Los Angeles Times Vets Kagan

With the upcoming confirmation hearings for Obama's second selection in less than two years for the U.S. Supreme Court it should come as no surprise that the Los Angeles Times came out with an article favoring the selection of Ms. Kagan, based upon their conclusion that Ms. Kagan was not a "leftist" as has been portrayed, but more of a moderate.

Coming from the Times, any further right than the USSR would be moderate, in this writer's opinion.

Of course, the L.A. Times is owned by the Tribune Global conglomerate based out of Chicago so I guess the hometown crowd may have had a bit of influence on the reporter's perspective, don't you think?

They do own "Hoy" a Spanish language newspaper sold in this country as one of the more "globalist" world government news organizations from the get go.

The facts given in the article demonstrating Ms. Kagan's more "moderate" views, of course, failed to mention quite a few salient facts.

Harvard's progressively more "conservative" curriculum under Ms. Kagan was highlighted, backed up by the opinion of one lawyer that graduated from this institution of higher learning stating that Harvard has now become now for its conservative course curriculums.

I guess if your definition of conservatism is more aligned with the British variety, since Ms. Kagan was dean when one of her administrative acts was to remove the mandatory Constitutional Law classes and replace them with more globally focused "progressive" classes.

During her confirmation as Solicitor General, she brought to her hearings some of her old friends from Cambridge, a British school of higher learning.

Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge and some of those West Coast liberal law schools seem to have a rather open student exchange program, so I guess those students who attempt to transfer credit between universities have much less of a problem than most students in the U.S. who simply attempt to get their credits transferred between U.S. colleges during their course of studies.

Ms. Kagan is the child of Russian Jewish immigrant parents cum New Yorkers, a fact also mentioned in the article.

And Russia was a communist country for an awful long time, and those of Russian Jewish lineage do tend to be more rather "socialist" in their outlook. Many American Jewish children of past generations were sent to Israel for the requisite two years during their adolescence in order to live on a kibbutz and also visit their "homeland." It does appear that this selection is actually meant to replace Ms. Ginsburg, since it does appear Ms. Kagan is almost exactly as "conservative" as Ms. Ginsburg with her beliefs that the Constitution is a "living document" which can be amended by those justices outside Constitutional provision.

And as with Ms. O'Connor before her, a labeled "moderate" yet also more a converted Globalist in her later opinions, believes that there is a place for international law and precedence in rendering their opinions, although it clearly was the founders intent that this nation remain a sovereign country and not influenced in any manner by what Europe (and especially Britain) or the rest of the world's government provided.

The Romans attempted world government, all those philosphers that were also important influences on those Caesars and senators.

But the United States was not in any manner to even parallel Rome's government, although it has become clear, especially in the last several decades, that this is exactly the mindset of those on the Hill.

Yes, this age is different from that of the founders. I mean, they had an entire Eastern Seaboard and coastline to defend with simply rudimentary cannons and muskets against some of the finest standing armies in the world, and pirates on the high seas.

Ms. Kagan has a "worldly" view of government, not a founder's or framer's view.

But leave it to the global socialists in this country to care more about how the Court "looks" than how true those sitting on it are to the charter which even gives them those lofty positions.

Ms. Kagan appears to be another of the British trained lawyers which are gaining more and more influence in all levels of government.

Harvard abandoned the Constitution under Ms. Kagan. Although most law schools throughout the nation appear to be focusing much more on judge made and international law, rather than the Constitution and those founders intent outside a clear amendment of it sanctioned by the people through the states with those justices having absolutely no legal authority to so do independently.

And that isn't what has "progressively" occurred by those British trained yet American "civil servants."

Isn't that enough for a "no" vote.

But don't hold your breath, since after those BP hearings and those "staged" Congressional confrontations by those Tories on the Hill in bed with those global corporatists, I expect Ms. Kagan will get confirmed after a few Senators have a chance for some media face time for the folks back home before next elections, her fellow Globalist Brits, whose percentages in all three branches of government are now at unprecedented levels.

The question is not whether she can read English or was educated at Harvard, but can she read American and is she at all familiar with the document which provides for her potential position - especially after removing its study from the Harvard curriculum.

Beware, America, of any Senator that uses the words "judicial precedent" as part of his criteria also for confirmation.

To most Americans who are even minimally politically aware, there have been a bucketload of Supreme Court decisions that have been rendered that have been so unconstitutional they are laughable, and have contributed significantly to why this country is in the mess it is in. Including the most recent one on unlimited spending by corporate entities as somehow a "free speech" right, and within Constitutional intent. Just how CAN you have a representative government, when those potential representatives are afforded to be sponsored by "foreign" entities outside their legislative districts, I ask you?

The L.A. Times also focused on her fundraising ability for the university as a positive measure of one who would "get things done."

The question is: Constitutionally, or "progressively."

British Send Prince Harry To Do Damage Control

It was interesting to note that in the AP today one of the top stories was with respect to one of the British royal family's attendance at The Mets-Twins game.

Prince Harry threw out the first pitch, apparently sent to the U.S. to do damage control over the Deepwater Horizon and continuing BP disaster.

Unfortunately, what might work for those New Yorkers, many of whom are globalists and Tories in disguise, doesn't work with mainstream America.

You see, we eliminated royalty back in 1776, and the royal family doesn't hold much sway with Middle America, outside of California and New York.

But nice try, Brits.

In fact, we don't like our President or Congress too much right now if you hadn't noticed, in their alliance with you Brits now that has compromised both American lives (11 American lives were taken in that disaster) and our sovereignty by the decade.

So tell the folks back home, and the British bankers that Americans fundamentally are an independent sort, and don't like foreigners who compromise the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

Or their Gulf coastline, oil and mineral rights, or as it is becoming increasingly evident, attempting to regain Louisiana and the Port of New Orleans as part of the British empire once again.

Just how many of those million dollar mansions have the BP executives gotten through that British real estate firm, Sotheby's, post Katrina, anyway?

And just how many extra barrels of oil in excess of that illegal lease have sailed out of the Port of New Orleans to British refineries in the six weeks since this disaster began under cover of night on those British tankers lined up in the Port harbor?

First Paul McCartney, and now Prince Harry...I mean, not even William?

So when is the Queen going to be arriving for our Fourth of July celebration to light the first firecrackers?

Sallie Mae Pushing British LIBOR Loans On Students

In light of the ongoing mortgage and foreclosure mess and crisis primarily in the West and Southwest due to the boom and bust cycle and rising costs of ownership which resulted in many Americans refinancing their original mortgage loans under loans marketed out of California illegally based on British banking index rates (the LIBOR - London Interest Bearing Origination Rate), I was astounded to see that a supposedly "private" banking entity, Sallie Mae, is promoting these same loans to recent high school graduates and college students for their further educations.

Loans not even based on the U.S. currency, and for which the interest rates are well above U.S. prime for any and all students that commit themselves to adjustable and flexible repayment terms, especially if those terms exceed seven years.

Formerly, guaranteed student loans in this country based on the U.S. currency and issued by the government for educational purposes carried ten year repayment terms at fixed low interest.

It seems while Obama is pushing education for both our youth and unemployed adult population, he and Congress once again are simply acting as agents for the British bankers and lenders, while those tuitions continue to increase annually and now are off the charts as opposed to the actual Cost of Living Index in this country and Department of Labor figures for goods and services.

The President of ASU's salary (formerly of Colombia University, one of those British Ivy League colleges) now exceeds over $700,000 from all reports, even more than the President's salary, plus extensive benefits alone.

Although it is clear that our college graduates are actually coming out of college many times overqualified for the jobs left in this country that haven't been outsourced to foreigners.

Those jobs, it appears, that Congress and the President also feel that Americans DO want, although since this President and Congress is about as out of touch as the last with the people in this country, that position is truly laughable when it comes to this media created "immigration" debate.

The fact that the name "Sallie Mae" is so similar to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two entities actually created by Congress and the Carter Administration, which many of these British based loans were also promoted and backed to adult homeowners in this country is misleading. And also the fact that their "disclosure" that this entity has no connection to the United States government is in very small print on their advertising literature, and also a questionable representation since the printing and regulation of our currency was actually illegal privatized by a rogue Congress and President back in 1913, in addition to then inflicting the U.S. income tax on American labor also outside Constitutional intent in order to so do.

Which, after all, in its initial stages was quite different and at lower and non-usurous rates also (less than 10%) when it was first initiated, while the tax on foreign labor which is Constitutionally provide was abandoned altogether instead. Thus, causing this lopsided foreign favoring labor pool we now have in this country, rather than the domestic variety.

It seems the fraud and continued misrepresentations by the banking industry even post the mortage mess and tsunami is another area in which both Congress, and this Administration is "looking the other way."

Similar to the BP (BRITISH Petroleum) disaster now ongoing.

Gotta love those allies.

http://www.salliemae.com/get_student_loan/apply_student_loan/interest_rates_fees/libor.htm

It Isn't A Race, It's A Foreign Nationality

With all the continuing propaganda and the liberal population using the "race card" inappropriately, the education in this country at the present time (which is primarily dictated now by the U.S. Department of Education in most local communities due to federal grant monies received by all those school districts) is at an all time low.

And it obviously has nothing to do with the amount of dollars expended, but the curriculum dictated by most the liberal educators within that Department of Education.

It is also a great many of those educators, and lawyers in this country affiliated with those foreigner civil rights groups that continue to use the words "racist" to attempt to marginalize the Americans in this country who are outraged at our porous border situation, and the negative impact it has had on more and more by the year in losses of American lives, property and livelihoods.

When the entire issue is one of national origin, and not race in any manner whatseover.

At least in my better education than what is found today, I was taught that there are really only four "races" in the entire world.

Caucasian (White), Mongoloid (Asian), Negroid (Black) and Indian (Native Americans).

Latino is merely a hybrid broad based term for those from South America whose ancestors were of Indian and European descent. Exploring Spaniards and Indians intermarried.

And basically are Caucasians, and certainly not a minority in this world or due to America's open borders and the migration north of so many of Mexico's poorer citizens (with the Mexican government's blessings, of course) becoming rather a majority minority in this country by the year.

Of course, also due to religious beliefs as primarily Catholics whose Church's teachings on birth control are rather well known and thus tend to have more children than most other segments of at least the U.S. population.

But while all those poor European immigrants migrated to this country at the turn of the century went through the process, a great many of these immigrants did not - even though for the past twenty years even the immigration applications in this country have been printed in Spanish - where those of the European immigrants who did not speak English simply had to muddle through the process with even the language barrier to deal with.

The costs to the American people to now print ballots, social service applications, and even telephone prompts are in the billions, not to mention the costs of now our court system where some states and jurisdictions have gone to providing Spanish speaking judges and segregated courtrooms for these individuals.

The founders would be rolling over, since although the majority of those founders were English speaking Europeans, there were many French and other nationalities present in large numbers when that Constitution was ratified.

And it was written in English.

By that very act, the founders did establish that English was the official language in this country, not French, Celtic, or German.

Some were landholders, some were not.

The Constitution isn't even written in the King's English in many of its provisions, and is the oldest federal charter in existence and predates even Britain's and is quite different from theirs, although they have yet to grasp the difference in the hierachy in this country, as opposed to theirs.

The people are not accountable to the government, nor is our President given much true power in any manner whatsoever except in times of declared war, and a supposed check on the legislative process with the only power in that respect the power of his veto. No power to create "Executive Orders" in any way, shape or form. Or panels. Or tribunals. Or regulatory agencies independent of Congress's oversight since all power was given to the people through their respective district representatives - which were clearly meant to be representative of the people living within their districts.

Not global or national corporate entities, or "special interest" lobbying groups.

I do hope with all the taxpayer paid civil rights organizations that are now challenging the very fabric of the Constitution over this issue, are submitting their bills for their legal fees to their true home countries, Britain and Mexico primarily it appears, for these frivolous challenges to the will of the American people for whom that Constitution was ultimately written in order to protect from just such challenges as are now occuring over our porous and unsecured borders and laisse faire immigration policies that have progressively occurred particularly since the 1980's, which ultimately resulted in an attack on this country unparalleled in the loss of American lives on native shores since World War II.

With now several tens of thousands more adversely impacted in the nine years since.

The Mexican Civil Liberties Union Strikes Again

The MCLU (Mexican Civil Liberties Union) has taken to the newsprint media in order to attempt to blast a small, mostly rural town in Nebraska for having the gaul to attempt to pass city ordinances (similar to those attempted in Pennsylvania) banning both the hiring, and affording housing rentals to illegal immigrants.

It appears, however, the town of Fremont which is involved is getting prepared for the onslaught of "foreigner" rights groups that they foresee will challenge the ordinance if it is passed into "law" after today's voting.

How so?

By advertising that they will institute additional taxes, and cutting city services in order to fund the lawsuit challenges, without of course disclosing that if the municipal governments are like those in Arizona (and county), they have used much of that tax revenue they collect in order to purchase insurance policies indemnifying any and all municipal employees from liability in the event of such lawsuits. Whose, of course, premiums then will go up accordingly and for which the city and state will plead the need for more revenue from the citizens in order to cover their then budget shortfalls.

Which also then provides them with an impetus to continue to pass more and more unconstitutional legislation for individual politicians benefits no matter which side of the aisle they claim to hail from. Both use politics and political maneuvering and backbiting in order to remain in power, while the citizenry then continues to be adversely affected both monetarily, and in quality of life issues - and whose children will also be burdened then with such clear treason in not carrying out their Constitutional, or even charter functions.

The municipal government are in the same positions the state's are, beholding and accountable not to the people but to their "feeder" big brother dictators.

Unbelieveable, actually, and just goes to show what is really going on here - since the municipal governments are, after all, state actors of the state government and it is the state government that continues to increase those requests in most states throughout the country for foreign workers in order to feed their corporate backers and sponsors and for them to save money on those taxes inflicted on Americans so they can continue to contribute to their future campaign coffers - and now potentially in unrestricted sums.

The criminal activity in our political systems seems to be getting worse by the month now.

These proposed ordinances are being compared to the steps Arizona has undertaken, and truthfully most of these measures simply seem to be frivolous and rather transparent actions taken by vulnerable politicians in order to use for future campaign purposes, and to feed those civil rights lawyers, many of whom are writing these laws for their own benefit, it appears and also who are receiving federal and state taxpayer dollars for the defenses or prosecutions of the laws they are writing using their legislative lackeys to actually undermine the Constitution and its provisions also by the month or legislative session.

The ACLU has become one of the biggest drains on the taxpayers ever, and is using a federal statute which was passed years ago which was meant simply to provide for their legal fees for true AMERICAN civil rights actions in order to mask most of these lawsuits they are initiating on behalf of foreigners as somehow within that statute's provisions or its intent.

The ACLU, of course, is promoting this as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which was actually meant in order to protect American citizen's rights in this country, not "corporate" entities in any manner whatsoever.

And since foreigners actually have no inherent civil rights in this country under America's Constitution unless and until they go through the naturalization process (the Preamble does state We The People of the United States....for US and OUR posterity), it can only be the corporate and the ACLU's own self serving interests that is behind all the blustering.

I wonder why the ACLU isn't actually bringing the needed lawsuit on behalf of American civil liberties in this country in upholding the Constitution's provisions in reinstituting the tax on foreign labor, and removing the tax on domestic labor, which just might turn this country's economy around and bring more jobs to Americans in this country than any "jobs bill" of Congress, which will simply provide for more government or taxpayer paid jobs at the American public's expense, and thus create more and more homeless and a widening gap between the poor and the rich and facilitate the agenda here truly of wiping out America's middle class.

So that we can then be more like Great Britain, Mexico, and a host of those other "socialized" countries with "sovereign" governments, instead of as ours is supposed to be - of the people, by the people, for the people - the American PEOPLE, not the corporate special interests such as the ACLU and their corporate backers.

The fact that the Supreme Court overturned the Pennsylvania municipal law does not surprise this writer. It has been clear that those justices on the Supreme Court have not been able to read the Constitution for literally decades.

The ACLU also stated that it is "immigration reform" that is needed, not these segregated attempts by the states and their "state actor" municipal corporations to institute such measures. Although since there is already a process for immigration on the books, can't see where the ACLU also is taking such a stance.

But what they truly really want and mean is nothing more than "amnesty" in order to again feed the legal profession who, of course, will be needed and necessary in order for these individuals to eventually gain that coveted prize - citizenship. And in which most of those truly seasonal and migrant workers will not apply for in any such instance anyway as they didn't for the Reagan amnesty.

Since most of them couldn't afford the fees, and the rest were merely here in order to feed their families back home and dollars brought their families remaining in Mexico a higher standard of living than their remaining and working in Mexico would.

If you wish to work here, apply for a green card before entering, and wait your turn.

Temporary work visas are available in abundance, but you do need to leave after that seasonal work is done and if you migrate to another area than for that which the original work visa was granted, you do need to visit INS to get it extended from my understanding.

And it is the large corporate agribusinesses in Nebraska and meatpackers that hire the most of them to cut their labor costs, since the small farmers as in decades past usually shared seasonal workers, and also provided for housing, meals and medical care for those workers for which the small towns and community as a whole shared during planting and harvesting season - as one who knows who due to marriage, had grandparents who owned land and a farm in the Midwest at one time and used migrant or seasonal workers to plant and harvest their crops. And whose grandmother took them out their lunches, or prepared full course breakfasts, suppers and dinner for them during the season and also arranged for housing if necessary in the old "bunk" house.

If you overstay your "visa" longer than the proscribed period, and are not granted an extension by the State Department or by INS (now ICE), then you are suppose to go "home," not be working here illegally, or renting an apartment.

And these laws, I'm sure, are much less stringent than those you will find in Mexico, Canada, India, or any other of the number of countries in which the U.S. has taken in literally thousands upon thousands of those who wished to immigrate legally.

If it is the expense that is the problem, then that is a simple matter of reducing the fees and original costs to that which those in some of the poorer nations can afford, such as in the "olden" day, and the original application process one in which it doesn't take a lawyer charging $300-$400 per hour to complete.

The immigration process was not intended to be one which fed the lawyers in this country, civil rights, immigration, criminal or otherwise. But that is exactly what has occurred due to the illegal extension of civil rights to even these civil rights groups that are not at all representing Americans, but foreigners.

Although with the amount of jobless and homeless in this country during the biggest recession/depression since the Great Depression, this country still in an ongoing war due to an attack on it by foreigners from within, and the shear number of immigrants this country has taken in progressively due to unconstitutional wars of the past, at this point in America's history the federal government is once again negligent in not exercising that other provision in the Constitution and not only restricting immigration, but banning it altogether at this point.

Until this "war" is over, and there are few Americans in this country without gainful employment and these corporate entities start using America's labor pools and fighting for removal of that 16th Amendment also which has circumvented and placed this country's government in a lopsided and unaccountable position across the board with the feds now reining "Supreme" over the citizens, and the states, progressively.

With even now funding this MCLU, MALDEFF and a host of other "educational" for profit non profits headed by mostly "civil rights," immigration, corporate or criminal lawyers with American taxpayer dollars illegally.

And with the Obama Administration threatening Arizona's new law, I simply hope that the Governor of Arizona files a countersuit under the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act in order to get the funding for that fence the feds promised forthwith - instead of once again feeding the industry in which the majority, it appears, now come in all three branches of government illegally representing their own self interests more and more by the decade.

That other offshoot from the Brits, and a country which more and more of these Supreme Court justices are actually educated and hail, the American Barrister's Association which has progressively returned its educational focus, it is quite clear, to not American jurisprudence but foreign jurisprudence - mostly Britain's or the UN's "accords" (created inially by Britain post World War II) and the country we fought that original war over to establish this sovereign nation and to protect its citizens from "foreigners" abuse or influence in our country's government or political matters.

So in essence in all of these ACLU, MALDEF, and other foreigner focused groups, it is the American people actually who are paying for their own abuse in most of these court actions - and in which these groups are contributing to our out of control deficits more and more for their own "welfare."

And the only true Constitutional funds that the federal government has within their powers over foreigners are:

1. To provide a naturalization process (which we have)

2. To provide the federal courts for any prosecutions against foreigners for "crimes committed against the nation" before naturalization;

3. To regulate commerce insofar as the hiring of those foreign workers in monitoring the impact that foreign outsourced labor and products affect domestic labor and production;

4. To tax the states for any and all "foreign" labor which is needed and for which those green cards are issued at their request, since it is the states that request and petition for those "guest worker" visas and work visas annually, and then forward those requests to the federal government. These taxes were meant to both protect domestic labor and commerce from foreign competition detrimental to the U.S. economy and workforce, and also provide for the needed revenue for their needs while working or visiting this country, such as the increases in "use" taxes for roads, state provided benefits for community services, etc.

So other than the costs which are now involved, and re-evaluating the process in order to make it similar to that which was in force and effect at the turn of the century, in which there wasn't this influx of illegal foreigners in any manner whatsoever (since at that time there were even restricted ports of entry for any and all of these permanent or temporary foreigners through Ellis Island primarily), just what type of "reform" is actually needed?

Perhaps enforcing the existing law on the books insofar as letting the punishment fit the crime, and not providing "immigration hearings" for those which have not immigrated legally and returning them forthwith back across those borders when proof of citizenship cannot be provided or legal guest worker status verified such as the laws in Arizona are attempting to do in codifying that federal law at the state level?

Or turning over those that commit felonies while in this country to the U.S. Marshall, and the state attorney generals actually doing their jobs and prosecuting them through the federal courts in order to get the true criminal element off the street which have been progressively victimizing the Arizonans and American people in other states in greater and greater numbers by the decade?

Enforcement and a rewind to the procedures which were instituted while I as growing up in Arizona in the 1960's and 1970's is what is needed here, in my educated opinion as both a victim and one who is familiar of the long history of this issue from personal experience, appears is what is needed, not "comprehensive" reform at all.

With the federal government actually doing their primary job - providing for the common defense, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of the American people first and foremost.

Remember, America: Cornwallis Never Surrendered

Aside from the spins that are now occurring on the Gulf Deepwater Horizon disaster, and all the blustering of those members of Congress looking for some face time in the media and photo ops, the fundamental question that needs to be answered due to now this over six week "containment" effort is, just how many extra barrels of oil has Great Britain gained that have been shipped out of the Port of New Orleans since this disaster began?

Several thousands, maybe?

I mean this is the largest oil spill outside the Exxon Valdez incident (close to Canada also), and oil and water do not mix.

So just how much have the British syphoned off of the U.S. oil reserves in the Gulf?

While Prime Minister Cameron offers not a single apology to the American people, but warns of "excessive claims" against that bogus reserve account that Mr. Obama has widely (and nationally) televised, and then continues to put BP in charge so that he can address the problems of the "global" economy with the G-20? (Global or Government 20, that is), with the Queen?

Just when is that Union Jack going to replace the Stars and Stripes officially?

And isn't it interesting that the State of Louisiana is now "governed" by a Governor whose parents were immigrants from India, another British Territory? And who has been getting more and more national attention as the disasters in Louisiana multiply?

It appears the British Empire and its insatiable needs for world dominion quite clearly in this country did not end with the American Revolution, but simply a different strategy has been in the works for literally decades.

Using naturalized or even native born "Ameuro" Tories to continue the war, which may be why Cornwallis never showed up at Yorktown.

It would have been against the future battle plan.

McCain, Hayworth Race Demonstrates Need For True Change

As a demonstration of the need for a true rewind and reinstituting the "campaign finance reform" that the founders envisioned, you need look no further than the current mud-slinging by two in one of the mainstream political parties for the Senate race in Arizona between the incumbent, John McCain, and a "viable" challenger, J.D. Hayworth.

Both have taken the low route and slung mud implicating both in illicit and illegal campaign contributions (when both accept out of district funding, so both are fundamentally in violation of the founders intent for a representative government from the outset, as are all candidates from that other corporate party, the "Democrats.").

Both represent corporate special interests due to their soliciting "bundlers" that are not even residents of the State of Arizona. Hayworth and McCain had out of district "bundlers" working for their campaigns, in clear violation of the Constitution's intent.

Both are affiliated with "corporate" political parties, diametrically opposed in their agendas to the stated law of the land, the U.S. Constitution in their platforms - and represent "corporate" interests most of all, not their true constituency.

And neither spent their formative years in Arizona, and thus were and are "carpetbaggers" if anything. Hayworth from North Carolina, and McCain from Virginia primarily.

The "representative" function of federal state representatives such s Senators, at this point in our history, wouldn't you think, would require a longer history there than a Ms. Clinton, Mr. McCain or Mr. Hayworth.

Since they are, after all, representing the state and should have a long term association with its history, not Washington's political games.

Formative years create the attachment, not deeds.

Much is rotten in Arizona, and those that talk the talk but don't walk the walk, are not worth listening to or voting for.

Which may be why the State of Arizona, at one point, had an initiative which would have created a lottery for those that participated in the voting process.

Since so many have come to the same conclusion I have, none of them represent me, or the Constitution.

And oaths of office demonstrate fealty and loyalty, not political parties.

Obamanation: BP Gets A Lecture, Americans Get The Shaft

Yesterday Barack Obama took to the air waves after almost six weeks in order to address the American people regarding the Deepwater Horizon explosion and incident which occurred off Louisiana's Gulf Coast, costing eleven American men their lives.

The "address" simply consisted of a verbal lecture and tongue lashing of British Petroleum, and announcement of an "escrow" account Mr. Obama has ordered be established in order to compensate any and all whose businesses were affected, of course rather than that global foreign based corporation having to face the American people and jurors of this disaster and having them make the decision, since the ramifications of this disaster will eventually impact ALL Americans in one way or another.

Seems that little escrow account is nothing more than a "get out of jail" free card for that British held corporation, and their executives. Wonder how this Constitutional lawyer can circumvent the Constitution and deny due process rights to some of those victims under a purported "escrow account," and wonder how much those victims will receive after the lawyers are done with the paperwork?

It appears PM Cameron is already "warning" BP about excessive claims. I wonder how many excessive barrels of oil have been transferred to those tankers in the Port of New Orleans, and have sailed off to Britain under cover of night in the six weeks now since this "cleanup" began? Several thousand barrels, maybe?

Since there hasn't been any solution to this problem and this spill is increasing (need more of those freebie barrels, apparently, for the British bankers, government and people's profit at the U.S.'s expense once again, just how do they plan to settle these claims, anyway? Just what is the timeline in how long this escrow fund is going to be in existence - simply until it is wiped out and the outrage and media attention dies down ala Katrina?

That 20 billion will be chump change after all those excess barrels are refined and redistributed throughout the world (and back to the U.S. at pure profit).

I mean, this is one of THE LARGEST global corporations in the world, counting all its various subsidiaries and formerly a "property" of the British royal family and government.

No mention was made of criminal manslaughter or negligence charges being filed against those executives, or any of the half dozen at least agencies who were asleep at the drill bit it seems.

No mention was made of rescinding this foreign based corporation's offshore leases and drilling rights to America's oil reserves, even after this was the second explosion and loss of American lives that can be directly attributed to BP - this one, and one in Texas several years ago.

No mention was made of even requiring that three times (treble) the amount of oil barrels under that lease which British Petroleum had been so illegally yet graciously granted by Congress and a former Administration be redirected to U.S. distributors rather than their British petrol gluttons, since it is clear that the U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies already have expended U.S. taxpayer dollars in assisting this global corporation with containment efforts.

I mean, that is the law for tort actions and damages, which at least in this area Britain and the U.S. common law agree, punitive damages are set at treble (three times) the damages.

And the Gulf coastline has been significantly damaged, at least for the next decade or two, even if that well was capped off tomorrow.

I'm sure there were also fines and penalties written into those leases, but I'm sure the penalties were a mere drop in the bucket compared to all the profit BP will now be making, and quite obviously gaining even more of America's precious oil reserves than was originally written into those leases, I'll bet.

I mean, no one is overseeing these containment efforts from the U.S. at this point, so whose to say that Britain isn't shucking off some of these barrels on their tankers in the Port of New Orleans in excess of their stated lease "nonrights" for a little extra profit?

But just how do you compensate eleven American men's families who were the ultimate victims of this disaster, at the hands of foreigners once again?

It appeared also that Mr. Obama attempted to use this disaster for his own "special interest" and that of primarily his political party - the Tories, whose members cross both mainstream American political parties.

After all, Mr. Obama AND John McCain received campaign contributions from British Petroleum, a British domiciled corporation according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Along with Mary Landrieu in addition.

I mean, just where in the Constitution does it afford our Senators or Congressmen to be sponsored by foreigners and foreign interests? Are they not supposed to be representing Americans, and not those foreigners - especially the Brits.

Just what was that Revolutionary War, or War of Independence actually about?

It doesn't appear a single one of those that are currently serving time in Congress has an inkling.

Is our educational system really that bad, or that corrupted?

Mr. Obama recently announced that there would be a new nuclear generator and reactor built in the State of Georgia, as part of his energy reform measures.

Let's just hope that BP or one of its subsidiaries doesn't get the lease rights to that reactor or that as so many others have been throughout the country, privatized after its construction and then placed under foreign ownership through that global exchange that those in Washington seem so hell bent on pumping up at the cost of both the livelihoods, and in greater and greater number, lives of the American people. Of course, with the Nuclear Regulatory Agency there then to simply pump up the stockholder dividends with those "emergency rate increases" and fines it inflicts as what has occurred with Palo Verde in Arizona - making nuclear energy more expensive, not less so, than the olden days of natural gas and those now marginalized other sources due to this massive global warming scam and "climate change."

A conundrum of terms in and of itself. The National Weather Service couldn't even predict the path of Gustav accurately before it hit landfall, but somehow these scientists can predict weather changes literally thousands of years from now?

What did P.T. Barnum say, and what was that expression that stated that the only thing that was "free" in this country any more was the air we breathe. But those global socialists have even found a way to propagandize and tax that for their corporate gain.

Oh, and Mr. Obama is meeting today for the first time with British Petroleum executives for a personal lecture, rather than a televised one.

Or simply another strategy meeting to further the U.S. branch of the Tory Party and its global British government cause.

Did I mention that all the homes that are being lost by the citizens of New Orleans post-Katrina due to increases particularly in insurance, are being bought up by the British - many of whom BP executives from Britain - and some for a song during this U.S. recession?

Mineral rights to the American oil reserves and Gulf oil, and prime real estate in a major U.S. port.

I wonder when the new Louisiana flag will be revealed?

The one with the Union Jack, instead of the pelican.

The Deepwater Horizon Disaster: Shades of Things To Come?

While Mr. Obama wades around the sandy beaches of Pennsacola, and prepares for his tongue lashing, finger pointing, sleight of hand speechifying scheduled for this evening over the Deepwater Horizon disaster that left eleven Americans dead once again at the hands of foreigners, it doesn't appear that the true redressive steps are being taken, nor the right questions being asked.


British Petroleum, a British based global corporation and one of the largest in the world, held the mineral rights to the well involved in the explosion through its lease with the U.S. government for deep water offshore drilling rights to America's oil reserves off the coast of Louisiana.

Quite clearly, there was little or any regulation over this global concern and their practices, or else there was much "looking the other way" involved by those government agencies that would have been charged to oversee that foreign based corporation's practices which would have most likely prevented the explosion which occurred, the second in which BP has been involved in during the last decade - the other at an oil refinery in Texas - and those men might still be alive today.

Eleven Americans died, but thus far most of the news and media attention has been focused on the ever widening expanse and coastline that this horrendous spill has now impacted, rather than the American lives that were lost at the hands, once again, of foreigners.


I know, those lives that were lost were simply eleven, most likely redneck Southern construction workers, not on the level of the 9-11 disaster and lives lost of those global bankers, firefighters and police officers from the Big Apple.

These were people instead from the Big Easy, or thereabouts.

Southerners and Southwesterners mostly.

Where's the Hollywood telethon on this one, for those eleven men's families, and those poor oil slicked pelicans, turtles and the like all of you in LaLa Land? Why aren't you scheduling that star studded event?

The globalism and "go global" agendas of those in high seats of government throughout the world is quite clearly adversely impacting this country in the body counts by the decade.

Most of our nuclear reactors at this point have been "privatized," and shares now sold over the global market and stock exchange, a fact becoming more widely known as incidents such as these, and those airline terrorism attacks now that shares of our airlines also are sold over the global stock exchange, continue to make the headlines and which incidents were nonexistent prior to the huge push toward merging all nations economies, and this "global economy" and big businesses focus in competing in this global economy as a result.


Which is, after all, diametrically opposed to the sovereign America our founders created, and is quite regressive in its agendas.


Although the Nuclear Regulatory Agency is charged with oversight of our nuclear reactors, the fact that these privately owned now "public utilities" could at this point, especially with the ever declining dollar and U.S. recession, literally be owned by foreigners makes the mind boggle at just what impact such an accident might have at possibly Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the largest and a mere 50 miles outside the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Just what is Washington smoking at this point? Or reading?



The Communist Manifesto or America's Constitution?

It will be interesting to see what kind of prepared speech Mr. Obama has addressing this disaster, and if mention is made of the 11 Americans who were victims of this disaster, or whether most of the focus will be on setting up his "escrow" account to pay off the claims of those who have been affected in the various industries and for clean up monies, and more of a PR appearance on behalf of BP in publicizing their efforts and willingness to escape the American court system, and establish a fund for any and all directed impacted.


But what about the indirect victims - the American people, and the families of those eleven killed?

This explosion and its results is sure to be the basis for hikes in gas and oil prices at the pump, and also higher prices for that Gulf seafood that is become more and more scarce the wider this oil tsunami spreads.

No formal charges or investigations, it appears, are being widely reported insofar as criminal negligence charges against BP or some of those executives or governmental officials personally for the loss of lives of those eleven men, nor does it appear that BP's lease rights will be rescinded for any further explorations along America's coastline, or investigations of their practices along the pipelines in Alaska - for which they also are or were major leaseholders.

Which might explain the push for Sarah Palin also and her sudden appearance on the national scene this last election.

Does seem a little coincidental, doesn't it?



And wonder how much BP has donated to state and federal campaigns across the board - although as a foreign domiciled corporation, clearly those that received and accepted such contributions should be hauled up on not simply ethics charges, but criminal charges.

Foreigners "sponsoring" candidates in this country?



The founders are not only spinning, they are levitating.

While, of course, instead of exploring the reserves "owned" by the American people which would result in cheaper oil and gas prices for the domestic variety (and not owned by U.S.A., Inc., with Congress and the President a Board of Directors, since "trading" our mineral rights or leasing to Great Britain a non-renewable energy source much needed in the U.S. definitely was not those founders intent), we are over in Iraq fighting to secure our presence there for those purported needed more expensive barrels, and in which it just so happens that the biggest news story today is about a massive mineral discovery made by U.S. geologists in Afghanistan.

Appears our standing army in their "pursuit" of bin Laden has been put on hold again, and does appear that our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan more and more does appear to have ulterior motives.

I wonder who is truly directing this farce of a show?

Stay tuned, since it appears the after this evening, most Americans will need either nose plugs, or that sea sickness medication, dramamine.

It was reported today also that Wall Street had a small rally, due to the increases which occurred in the European markets - a market that increasingly is benefitting from the U.S. recession and deflation of our dollar by most of those British bankers that manipulate the world's economy, by and large, by the day.

What's that saying - that it is easier to conquer a country from within, than from without - especially in this day and age.


I mean, I think we have trained half the military might in the world, especially the British and Canadian troops, many of those Canadian troops are now based in the U.S., or going to some of our finest military academies as are a greater and greater number of foreigners.


And especially such a likely scenario seems possible with the assistance of "sponsored" and appointed representatives by Britain - I wonder how many are sponsored by China or Germany, since we know a bucketload of them are sponsored by Israel and Britain now - to facilitate the process with those "foreign" campaign donations.

And how convenient it appears now that the Supreme Court "accepted' that "Citizens United" case, clearly in order to further the global and U.S. corporate dominance in America's election process and the march toward global socialism, diametrically opposed to the intent of this nation's founders from the outset and their clear "war" against the East India Tea Company - the AIG, BP and U.S. Chamber of their time buying influence through the "sovereign" gain of both political parties and their "corporate" politicians particularly who have hijacked America's election process at this point fundamentally.

AIG, and now BP.

While Mr. Obama reassures the British publicly that in no way would the Deepwater Horizon incident affect this country's loyalty and alliance with Great Britain.

I wonder how the families of those victims felt upon hearing that on the local news?

In fact, this little incident and blip it was reported merely delayed his scheduled appearance and next road trip to Australia, another British holding.

And Britannia rules the waves in more ways than one.

Both on land (air waves) and on sea (continued drilling and mineral rights to America's oil reserves).

I wonder how many bridges the British own or lease in this country, and whether that one in Lake Havasu, Arizona they didn't want and we got as a hand-me-down has been inspected lately?

Anchor Babies: Are They Constitutionally U.S. Citizens?

This week during the continuing debate on the validity of the steps the State of Arizona has undertaken in order to address the illegal immigrant problems in that state by mostly outside agitators from various special interest groups and media types, there was a report that an additional law addressing the "anchor" baby problem also is being formulated to further restrict any and all citizenship rights by extension to the parents of children who are born in the United States of illegals.

Of course, Arizona once again is setting up the civil rights lawyers for a clear challenge to any such law, rather than taking the steps that would be clearly called for here by our Constitution.

And that would be to place this before the citizenry after using the Constitutional solution through the federal courts in order to get our borders truly physically secured, especially those southern borders nine long years after 9-11, so that this problem is not a problem in any manner whatsoever of those that cross the border to give birth to their children.

Due to separate federal legislation providing for emergency medical care for foreigners - many of whom use the border hospitals also for their needs but do return to Mexico, such legislation is sure to spark additional politicizing by the Mexican government also who use the United States and U.S. citizens wallets, whether visiting that country or not, for their economic stimulus and benefit in more ways than one.

These steps fly in the face of existing federal legislation in this respect, and many others, and does seem that most of these measures that are being facilitated by the state "misrepresentatives" in Arizona are being done for political purposes, of course, without taking any legal steps under Constitutional provision whatsoever to get those borders secured under both the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and also the 2006 Secure Fence Act.

That is, after all, why we have a federal government (and is also the primary purpose also of the state government) to begin with - to protect the populace from the adverse impact of foreigners, whether militarily or criminally.

I, of course, have a special interest also in this legislation - as both a former Arizonan and victim of multiple illegal immigrant crimes over the course of 45 years, and also as the granddaughter of immigrants, one of whom never went through the naturalization process and was a "registered resident alien" from Scotland until her death - my grandmother.

My grandfather was a citizen, but although she entered this country legally back in early part of the 20th century, she was busy raising children thereafter, and then feared she did not have the education in order to pass the test at that time, which was fairly stringent, and also had family living in Scotland and was concerned due to wars and such she would be denied the opportunity to visit them, although for financial reasons merely went back three or four times during her lifetime for family visits and celebrations.

The 14th Amendment is being brought to the forefront as the barrier to such legislation at the state level, although I would argue that the legality of all those amendments after the 10th is questionable to begin with, since the 9th Amendment was meant to clarify that any and all future amendments to the Constitution, as a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," were to be first put before the people before the states had any authority to ratify any future amendments to it.

This is a fundamental principle of the Constitutional Republican form of government the founders envisioned and created, as below the people and accountable to them.

And it would clearly be different if we had a true representative government on any level at this point - which we have not since that bogus Supreme Court decision granting "corporate personhood" status to property facilitated by the corporate lawyers in this country, and also due to the fact that the Supreme Court has progressively also then given even Bill of Rights protections even to corporate entities. Including affording them just recently unlimited campaign contributions to candidates for federal office - and in which many of these corporations now are not even U.S. home domiciled, or even home domiciled in the states and thus outside district funding and influence negates even the shred of a representative government at state, federal and local levels across the board.

BP is and was a British domiciled oil company that was formerly owned by the British roayl family, it has been reported, but made massive campaign donations to federal and state legislative campaigns, and appears to me quite obviously why this Administration has basically taken a hands off approach other than the public tongue lashings which have gone on now for over a month after the Deepwater Horizon disaster which cost another eleven Americans their lives at the hands of foreigners operating outside even a minimum of federal or state oversight and drilling into America's coastline and given access to American oil reserves.

While we are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington is selling off American assets and industries to foreigners right and left.

Patrick Henry fought tooth and nail for those first ten Bill of Rights in order to protect the citizenry from the overstep of this new government as they had experienced in Britain, and his speech during the Virginia ratification process proves what was intended to be secured for the citizenry by those first ten amendments.

It is clear throughout the Constitution that it was also the intent of the founders to write the Constitution addressing this matter clearly through many of its other provisions, such as:

The presidential office holder had to be a certain age, born in this country, and also lived in this country consistently for a proscribed number of years (which coincided with the birth of future Americans through the British custom of making their European tours and schooling after reaching the age of 13, since there were no schools of higher learning in this country at that time and many went abroad for their higher learning).

As are there such age required and residency provisions for all the federal senators and congressmen.

The provisions also addressing the hiring and outsourcing of foreign labor involving placing a tax on such labor after the first generation of "immigrant" Americans died out who were in this country at the signing also shows their intentions in this respect, as does the duty for the new federal government to provide a naturalization process for foreigners (and at the beginning, it took five full years, which was extended to seven at one point, and no inherent "rights" were afforded to foreigners at all prior to formal naturalization and those that entered were documented upon entry and stowaways not included on ship's manifests were criminals and were shipped back to their home countries immediately in chains).

It is clear that the "intent" of those founders after the first generation of Americans died out, that the definition of a "natural born American" was one who was born of at least one either natural born or naturalized parent, and that full citizenship actually is not afforded until that child reached the age of majority.

Children born of generational Americans do not have citizenship rights while minors, and full adulthood in their day was not recognized until the age of 25 through many of the provisions in that Constitution, since at that age most had left home, were either finished their higher educations, or had families or property of their own.

I, as an Arizonan paying taxes for the schools in that state throughout my adulthood there, always wondered how the children of illegals were afforded to attend the public schools as more and more illegals flooded into Arizona after the Reagan amnesty.

It would appear to me that this measure is again treating the symptoms once again and not doing anything fundamentally within the Arizona legislature's power to address the problem at all.

And that is the open borders.

The true legal solution is in passing the required Resolution directing the Governor to file, through the Attorney General's office, the federal lawsuit of "breach of contract" in order to get those borders truly secured from both the criminal element, and the property theft and impact on the legal citizenry this negligence has progressively caused in the homelessness and joblessness especially in that state, and resulting drain on the social service welfare rolls which have placed more and more legal Americans on them progressively in that state.

We have party politicians, and not true statesmen or duly elected representatives at all levels of government - that is abundantly clear.

Or else none of them truly have any understanding of or have read the document upon which they all swear their oath of office.

Rebalancing The Scales: The Constitutional Tax On Foreign Labor

With all the politicking over the immigration and border security issues, and the "rights" of migrant workers whether in this country legally or not (mostly not of those from Mexico progressively), what has been left out of the posturing and politicizing over this issue has been the Constitutional provisions with respect to foreign labor that the founders provided in order to protect American jobs and industry from undue foreign competition.

And that is simply codifying and reinstituting at both the state and federal levels the foreign labor tax that is already provided in that brilliantly crafted document.

Article I, Section 9 states in relevant part:

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

This section, of course, gave Congress the power after the first generation of immigrants were gone, to prohibit and limit immigration and/or regulate it according to its impact on the existing populace, both natural and naturalized Americans, and also "tax" the states for any and all "outsourcing" which was done.

Of course, at that time the fee was simply $10.00 per head for imported labor, before this country's economy was enmeshed with that of the global economy, and before Congress in 1913 created the Federal Reserve without even the minimum of oversight taking the printing and regulation of our currency out from its direct control through the U.S. Treasury to a public/private entity which fundamentally is controlled by the European bankers and which has lead to where we as a nation are today progressively insfar as debt and involved in more and more nondefensive wars, in this writer's opinion.

Since Social Security and other related taxes are levied on American workers in order to provide for social services which may be needed now or in the future, why not reinstitute the tax on foreign labor requiring employer's to contribute, and withhold sums equal to Social Security, workmen's comp and the like for any and all foreign labor they hire in order to provide for their future needs if and when they do eventually naturalize (or if not, to provide for their "emergency" medical or costs to return to their home countries in the event of unemployment or disability during those periods in which they are employed here).

Reinstituting such provisions would also rebalance the scales making the hiring of domestic labor then competitive with those that are simply hiring those contract manual day laborers from Mexico, especially, primarily so that they can then escape paying their share of those costs and fees and who have progressively simply shifted the burden of their operating labor costs to the American people.

And, of course, those employers also in the construction, casino and travel industries primarily using those immigrants from poorer countries that simply want to undercut and depress the wages of those industries and shift those costs then onto the American public in the increases in the amounts that are and have been needed progressively for public welfare costs.

The solutions are there, but it appears the two mainstream political parties are not interested in true solutions, but using this issue for their corporate needs progressively, and in order to secure that cheap labor for the profits of their future campaign chests, or gain the ever growing "Latino" vote due to progressive federal negligence in carrying out their true functions.

Or else haven't a clue nor have read the document upon which they all swear their oath of office.

And then to truly stimulate the economy, remove the tax on domestic labor entirely as outside Constitutional intent and which has lead to the bankruptcies and homelessness that is the end result of taxing the "fruits of American labor" as the direct tax those founders warned against in so many of their writings, and just what that original war in order to break free from "foreign" control and excessive taxation of the British sovereign was all about.

Of course, then re-establishing the "legal" status of corporations as the property that they are, and not people in any manner whatsoever deserving of Bill of Rights protections per that bogus Supreme Court decision which was politically determined and not Constitutionally, and tax any corporate property at 10% or below the worth of their annual fixed assets - the common law provisions for "debt."

And nix the "free trade agreements" which have resulted in continued debt to foreign countries and our huge trade deficit also progressively. Taxes on iimports and exports to foreign countries were what were, after all, supposed to pay for the bulk of the costs of the federal government to begin with.

We are, after all, now worse off than those original founders were so long, long ago for this fundamental reason.

The British Rule of Law through the treason of those in high levels of government in the two party system that also was never intended, has returned PROGRESSIVELY and REGRESSIVELY.

Cops, Cops Everywhere: Cinco De Mayo Profiling

While the mainstream news media and politicians continue to "politicize" the recent old "new" law in Arizona written mostly by the civil rights lawyers in that state clearly for their own "stimulus" with respect to the rather broad and open-ended language contained in it and using the race card inappropriately to racket up the temperatures of the citizenry for both of the mainstream political parties benefit, as a former long term Arizonan I had an interesting experience this past month upon returning to that state for a brief 48 hour turnaround trip for a family member's graduation.

I, of course, left the state fairly quickly as one of those affected by the border situation, and costs of ownership of my home which necessitated relinquishing my ownership "nonrights," when a plea went out to those attending to support an added sales tax increase in order to purportedly fund the universities and schools, when Arizona's schools are funded through property taxes, and as a divorced single mother, both my ex-spouse and I had paid those taxes through the nose while our children were growing up there while watching property and insurance rates also skyrocket.

But while traveling through the State of New Mexico along the interstate highway to Arizona it seems the State of New Mexico has its own version of "profiling," both racially and otherwise.

There were at least a dozen of those expensive electronic highway safety signs that were flashing the message, "Cops, Cops Everywhere...May Cinco de Mayo DUI Blitz," or words similar to that effect.

While the Obama Administration has also been using Arizona's new law for its agendas in pursuing another Reagan era amnesty for the estimated over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country at the present time - once again, without any real permanent fencing or border security per the 2006 Fence Act - his National Highway Safety Council apparently is doing its own "racial" profiling regarding the timing of these DUI stings and in some states even, road blocks.

At these road blocks citizens at random are presumed to be possibly under the influence during select holiday weekends, since most of these sting operations are occurring during the spring breaks or other holidays.

Conveniently, May happens to be the month when both Cinco De Mayo is celebrated throughout the country at this point (a Mexican holiday, not U.S.) and graduation celebrations are in full swing.

These "saturation patrols" are compromised mostly of off-duty police officers for added pay under federal grant monies given to the states for such purposes so that they will tow the line in federal mandates in this respect under threat of removal of federal (and state) highway funding - one of their true Constitutional duties, of course rather than handing out monies for the next Woodstock Museum, or bridge to nowhere - mainly at the behest of that now temperance organization, MADD, and the global and national bankers, once again, and insurance industry.

The cities and states, of course, love those laws since the fees and fines now are so high they can also receive double revenue for those minor offenses (civil matters if not involving property loss or injury to another).

Many of the states have quietly sold some of their jail facilities to private entities, of course, leasing them back at higher costs to the public or turned to such facilities as "tent city" in Arizona in order to gain even more revenue, since those states then also receive added revenue by the head for those who are arrested and cannot now make their bonds due to the amount of those fines and fees even for first time offenses, many of whom are then serving jail time before they are even arraigned or have entered their pleas.

I wonder if this, too, could be classified as "racial" profiling?

Or simply governmentally facilitated "terrorism," on the public.

It seems Granddaddy does seem to speak out of both sides of its mouth when push comes to shove, and wonder whether such barricades and "checkpoints" that are used now for insurance and DUI "searches and seizures," will also become the norm?

"Let me see your papers," also includes those mandatory insurance barricades and checkpoints in some of those states that are also now conducted "in the interest of public safety" outside Arizona after Big Daddy spoke back in the 1970's using the same tactics for those nationwide laws for mandated citizen control also at the behest of mainly the insurance industry using again removal of highway funding, didn't they?

How come Saturday Night Live hasn't done a skit on THAT?

As a former Arizonan who has seen it all and watched this situation progress for the past forty years, I am opposed to the law in its present form for many reasons, but primarily because without the needed border fencing and security, it simply is addressing the symptoms and not the cause at all.

We are looking at serial amnesties here for political purposes at the cost, once again, of the natural and naturalized Americans progressively since any such attempt by Congress would be the second in two decades. Generational amnesties.

If it is the federal government's intent to simply turn the West and Southwest back over to Mexico and Canada, too, since so many Canadian snowbirds also live in those Sunbelt states more than six months out of the year or own second homes there, maybe there is a great deal in that NAFTA free trade agreement with those two countries that those Americans living in the West and Southwest and Sunbelt states simply haven't been told.

Especially since foreigners now are progressively gaining Bill of Rights protections under a Constitution that is now more protective of foreigner's rights, than Americans.

Like hasta la vista, baby.

They now have been given squatters rights as the new international states of Canifornico, Mexicanzona, Nuevo Mexico, and Texico.

Surprise, Surprise: O'Connor Favorably Vets Kagan

Well surprise, surprise.

It was reported in the mainstream press that retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor supports Barack Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to become the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Ms. O'Connor is in her 80's, and became progressively more "liberal" in her opinions and interpretations of the Constitution as she winded down her tenure on the bench.

The highlight, of course, was in the fiasco surrounding George Bush's win in the U.S. Presidential election in which Ms. O'Connor stopped the ballot counting and declared Mr. Bush the winner.

Her comments reflected her attitudes as another of the "globalist" minded Supreme Court justices, stating that she felt Ms. Kagan had an adequate education, although never having served on a federal bench.

She was, however, the Dean of Harvard's Law School in which during her tenure she suspended mandatory Constitutional Law classes in favor of a more "progressive" globally based curriculum.

I wonder if she was Dean when Mr. Obama attended, before or after Constitutional law was removed as a mandatory requirement in Harvard's law school curriculum.

No matter, it is clear that it has was removed long, long before it was "officially" replaced by the globally focused curriculum in most law schools throughout the nation today post the 1960's, especially those on the East and West coast in those primarily blue states of the past.

Another Harvard elitist, and they are turning out a bunch of these globally educated lawyers who are dedicated to wiping the U.S. Constitution off the map, come hell or high water.

Such as the recent games that are now being played over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, where various factions and special interests, including the judiciary itself, are attempting to circumvent the Constitution with respect to the redress for those victims of the Gulf disaster by moving the venues around from Louisiana to other nearby states, or consolidating those cases.

Hail, Caeser. Another justice that believes in the "sovereignty" of the government as above the people, and not accountable to them.

And that the Constitution is a "thing of wax" or "living document" that can be bended and shaped at will by the mere strokes of a Supreme Court decision throughout the land.

Sad day for America.

And appears that Ms. O'Connor has not retired to private life at all, but still has her hands in the political high jinx in Washington, as one of the participants in this treason.

She now appears to be also focusing on promoting civics and government classes throughout the country.

Her brand it appears, which bears no relevance to history, or our intended form of government in any manner whatsoever as being one which was meant to insure the sovereignty of this country, and break from British rule and dominion.

By the way, part of Ms. Kagan's undergraduate study was gained at a British school of higher learning.

I wonder if Ms. O'Connor is aware of that?

Somehow it has been these Rhodes scholars, and British trained lawyers that are gaining seats in high levels of government at a remarkable rate.

Maybe this appointment came from the country who is really ruling the Hill as as is apparent in the Deepwater Horizon disaster which now has claimed another 11 American lives.

I wonder whether Ms. Kagan, if confirmed, as the British trained Globalist she clearly is, will take the usual oath of office, or instead simply kneel before the Chief Justice so that he can simply tap her on the shoulders instead with the royal gavel?

In any event, it appears that the status quo is remaining, and that Ms. Kagan, all political appearances to the contrary, is really replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the other Jewish woman on the bench so that the "living Constitution" global socialism agenda can continue unabated under this, and the next several Administrations.

One who also condones the abolishment progressively of the document that even gives those Justices their lofty positions to begin with, and was meant to constrain them, and not expanded their interpretative power to include foreign jurisdictions at all, especially monarchial, socialistic or communist based dictatorships, with the Bill of Rights meant to insure the people's rights and protection from the corporate, be it domestic, municipal or global.

Those "inalienable" God given rights those founders acknowledged as denied them in Europe, and which is purposely stated cannot be removed in the interests of "public policy" or "public safety" or "state interests" political legalese without the calling of a new Constitutional Convention and with the express consent of the American people, the governed.

Not polls, or political party agendas.

And definitely not because Germany, Britain, China or Russia does it.

Cashing In On the BP Disaster: And This Is Due Process?

There appeared an article today printed by the AP regarding the political games that are now being played with respect to the civil lawsuits which have been filed over the Deepwater Horizon disaster in Louisiana, so far over 150 cases.

There is even a move being made to "consolidate" the cases under one U.S. District Court judge, thus removing and reassigning Constitutional jurisdiction over these cases outside Constitutional authority by the panels and individuals who are now "regulating" just how these cases are going to be handled - and where.

So far due to personal investments, there is also a problem that more than half the U.S. District Court judges having jurisdiction depending on the specifics of the case involved, although most of them so far involve Louisianna plaintiffs, are shareholders of BP, Halliburton or Transocean.

Or else are invested in the oil and gas industries in other unrelated companies - although other than direct investments in those three companies, any other financial interests do not automatically preclude them, under U.S. District Court Rules it appears, from recusing themselves or removing themselves from the judicial pool.

What is even more interesting has also been left unsaid, and just goes to show what this country in the future very clearly may be facing.

Over half of the U.S. District Court judges have been deemed ineligible at this point.

Just think.

I won't go into just how totally strange it is that these "public servants" have enough discretionary income to be able to afford to invest in oil and gas stocks in any measurable way.

But with that new bogus Supreme Court ruling affording unlimited campaign contributions from corporate entities (since the Supreme's failed to limit in their published opinion or even restrict their holding to citizen, and not commerical organizations although corporations, even those for-profit non-profit nominally grass roots organizations, are not people at all, but property), just how long before there are absolutely no federal or state judges who will be able to hear cases involving major global or regional industries?

Especially as those salaries and perks continue to escalate.

Our campaign finance laws are already diametrically opposed to those that the founders envisioned.

I mean, how can you have a representative government when those "misrepresentatives" are gaining their offices through major donations from big business and global industries that are not even domiciled in their home districts?

To this writer, this is the reason this country is fundamentally where it is, in addition to the 1913 treason that went on under Wilson.

And why in this article would there be a move to consolidate most of these cases under a Texas judge, if not to give a privilege and immunity to BP, Halliburton and Transocean that even U.S. citizens are not entitled to for any "capital" or civil offense without proving that any jury pool in a jurisdiction would be tainted - and these defendants are commercial entities, not even U.S. citizens, one of which clearly a British foreign domiciled corporation.

Oh, the webs we weave...and weave...and weave.

Special interest groups also are now attempting to get into the act influencing these "panels" as to the jurisdictional issues involved and number of cases.

This foreign, globally domiciled corporations disaster will end up costing the American people as a whole a fortune, no matter how high those BP fines are (which are sure to be appealed, as they did the Texas BP incident several years ago who still have not satisfied the fines levied, or the lawsuits which occurred then).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100606/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_judge_conflicts

The BP Disaster: Or Hey, Judas - You Better Make It Better

After watching almost a month now of the British Petroleum continued oil spill, and the excuses and buck passing once again being played out for the masses by the BP executives, Halliburton and all those Washington politicos, the fact remains that 11 American lives were once again lost due to foreigners and non-Americans.

Foreigners that somehow gained access to the mineral rights of the U.S. oil reserves progressively, in both Louisiana and Alaska (and who knows where else).

During any of this discourse, or Obama's highly publicized visit to the Gulf region to view the damage and measures being taken by the British to contain this spill, has there been any mention of that erstwhile U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, in filing criminal charges against those foreigners on behalf of the American people for negligence, and committing a "crime against the nation" even?

I mean, lots of pictures of oil covered wildlife have made the media, but what about the 11 men whose lives were lost?

American men hired for mostly manual labor for that cheap labor the British bankers also use to manipulate the world's economy in their favor, be it American or Mexican, actually were killed in this explosion.

Has the Queen so much as made an appearance, or statement with respect to this disaster, or the British Parliament?

Or the bankers?

We are now 30 days into this disaster, and not a peep other than excuse after excuse without THE fundamental question being asked.

Why is Washington and the State of Louisiana whose shores and wetlands have now again been compromised due to clear lack of even the minimum of regulation over those foreigners drilling into America's coastline even "outsourcing" America's oil reserves to foreigners to begin with?

Just where do they have the authority even to so do?

With America in a continued war in the Middle East that also clearly involved securing our presence for those "needed" barrels, this scenario is beginning to be quite clearly ludicrous. How many Brits are over in Iraq or Afghanistan at this point in this "war" primarily on their behalf, since it is the British that actually primarily held "mineral rights" over a great deal of Middle Eastern oil before British Petroleum was officially "privatized" in the late 1980's.

Where is the media in calling for the criminal sanctions and actions which are clearly called for here.

I know, 11 deaths aren't quite as newsworthy as, say, a 9-11 disaster.

Nor is it as close to home, New York, nor are those Southern manual laborers' lives, rather than Wall Street financial wheeler dealers or New York's finest police and firemen apparently quite so worthy of redressing.

Having a highly publicized bass guitar and piano fest with the Missus, Paul McCartney, and a host of other Washington elites singing "Hey Jude" in the midst of this crisis isn't going to cut it.

Hey Judas, make it better.

Where are you Mr. Holder and Mr. Jindal?

Do you work for the American people, or the British?

Same Old, Same Old: Globalism, Politics and BP

It seems according to the ongoing news reports (over a month now) of the BP disaster that the solution the federal government has come up with in order to hold BP accountable for the latest contamination of U.S. waters and fiscal impact on the American public is to hold another public tongue lashing at the public's expense, however, for this foreign based global corporation.

These hearings and special Congressional panels are beginning to mimic the old "Who's on First" routines of the slapstick era.

According to Fox New USA, an affiliate in a great deal of their political ideology and programming with BBC Worldwide, the solution to addressing the problem of the continuing oil spill is for this global corporation to get permission from the U.S. government to drill two more wells, in order to "relieve" the pressure on the well that was involved in this explosion.

Sounds like a real economic stimulus for the British at the cost of Americans once again to this writer - since a great many of those jobs (other than those of the manual labor variety) which will be provided for these new wells will, of course, go to more Brits and/or British subjects.

The fundamental question to this disaster has not been approached by the media it seems in any meaningful way.

And that is, while the U.S. is now involved in a War on Terrorism that just so happens to be focused more and more on developing a greater presence in the Middle East in order to secure many of those oil barons future wealth and prosperity, why is it that the U.S. then is giving "mineral rights" to foreign global corporations such as British Petroleum to the American oil reserves?

In other words, Britain is obtaining access to the oil reserves of the United States for primarily its citizenship's gasoline and petro needs, while the U.S. citizens are paying higher rates for those barrels that are now being imported from the Middle East?

No wonder the United States is facing its largest recession since the Great Depression in the 20's.

The British aren't simply coming, they are here, and this appears to be an economic war we are fighting with both its bankers, and its government.

Just who or what is BP?

British Petroleum until fairly recently was a holding of the British royal family, although it was "officially" privatized. From Britannica Encyclopedia Online Edition:

British Petroleum:

"British petrochemical corporation. Formed in 1909 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., Ltd., to finance an oil-field concession granted by the Iranian government to William Knox D'Arcy, it became one of the largest oil companies in the world, with oil fields and refineries in Alaska and the North Sea. The British government was for many years BP's largest single stockholder, but by the late 1980s it had turned over the company to private ownership. In 1987 BP consolidated its U.S. interests by acquiring the Standard Oil Co. In 1998 it merged with Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana) to form BP-Amoco. In addition to oil and natural gas, it produces chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibres. Its headquarters are in London."

It will be interesting watching these "hearings," and seeing eventually who will be left holding the bag for the "global economy" once again in this respect.

I'll bet it will be the American taxpayers, in one way or another.

Either for those salaries for this "special panel" and the lost revenue of the American people for this monumental "taking" by Britain of America's mineral rights, or through taxation for the sums that the American public will have to pay in additional gasoline prices across the board for the decades long cleanup of the Gulf Coastline for the "jobs and the economies" of mostly the resident aliens that will be involved from Britainnia.

No wonder also that there is such a push to get an amnesty passed, for that cheap Mexican labor and/or military service for the British Empire's needs both here and abroad.

With Mexico assuming the American border states progressively, and Britain once again with a strong presence in Louisiana and the Canadian border states, it appears that a great many Americans may be fleeing to Kansas, along with Dorothy.

Except that even in the heartland of America, foreigners and foreign interests have gained a foothold.

Since Kansas also has a nuclear generator and reactor whose shares are now sold over that "global" exchange, as do 31 other U.S. states which have also monumentally comprised this nation's national security, on behalf of that "global economy," placing commerce, once again, before the fundamental precepts behind that Constitution.

Whose government continues to sacrifice U.S. lives and property on behalf of foreigners interest at a greater clip by the decades, as the body counts mount.

Wonder if there will be any criminal manslaughter or criminal negligence filed against those Brits.

Don't hold your breath, America, since the sovereign London bankers and British government, those allies, are clearly calling the shots on this one, as they have PROGRESSIVELY with each Administration and Congress since Wilson.