focus?

Most of them do not even speak much English at all, and doesn't appear that in the areas in which most live, get much in the way of Western broadcasting or information to begin with, except with the satellites that the West (British - not truly American citizen owned corporate entities mostly) has placed there.

Which foundation actually is due to a British accord signed prior to World War I creating the nation of Israel, which also really is the primary "religous" basis for this continuing war - the U.S. continued alliances under that accord and the Israli government with the British government most of all now even sixty years after World War II - with Israel one of the richest countries now in the world, with a military on par to that of the West (since the U.S. did train many of their pilots and military personnel, as it did those terrorists also).

Terrorism comes in all forms. And appears the terrorism on the American people isn't restricted to Middle Eastern religious sects, with those now "have a plan" ads that taxpayer's are paying to the national media through another public/private partnership while this war continues.

With Hillary Clinton recently promoting U.S. corporate investment in Iraq as now as the Chamber of Commerce and Marketing Director and Ambassador for Iraq in recent months in media reports in order to stabilize the Iraqi economy now - while the U.S. economy continues to tank and promoting "outsourcing" U.S. goods to Iraq apparently rather contrary to the messages and rhetoric of the 2008 elections and dissatisfaction of the American people of this federally backed and sponsored "global" economic agenda at their expense - our continued presence in this region is clear has both mainstream political parties unconditional support and backing.

Capitalizing on such an incident such as this for now over a week, with the recent blame now once again on al Qaeda for a Nigerian citizens claimed "intent" is beginning to sound more like another "spin" in order to continue to use these segregated incidents to appear to be doing something in order to end this war, but really doing absolutely nothing at all other than to redemonstrate the "threat" of external attacks - yet while opening the gates, and increasing the "approved" countries for facilitated entry more and more thus increasing the risk of outside attacks such as these once again.

These "official" positions and stories really are getting truly incredible at this point, and the spins and excuses hollow and exercises in public relations manipulations for once again providing that although the face may change, in our now one party "global socialist" Congress and Administration, the "change" is merely the faces before the cameras and pay grades.