Much has been published in the last few days on the mainstream media regarding the purportedly "Christian" military group, Hutaree, which was planning an anti-government attack on some Michigan police officers in order to facilitate a "revolution" in this country in the name of Christ.
As a Christian myself, I would hasten to disagree that this group is either Christian, nor acting in the name of Christ.
Christ was, after all, nonviolent with the exception of his attack on the moneylenders in the Jewish Temple who were desecrating the Temple grounds with their greed and avarice on holy days especially. His attack came this very week in the Christian calendar, and lead, of course, to his eventual cruxifiction.
He was attacking the unGodly principles of those within his own faith who were abusing the masses for their own profit most of all in overcharging on currency conversions for the required tithing sums toward support of the Temple and the Temple priests.
Roman coins had been deemed unacceptable by the Sanhedrin, and thus had to be converted to acceptable currency prior to making those donations from those whose other property sacrifices (such as crops or animal sacrifices) did not meet Jewish law in this respect during Passover.
It is also interesting that these arrests and this story came at a time, once again, when the general citizenry have become increasingly outraged with the goings on in Washington, particularly over the latest unconstitutional taxation on the masses, the Health Care Deform bill which was purportedly signed into law by Mr. Obama, along with other unrelated legislation which was included in that massive bill.
Most Americans are quite aware that fining the public for not purchasing one of the financial industries products, health care insurance, does smack of tyranny and also clearly a "taking" of the public's property without "due process" of law.
Since, of course, none of those now serving on the Hill were in any way duly elected, now that campaign contributions have been afforded them by their own legislation, and recent support of the Supreme Court "legalizing" funding outside their legislative districts - which is against the very fabric of a representative government as the founders created to begin with.
The market was speaking, and the costs of those policies and terms were not affordable or within the reach of many of the boomer generation especially due to the high profit margins those financial sector insurers require in order to feed their stockholders, and also their executives and lobbyists (and, of course, those unduly "elected" candidates).
Regulation was what was called for here of those global and national insurers of their products and rate increase models and structures, and some protection of those stockholders also in the compensation packages for those executives which also impacted their investment in some of those companies. And regulation of just what additional financial products or the degree of risks those insurers could spend those public monies and premiums on.
With Washington charged to regulate national and global commerce one of their delineated duties, not get into bed with them at the general citizenry's expense.
None of those Constitutional focuses were included, or any protection of the public over the costs and annual adjustments on those premiums and the impact which those insurers have over their very lives in fulfilling the terms of those policies when sick, ill or injured, merely a gesture in prohibiting refusals of coverage, but without even addressing the costs once again those higher risk individuals would be required to pay, or be fined by Washington for their disobedience with this "law."
And which practice is already prohibited by the laws of many of the several states to begin with, although many still afford those interstate and intrastate insurers to dictate waivers for much of the public for any and all "pre-existing conditions" which is defined as involving treatment within the five year period prior to application.
Affording outside "foreign" interests then to taint then the voices of their true constituency such as what occurred with this legislation, and giving then special interests, corporately or otherwise, domiciled or living outside legislative districts of those running for office an unequal voice in both the election process, and legislation now progressively.
Corporate personhood wasn't enough of an abridgement of the Constitution and Bill of Rights protections meant to protect the few (the citizens) from the masses (the corporate), what we have here is now a corporate takeover of America, and a global corporate takeover at that by even some non-U.S. domiciled corporations, such as AIG.
In other words, those that have the bucks (or claim corporate bankruptcy for campaign reinbursement expenses) are now calling the shots, as was apparent also from Mr. Obama's consultation with the "stakeholders" for this most recent travesty.
And why this group's site was a .com site if it was a politically focused organization and not a .org site is also beyond me. It appears the site was created in 2006, and then lapsed for a time, and was renewed once again then in 2009.
I have many questions about this purported planned "attack" also, since it does seem to me clearly that politically those in high places have a vested interest in publicizing for the masses stories such as these (although the charges actually can only be those of "intent" since no true "crime" was carried out or committed it would seem), since that bogus Homegrown Terrorist Act was passed by the House of Misrepresentatives back in 2006 (which has not, to my knowledge, even been passed by the Senate, and thus does not even have the force of law fundamentally to begin with).
Seems there could be some self-interest of the government going on here in highly publicizing these purported "crimes of intent" at this point, don't you think?
Now placing the local police and police forces on higher alert just perhaps may be the ultimate aim here, in facilitating a divisive citizenry for their own self-protection post this most recent legislation, or in order to once again justify some of the recent heinous legislation which continues to violate those "unalienable" rights those founders were attempting to protect from such violative acts as this past week once again.
And it would appear that those moneylenders of old, just may be recycling their selfish and unbiblical view of "the law" in reinstituting usury upon the masses in this country again for those bankers and moneylenders profits, which have no Godly precept to begin with.
The charging of usury is forbidden in all religions, however, the interpretation differs and therein lies the rub.
Christians and Muslims believe it is prohibited to charge urusy to anyone, whereas the Jewish faith believes it is a directive that onlhy applies to other Jews. Hence, that was why the Romans put the Jews in charge of moneylending to begin with within the Jewish subsociety, however, those charged with such duties and the Temple priests who were the beneficiaries turning a blind eye to what was occuring progressively in Biblical times as is happening today was what precipitated Christ's attack then on the Temple grounds.
The Jewish moneylenders were charging usury against other Jews against Mosaic law to his people.
And insofar as I have been able to research, those beliefs still remain which was why the British government way back when and the Church of England put the Jewish immigrants to that country in charge of lending and collection of taxes, transferring the Church's historic authority prior to the Middle Ages over moneylending once again back to the Jews.
And usury is any sum over the tithing rate of 10% with respect to banking and moneylending, or taxation.
It is the government and banks continuing in the practice of usury that is actually bankrupting now this country and its citizenry across the board. State and federal taxes now are over usury of most Americans tax home pay after deductions, and then on what they use their wages then on to buy with the state and federal taxes levied combined on purchases also in addition.
Americans are buying less, because they can't afford to buy since Big Daddy and their state governments have now become so greedy, and the bankers which are even holding those sums for future purchases with their fees and costs factored in just to have a bank account or use that little piece of plastic anymore.
Or to buy a home with all those up front junk fees and costs, and escalating terms - nothing more than usury again.
And the name for this group is more similar to "Hatari," that 1960's John Wayne movie, or "Atari" the video game company, than having any Aramaic or Christian basis, it appears.
I wonder if this is another job stimulus for the civil rights lawyers, in criminalizing intent now, since they are being represented by public defenders and a civil rights defense would be most likely the basis of the defense, and thus the state public defenders office eligible for federal monies for their local coffers for this case.
Call me a cynic, but much is rotten in Washington, that much is clear, and most of the state governments increasingly since that also unconstitutional 16th Amendment was passed changing the balance of power which made them more and more dependent on federal monies also due to their excesses, and increasing discretionary expenditures at the cost of funding those duties for which they truly are charged to provide under their state constitutions.
And Michigan is one of those states, thanks to Mr. Obama's layoff of a great many of those auto workers and plant closures, due to all the outsourcing which has also gone unrestrained of the U.S. industrial base, that has been impacted by these Obamanations and this Congress as with the Bush Administration, in its tax and spend philosophies this past year progressively.
There certainly seems to be a good many questions with respect to this incident that seems would bear further research of all Americans.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Obama On Image Rebuilding Tour Of Afghanistan?
Am I the only American that found it interesting that as soon as the ink was dried on the most controversial, and egregious unconstitutional taxation law against the American people since FDR, Mr. Obama immediately went on an "unscheduled" visit to Afghanistan in a highly publicized meeting with the U.S. troops still stationed there now nine long years after 9-11.
Could this just possibly be an image tour created by Mr. Obama's marketing team in order to deflect attention from the travesty of this past two weeks, and also hope to gain a little support from those independent vote casting Baggers that still support the war in its present form, absent any real focus on capturing Osama bin Laden as occurred with the Bush Administration?
Much was made of this trip, a "surprise" one at that.
And much hype publicized over Mr. Obama's speech to the troops asking them to "perservere" and using the flag and patriotism once again with the "Americans don't quit" jargon for these men and women, some of which are on their third or fourth tours of duty, with no end to this war yet in sight.
Nor any real focus on bin Laden whatsoever.
Gracious accolades were also heaped upon the American people by the Afghanistan government, thanking all the taxpayers for funding the rebuilding efforts there for those government contractors that are rebuilding Afghanistan now from the ground up after the American invasion post 9-11.
Before, of course, the focus was shifted to Iraq and Saddam Hussein's past transgressions on the guise that he was harboring Taliban members and was friendly toward Al Qaeda.
Seems to me the consensus of those on the Hill that spend their hours devising political strategy and maneuvers (which are also paid by the American taxpayers) in advising our leaders in ways to skirt around the Constitution for political party and individual governmental officials campaign benefits most of all, must have advised Mr. Obama after the absolute desecration of the United States Constitution this health deform legislation engenders, to "get outta Dodge."
And wave the flag with the troops for the folks back home until things cool down.
Do you think?
Could this just possibly be an image tour created by Mr. Obama's marketing team in order to deflect attention from the travesty of this past two weeks, and also hope to gain a little support from those independent vote casting Baggers that still support the war in its present form, absent any real focus on capturing Osama bin Laden as occurred with the Bush Administration?
Much was made of this trip, a "surprise" one at that.
And much hype publicized over Mr. Obama's speech to the troops asking them to "perservere" and using the flag and patriotism once again with the "Americans don't quit" jargon for these men and women, some of which are on their third or fourth tours of duty, with no end to this war yet in sight.
Nor any real focus on bin Laden whatsoever.
Gracious accolades were also heaped upon the American people by the Afghanistan government, thanking all the taxpayers for funding the rebuilding efforts there for those government contractors that are rebuilding Afghanistan now from the ground up after the American invasion post 9-11.
Before, of course, the focus was shifted to Iraq and Saddam Hussein's past transgressions on the guise that he was harboring Taliban members and was friendly toward Al Qaeda.
Seems to me the consensus of those on the Hill that spend their hours devising political strategy and maneuvers (which are also paid by the American taxpayers) in advising our leaders in ways to skirt around the Constitution for political party and individual governmental officials campaign benefits most of all, must have advised Mr. Obama after the absolute desecration of the United States Constitution this health deform legislation engenders, to "get outta Dodge."
And wave the flag with the troops for the folks back home until things cool down.
Do you think?
Fox Article On Fiscal Impact on States of Death Penalty Cases
Recently, due to most states still claiming budgetary crises even after the massive stimulus monies which were received by all the states under the Obama Administration and Congress there have been more and more articles directed at Constitutional government duties and provisions which are costing the states and state citizens apparently a bundle.
Today a Fox media article reported such a position with respect to the costs of executing a death row inmate which is straining a great many state budgets, apparently.
However, nowhere in this article, as with so many which are now appearing, has it been pointed out that most of these states would not be facing budgetary crises at all if they also simply constrained themselves to collecting taxation and distributing it first and foremost to provide funding for those legal duties with which they are charged under their state constitutions.
In other words, no matter how much money the states seem to receive from their state citizens in all the levels of taxation also that are in concert with the federal government, it never seems to be enough simply because progressively all states throughout the nation have provided freebies and gimmees also to their selected sovereign subjects at the cost of the state citizenry.
In discretionary expenditures more and more, while then screaming poverty when it comes to providing funding for the public duties and functions which they ARE actually responsible for.
Such is the case with this scenario, it appears to me, along with other more capitalist and selfish motivations.
Yes, death penalty cases are costly due to the number of appeals that are available and accorded most death row inmates.
And unfortunately, the option of the death penalty due to lobbying efforts of various victims groups have expanded even the applicability of that punishment for crimes in which there are or may have been mitigating circumstances for the actual death or death(s) involved.
Many of which clearly were not without precipitating circumstances or motivation, or were not clearly committed upon strangers or the public at large with clear premeditation ("aforethought") involved.
Expanding this ulimate penalty to include technically even many cases of second and third degree murder has resulted in more and more criminals now on death row to begin with and many of whom were convicted by juries which were not in any manner unbiased and independent due to slanted reporting and media coverages such as those that occur on programs such as Nancy Grace, who hardly can be called a journalist but is using her program more as a forum to continue her career as a prosecuting attorney using the national viewing audience as her juries and presenting spins and innuendos in many instances as fact for ratings for her bosses, the clearly commercial corporate media.
Left out is also the fact that there are other crimes now that were in the past misdemeanor offenses which have now been recategorized as felonies due also to pressure from victims groups and commercial interests.
Such as the low level DUIs throughout the country, which involve no property loss or damage, or injury but have escalated into jail sentences which have crowded then the misdemeanor local jails and facilities, and with punishments now that are so cruel and unusual and involving in many states level upon level of punishment, they in no manner reflect the common law provisions of our Constitution in having the punishment fit the crime.
There is even a move now to shift those that involve involuntary manslaughter to second degree murder charges simply due to the fact that the driver of the vehicle was "legally" intoxicated under those low level DUI provisions.
When many of those deaths that keep being brought out to manipulate the public sentiments by the insurance industry and MADD, which has become a temperance organization at its root, involve teens or new drivers where even inexperience or driver error on their part also factor in to some of those deaths, many of which occur late at night on the weekends.
Or during prom week.
As far as the self-interests of the state, it would make sense that an organization such as Fox, which promotes basically British style conservatism in global corporate profits and interests as also being part and parcel of the intent of our founders, which clearly were not hence the Boston Tea Party, would be promoting abolition of the death penalty also using cost/benefit ratios for the state kitties as their means and methods.
Since, after all, many states have also now privatized their local and state jails, and also the federal government has been making moves in this direction, in order to gain further tax revenues and also "create more jobs" in the private sector.
Most of those canteens in the local jails are also privatized at this point, and prior to arrest, of course, all monies of the detainee are seized in order to also feed those local jail canteens and their profit margins and budgets.
Many of which, not surprisingly, are owned by local sheriffs or other law enforcement personnel, in addition to local impound lots.
Which is also why more and more driving offenses are also calling for impoundment of vehicles in many states for non-moving violations even, such as failure to provide proofs of insurance or driver's licenses, even though that information can also be verified through all those newfangled computers most officers in metro cities now have in their vehicles, thanks to those stimulus monies given for the tech industries profits.
Which actually are in violation of the due process protections since no property of a citizens can be seized without a judicial order or warrant, or trial by jury especially since there are many in this country still who hold that due to the fact that even most major metropolitan areas public transportation systems are inadequate, at best, driving is a right and not a privilege at all.
In fact, with all the punishments now that are deemed also by the government attached to those driver's licenses also under the bogus implied consent laws, driving is actually becoming more and more a liability and not a privilege at all, especially due to the fact that the penalties for most minor offenses in this country are now exceeding those for criminal fraud, theft, and bodily injury.
It seems crime in America now is seen as a job and economic stimulus for both the government and those on Wall Street, since also many shares of those "services" and contractors providing both security and merchandise to those jails are listed on the global stock exchange.
The death penalty is clearly Constitutional, but the increase in costs has actually occurred, once again, due to both unlawful privatization by the states of our jails and also the corruption of our state legislatures, penal system and judiciary in not letting the punishments fit the crimes, in most instances, or statutorily ill defining or placing undue barriers on the jury or not sufficiently regulating those commercial media outlets in the name of "free speech" rather than protection of the rights of the accused to a fair and impartial trial by jury, and also affording this extreme option based on then emotion or public pressure from "foreign" sources in the national media pay cable networks.
And it is clear by the Fox spins once again, more profit can be made on those prisoners for state budgets and commercially for the now penal industrial complex, for life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Even for serial killers, murders and rapists without even the remotest possibility of rehabilitation based upon the circumstances and true factual evidence of the crimes themselves as premeditated, without any evidence of any mitigating factors or clear relationship to the victim, and in cold blood, it would appear.
And this, once again, just goes to prove that it is the almighty buck, and not justice, which has now become the focus at both the state, and federal level, and its global corporate policy maker bankers and media moguls.
The interests of justice, fundamental to this country's foundation, is nowhere in the reporting as taken from the reporter's position of state's interests, the actual position the states and this reporter are taking in the reporting itself, which is socialistic in nature, and contrary to the common law for heinous crimes such as first degree, premeditated murder as opposed to second degree (crimes of passion) or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter (auto accidents, accidental deaths).
Cut out the fat from all state's operating expenditures and budgets, and the clear Constitutional intent with respect to this punishment under the common law, and those costs would change if constrained to the intent of the founders based in the common law for such egregious criminal conduct committed by one citizen against another.
In this writer's view, It is not housing death row inmates that are breaking the state's budgets, or the cost of those appeals (which, granted, are also liberally given in some states even outside of evidence which was not heard in the original trials by those juries, or new evidence) but their unconstitutional focuses and budgetary expenditures most of all.
Which position it would appear meets or exceeds such a governmental position, based upon what is now occurring throughout the nation even after all that funny money was provided to those states in now the states increasing the tax burden on the citizens in concert with the federal government, the legal common law standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," for any such jury determined conviction in a capital criminal matter.
Such representations by the state(s) and state representatives appear to me to be along the lines of criminal fraud or consumer fraud against the public, in and of itself, without taking the obvious in just why most states are facing these budget crises year after year into account.
Could there be underlying motivations for this article, rather than "fair and balanced" reporting?
I mean "privatizing everything" does seem to be the British Conservative/Libertarian positions, which are just as extra-Constitutional as the far left winger socialists in assuming and expanding government power and functions outside Constitutional provision, whether federal or state without the consent of the governed per the 9th.
Which positions then are an unconstitutional transfer of governmental powers, also leaving the citizenry without recourse except then to the "state actor" public/private corporate interest at higher costs overall in increasing the backlog in our courts, and their costs, and then the increased costs for some of the contractual provisions even in those public/private partnerships that the taxpayers then have no knowledge of - and many of which extend from legislative session to legislative session, rather than annually to begin with, creating a snowballing effect of greater and greater budgetary deficits or federally in the overall deficits in the process, just as those trade agreements and peace treaties now run through successive Congressional sessions and even extend from Administration to Administration at this point.
Which is why the Obama Administration and 111th Congress is now holding the bag for all those Bush Administration and Congressional errors, as Bush ended up holding the bag for all those Clinton Administration and Congressional errors.
In a representative government, just how can all these treaties and governmental contracts extend longer than one year, so that the voices of the people can then truly be heard when they become aware of some of these egregious Constitutional violations which for the most part occur after the fact due to more and more closed door sessions and bargaining between these two mainstream politicay parties, such as with this latest travesty, the health care sector stimulus?
I'll let the reader decide, based upon the "fair and balanced" reporting of not simply Fox, but the "corporate" commercially owned mainstream media in general at this point - print, cable and internet for that ad revenue and their bottom line corporate profits also most of all, along with some of the individual state legislators whose job it appears most simply do not even begin to understand.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-budgets/
Today a Fox media article reported such a position with respect to the costs of executing a death row inmate which is straining a great many state budgets, apparently.
However, nowhere in this article, as with so many which are now appearing, has it been pointed out that most of these states would not be facing budgetary crises at all if they also simply constrained themselves to collecting taxation and distributing it first and foremost to provide funding for those legal duties with which they are charged under their state constitutions.
In other words, no matter how much money the states seem to receive from their state citizens in all the levels of taxation also that are in concert with the federal government, it never seems to be enough simply because progressively all states throughout the nation have provided freebies and gimmees also to their selected sovereign subjects at the cost of the state citizenry.
In discretionary expenditures more and more, while then screaming poverty when it comes to providing funding for the public duties and functions which they ARE actually responsible for.
Such is the case with this scenario, it appears to me, along with other more capitalist and selfish motivations.
Yes, death penalty cases are costly due to the number of appeals that are available and accorded most death row inmates.
And unfortunately, the option of the death penalty due to lobbying efforts of various victims groups have expanded even the applicability of that punishment for crimes in which there are or may have been mitigating circumstances for the actual death or death(s) involved.
Many of which clearly were not without precipitating circumstances or motivation, or were not clearly committed upon strangers or the public at large with clear premeditation ("aforethought") involved.
Expanding this ulimate penalty to include technically even many cases of second and third degree murder has resulted in more and more criminals now on death row to begin with and many of whom were convicted by juries which were not in any manner unbiased and independent due to slanted reporting and media coverages such as those that occur on programs such as Nancy Grace, who hardly can be called a journalist but is using her program more as a forum to continue her career as a prosecuting attorney using the national viewing audience as her juries and presenting spins and innuendos in many instances as fact for ratings for her bosses, the clearly commercial corporate media.
Left out is also the fact that there are other crimes now that were in the past misdemeanor offenses which have now been recategorized as felonies due also to pressure from victims groups and commercial interests.
Such as the low level DUIs throughout the country, which involve no property loss or damage, or injury but have escalated into jail sentences which have crowded then the misdemeanor local jails and facilities, and with punishments now that are so cruel and unusual and involving in many states level upon level of punishment, they in no manner reflect the common law provisions of our Constitution in having the punishment fit the crime.
There is even a move now to shift those that involve involuntary manslaughter to second degree murder charges simply due to the fact that the driver of the vehicle was "legally" intoxicated under those low level DUI provisions.
When many of those deaths that keep being brought out to manipulate the public sentiments by the insurance industry and MADD, which has become a temperance organization at its root, involve teens or new drivers where even inexperience or driver error on their part also factor in to some of those deaths, many of which occur late at night on the weekends.
Or during prom week.
As far as the self-interests of the state, it would make sense that an organization such as Fox, which promotes basically British style conservatism in global corporate profits and interests as also being part and parcel of the intent of our founders, which clearly were not hence the Boston Tea Party, would be promoting abolition of the death penalty also using cost/benefit ratios for the state kitties as their means and methods.
Since, after all, many states have also now privatized their local and state jails, and also the federal government has been making moves in this direction, in order to gain further tax revenues and also "create more jobs" in the private sector.
Most of those canteens in the local jails are also privatized at this point, and prior to arrest, of course, all monies of the detainee are seized in order to also feed those local jail canteens and their profit margins and budgets.
Many of which, not surprisingly, are owned by local sheriffs or other law enforcement personnel, in addition to local impound lots.
Which is also why more and more driving offenses are also calling for impoundment of vehicles in many states for non-moving violations even, such as failure to provide proofs of insurance or driver's licenses, even though that information can also be verified through all those newfangled computers most officers in metro cities now have in their vehicles, thanks to those stimulus monies given for the tech industries profits.
Which actually are in violation of the due process protections since no property of a citizens can be seized without a judicial order or warrant, or trial by jury especially since there are many in this country still who hold that due to the fact that even most major metropolitan areas public transportation systems are inadequate, at best, driving is a right and not a privilege at all.
In fact, with all the punishments now that are deemed also by the government attached to those driver's licenses also under the bogus implied consent laws, driving is actually becoming more and more a liability and not a privilege at all, especially due to the fact that the penalties for most minor offenses in this country are now exceeding those for criminal fraud, theft, and bodily injury.
It seems crime in America now is seen as a job and economic stimulus for both the government and those on Wall Street, since also many shares of those "services" and contractors providing both security and merchandise to those jails are listed on the global stock exchange.
The death penalty is clearly Constitutional, but the increase in costs has actually occurred, once again, due to both unlawful privatization by the states of our jails and also the corruption of our state legislatures, penal system and judiciary in not letting the punishments fit the crimes, in most instances, or statutorily ill defining or placing undue barriers on the jury or not sufficiently regulating those commercial media outlets in the name of "free speech" rather than protection of the rights of the accused to a fair and impartial trial by jury, and also affording this extreme option based on then emotion or public pressure from "foreign" sources in the national media pay cable networks.
And it is clear by the Fox spins once again, more profit can be made on those prisoners for state budgets and commercially for the now penal industrial complex, for life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Even for serial killers, murders and rapists without even the remotest possibility of rehabilitation based upon the circumstances and true factual evidence of the crimes themselves as premeditated, without any evidence of any mitigating factors or clear relationship to the victim, and in cold blood, it would appear.
And this, once again, just goes to prove that it is the almighty buck, and not justice, which has now become the focus at both the state, and federal level, and its global corporate policy maker bankers and media moguls.
The interests of justice, fundamental to this country's foundation, is nowhere in the reporting as taken from the reporter's position of state's interests, the actual position the states and this reporter are taking in the reporting itself, which is socialistic in nature, and contrary to the common law for heinous crimes such as first degree, premeditated murder as opposed to second degree (crimes of passion) or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter (auto accidents, accidental deaths).
Cut out the fat from all state's operating expenditures and budgets, and the clear Constitutional intent with respect to this punishment under the common law, and those costs would change if constrained to the intent of the founders based in the common law for such egregious criminal conduct committed by one citizen against another.
In this writer's view, It is not housing death row inmates that are breaking the state's budgets, or the cost of those appeals (which, granted, are also liberally given in some states even outside of evidence which was not heard in the original trials by those juries, or new evidence) but their unconstitutional focuses and budgetary expenditures most of all.
Which position it would appear meets or exceeds such a governmental position, based upon what is now occurring throughout the nation even after all that funny money was provided to those states in now the states increasing the tax burden on the citizens in concert with the federal government, the legal common law standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," for any such jury determined conviction in a capital criminal matter.
Such representations by the state(s) and state representatives appear to me to be along the lines of criminal fraud or consumer fraud against the public, in and of itself, without taking the obvious in just why most states are facing these budget crises year after year into account.
Could there be underlying motivations for this article, rather than "fair and balanced" reporting?
I mean "privatizing everything" does seem to be the British Conservative/Libertarian positions, which are just as extra-Constitutional as the far left winger socialists in assuming and expanding government power and functions outside Constitutional provision, whether federal or state without the consent of the governed per the 9th.
Which positions then are an unconstitutional transfer of governmental powers, also leaving the citizenry without recourse except then to the "state actor" public/private corporate interest at higher costs overall in increasing the backlog in our courts, and their costs, and then the increased costs for some of the contractual provisions even in those public/private partnerships that the taxpayers then have no knowledge of - and many of which extend from legislative session to legislative session, rather than annually to begin with, creating a snowballing effect of greater and greater budgetary deficits or federally in the overall deficits in the process, just as those trade agreements and peace treaties now run through successive Congressional sessions and even extend from Administration to Administration at this point.
Which is why the Obama Administration and 111th Congress is now holding the bag for all those Bush Administration and Congressional errors, as Bush ended up holding the bag for all those Clinton Administration and Congressional errors.
In a representative government, just how can all these treaties and governmental contracts extend longer than one year, so that the voices of the people can then truly be heard when they become aware of some of these egregious Constitutional violations which for the most part occur after the fact due to more and more closed door sessions and bargaining between these two mainstream politicay parties, such as with this latest travesty, the health care sector stimulus?
I'll let the reader decide, based upon the "fair and balanced" reporting of not simply Fox, but the "corporate" commercially owned mainstream media in general at this point - print, cable and internet for that ad revenue and their bottom line corporate profits also most of all, along with some of the individual state legislators whose job it appears most simply do not even begin to understand.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-budgets/
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Palin, McCain Court The Baggers
Apparently, Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain made several appearances this past weekend in the Southwest appealing to the labeled "tea baggers" for next fall's election for the Republican Party.
It has been interesting how the media continues to paint this group, which had its beginnings as a grass roots organization of citizens who had become increasingly dissatisfied with the Bush Administration and its big government, big spending programs, and continuation of the War in Iraq for political purposes, rather than as a redress of 9-11.
And also many who were outraged when the McCain-Kennedy 2006 attempts once again to legalize the illegal Mexicans in this country, especially, was being promoted by Bush and sponsored by Senator McCain prior to his run for the presidential office.
The tea baggers at this point, however, appear to have been taken over by the Fox brand, and its more British style of conservatism in a great many of its Fox supporters such as Glenn Beck and Ms. Palin.
Since the Boston Tea Party, upon which the name for this group has been attached by both political parties, was not simply about taxation but was also about global corporate interests that were compromising both America's sovereignty, and also having an undue influence with the King of Great Britain that was negatively impacting the lives and even choices of those first patriots.
Little has been said that many in this group while outraged at the continuing interference of the federal government in matters best left to the states, and also in violation of the Bill of Rights which was secured for the citizenry in order to keep the federal government from having any significant impact on the citizens daily lives, have been rather silent insofar as the merging of our economy with all of Europe, and even China, progressively which is also what has adversely impacted this nation and, if truth be told, also what has lead to a great many of these terrorism attacks.
Not simply religious differences of those radical Muslims, but also our support for Israel, whether right or wrong, and continued economic and military support for literally decades now after World War II.
When to many in this country, it is clearly time to cut the apron strings with Israel since they now have a standard of living that far exceeds that of the United States thanks to all that foreign aid we have given them without repayment, and also their own nuclear capabilities which were developed during the Johnson Administration so many years ago doesn't exactly leave them defenseless.
And let Britain now shoulder the burden as having entered into the original accord and being the major player in Israel's inception based on an agreement that was entered into even prior to World War I.
America is hurting, and was attacked in the most egregious breach of national security since World War II almost nine long years ago, and it doesn't appear any Israeli fighters are assisting this country in either Iraq or Afghanistan from any public announcements from either the U.S. or Israel.
As far as this boomer, it is interesting as a true Conservative that prior to the amalgamization of our economy with the rest of the world's, there weren't these terrorism attacks at all.
In fact, when there were limited ports of entry for international flights, and true border security with the federal government doing their job also in deporting any and all that were here illegally as soon as the local authorities in most of those border states picked them up or discovered their immigration status, those attempts on American lives were zilch with the exception of the Americans which were detained and jailed while traveling to other nations.
Or offered assylum to so many of those who have been displaced in all these continuing wars such as Viet Nam, Bosnia, and now Iraq, who will continue to have ties to their home countries and mixed feelings, I'm sure, about this country due to even their reasons for being here.
Before foreigners owned our airlines, and even now our nuclear reactors, shares of which are now sold over the global exchange, and these progressive interventionist wars since World War II initiated mostly by the Democrats in the past, but now by both of the political parties which have hijacked our government also progressively, America's economy boomed as the leader in the industrialized world.
In other words, privatizing governmental functions in this world government U.N. dominated scenario, or affording foreign investment in America's vital infrastructure progressively for those Wall Street wheeler dealers and European bankers, is costing untold thousands of American lives at this point - in both jobs, and as with our open borders now even nine years after 9-11, American lives.
Or affording more and more global corporate interests to compete with American domestic ones without regulation or restraint, such as AIG, and all those European banks and foreign governments that are allowed to invest in some of America's vital industries, for good or ill.
Mr. McCain still supports legalizing those who have crossed our borders illegally enmass from all reports, and also leaving those borders open for the benefit mostly of those global and domestic national corporations and campaign backers, and Ms. Palin has not taken a definitive stand on where she also stands on that border fencing under the Secure Fence Act - especially now that Ms. Napolitano has once again withheld funding for any further border fencing until a "cost/benefit" analysis is once again done.
Not simply getting that low cost physical barrier finished across those five hundred miles of open desert, and reinstituting the procedures that were used when I was growing up in Phoenix prior to the first Reagan amnesty, which actually is what has lead to what is occurring today and the number which continues to grow daily, weekly and monthly.
In a bad American economy, that tax free foreign labor is actually more attractive, not less so, all reports to the contrary by the mainstream media - many of whom are heavily invested also in some of those industries which import or contract with both the Far Easterners in the tech field, and those construction workers from Mexico.
Has anyone noticed how many foreign doctors are now practicing in most of the hospitals throughout the country, if you or a relative have been in the hospital recently?
Especially those huge multi-state health care networks and chains, and even some of America's larger teaching hospitals, which doctors are actually being paid by the American taxpayers while they are being charged for their services when hospitalized.
Strange, that in all that health care deform debate and legislation, the fact that taxpayer sums in the billions have supported those hospitals and health care networks progressively, yet no tax credits or legislation precluding any future "gimmes" to those instiututions, or restrictions on their hiring practices of many of those foreign doctors and the thousands American medical students have paid for their educations outside sometimes even of loans or federal grants, was even contemplated.
Since even foreigners are now eligible for federal grant monies for their higher educations now in this country at the American public's expense.
With that Reagan's amnesty, there also was little attempt, outside of El Paso and San Diego, to truly secure our southern borders in any manner whatsoever.
It would appear to me that once again, as with the last presidential election, campaign promises are being made to some pretty desperate people at this point without any true foundation in some of those positions from either the last presidential election, or even stated positions and votes.
But doesn't appear most of them, at least those that are true Conservatives, will be fooled once again - with the exception now of those "corporate" tea baggers which have infilitrated due to those corporate Fox connections - who see the movement once again for political purposes and ratings, that is quite clear, again, to most true American (not British) Conservatives.
You see, small businesses and free trade domestically is one thing.
But huge global and corporate interests undermining the American domestic security and economy, and American way of life similar to that British East India Company which can be likened actually to the AIG of today, is something else entirely.
And taxing Americans on both their labor, and then also on every single thing they then purchase with what is left from that labor, and even now criminalizing and fining Americans for not purchasing those global corporate scammers products, has raised the hackles of not simply those "baggers," but Americans across the political spectrum.
Except, of course, those that will profit once again in the tech and medical/industrial complex which costs ultimately will far exceed now even the costs that have progressively bankrupted many an American due to also frivolous wars on behalf of foreign nations since World War II, and those open borders in the border states whose costs for the life, health and auto insurance right now have stripped many of their homes, and jobs.
And it is the boomers most of all that are being sacraficed for the "greater good," by a young President and a Congress, many of whom have been progressively a part of this global agenda for literally decades and some new kids on the Beltway block, that cannot see the forest for the trees.
Or even some of those corporate commercial baggers from the true Conservative patriots.
It has been interesting how the media continues to paint this group, which had its beginnings as a grass roots organization of citizens who had become increasingly dissatisfied with the Bush Administration and its big government, big spending programs, and continuation of the War in Iraq for political purposes, rather than as a redress of 9-11.
And also many who were outraged when the McCain-Kennedy 2006 attempts once again to legalize the illegal Mexicans in this country, especially, was being promoted by Bush and sponsored by Senator McCain prior to his run for the presidential office.
The tea baggers at this point, however, appear to have been taken over by the Fox brand, and its more British style of conservatism in a great many of its Fox supporters such as Glenn Beck and Ms. Palin.
Since the Boston Tea Party, upon which the name for this group has been attached by both political parties, was not simply about taxation but was also about global corporate interests that were compromising both America's sovereignty, and also having an undue influence with the King of Great Britain that was negatively impacting the lives and even choices of those first patriots.
Little has been said that many in this group while outraged at the continuing interference of the federal government in matters best left to the states, and also in violation of the Bill of Rights which was secured for the citizenry in order to keep the federal government from having any significant impact on the citizens daily lives, have been rather silent insofar as the merging of our economy with all of Europe, and even China, progressively which is also what has adversely impacted this nation and, if truth be told, also what has lead to a great many of these terrorism attacks.
Not simply religious differences of those radical Muslims, but also our support for Israel, whether right or wrong, and continued economic and military support for literally decades now after World War II.
When to many in this country, it is clearly time to cut the apron strings with Israel since they now have a standard of living that far exceeds that of the United States thanks to all that foreign aid we have given them without repayment, and also their own nuclear capabilities which were developed during the Johnson Administration so many years ago doesn't exactly leave them defenseless.
And let Britain now shoulder the burden as having entered into the original accord and being the major player in Israel's inception based on an agreement that was entered into even prior to World War I.
America is hurting, and was attacked in the most egregious breach of national security since World War II almost nine long years ago, and it doesn't appear any Israeli fighters are assisting this country in either Iraq or Afghanistan from any public announcements from either the U.S. or Israel.
As far as this boomer, it is interesting as a true Conservative that prior to the amalgamization of our economy with the rest of the world's, there weren't these terrorism attacks at all.
In fact, when there were limited ports of entry for international flights, and true border security with the federal government doing their job also in deporting any and all that were here illegally as soon as the local authorities in most of those border states picked them up or discovered their immigration status, those attempts on American lives were zilch with the exception of the Americans which were detained and jailed while traveling to other nations.
Or offered assylum to so many of those who have been displaced in all these continuing wars such as Viet Nam, Bosnia, and now Iraq, who will continue to have ties to their home countries and mixed feelings, I'm sure, about this country due to even their reasons for being here.
Before foreigners owned our airlines, and even now our nuclear reactors, shares of which are now sold over the global exchange, and these progressive interventionist wars since World War II initiated mostly by the Democrats in the past, but now by both of the political parties which have hijacked our government also progressively, America's economy boomed as the leader in the industrialized world.
In other words, privatizing governmental functions in this world government U.N. dominated scenario, or affording foreign investment in America's vital infrastructure progressively for those Wall Street wheeler dealers and European bankers, is costing untold thousands of American lives at this point - in both jobs, and as with our open borders now even nine years after 9-11, American lives.
Or affording more and more global corporate interests to compete with American domestic ones without regulation or restraint, such as AIG, and all those European banks and foreign governments that are allowed to invest in some of America's vital industries, for good or ill.
Mr. McCain still supports legalizing those who have crossed our borders illegally enmass from all reports, and also leaving those borders open for the benefit mostly of those global and domestic national corporations and campaign backers, and Ms. Palin has not taken a definitive stand on where she also stands on that border fencing under the Secure Fence Act - especially now that Ms. Napolitano has once again withheld funding for any further border fencing until a "cost/benefit" analysis is once again done.
Not simply getting that low cost physical barrier finished across those five hundred miles of open desert, and reinstituting the procedures that were used when I was growing up in Phoenix prior to the first Reagan amnesty, which actually is what has lead to what is occurring today and the number which continues to grow daily, weekly and monthly.
In a bad American economy, that tax free foreign labor is actually more attractive, not less so, all reports to the contrary by the mainstream media - many of whom are heavily invested also in some of those industries which import or contract with both the Far Easterners in the tech field, and those construction workers from Mexico.
Has anyone noticed how many foreign doctors are now practicing in most of the hospitals throughout the country, if you or a relative have been in the hospital recently?
Especially those huge multi-state health care networks and chains, and even some of America's larger teaching hospitals, which doctors are actually being paid by the American taxpayers while they are being charged for their services when hospitalized.
Strange, that in all that health care deform debate and legislation, the fact that taxpayer sums in the billions have supported those hospitals and health care networks progressively, yet no tax credits or legislation precluding any future "gimmes" to those instiututions, or restrictions on their hiring practices of many of those foreign doctors and the thousands American medical students have paid for their educations outside sometimes even of loans or federal grants, was even contemplated.
Since even foreigners are now eligible for federal grant monies for their higher educations now in this country at the American public's expense.
With that Reagan's amnesty, there also was little attempt, outside of El Paso and San Diego, to truly secure our southern borders in any manner whatsoever.
It would appear to me that once again, as with the last presidential election, campaign promises are being made to some pretty desperate people at this point without any true foundation in some of those positions from either the last presidential election, or even stated positions and votes.
But doesn't appear most of them, at least those that are true Conservatives, will be fooled once again - with the exception now of those "corporate" tea baggers which have infilitrated due to those corporate Fox connections - who see the movement once again for political purposes and ratings, that is quite clear, again, to most true American (not British) Conservatives.
You see, small businesses and free trade domestically is one thing.
But huge global and corporate interests undermining the American domestic security and economy, and American way of life similar to that British East India Company which can be likened actually to the AIG of today, is something else entirely.
And taxing Americans on both their labor, and then also on every single thing they then purchase with what is left from that labor, and even now criminalizing and fining Americans for not purchasing those global corporate scammers products, has raised the hackles of not simply those "baggers," but Americans across the political spectrum.
Except, of course, those that will profit once again in the tech and medical/industrial complex which costs ultimately will far exceed now even the costs that have progressively bankrupted many an American due to also frivolous wars on behalf of foreign nations since World War II, and those open borders in the border states whose costs for the life, health and auto insurance right now have stripped many of their homes, and jobs.
And it is the boomers most of all that are being sacraficed for the "greater good," by a young President and a Congress, many of whom have been progressively a part of this global agenda for literally decades and some new kids on the Beltway block, that cannot see the forest for the trees.
Or even some of those corporate commercial baggers from the true Conservative patriots.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Is ObamaCare Really Law?
With all the fallout which has occurred since Sunday and the Health Care Deform legislation supposedly signed into law by Barack Obama on Tuesday, and with the two mainstream political parties attempting to continue to milk this egregious legislation for their future political purposes for all it is worth, the fact that this law may not be law at all has failed to get any significant press in any of the mainstream news sources, or even those talking heads on national television whether affiliated with Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. organization (Fox), Turner television or GE controlled sources.
In the educated opinion of this writer, all theatrics and representations to the contrary, I would state this Act of Congress is questionably law at all, whether or not Mr. Obama has signed it, or whether or not these bogus Congressionally created "procedures" such as "reconciliation" (whatever that is) were followed to the letter.
Since any "law" passed that doesn't have a Constitutional foundation at its outset, or in any of its provisions, is really no law at all.
And Executive Orders, as most educated Americans also know, do not also carry the force of law, they are simply directives of the President to the Executive office employees and regulatory agencies which are not immuned also from Constitutional provisions with respect to validity or legality.
Using Executive Orders to legitimate illegitimate legislation is also something that is increasing with each "progresssive" Administration.
This has been the new game on the Hill consistently for about the past 50 years.
Pass an unconstitutional law, get it signed and announced as legitimate using national news sources, and then use it in the future also for political partisan fodder and for election purposes when those budgets come through from the regulatory offices then charged with enforcing these "nonlaws" in the Appropriations Committee.
Such as also all these Fusion Centers being funded under the Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, which continues to be funded through the Appropriations Committee, but which has not been passed by one branch of Congress, nor even signed by the Executive since it also clearly in a great many of its provisions targeting the American citizens is fundamentally unconstitutional.
While then also using federal mandates then to also hold the states hostage to some of these mandates, and then in shifting the burden for execution of these NonActs to the states, leaving them then liable for the outfall and lawsuits which then subsequently ensue.
Or if not using the states to execute these mandates under threats of removal of funding for Constitutional functions, using the Supreme Court instead to use legalese such as "public policy" and "state's interests", and the newest one, holding with a "living Constitution" in order to also attempt to legalize laws which have absolutely no Constitutional foundation whatsoever.
Below is the actual proof that such is the case, and with those mandatory fines still included in this bill in its present form, when it is even questionable the federal government had any inherent right to wade into these waters absent using that Commerce Clause to do its actual job, regulate those national and global health care industry vipers and also hold them accountable for unexplained increases in their rates and terms rather than throwing the citizenry to the wolves once again without oversight.
From the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions including recognizing the needed consent of the people and the states per the 9th and 10th for all matters outside federal authority for any future amendments to it, is the defacto law of the land, and a contract between the federal government, state government and the people.
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
In the educated opinion of this writer, all theatrics and representations to the contrary, I would state this Act of Congress is questionably law at all, whether or not Mr. Obama has signed it, or whether or not these bogus Congressionally created "procedures" such as "reconciliation" (whatever that is) were followed to the letter.
Since any "law" passed that doesn't have a Constitutional foundation at its outset, or in any of its provisions, is really no law at all.
And Executive Orders, as most educated Americans also know, do not also carry the force of law, they are simply directives of the President to the Executive office employees and regulatory agencies which are not immuned also from Constitutional provisions with respect to validity or legality.
Using Executive Orders to legitimate illegitimate legislation is also something that is increasing with each "progresssive" Administration.
This has been the new game on the Hill consistently for about the past 50 years.
Pass an unconstitutional law, get it signed and announced as legitimate using national news sources, and then use it in the future also for political partisan fodder and for election purposes when those budgets come through from the regulatory offices then charged with enforcing these "nonlaws" in the Appropriations Committee.
Such as also all these Fusion Centers being funded under the Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, which continues to be funded through the Appropriations Committee, but which has not been passed by one branch of Congress, nor even signed by the Executive since it also clearly in a great many of its provisions targeting the American citizens is fundamentally unconstitutional.
While then also using federal mandates then to also hold the states hostage to some of these mandates, and then in shifting the burden for execution of these NonActs to the states, leaving them then liable for the outfall and lawsuits which then subsequently ensue.
Or if not using the states to execute these mandates under threats of removal of funding for Constitutional functions, using the Supreme Court instead to use legalese such as "public policy" and "state's interests", and the newest one, holding with a "living Constitution" in order to also attempt to legalize laws which have absolutely no Constitutional foundation whatsoever.
Below is the actual proof that such is the case, and with those mandatory fines still included in this bill in its present form, when it is even questionable the federal government had any inherent right to wade into these waters absent using that Commerce Clause to do its actual job, regulate those national and global health care industry vipers and also hold them accountable for unexplained increases in their rates and terms rather than throwing the citizenry to the wolves once again without oversight.
From the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions including recognizing the needed consent of the people and the states per the 9th and 10th for all matters outside federal authority for any future amendments to it, is the defacto law of the land, and a contract between the federal government, state government and the people.
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Californication: Pelosi and Comrades Announcement Untrue
In the largest display of in- your- face legislation, even more so than the bank bailouts, GM assumption, and Scam & Trade, the House of Misrepresentatives, at the witching hour of 10:49 EST, passed the largest tax increase for all Americans since FDR.
And gave themselves a standing ovation for their efforts.
Nancy Pelosi, that Californicator, hogged center stage for most of the action on Sunday, along with her comrade-in-arms, Mr. Waxman (of the bow-tie).
Ms. Pelosi's final speech diverting and directing attention of what a massive Constitutional violation much of the language contained in this "stimulus" bill for the health care sector to women was just too incredible to believe for this female boomer.
Using women in order to gain future votes, it appears, as the savior of womankind stating that "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition?"
Please, Nancy.
Just where in that legislation is there equality or any price controls on those new "health care internet shopping malls" that are going to create new jobs, especially since there is little, if any, regulation of commercial entities on the net at the present time?
Where is it stated that women will not be charged higher rates than men of the same age, living in the same states, with the same risk factors - since at the present time, women are charged higher rates for riders for those that have a history of breast cancer, or for maternity coverage and thus those additional riders that would be again required and those higher costs also do not appear to have been addressed anywhere in this legislation.
Sure, women can't be denied coverage, just as men cannot be denied coverage, but with no price controls over just how these insurers now can "package" these plans, exactly how has this legislation helped the American public in any manner whatsoever, be it men or women?
And with all the state challenges that are now going to be initiated so that those states can now play their part in this fiasco and save face for individual Governors and legislators at the state level, how much are these now challenges that will eventually wind their way up to the Supreme Court so that it, too, can use some politically based bias to legitimate this unconstitutional legislation going to now cost the American people - both at the state and federal levels for these cases (for the legal professions benefits most of all, at the American public's expense for those legal fees and state budgets that will now be affected).
This skewed legislation seems to be a job stimulus most of all for those comrades-in-arms since there is enough garbage in this legislation to provide fodder for the legal profession for decades to come, with all the massive legalese and pages to this legislation, and loopholes.
Were those costs factored into the projections?
It wouldn't appear so.
Congratulations, Ms. Pelosi.
You've screwed single mothers, and the rest of American womanhood in this generation.
And for generations to come.
Since, of course, women do still only make about two thirds of what men make for the same occupations (with the exception of federal legislators, that is, or select other governmental positions), they will be paying a heavier burden for this stimulus for the global financial sector, world bankers and gadget industry also progressively as these "packages" and "shopping malls" become reality based upon their lower salaries and percent of income, and childbearing and cancer risk factors for a substantial number of women in this country.
Mark my words.
I mean the FTC thus far has been ineffective in preventing much internet scamming or assisting citizens who are sold down the river by misrepresented commercial websites at this point at the present time, while Washington continues to feed the out of control gadget sector, and venture capitalists from your home state, along with those rip-off bankers affiliated with the Fed and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
You know, the ones whose creative marketing even went so far as to be selling loans not even based on the U.S. currency to many, many thousands of American citizens throughout the west and Southwest which primarily led to the mortgage and foreclosure disaster which is still occurring today.
And now this.
Way to go, Nancy,
Thanks so much for your care and concern, on behalf of women everywhere across the political spectrum.
Not.
And gave themselves a standing ovation for their efforts.
Nancy Pelosi, that Californicator, hogged center stage for most of the action on Sunday, along with her comrade-in-arms, Mr. Waxman (of the bow-tie).
Ms. Pelosi's final speech diverting and directing attention of what a massive Constitutional violation much of the language contained in this "stimulus" bill for the health care sector to women was just too incredible to believe for this female boomer.
Using women in order to gain future votes, it appears, as the savior of womankind stating that "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition?"
Please, Nancy.
Just where in that legislation is there equality or any price controls on those new "health care internet shopping malls" that are going to create new jobs, especially since there is little, if any, regulation of commercial entities on the net at the present time?
Where is it stated that women will not be charged higher rates than men of the same age, living in the same states, with the same risk factors - since at the present time, women are charged higher rates for riders for those that have a history of breast cancer, or for maternity coverage and thus those additional riders that would be again required and those higher costs also do not appear to have been addressed anywhere in this legislation.
Sure, women can't be denied coverage, just as men cannot be denied coverage, but with no price controls over just how these insurers now can "package" these plans, exactly how has this legislation helped the American public in any manner whatsoever, be it men or women?
And with all the state challenges that are now going to be initiated so that those states can now play their part in this fiasco and save face for individual Governors and legislators at the state level, how much are these now challenges that will eventually wind their way up to the Supreme Court so that it, too, can use some politically based bias to legitimate this unconstitutional legislation going to now cost the American people - both at the state and federal levels for these cases (for the legal professions benefits most of all, at the American public's expense for those legal fees and state budgets that will now be affected).
This skewed legislation seems to be a job stimulus most of all for those comrades-in-arms since there is enough garbage in this legislation to provide fodder for the legal profession for decades to come, with all the massive legalese and pages to this legislation, and loopholes.
Were those costs factored into the projections?
It wouldn't appear so.
Congratulations, Ms. Pelosi.
You've screwed single mothers, and the rest of American womanhood in this generation.
And for generations to come.
Since, of course, women do still only make about two thirds of what men make for the same occupations (with the exception of federal legislators, that is, or select other governmental positions), they will be paying a heavier burden for this stimulus for the global financial sector, world bankers and gadget industry also progressively as these "packages" and "shopping malls" become reality based upon their lower salaries and percent of income, and childbearing and cancer risk factors for a substantial number of women in this country.
Mark my words.
I mean the FTC thus far has been ineffective in preventing much internet scamming or assisting citizens who are sold down the river by misrepresented commercial websites at this point at the present time, while Washington continues to feed the out of control gadget sector, and venture capitalists from your home state, along with those rip-off bankers affiliated with the Fed and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
You know, the ones whose creative marketing even went so far as to be selling loans not even based on the U.S. currency to many, many thousands of American citizens throughout the west and Southwest which primarily led to the mortgage and foreclosure disaster which is still occurring today.
And now this.
Way to go, Nancy,
Thanks so much for your care and concern, on behalf of women everywhere across the political spectrum.
Not.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Spin, Deflect, Distract: Health Care Deformers Pull Out All The Stops
As the witching hour approaches on the health care deform measures that are not at all being legislated at the will or desire of the majority of the American people in its current form (without any regulation over the health care industry and sector, but rather backdoor additional taxation on all Americans in one form or another), the distract, deflect and spins cycles are getting wider and deeper, and the wagons are circling.
It was reported by FOXNews (that "fair and balanced" mainstream commercial news organization) that two Black legislators (or African American in this era's venacular, but a different label was preferred up until about 15 years ago when hyphenated descriptives for Americans using countries of origins hadn't yet come into vogue, although I don't call myself a "European American") were harassed by protestors in Washington who hurled some politically incorrect verbiage as they were walking to the House floor for a vote.
Now, I would not say that the word of most Congressional members at this point is something that approximately 85% of the American people would put any stock in whatsoever. And it doesn't appear there were any unbiased eyewitnesses to this occurrence.
Seems we use the race card more and more indiscriminantly, especially when it comes to contentious legislation, and public policy rather than Constitutional provision.
Much was made by one of the legislators likening the abuse he apparently was subjected to as similar to that which he experienced as a protestor during the civil rights movement.
It is strange that what is ocurring right now in this country both over the border issue and illegal immigrant "rights," the swine flu "outbreak" and now this health care deform harkened back to the 60's and 70's.
Only the stakes are getting progressively higher, without any Constitutional basis for them actually whatsoever, so this is not progressive at all - it is actually regressive.
Regressing into a monarchial style of government even those federalists would be apalled over.
It seems history does repeat itself, but this analogy was actually too much for this 60's boomer, since what is occurring now has nothing to do with equal rights of all AMERICANS in employment and educational opportunities most of all, but a backdoor taxation on the public, many of whom are jobless and homeless at this point in the worst recession this country has seen since the Depression, also manipulated by this past Administration and Congress, and this new/old one, since it appears the agendas of the Bush Administration with respect to the war, illegal immigrants, etc., is steaming right along at the behest of the true power beneath the dome, the financial sector and globalist world bankers.
The two party system is what is broken here, and using such political tools and weapons against the masses who are justifiably upset that it was the "stakeholders" that were consulted on this legislation, and the people's true outrage at the escalating costs of health care, and "corporatization" of it since Nixon which has resulted in even lowered birth survival rates with stories such as this one just goes to show the bag of tricks of those Misrepresentatives on the Hill knows no bounds.
A comment was also made with respect to the analogy that one of these Congressmen had never heard of "freedom for the uninsured" or a campaign against MediCare. Say what?
Such a statement is truly incredible the total bending of the Constitution in order to justify somehow the unjustifiable.
I have news for this Congressman also as one of those boomers, Medicare had more than its share of detractors for just such reason as are being brought forth in this new legislation.
There was absolutely no regulation included over the health care providers that were to be the recipients of those backdoor taxes insofar as provision of care. And in fact, there are more and more doctors now refusing to take new Medicare patients for just such reason, lots of paperwork and dictating actually also just what level of treatment is even covered, since alternative treatments which even may be cheaper or less invasive are not MediCare friendly, and most of those benefits get eaten up by the time all those numerous referrals are done simply to get a diagnosis on most elder care - and that would also appear to be behind this new legislation also.
MediCare is broken also, due to its restrictive nature on the types of treatments which are even available, some of whice are lower than those which MediCare does cover. Such as degenerative spinal disorders or other bone and joint problems which are frequently the case for older Americans, which can be treated outside surgical procedures.
Paring down in this legislation also MediCare benefits, forcing more and more of those upcoming boomer retirees to purchase additional insurance just to even have catastrophic health care from those supplemental providers seems to also be part of this disasterous feeding of Wall Street once again on the backs of the American people now for their very lives and health.
But to use the "race" card once again, is getting so, so old to many Americans. Especially connected to legislation such as this.
And also the untruthful statement with respect to those objecting, since it does seem that those who have a problem with this legislation in its current form, and see it for really what it actually is, cross all races and political philosphies.
And if being held accountable by your constituents, the American people no matter what the color, is similar to the walk to Selma, I guess that oath of office meant to hold accountable all civil servants just might not have been clearly understood.
All those free lunches aside mean you are not Joe Private Citizen any longer, but servants of the people, and the people are speaking loud and clear, and they are the ones doing the protesting this time for their very lives.
But FOX and these two Congressmen certainly know how to sensationalize, since this little incident became net news instanteously in attempts to place another sensationalized story and issue in order to shift the focus, once again, which seems to be also the MO on contentious debate and ratings generators for these media moguls who are also part and parcel of the ever increasing garbage coming out of Washington.
And as more than a few Americans have asked, just wonder where both these Congressman can quote that the federal government has any authority whatsoever to give "privileges and immunities" to one segment of the population corporately over another, and mandate that Americans must buy a "product," which health insurance is since it is "commercial."
Very commercial, actually, and very lucrative for all the lawyers, lobbyists, legislators, and looters, such as AIG, where their true job and function is to be regulators of commercial corporate entities (national and global ones particularly, with the states to regulate those commercial corporations operating within strictly state borders under the separation of powers contained in that Constitution as also the intent of the founders for a republican government).
I mean, doesn't this simply mean that Congress is more like a marketing department for the health care industry and their profits, or Wall Street PR men, rather than representatives of the people and their representatives and employees increasingly rather than those living within their legislative districts, their true constituents?
I wonder if these two Congressmen hold any health care sector stocks?
Since it appears to me that this entire last six months has been a study in political spins, deflections and distractions by both of those mainstream political parties - and if the vote goes as has been the case historically with the Cap & Trade, and other unconstitutional legislation, I just wonder who is drawing the short straws this time, and just bet a great deal of these backroom negotiations has to do with bargaining between the Congressional members insofar as just who is, and who is not, going to take the fall come next election, and who has the most credibility to weather the storms to come (such as Mr. Stupak's posturing on the abortion nonissue for the folks back home, since federally funded abortions have been the standard throughout the country since Planned Parenthood went into the abortion business along with its family planning birth control education for lower income Americans and young families as far back as the early 80's).
And what is really incredible is that this vote would be taken on a Sunday to begin with. A day that actually is a holiday for even legislators, and appears that in so doing once again Washington is asserting its sovereignty over the entire foundation of this country's government.
The Creator mentioned and recognized by those founders as the giver of those "unalienable rights," and not government, political parties, or erstwhile rogue Congressmen and women.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/20/health-care-protesters-hurl-verbal-epithets-african-american-lawmakers/
It was reported by FOXNews (that "fair and balanced" mainstream commercial news organization) that two Black legislators (or African American in this era's venacular, but a different label was preferred up until about 15 years ago when hyphenated descriptives for Americans using countries of origins hadn't yet come into vogue, although I don't call myself a "European American") were harassed by protestors in Washington who hurled some politically incorrect verbiage as they were walking to the House floor for a vote.
Now, I would not say that the word of most Congressional members at this point is something that approximately 85% of the American people would put any stock in whatsoever. And it doesn't appear there were any unbiased eyewitnesses to this occurrence.
Seems we use the race card more and more indiscriminantly, especially when it comes to contentious legislation, and public policy rather than Constitutional provision.
Much was made by one of the legislators likening the abuse he apparently was subjected to as similar to that which he experienced as a protestor during the civil rights movement.
It is strange that what is ocurring right now in this country both over the border issue and illegal immigrant "rights," the swine flu "outbreak" and now this health care deform harkened back to the 60's and 70's.
Only the stakes are getting progressively higher, without any Constitutional basis for them actually whatsoever, so this is not progressive at all - it is actually regressive.
Regressing into a monarchial style of government even those federalists would be apalled over.
It seems history does repeat itself, but this analogy was actually too much for this 60's boomer, since what is occurring now has nothing to do with equal rights of all AMERICANS in employment and educational opportunities most of all, but a backdoor taxation on the public, many of whom are jobless and homeless at this point in the worst recession this country has seen since the Depression, also manipulated by this past Administration and Congress, and this new/old one, since it appears the agendas of the Bush Administration with respect to the war, illegal immigrants, etc., is steaming right along at the behest of the true power beneath the dome, the financial sector and globalist world bankers.
The two party system is what is broken here, and using such political tools and weapons against the masses who are justifiably upset that it was the "stakeholders" that were consulted on this legislation, and the people's true outrage at the escalating costs of health care, and "corporatization" of it since Nixon which has resulted in even lowered birth survival rates with stories such as this one just goes to show the bag of tricks of those Misrepresentatives on the Hill knows no bounds.
A comment was also made with respect to the analogy that one of these Congressmen had never heard of "freedom for the uninsured" or a campaign against MediCare. Say what?
Such a statement is truly incredible the total bending of the Constitution in order to justify somehow the unjustifiable.
I have news for this Congressman also as one of those boomers, Medicare had more than its share of detractors for just such reason as are being brought forth in this new legislation.
There was absolutely no regulation included over the health care providers that were to be the recipients of those backdoor taxes insofar as provision of care. And in fact, there are more and more doctors now refusing to take new Medicare patients for just such reason, lots of paperwork and dictating actually also just what level of treatment is even covered, since alternative treatments which even may be cheaper or less invasive are not MediCare friendly, and most of those benefits get eaten up by the time all those numerous referrals are done simply to get a diagnosis on most elder care - and that would also appear to be behind this new legislation also.
MediCare is broken also, due to its restrictive nature on the types of treatments which are even available, some of whice are lower than those which MediCare does cover. Such as degenerative spinal disorders or other bone and joint problems which are frequently the case for older Americans, which can be treated outside surgical procedures.
Paring down in this legislation also MediCare benefits, forcing more and more of those upcoming boomer retirees to purchase additional insurance just to even have catastrophic health care from those supplemental providers seems to also be part of this disasterous feeding of Wall Street once again on the backs of the American people now for their very lives and health.
But to use the "race" card once again, is getting so, so old to many Americans. Especially connected to legislation such as this.
And also the untruthful statement with respect to those objecting, since it does seem that those who have a problem with this legislation in its current form, and see it for really what it actually is, cross all races and political philosphies.
And if being held accountable by your constituents, the American people no matter what the color, is similar to the walk to Selma, I guess that oath of office meant to hold accountable all civil servants just might not have been clearly understood.
All those free lunches aside mean you are not Joe Private Citizen any longer, but servants of the people, and the people are speaking loud and clear, and they are the ones doing the protesting this time for their very lives.
But FOX and these two Congressmen certainly know how to sensationalize, since this little incident became net news instanteously in attempts to place another sensationalized story and issue in order to shift the focus, once again, which seems to be also the MO on contentious debate and ratings generators for these media moguls who are also part and parcel of the ever increasing garbage coming out of Washington.
And as more than a few Americans have asked, just wonder where both these Congressman can quote that the federal government has any authority whatsoever to give "privileges and immunities" to one segment of the population corporately over another, and mandate that Americans must buy a "product," which health insurance is since it is "commercial."
Very commercial, actually, and very lucrative for all the lawyers, lobbyists, legislators, and looters, such as AIG, where their true job and function is to be regulators of commercial corporate entities (national and global ones particularly, with the states to regulate those commercial corporations operating within strictly state borders under the separation of powers contained in that Constitution as also the intent of the founders for a republican government).
I mean, doesn't this simply mean that Congress is more like a marketing department for the health care industry and their profits, or Wall Street PR men, rather than representatives of the people and their representatives and employees increasingly rather than those living within their legislative districts, their true constituents?
I wonder if these two Congressmen hold any health care sector stocks?
Since it appears to me that this entire last six months has been a study in political spins, deflections and distractions by both of those mainstream political parties - and if the vote goes as has been the case historically with the Cap & Trade, and other unconstitutional legislation, I just wonder who is drawing the short straws this time, and just bet a great deal of these backroom negotiations has to do with bargaining between the Congressional members insofar as just who is, and who is not, going to take the fall come next election, and who has the most credibility to weather the storms to come (such as Mr. Stupak's posturing on the abortion nonissue for the folks back home, since federally funded abortions have been the standard throughout the country since Planned Parenthood went into the abortion business along with its family planning birth control education for lower income Americans and young families as far back as the early 80's).
And what is really incredible is that this vote would be taken on a Sunday to begin with. A day that actually is a holiday for even legislators, and appears that in so doing once again Washington is asserting its sovereignty over the entire foundation of this country's government.
The Creator mentioned and recognized by those founders as the giver of those "unalienable rights," and not government, political parties, or erstwhile rogue Congressmen and women.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/20/health-care-protesters-hurl-verbal-epithets-african-american-lawmakers/
Friday, March 19, 2010
Ms. Pelosi: Stop Preaching And Do Your Job
On network news again this morning, the erstwhile Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was hogging the media in order to once again preach to the American public about the health care deform legislation that she and her political party are backing which is clearly simply another nonconsensual backdoor tax on the American people in its current form.
Especially by continuing to include those "mandatory" provisions, and fees and fines and extortion if those in this country who cannot afford it at its current levels, or even due to the fact that so many are now jobless and homeless by this and the prior Administration's industry favoring legislation, be able to afford it at any level.
No recognition or media coverage has pointed out the fact that all Americans are and have been actually supporting the health care and medical community for decades with their tax dollars, yet upon any treatment getting little, if any, recognition of all those publicly funded grants at the state, local and federal level that most of them receive since Nixon's "corportization" of the health care sector way back when.
Including even zoning and building fees and costs for a great many of those massive global and national hospitals and health care networks.
Better yet, Ms. Pelosi, how about you and those other 434 rogue Congressmen start actually doing your jobs, and change the focus to where it Constitutionally and truly belongs.
Regulating most of those national and global health care vipers sufficiently, and rescinding that bogus Act of Congress that was passed actually also precluding the states from so doing as a power move and play for those on the Hill and their corporate backers post Nixon?
3/4's of these health care providers, hospitals, and teaching institutions receive federal and state grant monies at the public's expense, yet Americans are forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (and their unaffiliated employers) to carry this industry. Most of those hospitals and medical providers refuse to even give "good faith" estimates prior to treatment for non-emergency measures to begin with.
And a good many of them overcharge so that their take of the Medicare proceeds continues to escalate, rather than bearing any relationship whatsoever nationwide in the true cost of health care in this country.
Especially since many of those doctors now are also getting federal grant monies for their educations, or we are now outsourcing more and more to doctors who either are not Americans (such as the great many East Indian doctors now practicing in this country) or were educated free of charge at some of America's foremost medical colleges and universities.
With all the money going to medical research now also, are the costs of development of those new procedures and high tech gadgetry also being credited to the American public who paid for most of those procedures development?
The entire focus of this legislation is a**backward, in my and a great many Americans opinions, and Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Obama's posturing appears to now be "preaching to the choir," and a "choir" that is, from the tone throughout the country on this legislation progressively getting more and more outraged, and about to bring out those nooses.
Maybe also it would be nice if these press conferences would stop, and members start scrutinizing more and more of the past legislation that has lead to the "crisis" we are now facing.
Like bailing out all these industries at the public's expense, while the public then is raped on the personal level further when they engage their services (such as the increases now in bank fees and charges that are occurring nationwide, and 'creative" lending policies of those banks for mortgages getting even more outrageous - since a great many of those original loans in the West and Southwest for refinances or new home purchses weren't even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates).
Or the progressively lawyer industry favoring laws which have enriched a great many of the members of the Bar in the removal of punitive damage lids throughout the nation on medical malpractice claims and those even legitimate losses, and then costs for all those lawyers now employed by the health care sector that are also paid with those premium dollars in that totally unregulated industry which is actually simply another branch of the government itself - since all lawyers are inherently members of the judicial branch and have a monopoly also due to local court rules and regulations on it - since even what might be deemed small claims matters on some of these losses in coverages and benefits become civil and not small claims actions at higher costs.
Hogging air time to present your case isn't working on a public that has less and less trust that its representatives represent anyone other than their own self-interests.
And from most of the citizen media based websites, it does appear to me that either many Americans are unaware of just how much of their tax dollars are already going to subsidize the health care industry and sector, or are actually Canadians or Mexicans that hope that they will get in on better health care subsidized by the American people than their socialized plans in their own countries - or at least coverage then in the event they have some medical emergency while in this country for their "part time" residency status, with free health care nearby rather than having to return to their own countries for treatment.
Since, of course, a good many Canadians live in either those northern border states, or the American West and Southwest as retirees on a part time basis, or with second homes due to their better currency rates, and as then non-American taxpayers, would get that free ride for their care claiming "temporary resident" or "emergency" treatment status.
A good half the posters on most of those sites supporting this abridgement of the U.S. Constitution actually are Canadian bloggers and writers.
Which just goes to show it is appeasement once again of foreigners on the backs of Americans that is somewhat responsible for this push for this legislation, rather than at the demand of the American people at all other than the public's outrage at the escalating costs, pressuring a Congress to actually do their jobs and their "regulatory" functions on this massive industry that has gone for far too long without any regulation actually whatsoever, while being funded by and large by an American public who are watching the health care standards and even infant mortality rates decline by the year in favor of "profit" over "delivery."
Since Nixon, actually, and that entire bogus health maintenance organization concept and global corportization of the health care industry was sanctioned by that erstwhile Congress way back when, where it now takes visits to five or six doctors in order to simply get a diagnosis - that is if your "referring physician" feels it is in the corporate best interest to so do.
There are now as many levels in health care provision in this country, as there is in government.
Which has also contributed to where we are today.
Especially by continuing to include those "mandatory" provisions, and fees and fines and extortion if those in this country who cannot afford it at its current levels, or even due to the fact that so many are now jobless and homeless by this and the prior Administration's industry favoring legislation, be able to afford it at any level.
No recognition or media coverage has pointed out the fact that all Americans are and have been actually supporting the health care and medical community for decades with their tax dollars, yet upon any treatment getting little, if any, recognition of all those publicly funded grants at the state, local and federal level that most of them receive since Nixon's "corportization" of the health care sector way back when.
Including even zoning and building fees and costs for a great many of those massive global and national hospitals and health care networks.
Better yet, Ms. Pelosi, how about you and those other 434 rogue Congressmen start actually doing your jobs, and change the focus to where it Constitutionally and truly belongs.
Regulating most of those national and global health care vipers sufficiently, and rescinding that bogus Act of Congress that was passed actually also precluding the states from so doing as a power move and play for those on the Hill and their corporate backers post Nixon?
3/4's of these health care providers, hospitals, and teaching institutions receive federal and state grant monies at the public's expense, yet Americans are forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (and their unaffiliated employers) to carry this industry. Most of those hospitals and medical providers refuse to even give "good faith" estimates prior to treatment for non-emergency measures to begin with.
And a good many of them overcharge so that their take of the Medicare proceeds continues to escalate, rather than bearing any relationship whatsoever nationwide in the true cost of health care in this country.
Especially since many of those doctors now are also getting federal grant monies for their educations, or we are now outsourcing more and more to doctors who either are not Americans (such as the great many East Indian doctors now practicing in this country) or were educated free of charge at some of America's foremost medical colleges and universities.
With all the money going to medical research now also, are the costs of development of those new procedures and high tech gadgetry also being credited to the American public who paid for most of those procedures development?
The entire focus of this legislation is a**backward, in my and a great many Americans opinions, and Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Obama's posturing appears to now be "preaching to the choir," and a "choir" that is, from the tone throughout the country on this legislation progressively getting more and more outraged, and about to bring out those nooses.
Maybe also it would be nice if these press conferences would stop, and members start scrutinizing more and more of the past legislation that has lead to the "crisis" we are now facing.
Like bailing out all these industries at the public's expense, while the public then is raped on the personal level further when they engage their services (such as the increases now in bank fees and charges that are occurring nationwide, and 'creative" lending policies of those banks for mortgages getting even more outrageous - since a great many of those original loans in the West and Southwest for refinances or new home purchses weren't even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates).
Or the progressively lawyer industry favoring laws which have enriched a great many of the members of the Bar in the removal of punitive damage lids throughout the nation on medical malpractice claims and those even legitimate losses, and then costs for all those lawyers now employed by the health care sector that are also paid with those premium dollars in that totally unregulated industry which is actually simply another branch of the government itself - since all lawyers are inherently members of the judicial branch and have a monopoly also due to local court rules and regulations on it - since even what might be deemed small claims matters on some of these losses in coverages and benefits become civil and not small claims actions at higher costs.
Hogging air time to present your case isn't working on a public that has less and less trust that its representatives represent anyone other than their own self-interests.
And from most of the citizen media based websites, it does appear to me that either many Americans are unaware of just how much of their tax dollars are already going to subsidize the health care industry and sector, or are actually Canadians or Mexicans that hope that they will get in on better health care subsidized by the American people than their socialized plans in their own countries - or at least coverage then in the event they have some medical emergency while in this country for their "part time" residency status, with free health care nearby rather than having to return to their own countries for treatment.
Since, of course, a good many Canadians live in either those northern border states, or the American West and Southwest as retirees on a part time basis, or with second homes due to their better currency rates, and as then non-American taxpayers, would get that free ride for their care claiming "temporary resident" or "emergency" treatment status.
A good half the posters on most of those sites supporting this abridgement of the U.S. Constitution actually are Canadian bloggers and writers.
Which just goes to show it is appeasement once again of foreigners on the backs of Americans that is somewhat responsible for this push for this legislation, rather than at the demand of the American people at all other than the public's outrage at the escalating costs, pressuring a Congress to actually do their jobs and their "regulatory" functions on this massive industry that has gone for far too long without any regulation actually whatsoever, while being funded by and large by an American public who are watching the health care standards and even infant mortality rates decline by the year in favor of "profit" over "delivery."
Since Nixon, actually, and that entire bogus health maintenance organization concept and global corportization of the health care industry was sanctioned by that erstwhile Congress way back when, where it now takes visits to five or six doctors in order to simply get a diagnosis - that is if your "referring physician" feels it is in the corporate best interest to so do.
There are now as many levels in health care provision in this country, as there is in government.
Which has also contributed to where we are today.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Settlement Expansion Reactions Political?
It was reported in the APP (American Propaganda Press) that the Israeli lobby, and those Senators and Congressmen beholding to them, were "outraged" at the Obama Administration's chatising of Israel in light of its announcement during Vice President Biden's visit coincidentally of a zoning decision with respect to Jerusalem that flies in the face of peace talks.
It does appear that the election cycle in the U.S. for the 2010 elections is in full swing, and Israel once again is a centerpoint of both parties political posturing for the American Jewish vote.
And while it is interesting that most of these Senators and Congressmen who do receive quite a bit of funding from the Israeli lobby in this country posture, their outrage truly puzzling.
And also strange since a great many of high level officials in the Obama Administration are and have been huge supporters of the Israeli lobby, and also are Jewish, so this "outrage" seems rather contrived, to say the least.
Israel and those lobbying organizations have claimed that Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East.
I would state that actually America has been probably Israel's strongest ally since World War II, after the Kennedy Adminstration in assisting it's military with their national defense programs and training their military, since it is rather a matter of public record that Israel has received more foreign aid from this country than any other since the end of World War II.
And does, after all, since the 1960's have its own nuclear weaponry at its disposal, and a crack military due to all the aid we have given them over the course of decades.
Johnson's Adminstration funneled literally billions to Israel, as has each successive administration since that time, whether Republican or Democratic.
That an announcement such as the Israel government's of further expansion in Jerusalem would come during this visit, and at a time when the U.S. was pushing for peace talks does seem rather strange, to say the least.
I would ask, how many Israeli soldiers are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to the amount of military aid and dollars this country has poured into Israel after it's national security has been compromised in both the '68 war, and as recently as the Carter Administration?
According to most media reports outside the U.S., Israel has enough fire power to nuke the Middle East at least 10 times over, yet is somehow threatened now by the development of nuclear weaponry by other Arab nations, when its actions such as what occurred this past week does not appear to be along the lines of truly wanting peace, but once again a totally Jewish state even outside the provisions of the Balfour Doctrine which with the British, created the state of Israel even prior to World War I.
It does appear that in the U.S. continuing to ally itself with Israel, our national security has been compromised in the process otherwise how would a 9-11 in this country ever have occurred, since our presence in the Middle East has been facilitated by our alliance with Israel these many decades, even though Britain actually was their "creator" to begin with.
The standard of living, and even national security capabilities of Israel are surpassing that of the United States in leaps and bounds, and our economy now has been fundamentally negatively impacted by the fact that even in an economic recession such as occurring in the U.S. at the present time, foreign aid to Israel still appears to be a top priority with those in Washington.
At this point in history, if Israel as an independent Jewish state is meant to be, isn't that now up to the Creator and not the U.S.?
I mean it does seem rather clear that this actually is the aim, all provisions in that Balfour accord to the contrary, since ceding Israeli land gained in the '68 war that was beyond that original accord has literally taken decades to reverse or even bring the parties to the table to rework, even though those lands were not even a part of the original British agreement at its inception.
"Trade with all nations, alliances (permanent) with none."
America's founders.
And why doesn't the Israeli lobby and their synagoges in this country, or the fundamentalist Christian community that hold with the "end of days" scenario as literal rather than allegorical, not simply donate directly to Israel, if that is where their hearts are and not with this country?
Or immigrate and move there themselves?
And isn't this really Britain's problem, more than the U.S., due to the fact that this original accord was between a British lord and zionist, and banker to begin with under the terms of the Balfour Doctrine?
I mean why is the United States, to its now continued detriment and the safety and security of its legal citizens and residents, continuing to be a major player in this scenario when it was the British that actually are responsible for this mess to begin with?
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100315/a7edf3a9-22f1-4602-8b68-902bdbf7dad2
It does appear that the election cycle in the U.S. for the 2010 elections is in full swing, and Israel once again is a centerpoint of both parties political posturing for the American Jewish vote.
And while it is interesting that most of these Senators and Congressmen who do receive quite a bit of funding from the Israeli lobby in this country posture, their outrage truly puzzling.
And also strange since a great many of high level officials in the Obama Administration are and have been huge supporters of the Israeli lobby, and also are Jewish, so this "outrage" seems rather contrived, to say the least.
Israel and those lobbying organizations have claimed that Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East.
I would state that actually America has been probably Israel's strongest ally since World War II, after the Kennedy Adminstration in assisting it's military with their national defense programs and training their military, since it is rather a matter of public record that Israel has received more foreign aid from this country than any other since the end of World War II.
And does, after all, since the 1960's have its own nuclear weaponry at its disposal, and a crack military due to all the aid we have given them over the course of decades.
Johnson's Adminstration funneled literally billions to Israel, as has each successive administration since that time, whether Republican or Democratic.
That an announcement such as the Israel government's of further expansion in Jerusalem would come during this visit, and at a time when the U.S. was pushing for peace talks does seem rather strange, to say the least.
I would ask, how many Israeli soldiers are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to the amount of military aid and dollars this country has poured into Israel after it's national security has been compromised in both the '68 war, and as recently as the Carter Administration?
According to most media reports outside the U.S., Israel has enough fire power to nuke the Middle East at least 10 times over, yet is somehow threatened now by the development of nuclear weaponry by other Arab nations, when its actions such as what occurred this past week does not appear to be along the lines of truly wanting peace, but once again a totally Jewish state even outside the provisions of the Balfour Doctrine which with the British, created the state of Israel even prior to World War I.
It does appear that in the U.S. continuing to ally itself with Israel, our national security has been compromised in the process otherwise how would a 9-11 in this country ever have occurred, since our presence in the Middle East has been facilitated by our alliance with Israel these many decades, even though Britain actually was their "creator" to begin with.
The standard of living, and even national security capabilities of Israel are surpassing that of the United States in leaps and bounds, and our economy now has been fundamentally negatively impacted by the fact that even in an economic recession such as occurring in the U.S. at the present time, foreign aid to Israel still appears to be a top priority with those in Washington.
At this point in history, if Israel as an independent Jewish state is meant to be, isn't that now up to the Creator and not the U.S.?
I mean it does seem rather clear that this actually is the aim, all provisions in that Balfour accord to the contrary, since ceding Israeli land gained in the '68 war that was beyond that original accord has literally taken decades to reverse or even bring the parties to the table to rework, even though those lands were not even a part of the original British agreement at its inception.
"Trade with all nations, alliances (permanent) with none."
America's founders.
And why doesn't the Israeli lobby and their synagoges in this country, or the fundamentalist Christian community that hold with the "end of days" scenario as literal rather than allegorical, not simply donate directly to Israel, if that is where their hearts are and not with this country?
Or immigrate and move there themselves?
And isn't this really Britain's problem, more than the U.S., due to the fact that this original accord was between a British lord and zionist, and banker to begin with under the terms of the Balfour Doctrine?
I mean why is the United States, to its now continued detriment and the safety and security of its legal citizens and residents, continuing to be a major player in this scenario when it was the British that actually are responsible for this mess to begin with?
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100315/a7edf3a9-22f1-4602-8b68-902bdbf7dad2
Health Care Deform: Taxpayers Already Fund Elective Abortions
With all the smoke and mirorrs occurring in this horrendously unconstitutional Health Care Deform of the Obama Administration, it has not ceased to amaze me the propaganda and political spins that are occurring as this abridgement of the founders government once again is being hashed out behind closed doors.
Republicans and Democrats are posturing and using this as a political tool for future election purposes, apparently, in basically taking exception to any federal funding that may occur that would fund abortions in this country under this legislation.
I've got news for you, America, the political manure is getting deeper and deeper, with the media actually buying into this also, apparently.
Planned Parenthood, at its inception back in the 1970's, was incorporated as an "educational" foundation which primarily provided birth control for those that could not afford it when the Pill was finally approved by the FDA and available to the public.
The costs at that time for those monthly prescriptions was more than most lower income, or younger Americans could afford (about $30.00 per month back in the 1970's, or $1.00 per pill), and was the original focus of this "non-profit" organization - providing birth control to lower income females in this country and "education" in family planning for young familes.
That is not the case any longer. Planned Parenthood is supported by many corporation organizations at this point, although its "legal" status as an education foundation has not changed insofar as the IRS is concerned or now its expansion also into providing low cost abortions as part of its family planning focus.
And with an "educational" focus, does qualify for federal grant monies for its programs and funding. And no longer simply provides for low cost birth control but has expanded also into providing low cost abortions through its affilated doctors.
So my quesiton is, whether this bill is worded insofar as precluding federal monies under this Health Care Deform being provided for abortions, are the grants that are also handed out like candy by the federal govenment to many health care institutions and even corporate medical practices also going to be regulated at this point so that there isn't now a double whammy on the American taxpayers?
In other words, now having to pay out hundreds of dollars per month to provide for their own health care needs, but also then continuing to subsidize through their taxes these large corporate medical practices, hospitals and foundations such as Planned Parenthood in the process in the federal grant monies that add to our deficit and result then in those inflationary taxes for just about everything?
It would seem to me that this legislation is nothing more than an additional tax, if that is not the case.
And what about all the taxation that Americans have been paying at the state level for provision of health care for those that cannot afford it, is that also going to be refunded along with those taxes paid and that were levied in prior years in order to build many of the county hospitals throughout the country?
It seems to me that Americans have been paying for their health care already, in funding all those county hospitals throughout the nation and grant monies for research and development, and even doctor's salaries at most of the teaching hospitals.
Are those taxes and costs going to be refunded, rather than "penalizing" Americans for not having health insurance, when they have already paid at the state level for now even the health care of foreigners in this country, not to mention their own?
This such legislation would not even be an issue if the state governments, way back when, had not also desecrated the founders government in the backdoor passage of the 16th, 17th and Federal Reserve Act under Wilson, thus upsetting the balance of power they so carefully crafted in order to avoid just such taxation, invasions of privacy, and enforced tyranny as this measure appears to be.
In this economy, and with the costs of health care right now so high due to past legislation tying the hands of the states with respect to the insurers operating within their state borders, and lack of any true regulation over those huge health care networks and providers also at the federal level, yet receiving untold billions in federal grant monies for research and even building costs at the public's expense, it appears Washington's arrogance knows no bounds and this measure with its still included fines for noncompliance upon the citizenry, another measure that guarantees more people will actually be on welfare than already are.
With so many also now working below their former income levels in the middle class and losing their businesses right and left, the public has spoken about the taxation levels that already exist in this country at the present time at all levels of government.
And since the public is providing the health care coverage for all government employees without having any leftover income in order to buy their own, this type of in your face legislation is exactly why the standard of living for a good majority of Americans, while taking in more and more foreigners and refugees due to serial wars, is approaching Third World status more and more each and every day.
Most of these hospitals and huge medical co-ops and practices are already publicly funded through many state residents income, property and other taxation that have also increased in leaps and bounds.
In fact, most states throughout the nation, even after the huge amounts they received in that cure-all stimulus, went to upgrading governmental offices and buying new toys, rather than provision of those governmental services for which the entire tax system in this country was intended to provide - and have been beating the drums for increasing state taxes also in one form or another.
Huge taxes were recently levied on cigarettes throughout the country, and a great deal of those taxes actually go to fund provision of health care benefits for children and the indigent at the state levels.
Will all those taxes and costs be refunded for the boomers especially, the ones who have carried the load for both the World War II generation, and the next generation, both publicly and privately in ever increasing taxation at all governmental levels, and in the cost of most durable goods and services which has progressively occurred since World War II?
Republicans and Democrats are posturing and using this as a political tool for future election purposes, apparently, in basically taking exception to any federal funding that may occur that would fund abortions in this country under this legislation.
I've got news for you, America, the political manure is getting deeper and deeper, with the media actually buying into this also, apparently.
Planned Parenthood, at its inception back in the 1970's, was incorporated as an "educational" foundation which primarily provided birth control for those that could not afford it when the Pill was finally approved by the FDA and available to the public.
The costs at that time for those monthly prescriptions was more than most lower income, or younger Americans could afford (about $30.00 per month back in the 1970's, or $1.00 per pill), and was the original focus of this "non-profit" organization - providing birth control to lower income females in this country and "education" in family planning for young familes.
That is not the case any longer. Planned Parenthood is supported by many corporation organizations at this point, although its "legal" status as an education foundation has not changed insofar as the IRS is concerned or now its expansion also into providing low cost abortions as part of its family planning focus.
And with an "educational" focus, does qualify for federal grant monies for its programs and funding. And no longer simply provides for low cost birth control but has expanded also into providing low cost abortions through its affilated doctors.
So my quesiton is, whether this bill is worded insofar as precluding federal monies under this Health Care Deform being provided for abortions, are the grants that are also handed out like candy by the federal govenment to many health care institutions and even corporate medical practices also going to be regulated at this point so that there isn't now a double whammy on the American taxpayers?
In other words, now having to pay out hundreds of dollars per month to provide for their own health care needs, but also then continuing to subsidize through their taxes these large corporate medical practices, hospitals and foundations such as Planned Parenthood in the process in the federal grant monies that add to our deficit and result then in those inflationary taxes for just about everything?
It would seem to me that this legislation is nothing more than an additional tax, if that is not the case.
And what about all the taxation that Americans have been paying at the state level for provision of health care for those that cannot afford it, is that also going to be refunded along with those taxes paid and that were levied in prior years in order to build many of the county hospitals throughout the country?
It seems to me that Americans have been paying for their health care already, in funding all those county hospitals throughout the nation and grant monies for research and development, and even doctor's salaries at most of the teaching hospitals.
Are those taxes and costs going to be refunded, rather than "penalizing" Americans for not having health insurance, when they have already paid at the state level for now even the health care of foreigners in this country, not to mention their own?
This such legislation would not even be an issue if the state governments, way back when, had not also desecrated the founders government in the backdoor passage of the 16th, 17th and Federal Reserve Act under Wilson, thus upsetting the balance of power they so carefully crafted in order to avoid just such taxation, invasions of privacy, and enforced tyranny as this measure appears to be.
In this economy, and with the costs of health care right now so high due to past legislation tying the hands of the states with respect to the insurers operating within their state borders, and lack of any true regulation over those huge health care networks and providers also at the federal level, yet receiving untold billions in federal grant monies for research and even building costs at the public's expense, it appears Washington's arrogance knows no bounds and this measure with its still included fines for noncompliance upon the citizenry, another measure that guarantees more people will actually be on welfare than already are.
With so many also now working below their former income levels in the middle class and losing their businesses right and left, the public has spoken about the taxation levels that already exist in this country at the present time at all levels of government.
And since the public is providing the health care coverage for all government employees without having any leftover income in order to buy their own, this type of in your face legislation is exactly why the standard of living for a good majority of Americans, while taking in more and more foreigners and refugees due to serial wars, is approaching Third World status more and more each and every day.
Most of these hospitals and huge medical co-ops and practices are already publicly funded through many state residents income, property and other taxation that have also increased in leaps and bounds.
In fact, most states throughout the nation, even after the huge amounts they received in that cure-all stimulus, went to upgrading governmental offices and buying new toys, rather than provision of those governmental services for which the entire tax system in this country was intended to provide - and have been beating the drums for increasing state taxes also in one form or another.
Huge taxes were recently levied on cigarettes throughout the country, and a great deal of those taxes actually go to fund provision of health care benefits for children and the indigent at the state levels.
Will all those taxes and costs be refunded for the boomers especially, the ones who have carried the load for both the World War II generation, and the next generation, both publicly and privately in ever increasing taxation at all governmental levels, and in the cost of most durable goods and services which has progressively occurred since World War II?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Israeli Lobby's Outrage Questionable
It was reported in the APP (American Propaganda Press) that the Israeli lobby, and those Senators and Congressmen beholding to them, were "outraged" at the Obama Administration's chatising of Israel in light of its announcement during Vice President Biden's visit coincidentally of a zoning decision with respect to Jerusalem that flies in the face of peace talks.
It does appear that the election cycle in the U.S. for the 2010 elections is in full swing, and Israel once again is a centerpoint of both parties political posturing for the American Jewish vote.
And while it is interesting that most of these Senators and Congressmen who do receive quite a bit of funding from the Israeli lobby in this country posture, their outrage truly puzzling.
And also strange since a great many of high level officials in the Obama Administration are and have been huge supporters of the Israeli lobby, and also are Jewish, so this "outrage" seems rather contrived, to say the least.
Israel and those lobbying organizations have claimed that Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East.
I would state that actually America has been probably Israel's strongest ally since World War II, after the Kennedy Adminstration in assisting it's military with their national defense programs and training their military, since it is rather a matter of public record that Israel has received more foreign aid from this country than any other since the end of World War II.
And does, after all, since the 1960's have its own nuclear weaponry at its disposal, and a crack military due to all the aid we have given them over the course of decades.
Johnson's Adminstration funneled literally billions to Israel, as has each successive administration since that time, whether Republican or Democratic.
That an announcement such as the Israel government's of further expansion in Jerusalem would come during this visit, and at a time when the U.S. was pushing for peace talks does seem rather strange, to say the least.
I would ask, how many Israeli soldiers are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to the amount of military aid and dollars this country has poured into Israel after it's national security has been compromised in both the '68 war, and as recently as the Carter Administration?
According to most media reports outside the U.S., Israel has enough fire power to nuke the Middle East at least 10 times over, yet is somehow threatened now by the development of nuclear weaponry by other Arab nations, when its actions such as what occurred this past week does not appear to be along the lines of truly wanting peace, but once again a totally Jewish state even outside the provisions of the Balfour Doctrine which with the British, created the state of Israel even prior to World War I.
It does appear that in the U.S. continuing to ally itself with Israel, our national security has been compromised in the process otherwise how would a 9-11 in this country ever have occurred, since our presence in the Middle East has been facilitated by our alliance with Israel these many decades, even though Britain actually was their "creator" to begin with.
The standard of living, and even national security capabilities of Israel are surpassing that of the United States in leaps and bounds, and our economy now has been fundamentally negatively impacted by the fact that even in an economic recession such as occurring in the U.S. at the present time, foreign aid to Israel still appears to be a top priority with those in Washington.
At this point in history, if Israel as an independent Jewish state is meant to be, isn't that now up to the Creator and not the U.S.?
I mean it does seem rather clear that this actually is the aim, all provisions in that Balfour accord to the contrary, since ceding Israeli land gained in the '68 war that was beyond that original accord has literally taken decades to reverse or even bring the parties to the table to rework, even though those lands were not even a part of the original British agreement at its inception.
"Trade with all nations, alliances (permanent) with none."
America's founders.
And why doesn't the Israeli lobby and their synagoges in this country, or the fundamentalist Christian community that hold with the "end of days" scenario as literal rather than allegorical, not simply donate directly to Israel, if that is where their hearts are and not with this country?
Or immigrate and move there themselves?
And isn't this really Britain's problem, more than the U.S., due to the fact that this original accord was between a British lord and zionist, and banker to begin with under the terms of the Balfour Doctrine?
I mean why is the United States, to its now continued detriment and the safety and security of its legal citizens and residents, continuing to be a major player in this scenario when it was the British that actually are responsible for this mess to begin with?
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100315/a7edf3a9-22f1-4602-8b68-902bdbf7dad2
It does appear that the election cycle in the U.S. for the 2010 elections is in full swing, and Israel once again is a centerpoint of both parties political posturing for the American Jewish vote.
And while it is interesting that most of these Senators and Congressmen who do receive quite a bit of funding from the Israeli lobby in this country posture, their outrage truly puzzling.
And also strange since a great many of high level officials in the Obama Administration are and have been huge supporters of the Israeli lobby, and also are Jewish, so this "outrage" seems rather contrived, to say the least.
Israel and those lobbying organizations have claimed that Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East.
I would state that actually America has been probably Israel's strongest ally since World War II, after the Kennedy Adminstration in assisting it's military with their national defense programs and training their military, since it is rather a matter of public record that Israel has received more foreign aid from this country than any other since the end of World War II.
And does, after all, since the 1960's have its own nuclear weaponry at its disposal, and a crack military due to all the aid we have given them over the course of decades.
Johnson's Adminstration funneled literally billions to Israel, as has each successive administration since that time, whether Republican or Democratic.
That an announcement such as the Israel government's of further expansion in Jerusalem would come during this visit, and at a time when the U.S. was pushing for peace talks does seem rather strange, to say the least.
I would ask, how many Israeli soldiers are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to the amount of military aid and dollars this country has poured into Israel after it's national security has been compromised in both the '68 war, and as recently as the Carter Administration?
According to most media reports outside the U.S., Israel has enough fire power to nuke the Middle East at least 10 times over, yet is somehow threatened now by the development of nuclear weaponry by other Arab nations, when its actions such as what occurred this past week does not appear to be along the lines of truly wanting peace, but once again a totally Jewish state even outside the provisions of the Balfour Doctrine which with the British, created the state of Israel even prior to World War I.
It does appear that in the U.S. continuing to ally itself with Israel, our national security has been compromised in the process otherwise how would a 9-11 in this country ever have occurred, since our presence in the Middle East has been facilitated by our alliance with Israel these many decades, even though Britain actually was their "creator" to begin with.
The standard of living, and even national security capabilities of Israel are surpassing that of the United States in leaps and bounds, and our economy now has been fundamentally negatively impacted by the fact that even in an economic recession such as occurring in the U.S. at the present time, foreign aid to Israel still appears to be a top priority with those in Washington.
At this point in history, if Israel as an independent Jewish state is meant to be, isn't that now up to the Creator and not the U.S.?
I mean it does seem rather clear that this actually is the aim, all provisions in that Balfour accord to the contrary, since ceding Israeli land gained in the '68 war that was beyond that original accord has literally taken decades to reverse or even bring the parties to the table to rework, even though those lands were not even a part of the original British agreement at its inception.
"Trade with all nations, alliances (permanent) with none."
America's founders.
And why doesn't the Israeli lobby and their synagoges in this country, or the fundamentalist Christian community that hold with the "end of days" scenario as literal rather than allegorical, not simply donate directly to Israel, if that is where their hearts are and not with this country?
Or immigrate and move there themselves?
And isn't this really Britain's problem, more than the U.S., due to the fact that this original accord was between a British lord and zionist, and banker to begin with under the terms of the Balfour Doctrine?
I mean why is the United States, to its now continued detriment and the safety and security of its legal citizens and residents, continuing to be a major player in this scenario when it was the British that actually are responsible for this mess to begin with?
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100315/a7edf3a9-22f1-4602-8b68-902bdbf7dad2
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Unions Aren't Detroit's Only Problem
reprint from www.backupamerica.org
For Any And All American Conserve-atives
Recently due to an extended stay in one of the southern states in the U.S. due to the aging and health of elderly parents, and recurring hospitalization over the course of the last two years involving two separate surgeries for each of them, as an almost lifelong westerner it was interesting to see just how some of the others states throughout the nation are obtaining additional taxes and revenue from their state residents.
It appears the games, costs and fees are getting steeper and steeper with each and every passing year. No matter how much revenue the states and local governments seem to get, it is never enough.
Like their big brother, the federal government progressively has become.
One of my relatives had a rather minor traffic violation during my stay. This state is also one of the few that has invoked a state law requiring automobile inspections annually, and not simply for emissions but equipment also (and only Americans registering their vehicles, when many cars in this country driven on our roadways due to globalization are not Americans, but also foreigners from Mexico and Canada particularly).
The costs for these inspections, of course, is another tax shared with the auto repair shops, and while the state fee is set at one rate, those auto repair shops are free to tack on even additional profits over and above that which they are getting from the state also for this less than three minute inspection.
Of course, it costs the state nothing for these inspections other than a few cents for the cost of those stickers, and the local governments also have been given permission by the big brother state government to also add on sums for their local coffers to the base state rate.
Quite a chunk of revenue for the state, local governments and those auto repair shops.
Which has also, due to the hurricanes and such that have ocurred in the South, increased the city and state coffers tremendously in those broken headlight, tailight, and directional signal violations on a public that is still reeling from the devastation of several hurricanes, Katrina, Rita and Gustav, within the past five years.
Some of which fines, in addition to then having to prove compliance with those laws, are levied at over $150-200 per violation.
Of course, under the common law compliance with the law in and of itself is supposed to be the aim, not the state (or city) making profits off of such petty civil violations, since that is what all those other assundry taxes are supposed to pay for, particularly sales, registration and those property taxes on automobiles already assessed against drivers - law enforcement and those public services and expenses that are governmental.
Problem is, due to all the discretionary spending, more and more the city/state are privatizing the actual intended governmental functions for added revenue in these public/private partnerships transferring the costs then to the private sector, yet affording them unregulated profits in the bargain, and then using then the revenue for discretionary expenditures at a greater and greater clip.
Making, of course, the tax bite then on the public astronomical now in the process, not simply for the costs of government actually, but also the profit margins of their state actor corporate entities.
And now, added to the ever increasing fines for minor traffic tickets is another corporate practice and cost which the state and local governments have incorporated which proves the corporate mentality, rather than Constitutional one, is running rampant at all levels of government.
Service charges now, in addition to even court costs, mean that your average speeding or failure to yield violation ticket now is approaching $300 or more nationwide, plus junk fees.
This method of revenue generation has become so lucrative, that many states are now leasing those speed cams like candy from the gadget industry and that science and technology field they are so enamoured with more and more.
Many of which, of course, are manufactured overseas. Or at least their parts.
Although the mandatory auto insurance laws throughout the nation still have many detractors, since the original concept for passage of that legislation way back when (1960's) was sold to the public in order to lessen taxpayer costs for our courts for property damage claims primarily, which 90% of all accidents actually are with only 10% involving damages over $1,000 (which it hasn't done, it has increased and bogged up our courts actually more since now those cases involve insurance company defense teams at higher costs, and more lengthy trials rather than small claims actions, for the most part), some of them are even passing legislation mandating impoundment of vehicles where the driver of such vehicle does not have proof of insurance.
Even though the driver of the vehicle itself may not even be the registered owner of the automobile, in many instances.
And is, in fact, a way in which the states with such laws apparently are attempting to circumvent the "due process" clause by confiscating property even without an opportunity for those individuals to have their day in court, or offer their arguments regarding the mandatory insurance laws and their applicability based on Constitutional grounds also.
Prior to the passage of those laws, proof of financial responsibility instead provided provisions for lower cost bonds, secured with collateral or "bondability" in some states as part of the licensing process.
This law, of course, is also a law in which even though less than 10% of the automobiles driven in America are involved in any type of moving violation, and even fewer involving significant injury or property damage, the masses are being actually punished for the actions of the few.
At this point with America's economy on such a downward spiral, and most of these backdoor taxes actually contributing to the decline in the ability of most Americans to stimulate the economies by having any leftover discretionary income at this point, many who argue in favor of rescinding the mandatory auto insurance laws do have a point, in my opinion.
Requring young drivers, or those who are getting older with slower reaction times, or even those who live in major metropolitan areas who demonstrate by the number of moving violations they have been cited for in any given number of years (the former point system) to have to purchase auto insurance would be letting the punishment fit the crime in those instances.
If the automobile industry is seeing a lack of sales, it just might truly be that the ultimate costs to now drive an automobile in this country, are also getting a little too much for the American public to bear.
And that doesn't count the cost of repairs to those expensive computers, in the event of malfunction, or theft.
That bill, just to "diagnose" the problem, is now over $100 and up at most automobile repair shops.
And don't even think of attempting to change your own oil, or sparkplugs on these babies. Or even replace a light in the headlamp, since those are so delicate that it takes a professional to simply change a bulb for most.
Not to mention the terms of some of those loans and leases, with all the caveats and hidden charges now contained within them, advertising those great low interest loans, but simply packaging those loans and lease terms with junk fees and charges to make up for the lowered interest rates.
Or the costs to simply register, or come up with the sales taxes on the purchase of a car. Most of the time, equaling about a third of its purchsae price by the time most Americans drive off that lot.
So Detroit's problems are complex, and doubt that it is simply the models they are offering (except to those Americans who would not own a car with a computer at this point to begin with) or being undercut to a large extent by foreign imports although that also has had a major impact in that some of those foreign imports concentrate on making the smaller, economy models which is now what the majority of the public can afford - not those gas guzzlers, or ones with so many bells and whistles that the upkeep and maintenance on them is a constant drain and large chunk of their take home pay.
It's the whole package in the costs involved in America today in having that "privilege" which is turning more and more into a liability.
Sort of like home "non-ownership" has become.
Money pits, and revenue generators for the state most of all in double, triple and quadruple taxation in one form or another.
It appears that it just might be that the market is speaking, and holding on to those old clunkers for a very good reason.
For Any And All American Conserve-atives
Recently due to an extended stay in one of the southern states in the U.S. due to the aging and health of elderly parents, and recurring hospitalization over the course of the last two years involving two separate surgeries for each of them, as an almost lifelong westerner it was interesting to see just how some of the others states throughout the nation are obtaining additional taxes and revenue from their state residents.
It appears the games, costs and fees are getting steeper and steeper with each and every passing year. No matter how much revenue the states and local governments seem to get, it is never enough.
Like their big brother, the federal government progressively has become.
One of my relatives had a rather minor traffic violation during my stay. This state is also one of the few that has invoked a state law requiring automobile inspections annually, and not simply for emissions but equipment also (and only Americans registering their vehicles, when many cars in this country driven on our roadways due to globalization are not Americans, but also foreigners from Mexico and Canada particularly).
The costs for these inspections, of course, is another tax shared with the auto repair shops, and while the state fee is set at one rate, those auto repair shops are free to tack on even additional profits over and above that which they are getting from the state also for this less than three minute inspection.
Of course, it costs the state nothing for these inspections other than a few cents for the cost of those stickers, and the local governments also have been given permission by the big brother state government to also add on sums for their local coffers to the base state rate.
Quite a chunk of revenue for the state, local governments and those auto repair shops.
Which has also, due to the hurricanes and such that have ocurred in the South, increased the city and state coffers tremendously in those broken headlight, tailight, and directional signal violations on a public that is still reeling from the devastation of several hurricanes, Katrina, Rita and Gustav, within the past five years.
Some of which fines, in addition to then having to prove compliance with those laws, are levied at over $150-200 per violation.
Of course, under the common law compliance with the law in and of itself is supposed to be the aim, not the state (or city) making profits off of such petty civil violations, since that is what all those other assundry taxes are supposed to pay for, particularly sales, registration and those property taxes on automobiles already assessed against drivers - law enforcement and those public services and expenses that are governmental.
Problem is, due to all the discretionary spending, more and more the city/state are privatizing the actual intended governmental functions for added revenue in these public/private partnerships transferring the costs then to the private sector, yet affording them unregulated profits in the bargain, and then using then the revenue for discretionary expenditures at a greater and greater clip.
Making, of course, the tax bite then on the public astronomical now in the process, not simply for the costs of government actually, but also the profit margins of their state actor corporate entities.
And now, added to the ever increasing fines for minor traffic tickets is another corporate practice and cost which the state and local governments have incorporated which proves the corporate mentality, rather than Constitutional one, is running rampant at all levels of government.
Service charges now, in addition to even court costs, mean that your average speeding or failure to yield violation ticket now is approaching $300 or more nationwide, plus junk fees.
This method of revenue generation has become so lucrative, that many states are now leasing those speed cams like candy from the gadget industry and that science and technology field they are so enamoured with more and more.
Many of which, of course, are manufactured overseas. Or at least their parts.
Although the mandatory auto insurance laws throughout the nation still have many detractors, since the original concept for passage of that legislation way back when (1960's) was sold to the public in order to lessen taxpayer costs for our courts for property damage claims primarily, which 90% of all accidents actually are with only 10% involving damages over $1,000 (which it hasn't done, it has increased and bogged up our courts actually more since now those cases involve insurance company defense teams at higher costs, and more lengthy trials rather than small claims actions, for the most part), some of them are even passing legislation mandating impoundment of vehicles where the driver of such vehicle does not have proof of insurance.
Even though the driver of the vehicle itself may not even be the registered owner of the automobile, in many instances.
And is, in fact, a way in which the states with such laws apparently are attempting to circumvent the "due process" clause by confiscating property even without an opportunity for those individuals to have their day in court, or offer their arguments regarding the mandatory insurance laws and their applicability based on Constitutional grounds also.
Prior to the passage of those laws, proof of financial responsibility instead provided provisions for lower cost bonds, secured with collateral or "bondability" in some states as part of the licensing process.
This law, of course, is also a law in which even though less than 10% of the automobiles driven in America are involved in any type of moving violation, and even fewer involving significant injury or property damage, the masses are being actually punished for the actions of the few.
At this point with America's economy on such a downward spiral, and most of these backdoor taxes actually contributing to the decline in the ability of most Americans to stimulate the economies by having any leftover discretionary income at this point, many who argue in favor of rescinding the mandatory auto insurance laws do have a point, in my opinion.
Requring young drivers, or those who are getting older with slower reaction times, or even those who live in major metropolitan areas who demonstrate by the number of moving violations they have been cited for in any given number of years (the former point system) to have to purchase auto insurance would be letting the punishment fit the crime in those instances.
If the automobile industry is seeing a lack of sales, it just might truly be that the ultimate costs to now drive an automobile in this country, are also getting a little too much for the American public to bear.
And that doesn't count the cost of repairs to those expensive computers, in the event of malfunction, or theft.
That bill, just to "diagnose" the problem, is now over $100 and up at most automobile repair shops.
And don't even think of attempting to change your own oil, or sparkplugs on these babies. Or even replace a light in the headlamp, since those are so delicate that it takes a professional to simply change a bulb for most.
Not to mention the terms of some of those loans and leases, with all the caveats and hidden charges now contained within them, advertising those great low interest loans, but simply packaging those loans and lease terms with junk fees and charges to make up for the lowered interest rates.
Or the costs to simply register, or come up with the sales taxes on the purchase of a car. Most of the time, equaling about a third of its purchsae price by the time most Americans drive off that lot.
So Detroit's problems are complex, and doubt that it is simply the models they are offering (except to those Americans who would not own a car with a computer at this point to begin with) or being undercut to a large extent by foreign imports although that also has had a major impact in that some of those foreign imports concentrate on making the smaller, economy models which is now what the majority of the public can afford - not those gas guzzlers, or ones with so many bells and whistles that the upkeep and maintenance on them is a constant drain and large chunk of their take home pay.
It's the whole package in the costs involved in America today in having that "privilege" which is turning more and more into a liability.
Sort of like home "non-ownership" has become.
Money pits, and revenue generators for the state most of all in double, triple and quadruple taxation in one form or another.
It appears that it just might be that the market is speaking, and holding on to those old clunkers for a very good reason.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Ms. Pelosi: How About Taxpayer Discounts For Hospitalizations?
It is interesting the countdown which is now occurring with respect to the great health care debate and summit, and the legislation which is being proposed by the House Democrats in order to "reform" health care throughout the country.
Although it appears that only the "stakeholders" are the ones who are actually being consulted on most of this legislation, or the "misrepresentatives" who represent those stakeholders.
Throughout the country right now there are federally funded clinics that are set up and funded by U.S. taxpayers through their federal income taxes for those that do not have health care insurance, or cannot afford it based upon their incomes.
Right now, there are government grants given to a great many hospitals and health care clinics that have any loosely defined "educational" goals as part of their corporate structure, such as those "stop smoking" clinics, and women's hospitals providing for prenatal care and child birth and delivery.
Even large metropolitan hospitals that are staffed with pre-med or medical students upon graduation for their internship rotations get federal grant monies as teaching institutions.
Most states throughout the nation also have county hospitals, and VA clinics serving both the poor, and our servicemen for injuries or illnesses that are not war related.
Now, the Obama Administration wants to "take over" health care and reform it?
It appears the only reforms which are actually being made are those which are more of the nature of now, after all those hospitals have been funded and built by the taxpayers, and also county and state facilities, requiring now Americans to buy health care coverage whether they can really afford it or not, thus feeding mostly the private doctors and those few hospitals that do not have an educational branch and thus are not eligible for state or federal grant monies.
In Arizona, for example, smokers in that state pay for the health care plans for children of parents who cannot obtain insurance for them at any price. In fact, smokers throughout the country are funding most of the health care plans now in existence for kids of parents who cannot afford it.
A great deal of sales, property and/or state income taxes also are also geared toward funding those hospitals and clinics, and county hospitals, and the federal government has simply been providing matching sums for those facilities since, of course, the American people pay through the nose to both the feds and the states for many of the same governmental functions.
Not to mention, that most hospitals are also receiving huge sums though their various foundations from those Americans who are wealthy and needing tax write-offs, since the majority of hospitals also are deemed in this respect as "non-profits" for which citizens can deduct any and all donations.
With the amounts billed against most people's insurance, or those bills that many Americans receive, you would think that these hospitals have no other source of income other than that which they receive from the people that use them, or that these are truly "private" hospitals existing merely on what they receive for services rendered.
In fact, many hospitals and doctors office won't even take new Medicare patients, and some will only take them if those patients can be used in order to meet the requriements for their annual grant monies from the state or federal government, i.e., many will only accept only women who are pregnant for prenatal care and deliveries, as I found when attempting to schedule an appointment with a doctor in the South. No provision for women after childbearing age were being accepted under any public plans.
With these new reforms rather than those "coupons" that have been the hook which has been fed to the public in order to gain acceptance for this unconstitutional function of the federal government in assuming a local and state function, if anything, will there also be escalating tax rebates included in order to credit the taxpayers for all those state taxes they are paying which have been earmarked for health care, but which will most likely now go also to the state kitty for them to spend willy-nilly, and without accountability?
This country has never seen more homeless and jobless, and to even entertain mandating that Americans must now once again feed the health care and financial sector (such as AIG) and Wall Street instead of regulating those out of control greedy little bankers using those premiums currently to reinvest in riskier investments for higher gains for their global shareholders (and the big international health care providers and international bank who are gaining more and more power and say in domestic policies progressively with no regulation also whatsoever) seems Washington's arrogance at this point knows no bounds.
And where is it written that Washington or the states, for that matter, have any authority to mandate Americans purchase a "product" such as a health insurance policy, or our government go into any joint venture with them with taxpayer monies in more and more legislating just what Americans can spend their "left over" hard earned dollars on after Washington and the states take out their ever increasing shares, to begin with?
Although it appears that only the "stakeholders" are the ones who are actually being consulted on most of this legislation, or the "misrepresentatives" who represent those stakeholders.
Throughout the country right now there are federally funded clinics that are set up and funded by U.S. taxpayers through their federal income taxes for those that do not have health care insurance, or cannot afford it based upon their incomes.
Right now, there are government grants given to a great many hospitals and health care clinics that have any loosely defined "educational" goals as part of their corporate structure, such as those "stop smoking" clinics, and women's hospitals providing for prenatal care and child birth and delivery.
Even large metropolitan hospitals that are staffed with pre-med or medical students upon graduation for their internship rotations get federal grant monies as teaching institutions.
Most states throughout the nation also have county hospitals, and VA clinics serving both the poor, and our servicemen for injuries or illnesses that are not war related.
Now, the Obama Administration wants to "take over" health care and reform it?
It appears the only reforms which are actually being made are those which are more of the nature of now, after all those hospitals have been funded and built by the taxpayers, and also county and state facilities, requiring now Americans to buy health care coverage whether they can really afford it or not, thus feeding mostly the private doctors and those few hospitals that do not have an educational branch and thus are not eligible for state or federal grant monies.
In Arizona, for example, smokers in that state pay for the health care plans for children of parents who cannot obtain insurance for them at any price. In fact, smokers throughout the country are funding most of the health care plans now in existence for kids of parents who cannot afford it.
A great deal of sales, property and/or state income taxes also are also geared toward funding those hospitals and clinics, and county hospitals, and the federal government has simply been providing matching sums for those facilities since, of course, the American people pay through the nose to both the feds and the states for many of the same governmental functions.
Not to mention, that most hospitals are also receiving huge sums though their various foundations from those Americans who are wealthy and needing tax write-offs, since the majority of hospitals also are deemed in this respect as "non-profits" for which citizens can deduct any and all donations.
With the amounts billed against most people's insurance, or those bills that many Americans receive, you would think that these hospitals have no other source of income other than that which they receive from the people that use them, or that these are truly "private" hospitals existing merely on what they receive for services rendered.
In fact, many hospitals and doctors office won't even take new Medicare patients, and some will only take them if those patients can be used in order to meet the requriements for their annual grant monies from the state or federal government, i.e., many will only accept only women who are pregnant for prenatal care and deliveries, as I found when attempting to schedule an appointment with a doctor in the South. No provision for women after childbearing age were being accepted under any public plans.
With these new reforms rather than those "coupons" that have been the hook which has been fed to the public in order to gain acceptance for this unconstitutional function of the federal government in assuming a local and state function, if anything, will there also be escalating tax rebates included in order to credit the taxpayers for all those state taxes they are paying which have been earmarked for health care, but which will most likely now go also to the state kitty for them to spend willy-nilly, and without accountability?
This country has never seen more homeless and jobless, and to even entertain mandating that Americans must now once again feed the health care and financial sector (such as AIG) and Wall Street instead of regulating those out of control greedy little bankers using those premiums currently to reinvest in riskier investments for higher gains for their global shareholders (and the big international health care providers and international bank who are gaining more and more power and say in domestic policies progressively with no regulation also whatsoever) seems Washington's arrogance at this point knows no bounds.
And where is it written that Washington or the states, for that matter, have any authority to mandate Americans purchase a "product" such as a health insurance policy, or our government go into any joint venture with them with taxpayer monies in more and more legislating just what Americans can spend their "left over" hard earned dollars on after Washington and the states take out their ever increasing shares, to begin with?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Oscar Goes To: LaLa Land Stages Its Annual Pageant
Apparently, tonight was the night of nights for those in LaLa Land.
The Oscar awards show.
According to the buzz, this year's awards ceremony was true to form as so many before.
Politically and globally correct, at least for public consumption and appearance sake.
According also to reports, the finalists for the most coveted awards were all given accolades by former co-workers prior to the announcements, and of course the big budget film once again did not win.
Only there was a personal spin. The director of the winning film, a politically correct feature which was released almost two years ago and Iraq war film, was the former wife of that Titannic cum Avatar New Age Cecil B. DeMille, James Cameron.
Gone the Biblical epics for New Age epitronics with this and that last Steven Spielberg global warming computer enhanced epitronic.
The one that took the blue screen, and in this year's entry used it as makeup.
There was even another one on World War II.
Only this time, with a rather dark violent side and comedic spin using those Nazis once again as a back drop.
I wonder when they will do an epic on maybe Cicero with a similar turn?
I mean that era is something that many Americans at this point could identify with.
All that fiddling, while Rome (America) burns.
The set, of course, was lavish once again and polished to the hilt. And just a mere week after that last two and a half week global spectacle, the Winter Olympics.
It seems the global economy isn't all that hurting, although the American one for the "average" non-Hollywood type has meant cutting back on those recreational flicks for a good many outside Hollywood and, of course, its sister city of excess, New York.
The oohs and ahs and what was worn by both the presenters and the "contestants" I'm sure will be written about, and rewritten about for days to come with full page photo layouts in People and those other entertainment weeklies.
Much was made that a female director finally won. And with a picture about the war in Iraq at that about the soldiers whose job it is to disarm those IEDs. Of course, it was only a matter of time until the heroism of those that are now on their third or fourth tours of duty would get used for dramatic purposes and publicity.
After all since World War II, hasn't war, even when not politically correct, and especially when it is not, been the bread and butter of the industry?
Congratulations to all, presenters, nominees and industry types, on another stellar performance for almost three full hours (longer than most of those nominated films).
With television, video and second run movie house revenues (which is about what most Americans can now afford), many of us will have our own reviews when and if we ever see some of those movies while the next year's lists are lobbied for, voted and released.
Although I think I'll miss the Iraq docu-film, and the massive epic with 3D blue screen characters coming to life.
And from what I have heard, talking, politically correct, trees. Who communicate like computers?
I'm wondering when these movies, with all the special effects and digital manipulating, will start making themselves.
I mean, if blue screens can come to life, why not future full run feature films ala The Matrix?
The Oscar awards show.
According to the buzz, this year's awards ceremony was true to form as so many before.
Politically and globally correct, at least for public consumption and appearance sake.
According also to reports, the finalists for the most coveted awards were all given accolades by former co-workers prior to the announcements, and of course the big budget film once again did not win.
Only there was a personal spin. The director of the winning film, a politically correct feature which was released almost two years ago and Iraq war film, was the former wife of that Titannic cum Avatar New Age Cecil B. DeMille, James Cameron.
Gone the Biblical epics for New Age epitronics with this and that last Steven Spielberg global warming computer enhanced epitronic.
The one that took the blue screen, and in this year's entry used it as makeup.
There was even another one on World War II.
Only this time, with a rather dark violent side and comedic spin using those Nazis once again as a back drop.
I wonder when they will do an epic on maybe Cicero with a similar turn?
I mean that era is something that many Americans at this point could identify with.
All that fiddling, while Rome (America) burns.
The set, of course, was lavish once again and polished to the hilt. And just a mere week after that last two and a half week global spectacle, the Winter Olympics.
It seems the global economy isn't all that hurting, although the American one for the "average" non-Hollywood type has meant cutting back on those recreational flicks for a good many outside Hollywood and, of course, its sister city of excess, New York.
The oohs and ahs and what was worn by both the presenters and the "contestants" I'm sure will be written about, and rewritten about for days to come with full page photo layouts in People and those other entertainment weeklies.
Much was made that a female director finally won. And with a picture about the war in Iraq at that about the soldiers whose job it is to disarm those IEDs. Of course, it was only a matter of time until the heroism of those that are now on their third or fourth tours of duty would get used for dramatic purposes and publicity.
After all since World War II, hasn't war, even when not politically correct, and especially when it is not, been the bread and butter of the industry?
Congratulations to all, presenters, nominees and industry types, on another stellar performance for almost three full hours (longer than most of those nominated films).
With television, video and second run movie house revenues (which is about what most Americans can now afford), many of us will have our own reviews when and if we ever see some of those movies while the next year's lists are lobbied for, voted and released.
Although I think I'll miss the Iraq docu-film, and the massive epic with 3D blue screen characters coming to life.
And from what I have heard, talking, politically correct, trees. Who communicate like computers?
I'm wondering when these movies, with all the special effects and digital manipulating, will start making themselves.
I mean, if blue screens can come to life, why not future full run feature films ala The Matrix?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Texas Judge Rules Death Penalty Unconstitutional?
There's a storm brewing in Texas, it appears, over a recent ruling by a state district court judge in Houston on a murder trial.
Justice Kevin Fine, a Democrat, made a pre-trial ruling in Texas court that the death penalty was unconstitutional under Texas law.
Although his position appears to be not in accordance with the wording of the Constitution itself (U.S., that is, which would take precedence in all death penalty cases), but for moral reasons stating that it was logical to assume that there had been innocent people put to death in the past, and that he didn't think this was society's mindset right now.
"Selective" governmental initiated socialism once again rears its ugly head, since there are many in this country that would heartily disagree, if a clear reading of the Constitution itself is given any weight.
With all the criticism that has come down upon the judiciary for ruling from the bench for political reasons most of all rather than "legal" ones with judges being cognizant of just what the "law" actually is in such instances, this actually does take the cake, in my opinion.
Although the press once again went a little off the deep end in headlining a great many of the stories with a description of the judge involved as "tatted" and an ex-cocaine addict.
Of course, the hypocricy at this point in our history was missed if such a personal observation were to be used by the media in its reporting on this judge's ruling. Since it is interesting that a judge that is an admitted ex-addict (engaging in felony conduct under current Texas law) is now serving on the bench, where a great many of those that are or have been convicted under Texas law of felonies are not even afforded an opportunity to vote for the rest of their lives even after serving their time.
It makes one wonder with all the clear language in the Constitution yet his stated reasons given for his holding, if just maybe he might be suffering from what the 60's generation termed "flashbacks," or possibly his brain quite possibly affected if he was a heavy, long term user of that substance which definitely has a chemical affect on the brain.
However, what was missing in the reporting is that as an elected official he is also affiliated through a political party that has taken a platform and stand in the past against the death penalty throughout the country for any reason under pressure and lobbying from such "global" groups as Amnesty International, the Innocense Project (out of New York, a "civil rights" group headed by lawyers and as such under federal laws which have been passed taxpayer funded through reimbursements for legal fees, yet incorporated in New York it appears, but with also branches internationally) and many others.
Since that statute providing for reimbursement for legal fees incurred in bringing civil rights actions, a plethora of these lawyer lead groups have emerged also engaging in national then lobbying efforts as a sideline, rather than the independent or small pro bono groups of the past whose fees are strictly provided by private donations.
To state that it is "unconstitutional" under the Texas or U.S. Constitution rather than in his party's view, "immoral", is a blatant redefinition, once again, of the English language and the 14th Amendment.
And the fact that the death penalty was handed down in many, many instances by those founders for reasons other than capital murder.
Such as treason on that Constitution. Which actually is the highest criminal offense by an elected or appointed government official, even higher than capital murder.
He used the "due process" clause somehow in his ruling, however, the 14th amendment clearly simply states that a criminal in this country that is accused of a heinous crime involving the taking of another citizen's life, or their property even (since horse thieves were also handed down the death penalty in Texas and in many states throughout the nation, theft of personal property was also a major capital criminal offense), an American is entitled to not "mob violence," but a review and trial by a jury of his peers (due process) in the state and jurisdiction in which the alleged crime occurred, and a chance to then face his accusers and hear and repute the evidence against him.
I am unaware of just how the provisions in Texas's criminal code are written since now the states have taken it upon themselves also to either expand, or water down, the U.S. Constitution in this respect also progressively through their legislative processes, but whether or not the death penalty is Constitutional or not since it is actually addressed within the language of the Constitution itself, speaks for itself.
Or the fact that "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing as it speaks) is the common law provision which is supposed to be rule of law with respect to Constitutional interpretation clearly also was the founders intent as it is a contract between the government itself and its people, and the Bill of Rights were meant to give the people, not the government, the ultimate power in any such matter involving ANY civil or criminal offense committed by a citizen in this country.
And solidified by the 14th's clear language then prohibiting any citizen from being deprived of his "life, liberty or property" without such a right to due process, or that "trial by jury."
It appears to me that more and more the judiciary are using court rules, and legal shennagians in order to actually circumvent and neutralize the power of the jury in this country more and more.
First, by removing even that right for many criminal charges, not to mention civil offenses in ever increasing numbers, the most recent of which are now the low level DUI and "social drinking" taxes and charges with those per se laws based on a proven fallable method of testing, when unless there is property damage or bodily injury and direct victim involved is truly really under the intent of the founders and common law also, a civil offense actually to begin with.
The breathalyzer, which does not measure blood alcohol at all, but measures the concentration of alcohol (or any number of other agents) in a person's breath.
Which, when using or eating any number of other substances, other than alcohol, can affect those test results tremendously.
In fact, the interlock devices that are manufactured and ordered to be used by many who have been arrested or found themselves "guilty until proven innocent" in such matters warns not to eat bread (the yeast can affect the interlock device with a false reading).
But in the instance of the death penalty in this country, I would more understand this judge's ruling at an earlier time in our history, when the evidentiary standards for a death penalty case were much, much more lenient than in most state courts today.
The standard, after all, is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and what has occurred, however, is that more and more high profile crimes are being tried in the media and politics and public opinions are being swayed even before many of these individuals have had the opportunity to answer or even make their pleas.
The lines between the "public's right to know" and protecting the accused have gone by the wayside when the local news media is so hard pressed for news these days due to competition and "corporate" ownership concerned with the bottom line most of all than ethical standards, that most of the local news stations are more similar to Entertainment Tonight than actual news sources so biased, sensationalized and gossipy is their coverage.
And, after all, there are several different charges that should be placed before a jury in any murder trial in many instances, and not determined by a judge or the state prosecutor's office acting independently to begin with.
Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter (auto accidents, etc.), murder in the second degree (crimes of passion, precipitated or between individuals known to each other) and murder in the first degree (pre-meditated, unprecipitated murder).
This case apparently has to do with the shooting death of a woman in Houston during a robbery in which there were, apparently, witnesses to what actually occurred - an adult sister and her own children.
Now that many of these states have privatized their state prisons and are receiving federal grant monies and profits on the prison population by the head, I would expect that we will see more and more of such rulings as most of these states attempt to squeeze every dollar out of the public they can since people, even prisoners, are now commerce.
I hate to dispute this judge's stated reasons, there are now throughout the nation more and more minor offenses being criminalized in order to increase that prison population for revenue purposes as a "mitigating" factor in why our prisons are now bulging at the seams, and mostly with low level misdemeanor offenders guilty of actually victimless crimes at that.
Or more and more of such instances are occurring in order to also bulk up local court's budgets due to the fact that the Bar Association itself lobbied for a law providing for legal fee awards on their behalf for any and all cases involving civil rights actions, and this case is being prosecuted by the county attorney's office and a public defender it appears representing the accused.
So this off the wall rendering could be and most likely is, in my opinion based on the information available through our somewhat sensationalized media, politically motivated, since now the state can also gain revenue from the lengthy federal appeals process over this judge's bench ruling which obviously blatantly flies in the face of the Constitution's clear language and make money for the state coffers then while so doing.
Harris County apparently is a county which leads the nation in death penalty cases, and appears just may be one of the more poorly funded districts in the state to begin with due to the amount of poorer or indigent people living in that county.
Maybe their share of the stimulus wasn't enough, since Governor Perry refused some of those sums according to his most recent election campaign jargon, or maybe those sums which were handed out for state budgetary purposes just didn't get to Harris County but stayed in Austin.
After all, our entire country's government at this point is so unconstitutional, taking such a position in light of all the Constitutional violations going on due to the entire convoluted framework as outside Constitutional intent and parameters of our government makes this position both questionable, and almost laughable.
I would agree, however, with this judge that most likely there have been individuals that have been put to death in this country who MAY have been innocent of first degree murder, or unprecipitated murder as under the common law definitions demanding the ultimate penalty under the law - forfeiture of life.
But we aren't putting to death horse thieves anymore (or car thieves), and with the number of appeals now available to most death row inmates, there have also been those that have decided not to pursue the appeals process and even waived it.
I do feel that such drastic punishment should be reserved for those that are deemed by a jury, upon factual evidence and eyewitness testimony or truly "weighted" evidence, and should be used only according to the stated law: against those who, for whatever reason, murder innocent people as in the case of a robbery gone wrong as this appears on the surface, or many of these serial killers who cannot be rehabilitated in any way to be trusted to live among society, or at the very least, incarcerated without the possibility of parole, when there are no "mitigating" circumstances leading up to it.
But "unconstitutional," only if we are again, judicially redefining the English language and not the words of the founders or their intent since the 14th only cements what was their clear purpose at the signing as a government "of the people."
It is the jury that has the right to throw out the death penalty, if they so deem the facts of the case at hand demands it or is "societally" unacceptable in their view under the circumstances, and weight should also be given to the victim's family in such a rendering as the actual victims of the particular crime and who those prosecutors are actually supposed to be their "clients" acting for the victim's family members, state and its citizens on their behalf.
And without a clear vote of the people of Texas in any event, it would seem our judiciary is getting more and more bold in some of their fabrications and renderings now at every level balanced against their oaths of office, since the wording is pretty clear.
Or corrupted by the public opinion polls and media itself in now how many outside "globally" focused agitators and groups are getting involved in U.S. political matters to begin with, since it appears global socialism and "international" law rather than our Constitution's language itself is a trend that is also occurring at the highest level in some rather recent Supreme Court rulings and renderings.
Protection of the accused American is foremost under our stated Constitutuion. And the jury was and is intended to be that protection, baring any corruption of the jury itself.
And if it is "cruel and unusual" punishment insofar as premeditated homicide is concerned, then our jails are full of people at this point that are being incarcerated without even the right to trial by juries in a great many misdemeanor offenses more and more, and some of these misdemeanor offenders have died in local jails and prisons that were "cruel and unusual" in their facilities to begin with.
Dehydrations of low level offenders recently in some in the West, even. Where the "punishments" now truly do not fit those crimes, and made without any review or oversight of judicial renderings rather than at the will of the people based on the evidence.
Gee, maybe he should have been the judge ruling over the Teri Schiavo matter in Florida. If it is immoral or "unconstitutional" and "cruel and unusual" punishment to sentence a convicted murderer to death, then just what was it to sentence a handicapped, innocent 40 year old woman?
Where was Amnesty International then, I ask?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/05/tatted-up-texas-judge-declares-death-penalty-unconstitutional/tab/article/
Yet, this is what is going on in Harris County with respect to misdemeanor offenders with outstanding mostly civil court traffic violations:
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Harris-County-sweeping-minor-offenders-in-Great-Texas-Warrant-Roundup-86726392.html
Justice Kevin Fine, a Democrat, made a pre-trial ruling in Texas court that the death penalty was unconstitutional under Texas law.
Although his position appears to be not in accordance with the wording of the Constitution itself (U.S., that is, which would take precedence in all death penalty cases), but for moral reasons stating that it was logical to assume that there had been innocent people put to death in the past, and that he didn't think this was society's mindset right now.
"Selective" governmental initiated socialism once again rears its ugly head, since there are many in this country that would heartily disagree, if a clear reading of the Constitution itself is given any weight.
With all the criticism that has come down upon the judiciary for ruling from the bench for political reasons most of all rather than "legal" ones with judges being cognizant of just what the "law" actually is in such instances, this actually does take the cake, in my opinion.
Although the press once again went a little off the deep end in headlining a great many of the stories with a description of the judge involved as "tatted" and an ex-cocaine addict.
Of course, the hypocricy at this point in our history was missed if such a personal observation were to be used by the media in its reporting on this judge's ruling. Since it is interesting that a judge that is an admitted ex-addict (engaging in felony conduct under current Texas law) is now serving on the bench, where a great many of those that are or have been convicted under Texas law of felonies are not even afforded an opportunity to vote for the rest of their lives even after serving their time.
It makes one wonder with all the clear language in the Constitution yet his stated reasons given for his holding, if just maybe he might be suffering from what the 60's generation termed "flashbacks," or possibly his brain quite possibly affected if he was a heavy, long term user of that substance which definitely has a chemical affect on the brain.
However, what was missing in the reporting is that as an elected official he is also affiliated through a political party that has taken a platform and stand in the past against the death penalty throughout the country for any reason under pressure and lobbying from such "global" groups as Amnesty International, the Innocense Project (out of New York, a "civil rights" group headed by lawyers and as such under federal laws which have been passed taxpayer funded through reimbursements for legal fees, yet incorporated in New York it appears, but with also branches internationally) and many others.
Since that statute providing for reimbursement for legal fees incurred in bringing civil rights actions, a plethora of these lawyer lead groups have emerged also engaging in national then lobbying efforts as a sideline, rather than the independent or small pro bono groups of the past whose fees are strictly provided by private donations.
To state that it is "unconstitutional" under the Texas or U.S. Constitution rather than in his party's view, "immoral", is a blatant redefinition, once again, of the English language and the 14th Amendment.
And the fact that the death penalty was handed down in many, many instances by those founders for reasons other than capital murder.
Such as treason on that Constitution. Which actually is the highest criminal offense by an elected or appointed government official, even higher than capital murder.
He used the "due process" clause somehow in his ruling, however, the 14th amendment clearly simply states that a criminal in this country that is accused of a heinous crime involving the taking of another citizen's life, or their property even (since horse thieves were also handed down the death penalty in Texas and in many states throughout the nation, theft of personal property was also a major capital criminal offense), an American is entitled to not "mob violence," but a review and trial by a jury of his peers (due process) in the state and jurisdiction in which the alleged crime occurred, and a chance to then face his accusers and hear and repute the evidence against him.
I am unaware of just how the provisions in Texas's criminal code are written since now the states have taken it upon themselves also to either expand, or water down, the U.S. Constitution in this respect also progressively through their legislative processes, but whether or not the death penalty is Constitutional or not since it is actually addressed within the language of the Constitution itself, speaks for itself.
Or the fact that "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing as it speaks) is the common law provision which is supposed to be rule of law with respect to Constitutional interpretation clearly also was the founders intent as it is a contract between the government itself and its people, and the Bill of Rights were meant to give the people, not the government, the ultimate power in any such matter involving ANY civil or criminal offense committed by a citizen in this country.
And solidified by the 14th's clear language then prohibiting any citizen from being deprived of his "life, liberty or property" without such a right to due process, or that "trial by jury."
It appears to me that more and more the judiciary are using court rules, and legal shennagians in order to actually circumvent and neutralize the power of the jury in this country more and more.
First, by removing even that right for many criminal charges, not to mention civil offenses in ever increasing numbers, the most recent of which are now the low level DUI and "social drinking" taxes and charges with those per se laws based on a proven fallable method of testing, when unless there is property damage or bodily injury and direct victim involved is truly really under the intent of the founders and common law also, a civil offense actually to begin with.
The breathalyzer, which does not measure blood alcohol at all, but measures the concentration of alcohol (or any number of other agents) in a person's breath.
Which, when using or eating any number of other substances, other than alcohol, can affect those test results tremendously.
In fact, the interlock devices that are manufactured and ordered to be used by many who have been arrested or found themselves "guilty until proven innocent" in such matters warns not to eat bread (the yeast can affect the interlock device with a false reading).
But in the instance of the death penalty in this country, I would more understand this judge's ruling at an earlier time in our history, when the evidentiary standards for a death penalty case were much, much more lenient than in most state courts today.
The standard, after all, is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and what has occurred, however, is that more and more high profile crimes are being tried in the media and politics and public opinions are being swayed even before many of these individuals have had the opportunity to answer or even make their pleas.
The lines between the "public's right to know" and protecting the accused have gone by the wayside when the local news media is so hard pressed for news these days due to competition and "corporate" ownership concerned with the bottom line most of all than ethical standards, that most of the local news stations are more similar to Entertainment Tonight than actual news sources so biased, sensationalized and gossipy is their coverage.
And, after all, there are several different charges that should be placed before a jury in any murder trial in many instances, and not determined by a judge or the state prosecutor's office acting independently to begin with.
Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter (auto accidents, etc.), murder in the second degree (crimes of passion, precipitated or between individuals known to each other) and murder in the first degree (pre-meditated, unprecipitated murder).
This case apparently has to do with the shooting death of a woman in Houston during a robbery in which there were, apparently, witnesses to what actually occurred - an adult sister and her own children.
Now that many of these states have privatized their state prisons and are receiving federal grant monies and profits on the prison population by the head, I would expect that we will see more and more of such rulings as most of these states attempt to squeeze every dollar out of the public they can since people, even prisoners, are now commerce.
I hate to dispute this judge's stated reasons, there are now throughout the nation more and more minor offenses being criminalized in order to increase that prison population for revenue purposes as a "mitigating" factor in why our prisons are now bulging at the seams, and mostly with low level misdemeanor offenders guilty of actually victimless crimes at that.
Or more and more of such instances are occurring in order to also bulk up local court's budgets due to the fact that the Bar Association itself lobbied for a law providing for legal fee awards on their behalf for any and all cases involving civil rights actions, and this case is being prosecuted by the county attorney's office and a public defender it appears representing the accused.
So this off the wall rendering could be and most likely is, in my opinion based on the information available through our somewhat sensationalized media, politically motivated, since now the state can also gain revenue from the lengthy federal appeals process over this judge's bench ruling which obviously blatantly flies in the face of the Constitution's clear language and make money for the state coffers then while so doing.
Harris County apparently is a county which leads the nation in death penalty cases, and appears just may be one of the more poorly funded districts in the state to begin with due to the amount of poorer or indigent people living in that county.
Maybe their share of the stimulus wasn't enough, since Governor Perry refused some of those sums according to his most recent election campaign jargon, or maybe those sums which were handed out for state budgetary purposes just didn't get to Harris County but stayed in Austin.
After all, our entire country's government at this point is so unconstitutional, taking such a position in light of all the Constitutional violations going on due to the entire convoluted framework as outside Constitutional intent and parameters of our government makes this position both questionable, and almost laughable.
I would agree, however, with this judge that most likely there have been individuals that have been put to death in this country who MAY have been innocent of first degree murder, or unprecipitated murder as under the common law definitions demanding the ultimate penalty under the law - forfeiture of life.
But we aren't putting to death horse thieves anymore (or car thieves), and with the number of appeals now available to most death row inmates, there have also been those that have decided not to pursue the appeals process and even waived it.
I do feel that such drastic punishment should be reserved for those that are deemed by a jury, upon factual evidence and eyewitness testimony or truly "weighted" evidence, and should be used only according to the stated law: against those who, for whatever reason, murder innocent people as in the case of a robbery gone wrong as this appears on the surface, or many of these serial killers who cannot be rehabilitated in any way to be trusted to live among society, or at the very least, incarcerated without the possibility of parole, when there are no "mitigating" circumstances leading up to it.
But "unconstitutional," only if we are again, judicially redefining the English language and not the words of the founders or their intent since the 14th only cements what was their clear purpose at the signing as a government "of the people."
It is the jury that has the right to throw out the death penalty, if they so deem the facts of the case at hand demands it or is "societally" unacceptable in their view under the circumstances, and weight should also be given to the victim's family in such a rendering as the actual victims of the particular crime and who those prosecutors are actually supposed to be their "clients" acting for the victim's family members, state and its citizens on their behalf.
And without a clear vote of the people of Texas in any event, it would seem our judiciary is getting more and more bold in some of their fabrications and renderings now at every level balanced against their oaths of office, since the wording is pretty clear.
Or corrupted by the public opinion polls and media itself in now how many outside "globally" focused agitators and groups are getting involved in U.S. political matters to begin with, since it appears global socialism and "international" law rather than our Constitution's language itself is a trend that is also occurring at the highest level in some rather recent Supreme Court rulings and renderings.
Protection of the accused American is foremost under our stated Constitutuion. And the jury was and is intended to be that protection, baring any corruption of the jury itself.
And if it is "cruel and unusual" punishment insofar as premeditated homicide is concerned, then our jails are full of people at this point that are being incarcerated without even the right to trial by juries in a great many misdemeanor offenses more and more, and some of these misdemeanor offenders have died in local jails and prisons that were "cruel and unusual" in their facilities to begin with.
Dehydrations of low level offenders recently in some in the West, even. Where the "punishments" now truly do not fit those crimes, and made without any review or oversight of judicial renderings rather than at the will of the people based on the evidence.
Gee, maybe he should have been the judge ruling over the Teri Schiavo matter in Florida. If it is immoral or "unconstitutional" and "cruel and unusual" punishment to sentence a convicted murderer to death, then just what was it to sentence a handicapped, innocent 40 year old woman?
Where was Amnesty International then, I ask?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/05/tatted-up-texas-judge-declares-death-penalty-unconstitutional/tab/article/
Yet, this is what is going on in Harris County with respect to misdemeanor offenders with outstanding mostly civil court traffic violations:
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Harris-County-sweeping-minor-offenders-in-Great-Texas-Warrant-Roundup-86726392.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
