Post Katrina: New Orleans Five Years Later

It has been interesting reading the mainstream media news reports and their select interviews with people from the New Orleans area on the fifth anniversary of Katrina as one who has had family living in the New Orleans metro area for over 30 years, and who visited that city often both before Katrina and then spent an extended period thereafter as a homeless Arizona refugee and whose parents medical conditions and concerns and other reasons led to an extended stay on and off from late 2006 through early 2010 and who was then in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for Gustav in 2008.

New Orleans has changed from a frequent long time visitor, but "outsider's" point of view, and it is a city still reeling from the effects five years later.

When I arrived in late 2006 for the Christmas holidays after storing what was left of my property after an enforced sale of my home in Arizona, even the area in which my family lives was much changed since I had not been back to visit for several years while parenting teens in the Southwest and due to numerous trips when younger and stretched finances also, were beyond entertaining with the usual tourist sites in their older years.

The area in which my parents live which is across the lake from New Orleans population had exploded, and traffic in the area worse than Phoenix metro area, which is saying something due to its huge growth from the 1960's, mostly due to all the residents of New Orleans that had fled their homes and decided afterward to sell and get what they could for their damaged properties and now commute from across the lake.

This was an area that was also heavily affected by the high winds of Katrina, but did not suffer the flooding after the levees "broke."

There is still much dispute there about what truly did happen that resulted in the breakage and lawsuits flying five years later over the homes that were flooded, many of which in poorer areas, with allegations that due to the rising Mississippi imposing danger to the bread and butter of New Orleans, the levees were "helped" to break in order to protect both the Quarter and the Garden District from extensive damage.

During that storm, my sister's husband, who also live in area, stayed instead of evacuating and purchased a generator and lived in their home for three weeks after Katrina hit, patrolling the neighborhoods with others in order to protect their homes and property from any further damage since the lake was also reported to be rising and there was such an influx of stranded people fleeing for weeks thereafter.

The sewage lines were also contaminated, so those that stayed ended up bagging their refuse and hauling it to parish dump sites for two months thereafter. The electricity and power was not restored for six weeks in their area, and even longer in parts of New Orleans.

My parents almost didn't leave. They had left in 1996 when there was another threatened hurricane and went to Mississippi, but returned after two days and my mother and father were in their early 80's so another "false alarm" trip for them was not something they were looking forward to at their advanced age. It took them 16 hours to make a normally six hour trip to another sister's house in another state further north.

Counting my parents and my two sisters' families, and their in-laws who had a home in Chalmette, one of the areas most affected by the levee breakage, there were all told 12 people and three dogs at their home for four weeks. My parents, both on medications, could not reach their doctor however did finally get refills on their prescriptions at a local pharmacy that was kind enough to waive the requirements for a doctor's okay on their refills.

They survived and had insurance and got a new roof, and two of their trees that were stripped away and damaged were removed by some volunteers from a local church, and they only applied for a small sum for the food which was contaminated that was in their refrigerator and pantry due to the power outage for those four weeks, although a few years down the road a large settlement crack in their bedroom appeared and as with many of the homes due to the amount of water there have been some have had further lasting effects in "sinking."

I stayed for Christmas, but had thought I might be able to make a fresh start in New Orleans as part of their restoration as a photographer/artist, and my own rather need to rebuild, so I left and took a small room in East New Orleans in one of the hotels that had been converted to weekly housing that was still left standing.

Most of those there were working for the government contractors on the repairs, and the parking lot was full of heavy equipment for the ongoing repairs.

In fact, in order to get into my room after leaving, I had to show identification since there was a National Guardsmen at the entrance who was charged with protecting the equipment from vandalism, not the security of the residents there.

The elevator did not work for the entire time I was there, which was over three months until that spring. The 7-11 on the corner had no power and was only open during the day, and all the food that needed refrigeration was in ice chests such as beer or soda. There were sea shells everywhere and as you walked through some of the neighborhoods there would be homes still standing untouched, while right next door several homes were missing. Toilet seats and other items were buried in the sandy ground throughout neighborhoods.

On one tour I made from East New Orleans to Slidell there were boats washed from the lake all the way across the highway. The Irish Bayou was devastated and the homes looked like haunted houses, abandoned. There was a Six Flags amusement park near the Chalmette exit that looked like it was right out of one of those horror movies, the huge wooden roller coaster was missing so much timber and the park abandoned.

Huge thirty foot car dealership signs were bent in half, and former large scale department stores closed and boarded up. That was in 2007, but on a trip back in 2008 and 2009, although most of the large debris had been cleared away, the vacant and abandoned homes and businesses for the most part remained.

Although right down the street was a reminder of "home."

In front of the local Home Depot there was a taco stand and cart, and day laborers waiting to be picked up to work on the repairs. For those that have left New Orleans, others have taken their place - many of them the illegals working for the government contractors, and also the large scale opportunists who have moved in to score post-Katrina. Similar to what occurred after the Civil War during the reconstruction, I would imagine.

Few in that area of New Orleans could afford to rebuild.

Many were fishermen, or Cajuns who lived along that swamp and who owned their own land, but had mostly small fishing shacks and shanties with their boats their most prized and expensive property. Many of those, of course, washed away during the storm. And most of their money went into providing for the repairs to their fishing boats, rather than their homes - and when you live in a swamp without air conditioning and a fisherman or shrimper, you aren't in your home very often to begin with.

New Orleans proper has changed, and the Quarter much less trafficked than in years past unless there is a Saints game going on.

The street artists and such that battled for space along Jackson Square are not as abundant, and many have been replaced by card readers and others. The costs of permits has gone up, so most of those that sketched or worked their magic in plein air landscapes are gone.

And there is a quota and "approval" process now for most of those that wish to work their art for those permits. The cost was out of my league, definitely.

The British have moved in and bought most of the housing and commercial buildings in the Quarter, since even many of the wealthy could not afford to keep their properties due to rising costs of insurance and other costs of ownership after the storm. And their currency, of course, is much greater than our own. Many working for BP and the government contractors working on those repairs with some of those major contracts.

New building standards also have been imposed for rebuilding which has prevented many from finishing the work on their homes, requiring many be built now ten feet off the ground, and insurance costs for those now "flood prone" areas once again are pricey.

And while I can appreciate Mr. Pitt's involvement in rebuilding, I'm just wondering how many are going to be able to even qualify for that low cost housing with the insurance costs and such as they are. And many even five years later are fighting with insurers, if their homes were mortgaged, over some of those repairs.

In addition to those new building standards, I was also informed that there have been new city ordinances passed which require those that own land in the flooded areas to either rebuild, or forfeit their land. It does appear that the developers have arrived and the city/state and developers just may be using Katrina as an excuse for one of the largest land grabs ever. Many cannot get bank loans or funding to even rebuild, although the developers can. Thus, the price of that land and property has been driven down even more so than what is occurring in the West and Southwest in those flooded areas.

Even the outlying areas have been affected along the River, since those beautiful restored plantations that were also stops for many a visitor to the area are also facing declining revenues.

And now, BP.

The South will rise again. But the character and those who made New Orleans what it was pre-Katrina are clearly being replaced by "foreigners" more and more.

Even the jazz sounds different.

Using Lincoln: Beck, Sharpton Haven't A Clue

Yesterday, on the anniversary of the pivotal speech made by Dr. Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement, two political rallies were held in Washington, using Lincoln as a backdrop for one and keynote references for another.

The first, Fox's Glen Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally.

The second, Al Sharpton's "Reclaim the Dream" rally.

Both marketers and hucksters for their form of rewriting history with respect to both Lincoln, and Dr. King's mission which resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in effect redressed the job and social discrimination during the 1960's that was a hangover from the civil war primarily in the South, much of which was due to the opportunist carpetbaggers who migrated there during the reconstruction from the North post the civil war who established non-agricultural businesses there.

Mr. Beck is labeled a "conservative" by most of the mainstream media. But his fundamentalist conservatism beliefs actually are more aligned to the British form and definition of conservatism than that of "conserving" the intent and provisions of the U.S. Constitution as was written and intended by those framers and founders. Regaining the state's rights and people's rights and balances of power requires not simply rallies and rhetoric, but re-establishing the entire framework of the Constitution which has been progressively lost, and never more so in the modern era during the Wilson Administration.

Mr. Sharpton can only be likened and labeled for those boomers who remember when, as the "Don King of race relations," at this point, ready to pounce on any perceived injustice as his recent forays into Arizona politics and the immigration and border situation attest. His "dream" also includes gaining equality for even non-Americans by nationality that were not brought here primarily against their will, but have migrated to the United States with the encouragement of their former country's leadership in droves since the Reagan amnesty.

The Constitution does provide in its preamble that it is only relevant to citizens, by birth or naturalization, of these United States. And the government's job actually is to protect its legal citizens from foreign invasion or displacement. So the border issue and immigration have little to do with the civil rights those founders were concerned with in providing for those first ten amendments with respect to this particular group of individuals, as opposed to the slavery issue. We do still have post the Mexican-American war open borders at both the North and South that continue to compromise the safety and security of the citizens of this nation, and the headlines on what is occurring in the border states have gained national attention, but have been a major problem for literally decades due to the criminal activity which has escalated cross-borders - which has increased in leaps and bounds since the last Reagan amnesty and "Reaganomics." This is also where many of the followers of the tea party movement and Mr. Beck fail to connect in their stances also on border security and immigration. It has been both political parties that have been behind leaving those borders open for commercial reasons, and promoting and escalating the outsourcing which has occurred for their particular favored subjects.

Which is why Mr. Sharpton's positions on this issue are similar to Mr. Beck and his followers, by and large. He too, on the other hand, is simply another form of globalist in his understanding of commerce and free trade, and believes that the freedom from regulation over national and multi-national corporate commercial interests is one of those freedoms that the founders and framers intended.

When the entire genesis of the Revolutionary War was not simply over "taxation without representation" but also was against the impact a foreign global corporation and its partnership with the sovereign had on them and their livelihoods, and was negatively impacting domestic production and commerce in even the choice of tea those founders were required to purchase, and taxed at that.

Global monopolies and foreign competition were also behind that tea dumping.

But Mr. Beck, who has gone on book tours with a shirt proclaiming "Britain Rules" fails to include that in his more "neoconservative" posturing for Fox, a station owned by a former Brit and the national animal, actually, of the British.

The two pied pipers of the globalist agendas have more in common really, than they do not.

And Mr. Lincoln, after all, wanted to keep the union together, as a Northerner, in order to protect those Eastern factories and their bottom lines and profits, after all.

His historical stated positions on the "slavery" issue pre-Civil War were merely to provide safe passage for all the slaves that so desired back to Africa. He was responsible also for those "poll taxes" even.

But as with what continues to occur in this country with these "rallies" sponsored mostly by the media types and publicity hounds without any fundamental Constitutional basis in their rallying calls, diversion is the name of the game.

Since Congress is still enjoying their August recess and would guess that less than a third of them even had their televisions on to enjoy the goings on in Washington for the mainstream media most of all and their bottom line profits, and the book tours of these particular individuals and their slated speakers during their absence.

The New Obama BP Settlement Czar

The New Obama Price Is Right BP Settlement Czar


It has been interesting watching the "no change" change which has occurred under the Obama Administration, at this point, which Administration is more like the Bush Administration than even the Bush Administration.

Case in point: With all the campaign rhetoric about "redlining" unnecessary federal agencies and employees, the Obama Administration has been appointing "czars" outside Congressional authority right and left ever since he took office.

But the red pencil must have gotten lost since the majority of jobs which have been created during both the Bush and Obama Administrations have been primarily government jobs mainly in civil spying networks (homeland security jobs, programs and degrees now offered at local colleges throughout the country "certified" by the Department of Homeland Security, no less - even online degrees in this "new" field are being solicited by "new" DHS "accredited" universities).

And of course the biggest sector of jobs created during this recession has been for collection and foreclosure lawyers, mortgage "counselors" (former realtors or bankers) and bill collectors and "credit counselors."

And with the still open Southern borders, the gadget and identity theft industries are booming.

The newest czar:

A well-known and well-heeled lawyer appointed by Mr. Obama to oversee the BP claims from the "reserve" account which BP was ordered to provide also under presidential decree, which was supposed to cover mainly the emergency costs and losses which were affecting those businesses and people living within the affected regions of Louisiana.

Of course, due to the failure to cap those wells sufficiently for over four months, that oil has now spread all the way to Florida, from all reports.

The lawyer chosen was the same lawyer who oversaw the "claims" process over those affected by 9-11.

And, of course, the terms have changed with respect to the filing of claims.

Those filing it now appears in order to get any compensation at all, must sign waivers waiving their Constitutional rights to sue at a later date if their losses multiply, agreeing then that they will not sue BP independently for any additional sums - and must prove their actual losses without taking into consideration potential future losses, and whose settlements will be based upon this czar's using the distance the claimant is or was from the disaster as the primary basis for the final settlement.

So we have a presidentially appointed new "czar" rewriting our Constitution through his own independent judgment and criteria by simply royal edict, as an appointed baron over the Gulf Region, as it were.

Although, of course, the ramifications from this disaster, if Exxon Valdez is any indication, could impact that region and by extension the entire nation for decades to come since this spill has not been contained and the clean up efforts are still ongoing.

And will be for some time.

Appears to this writer that that "reserve" account was established by the Obama Administration most of all in an attempt to attempt instead to "slap" BP, protect or "mitigate" their losses for its protection and the "global economy" in which most of those on the Hill are also significantly invested in those global oil, gas and energy stocks.

Along with many of the unions, public employee's pension plans, etc., etc.

Once again, protecting the "corporate" (and in this case a foreign global corporation illegally given mineral rights to America's precious offshore reserves) over the lives and livelihoods of the "Joe the plumber" average American and poorer and middle class small business owners, who are not significantly invested in this "global" economy at their expense, but touting this reserve initially as a slap at BP and "redress" for those affected.

Although there are still reported over 300 lawsuits pending, most likely for corporate interests which can afford all those advance costs in order to pursue their claims thrush the courts, or as class actions (which were also mandated somehow outside Constitutional authority through federal court rules in order to mitigate some of those losses once again obviously, after publicizing that over 2/3rds the federal district court judges would have to disqualify themselves due to their own personal oil holdings).

My question also is just where in the Constitution does it give the president the authority to bypass the civil process on damages and losses, or attempt to deny those individuals their right to have their "day in court" in front of a jury of their peers, in using this carrot on a stick for the protection of this British global giant who is now responsible for the loss totally of over 40 American lives?

Or the courts in consolidating many of those cases, which may or may not be at all similar in the degree for which those losses will or might be ongoing.

And, for all intents and purposes, it will be every single American impacted in one way or another paying for this disaster whether at the pump, or through their businesses, or gas taxes when after all the dust has settled, those gas prices begin to rise once again along with those federal and state taxes on Americans own oil reserves sold back to them then by the British under those "free trade" leases.

And how can the extent of those damages for most of these individuals be determined when the clean-up efforts are still ongoing, and the actual ramifications of this tremendous oil spill have yet to even begin to be realized?

Since, of course, it will be the entire nation that will be paying the costs for this in higher gasoline prices across the board since BP is a former holding of the British royal family, and does hold the "rights" through a great many of these leases to literally the majority of oil reserves throughout the world.

Outside, of course, those which they lost when the Shah of Iran was removed from power back in the 1970's, and for which it appears at this point that that loss is not something the Crown has forgotten - hence, why Iran continues to be marginalized and targeted at this point due to its development of nuclear power outside royal edict and sitting on a bucket load of oil reserves lost also due to a change in power way back when (and the Brits, royals and their bankers, hold the majority of leases also on most of those nuclear reactors in the world through their ownership of stock in the holding companies for most of those reactors).

I wonder just how much of the Presidential, Congressional and judicial pension plans are invested in AIG, BP and energy stocks, anyway or state and federal public employees at this point?

And just how many extra barrels of oil those Brits were able to scam under those leases the last four months while these "efforts" to contain the spill were continuing?

Questions Surrounding Proposition 8's Perry vs. Schwartzenegger

It was announced in the mainstream media that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (don't you just love that court!) has stayed resumption of the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex individuals in California pending the outcome of appeals with respect to the challenge brought over the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, a referendum and initiative passed by the California voters last year (although brought by an organization by the name of "Protect Marriage," which solicits contributions from individuals in order to continue to defend in this action nation-wide, and on whose website very little information is available in just who and what "Protect Marriage" is).

Except that it does include an "educational" component to their organization, which would lead this writer to believe that it also then just may be getting federal grant monies for its existence in addition to those solicited donations.

What truly has been interesting is the legal shenanigans going on in this case, which was filed apparently as "Perry v. Schwarzenegger," and not "Perry vs. the State of California" since it was, after all, a state initiative passed by the California voters and thus the proper defendants in the case would be the State itself, and not Governor Schwarzenegger as merely the Governor at the present time.

What is also interesting is that both the Governor and State Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend in this case on the grounds that they believe that gay marriages should be afforded in California, their personal opinions which really have no grounding in either California, or the U.S. Constitution at all.

Since, of course, marriage and its definition is grounded in the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based at its signing, and marriage is an "institution" under the common law and has been for literally thousands of years in its definition as between two opposite sex individuals for the purposes of procreation, property ownership and inheritance purposes in a purely legal sense, and in a spiritual sense, a pledge of fidelity and love between the couple and God, who is pretty much on record in both the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran in just what his definition of marriage was and is in a spiritual sense.

The fact that Attorney General Brown has refused to defend in the action speaks volumes in his understanding of his powers and duties of office.

Apparently, his oath meant little as apparently did the Governor's.

There is provision, after all, for domestic and civil unions in California's statutes prior to this movement, and also legal instruments that can be bought at the local bookstores in the form of powers of attorney and the like for any and all other matters. You can, after all, leave your property to your next door neighbor or even your dog as has been the case with some eccentrics, not to mention your spouse, companion, friend, children or domestic partner with a simple will, or disinherit them if that is also your wish.

The standing issue was addressed by the 9th Circuit even in this ruling, although from the wrong angle, it appears, questioning instead of the wrong "parties of interest" to the matter the standing of this group, Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the proposition, to defend.

It appears maybe that may be the reason it was brought incorrectly to begin with - to use the standing issue as one in order to murky the waters, and force also the Governor and Attorney General to show their true colors, and set this case then up for an eventual challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court again inappropriately as not brought by the true parties in interest as the Constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (rather than common law "institution" which did exist in its common law form at its signing).

A court that hasn't recognized the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based for literally decades, and never more so than in the last thirty in many respects, including using foreign jurisdictional law now even for some of its renderings rather than American jurisprudence, and giving more and more "rights" to "corporate" entities, including the government itself, above those of the citizenry with respect to Bill of Rights issues in so many matters it is incredible.

I hope that before it reaches that point it is corrected to Perry vs. State of California, otherwise it would appear that any decision rendered in this matter will be null and void in either case. Since it truly isn't naming the "parties in interest" and in so NOT doing, has made the defense in this matter one in which the government appears to be facilitating this case also in order to set a nation-wide precedent with this legal technicality their scapegoat against really treason in this smoke and mirrors game.

And with the complement of the "progressively" unAmerican Supreme Court with these last several appointments particularly ones in which during those Senate hearings little questioning had to do with those justices understanding of just where their powers end with respect to Constitutional interpretation, and under what "standard" they are to reach their opinions (not judicial "case precedent" but with the intent of the framers ever present in Bill of Rights issues fundamentally, and don't think the mention of extending or expanding the definition of marriage was even entertained in their minds as a Bill of Rights "inalienable" right and outside governmental authority really, to begin with as "personal" relationships were intended to be).

The 16th again and its ramifications again rears its ugly head on this issue also, which would never be the case if the "intent" for taxation in this nation was reinstituted to its Constitutional intent.

Since there were gays back in '76 and there were marriages also, it would appear to this American Constitution believer that in such a Constitutional challenge on the "right" to marry and definition of marriage itself, which is what this case really boils down to, this would be a no-brainer.

But look for an excuse such as "good public policy" or "freedom of association" (assembly) to be their underlying rationale, in order to support that state, and the legal community at large, for another "stimulus" at the true cost of freedom and the expense of the public at large.

Then look for the medical community to get into the act mandating AIDS testing prior to issuing those licenses, so that the state (and feds in this health care reform national database that was hidden in those bills) then has a record of any and all individuals who are HIV positive, at the stroke of a keyboard, or mandate HIV treatment prior to the issuance of those licenses.

I don't believe the activist gay community has any idea how they are being used over a fundamental right to privacy of their personal lives and sexual preferences, until it hits them in about five years down the road, brought by another government funded legal defense or civil rights group, as this massive politically brought case and its defense clearly is using those licenses for more taxation and profit for either the government, or its select global industries. And "science and technology" seems to be their baby at the present time most of all.

Those domestic relations lawyers looking forward to those fees for the divorces and pre-nups are also licking their chops right about now, and the hotel, tourism and wedding planning industries in that state.

Not to mention the number of "new jobs" for judges and lawyers this will also create, for those domestic relations courts, and the county justices of the peace that will now also be needed to increase those county coffers at "for profit" prices for those licenses, although with California continuing to expand its budgets and cry poverty at the same time it continues to bankrupt its citizenry.

Schwarzenegger is, after all, not simply an avowed "capitalist" for California in for profit governmental public/private partnerships, but a personal one too.

Wonder how much he has invested in the hotel, resort and medical industries personally that just might profit from his personal, rather than Constitutional, views? Or Attorney General Brown, who has his eye on heading that state after Mr. Scwarzenegger steps down, from all reports.

If it is mandated that insurers must cover gay individuals and their domestic partners equally with herterosexual individuals without taking "risk" into consideration, or the high cost of those in vitro and other alternative reproductive costs that are "class" distinctive and are instead spread amongst the pool of policy holders, it appears that the global corporatists have found another way to "socialize" the costs of health care for higher risk groups to all - so just watch the costs of those policies skyrocket, instead of getting more affordable as the Obama Administration touted during that farce of a Health Care Reforem legislation.

I guess the costs and profits for all those drug manufacturers for this "new" disease treating the symptoms hasn't been enough, since according to my research the patent on inferon and some of those other expensive drugs is scheduled to expire in 2013, just prior to when the new mandates for health care for all begins.

This is a disease, after all, that has become an industry in and of itself along with breast cancer "awareness" and those recommended tests and races have brought in a bundle to the medical community for "reasearch", although few strides in really preventing or curing those diseases has been in sight.

I would question whether the instances of new cases of breeast cancer, as with AIDS, are going up or if some of these "treatments" themselves are resulting in new cases, such as annual invasive radioactive breast x-rays, and live virus injections and treatments.

Hello, gay community, it just might be that you are being had.

Obama Takes A Dip: What's Wrong With This Picture?

In conjunction with the First Family's much publicized visit to Panama City and the Gulf Region (the furthest Gulf beach in the Florida panhandle from the site of the Louisiana oil spill), it was announed by Barack Obama's point man on the disaster, retired Coast Guard official, Thad Allen, that it won't be until Tuesday or Wednesday until officials have some final results from some tests before giving the go ahead to finish another relief well. So, just why is a retired Coast Guard official now in charge of this oil spill, I ask?

I mean, the Coast Guard is charged with protecting America's ports and shorelines, not with negligent corporate entities that dump at last count millions of barrels of oil into American waters under illegal leases.

Just when are those leases going to be rescinded anyway in light of the devastation which has occurred, and economic impact both in barrels lost to those Brits, and wildlife - not to mention now 26 American lives lost to this corporate petrol glutton.

Doesn't that make three relief wells since this disaster started?

So, instead of one well and a contractual amount of America's oil reserves given under those leases, BP now has three wells, and literally hundreds of thousands of extra barrels of oil outside of those leases due to the "hands off" policies of this Administration during this three month "clean up" effort?

Governor Crist, most likely another heavily invested BP stockholder if the number of those in the federal judiciary invested in oil stocks in that region is any clue, announced that Mr. Obama's visit was the "biggest single commercial you could imagine."

While the Attorney General of Alabama is now suing (outside those reserves set aside for the mere citizens affected) seeking "unspecified economic and punitive damages" for the State of Alabama's coffers for the spill. Apparently, the actual victims and citizenry have been precluded from their Constitutional redress, but the state and municipal governments have not.

What's wrong, once again, with this picture?

Obama Defends Ground Zero Mosque on Religious Grounds?

It was reported in the mainstream media that Barack Obama has come out of the closet with respect to the ongoing controversy over the building of a Muslim mosque near the Ground Zero site of the 9-11 attacks on this nation nine years ago.

While we are still in an expanded war under Mr. Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq purported still seeking those directly responsible for those planned attacks, with no end really in sight after pledging to end this war as "responsibly" and quickly as possible.

It does appear that if any true movement in this direction will occur, it will occur next year during the uptick for the presidential run for the roses once again either toward the end of this year or beginning of 2011.

What has been lost in this debate is the fact that we ARE still in this war, and in using the "freedom of religion" provisions of our Constitution, it appears that Mr. Obama is tone deaf to the objections of the general citizenry who just might feel that such an enterprise so near the site of the death of over 2,000 American civilians whose religious beliefs might also be violated by such a venture are being ignored for what can only be characterized as a "political" move not a "religious" one.

This is a prime piece of real estate, and in the financial district in New York, so just why would this site be chosen by those in the Muslim community to begin with rather than a site nearer to their flock in a residential or less commercial area?

To those who lost relatives or close family members with religious beliefs, that site has created controversy ever since the debris from Ground Zero was eventually cleared away. Most would like a memorial to the victims constructed there permanently, and it would not appear that any Muslims were killed in that disaster other than the perpetrators, although still rather unclear to the general public just who was ultimately involved, and just who was truly behind that vicious attack on primarily the civilian population, after all.

The bulk of those lost lives were those working within the financial industry, and not government or public sector employees.

Mr. Obama's stance is quite incredible given the fact that this site does have religious meaning to many across the nation and the actual "zoning" that was in effect for this particular site as a commercial district, without asking the fundamental question.

Of all the sites in New York that might be available for such a venture, in areas in which there are far more Muslims residing in residential communities rather than the business district, just what is the ultimate aim here?

Creating a house of worship for the Muslim community, or making a "political" statement?

And just who in the New York state government is also so totally wacked to entertain such an idea while this war is continuing?

To me and most other Americans, a Muslim mosque would be blasphemy on all those lives lost at the hands of Middle Easterners, Muslim or not, since it is quite possible that unnaturalized Middle Easterner's without any fealty or loyalty to this country just might be worshipping there.

Mayor Bloomberg, Mr. Obama, just what ARE you thinking?

A memorial, or another commercial building in a commercial area is what is called for here.

No Christian, Jewish or Muslim church if freedom of religion is the basic precept behind our First Amendment, since this was an attack that involved the loss of life of believers and non-believers alike, and also was directed at our economy most of all.

No Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue were the targets, so it wasn't religion based fundamentally as has continued to be portrayed by the mainstream media.

It was the financial industry and our economy and apparently those working within the global banking industries who were targeted, and our military secondarily.

Maybe reviewing just how and why those particular buildings were targeted for those attacks is what is called for here and what the ultimate agenda actually was an just who would benefit from such an attack since it does appear even with the 9-11 report much has been kept from the general public surrounding what led to those attacks, and it is not simply "conspiracy theorists" that are speaking up in light of this ongoing war - and the detrimental effects of merging our economies with the rest of the world that has placed the lives of the general citizenry and civilians in peril PROGRESSIVELY, while giving away through "free trade" agreements our own oil reserves to the British also PROGRESSIVELY.

And this support in this name of "freedom of religion" is not PROGRESSIVE, nor is it an act that would facilitate greater healing of the wounds of this nation post 9-11.

This is rather "in your face," not a healing gesture at all - nor in any manner with any basis in "freedom of religion" in a country that already has many, many Mosques built in far more suitable residential communities in New York and elsewhere.

Not in a lower Manhattan financial and business district, which makes the true intent of such a proposal abundantly clear.

Politicos and their financial "global" backers love war, whether civil, commercial or foreign. It makes no difference ultimately.

Maybe what is truly called for here is a monument and memorial to Wall Street, the true profiteers post 9-11 that are still cleaning up post 9-11 over the bodies of those innocent victims who it appears clear now nine long years after 9-11 were sacrificed ultimately for the "greater global good," of the "global economy" since our presence in that region and focus has fundamentally changed since that tragic day those many years ago.

While the foreign bankers more so than even the domestic ones continue to profit PROGRESSIVELY.

Correction: Of the over 3,000 lives lost in the 9-11 attacks not counting those which have been publicly announced as the perpetrators and members of the Taliban (since bin Laden as the "mastermind" was portrayed as a Taliban leader, not al Qaida), according to published but unconfirmed sources, approximately 60 people were identified as followers of the Muslim faith which were killed - most of which were either on the planes, or working as police cadets or in the hospitality fields, so less than 2% of the total victims.

http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm

California And Its Judiciary Need A Reality Check

There was an mainstream media AP article in the news again with respect to the ruling by a California federal district court judge over the lifting of the ban on gay marriages in the State of California. It does appear this particular judge has a love for the limelight, due to making this ruling against the will of the California voters (although, of course, in this age of "out of district" funding for state and local matters, and unrepresentative government at every level, and illegally voting foreigners in many state and federal elections at this point it is even hard to ascertain what the true will of the California voters actually is), yet continuing to interject his opinions and authority weeks later.

The latest: His assertion that he doesn't feel that the groups or individuals who may be involved in challenging or appealing his ruling have any "standing" to do so since they would be unable to prove there would be any adverse "impact" directly to them should California begin granting "permission" and marriage licenses to same sex individuals in that state.

What about the public costs for the eventual divorces of over half of those unions for their dissolutions if the statistics with respect to opposite sex marriages are any indication of the chances that these marriages will last "until death us do part?"

Of course, I won't go into how totally ludicrous it is in this country in which our entire civil legal system is grounded in the common law with respect to our Constitution, and marriage actually is an institution with a history of thousands of years pre-dating even our Constitution wherein even the Roman system of government which had a plethora of gay individuals did not officially recognize same sex unions as in the same league as heterosexual ones insofar as rights of inheritance, etc. (of course adoptions now granted to gay individuals were not then afforded either, nor had "science and technology" advanced to the degree in reproductive medicine that it has today).

But I wonder how the little problem of a gay individual with a biological child, who then has an in vitro child or surrogate will be handled if there is any disputes over rights of inheritance in the future?

I mean, has this judge actually considered the impact upon future generations and our legal system with this ruling? Or the absolute arrogance of the judiciary in this country itself in its even attempting to redefine an institution that has a history of thousands of years in the present era to begin with and for which they really have no Constitutional authority over and above the common law definitions?

And don't you think that little matter of "standing" would have been addressed prior to putting that proposition on the ballot to begin with?

If the citizens of California do not have the right to challenge or appeal such a fundamental percept under our civil codes and the common law upon which our Constitution is based, then how is it that federal court judges such as Mr. Walker and the appellate courts are granting "standing" to foreigners such as the illegal Mexican immigrants under those Bill of Rights now PROGRESSIVELY?

Including that out of control 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Just what is occurring in our American law schools today, insofar as teaching the basics in our Constitution, and Constitutional law?

Hello, Mr. Walker, just who do you think those courts were provided for anyway, if not Americans - and if this is a Bill of Rights issue and challenge, and the Supreme Court has not yet reversed its fundamentally flawed decisions with respect to extending PROGRESSIVELY Bill of Rights protections to "corporate" entities (not to mention that it does not appear that the group challenging this measure is a "commercial" corporation, in any event anyway), then upon what errant nutjob prior ruling are you basing your conclusions with respect to the question of standing to begin with?

And its origins really have to do with inheritance and other rights of biological offspring, since the adoption, insemination or surrogacy process itself outside "natural" or biological procreation, and is a legal process in and of itself with respect to such issues?

This entire passion play is beginning to appear rather ludicrous and the ultimate aim for the state again self-serving for all that added tax revenues for the local coffers for those "license" fees taken into account, given that marriages are nothing more than civil contracts, and there already is in force provision for domestic unions in the State of California and many others throughout the nation for same sex domestic unions. And that there are already legal provisions under powers of attorney, and other legal instruments to secure the fundamental rights of committed individuals for property and inheritance purposes and even taxation with "head of household" provisions.

It appears once again that the major reason for this push is in order for the gay community to somehow gain "legitimacy" or social acceptance for their unions on parity with heterosexual unions, which is something that no matter how many years, and how many court decisions, is not somthing that can be forced upon 100% of the American people or heterosexual community that have any religious beliefs whatsoever in the three major religions, which at last count was at least 70% of Americans.

Moral acknowledgement is what appears to be the ultimate aim and equality of the definition of marriage itself, an institution again which pre-dates our Constitution by thousands of years and is, after all, based entirely on civil common laws which already have been expanded with regard to recordation, at least in California and the majority of other states which have provided licenses or recordation means for "civil" or "domestic" unions.

A "marriage" is nothing more than a public pledge in front of two witnesses announcing a commitment of love, and a shared life and property during the term of the union or "partnership," at its most basic, and a spiritual union between the couple and God for those that choose to have their unions sanctioned instead by their house of worship.

What will be next for the gay activist community, rather than the mainstream gay community who believe their private lives are actually private? Legislation then aimed at the clergy and churches mandating that pastors or other religious leaders must perform such ceremonies if so requested? While the aim here may be marketed to the public as one of merely "civil" rights, it does appear that there just could be a fundamentally greater agenda here in using these laws then to assault the religious community eventually whose biblical teachings on marriage would forbid extending religious sanctions to such unions at their most basic precepts.

This is, of course, where the PROGRESSIVES in their also illegally redefining the First Amendment protections of "freedom of" religion to outside its original intent to "freedom from" religion have been focusing their activities as of late due to those great statutes providing for legal fees for lawyers bringing any and all actions that can be broadly defined as "civil rights" have been using for their own stimuluses and corporate gains.

So in those civil unions before civil justices, just what part of the marriage ceremony itself is missing since there are civil unions conducted by justices of the peace there as there are for heterosexual couples which were in effect before the "activist" gay community still were not satisfied.

The civil laws have been changed to afford "parity" with respect to the common law rights of marriage, which require no "license" to begin with, save the commercial insurers with respect to health insurance provisions and the like, and the the gay community could save themselves and the other taxpayers of this country from the costs of picking up the legal tabs for this civil rights challenge by focusing more so on where it belongs.

The insurers denying them and their posterity coverage under those plans extended to heterosexual couples, although I'm sure that after this ruling those suits will be next on the agenda to keep those lawyers working for decades to come especially in light of this most recent unconstitutional mandate of Washington and tyranny in "fining" Americans who have paid for many of those community hospitals and the like with their property taxes. It appears that especially for the boomer generation are going to be bled dry even further for the "global economy" and Wall Street bankers and politicos gain at the cost of the public at large, even those not invested in Wall Street or those not affiliated with the Globalist Party in power on the Hill, and apparently also in California's positions of authority.

Just imagine when "parity" in the health care field does eventually gain more ground, the number of civic institutions which are dedicated to finding cures to AIDS will become unable to continue or exist, and then the search for the cure for this deadly disease will not be quite so important as guaranteeing a steady stream of future policy-holders which will need to take out riders for AIDs coverage. I mean, this disease is a virus and it is amazing the amount of monies those pharmaceutical companies and insurers have already mnade off the victims of this disease or the American public while a "cure" for the disease itself is nowhere in sight.

A disease that never existed until the present day, or is it merely a strain of an already identified viral infection, since it appears treating the symptoms of HIV and the AIDS virus has become an industry in and of itself PROGRESSIVELY.

The judge also commented that it was his opinion that the challengers to his recent ruling would need the "permission" of either Governor Schwartezeneggar or Attorney General Jerry Brown in order to pursue their claims.

Huh? The opposing citizenry needs "permission" of the Governor for what the gay community has continued to portray as a "civil rights" case?

Mr. Walker should be suing his law school for his tuition costs, it appears to this writer, since it appears he is another of the British trained lawyers holding court from the bench rather than ruling according to his Constitutional oath of office in issuing this latest opinion publicly in furtherance of his original ruling.

Stay tuned. Since this farce of a civil rights abridgement appears is far from over.

Senate Approves 600 Million For Border: But Where's The Fence?

It was announced with great fanfare by the mainstream media that the Senate has approved on voice vote an additional 600 million dollars in order to reportedly secure the U.S. Mexico border.

Just in time for the upcoming November elections.

The funds provided are to be utilized in the hiring of an additional 1,500 government employees (whose salaries and benefits will escalate over time, and is once again expanding the costs of government rather than reducing it, and who also will be disempowered in effectively doing their jobs through internal regulatory backbiting) and more toys for the monitoring of the border with unmanned aircraft and the like for the defense contractors and Silicon Valley.

But where are the sums for the fence, the true security which is needed at least along the Arizona border which encompasses over 300 miles of open desert?

It would literally take agents arm in arm to secure that desert adequately against those new and improved all terrain vehicles those large scale hard drug dealers and auto theft rings have been able to purchase with their massive profits PROGRESSIVELY.

The pickup trucks crossing with the loads of Mexico Gold are a mere drop in the bucket, and don't have the speed or familiarity with those stretches of desert that those repeat large scale drug operations do, or homie domestic distributors and suppliers they have signed up on the U.S. side of the border after the last amnesty under Reagan who are now plying their wares to middle school students.

I'll bet the cost for four to five foot titanium spikes would be far less than the costs of this newest "solution" to the open border situation will actually be.

And far less likely to potentially add billions more to the bottom line deficit for those fees and costs for that other group of government contractors, the illegal immigrant "civil rights" lawyers and PAC organizations at the U.S. taxpayers expense who are now forced to literally pay for their own abuse in many of these illegal, in more ways than one, civil rights cases with the illegals getting free lawyers gratis the U.S. taxpayers including those U.S. citizens, municipal and state governments who are getting hit in double and triple whammies for those illegal cases since the Mexican government surely isn't providing the legal fees for these migrant workers and drug dealers through the American courts.

Mr. Obama heralded the bill and is expected to sign it on Friday, again using this ineffective and costly "solution," which has been tried numerous times before throughout the decades to push his "comprehensive immigration reform" agenda ala George Bush and that of the globalists serving on the Hill from both the mainstream political parties who dominate our elective and appointed offices across the board both at the federal and state levels.

A "high tech" physical fence is what is needed here, not a virtual fence that can be turned off and on at will at the flip of a few switches and monitored once again by government contractors (in the name of "jobs and the economy" in these ever increasing public/private partnerships for mostly Wall Street's eventual gains) that just might be tempted to look the other way for a cut of this profitable Mexican commerce in this underground trade agreement.

The sums for this Silicon Valley and defense contractor stimulus it was announced is going to be funded by an increase in the taxes levied on personnel agencies that provide foreign labor.

Say, what? The majority of those that legally wish entry into this country to my knowledge do not go through "personnel agencies" at all, but through immigration lawyers who solicit their clients overseas and who arrange for those green cards at huge fees for the average Eastern European or South American.

Which, of course, simply means that the profits for the mostly naturalized Mexican coyotes will increase, since those taxes for those foreign workers will be passed on to them as part of their "application fees", making it more than likely that the U.S. will be seeing an increase in Western European immigrants whose countries have higher currency rates for the legal Visas and green cards, than those from poorer countries who will simply again take their chances on the coyotes leading the across that desert.

Which just goes to show that the Democrats are not the party of the "common" people they claim to be, but also identical to that other branch of the Globalist Party, the NeoCon Republican wing, since this solution is really no solution at all and has been used numerous times in the past - even under Ms. Napolitano when she was Governor of Arizona but did not at all reduce the numbers in any significant manner of "new" crossers.

Or this will simply give some of those new internet "homeland security" graduates those 1,500 jobs along partisan lines according to which party is in power for their party members, the ones most likely that will flip the switches on those virtual fences, and then create eventually another agency or panel to investigate and monitor the monitoring of the virtual fencing after the next high profile rancher's death occurs.

So again I and literally tens of thousands of other present and former border state residents and victims, and others throughout the nation now feeling annually more and more the impact of this PROGRESSIVE negligence, ask this Congress and this Administration - WHERE'S THE FENCE?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/12/pol.senate.border.funding/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_politics

UPDATE: Obama, as reported, signed the bill with much mainstream media ballyhoo as was expected. Another political move, and not Constitutional one.

In former Goldwater Arizona, I can unequivocally state that given the level of victimization of the American people, and the fact that we are STILL engaged in a foreign war primarily due to an attack that was carried out from within the country by illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas and were not screened adequately prior to allowing entry, and the amount of homeless and jobless in a state which he truly loved as a native, that he would have had the marines, army and coast guard patrolling those borders - and during this war would have had any and all "visitors" expelled before one boot set on Afghan soil....

So, again, WHERE'S THE FENCE?

Globalists Buffet, Gates Pledge Bears Scrutiny

In the mainstream media this week, there was an article publishing the fact that two of the wealthiest Americans, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, have been holding luncheons with various members of the upper 10% income earners in order to gently arm wrestle them into pledging to give 50% of their wealth to charitable organizations.

It does seem ironic in this writer's opinion that these two individuals, both of whom have gained their wealth through government contracts and legislative lobbying for "privileges and immunties" not given to the general public for their corporate interests, would be heralded for such a venture.

Which civic organizations I wonder are they referring to? Those that benefit America and its economy and citizens or primary those of the "global good" as is the focus from published reports of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, as globalists primarily while Americans are losing their homes and jobs due to the globalism focus of many of these global industrialists.

Most of their wealth has been gained also by their global interests which have progressively, at least in the instance of Mr. Gates, caused loss of American jobs due to now computerized systems that have replaced American workers, not to mention the outsourcing also that has cost so many Americans their jobs in order to build up profits for their corporate interests.

Interesting also that John Kyl, the junior Senator from Arizona, was quoted as stating that "did we really need to raise taxes on individuals that provide jobs."

For whom, Senator? For government employees at the taxpayer's ultimate expense, or from foreign outsourced labor?

Corporations do only pay taxes on their profits, and by hiring more American workers or reinvesting in their businesses it ultimately lowers their tax rates across the board, so am I missing something here?

Perhaps rewinding the intent of the founders for taxation on "property" which is what each and every American corporate interest is, would ultimately be the most beneficial tax system of all.

Simply taxing those corporations on the value of their fixed assets annually and valuations as a "property tax," might be the fairest tax of all.

And taxing those imports, labor included, in order to rebalance the scales and provide more jobs for domestic labor, as opposed to the foreign variety.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/318157

The Wall Street Court: Kagan Confirmed By Senate

In another political move by those in Washington, Elena Kagan's nomination by Barack Obama was confirmed by a majority of the Senate along mostly partisan party lines after much political posturing by many in the "opposing" party for public consumption, since the "defectors" were again the same old, same old labeled "Republican moderates" from the Northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, etc.

Although the mainstream media continues to label the court as primarily a "conservative" court, this American Constitutional Conservative would beg to differ.

I guess since our press has progressively become so far out globalist liberal in their ownership, especially the "Associated" Press which includes foreign press and news agencies, anything right of communism would seem conservative to most of their staff writers.

This is how truly representative our current Supreme Court is at the present time.

Although no "religious" test is to be given for any public service position or political office, our Court is now comprised of three Jewish members, and six Catholics.

Seven basically East Coasters or New Yorkers by birth or length of residency.

And six graduates of Harvard Law School, and three of Yale - with quite a few with their undergraduate studies in Britain.

Leave it to the press and globalist politicans to promote to the public the "look" of the Court (six men and three women, with a mix of "racial" or "ethnic" minority members by race, religion or ethnicity) without scratching further in just how "liberal" this Court actually is and unrepresentative of the American people really in its composition.

And of the nine from East Coast schools, the most current and confirmed member threw out mandatory Constitutional law classes in favor of a more "progressive" curriculum during her tenure, while the press focused on her decision to ban the military from the ivy halls of Harvard due to its "don't ask, don't tell" privacy policies (since our military actually is supposed to be defending this country and its people from "foreign" threats, and the military actually is not supposed to be a dating service in any manner whatsoever - and what is more private than your sexual preference and how many gays in the military actually hold that their military and private lives are two different things as opposed to the "spins" and outside agitators on this issue?). The "gay issue" has also its roots in, I'm sure, creating more work for the civil rights lawyers for those Federal Reserve notes for their legal fees that Washington hands out now like candy and create more, not less, conflict within our military ranks unnecessarily.

And with the exception of Justice Thomas, none of whom actually are texturalists which, unless and until the Constitution is amended by the will of the people according to the provisions within it for amendment - and not the simply the states as it was the intent of those founders that any subsequent amendments would be placed before the people before each and every state ratified further amendments - we have nothing more than an entire British "sovereign" leaning Supreme Court down the line as was quite apparent with the most recent trashing of its provisions with respect to campaign finance laws favoring the "corporate" over the intent of the founders for a representative government at its foundation.

That being that no candidate for political office should be "sponsored" by any entity, either corporately or otherwise, domiciled outside their specific legislative districts. Period. Especially not "globally" focused corporate entities with "foreign" home offices even outside the country.

Nor is there any such entity as "corporate person-hood" including "municipal corporate-personhood" with respect to Bill of Rights provisions.

Ms. Kagan has an engaging demeanor, but given her actual actions discounting the very document upon which her "right" to even hold such a position was given the shaft while she was Dean of Harvard's Law School and thus affecting fundamentally law in this country through Harvard's "miseducation" also progressively with some of those graduates now holding public service positions throughout the country by federal appointment, doesn't that demonstrate to those Senators and the American people that she did not hold the bare minimum qualifications for the position for which she was being "interviewed?"

No wonder the West and Western citizens lives and property are being sacrificed for the "greater good," outside California and the Hollywood contingent and their "corporate" needs.

America lacks representation on any level in the highest court in the land, and progressively so as was more than apparent during tose hearings.

The British bankers and Wall Street have progressively cornered our Court, and have the majority.

A royal straight flush.

Deepwater Horizon: Blaming The Coast Guard?

It was interesting this weekend to see articles in the mainstream media now reporting that the Coast Guard has been "authorizing" British Petroleum to use "contaminants" in order to break up the ever widening oil spread in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon incident over three months ago.

It appears the spins continue almost as far and wide as this oil has now spread.

In light of the questions of just how and why Congress and the Obama Administration has, for all intents and purposes, given British Petroleum free rein in the containment efforts since this tragedy began, a story such as this bears question. Since it is quite possible that the only "containment" efforts that have been ongoing is the "containment" of thousands of extra barrels of oil for the benefit of the British under those illegally given mineral rights to America's offshore oil reserves.

Now blaming the Coast Guard due to the negligence of this Congress and Administration in originally and immediately pulling BP's offshore leasing rights in light of this SECOND incident involving the loss of American lives and property does seem that Washington and those media moguls are sinking to a level not seen in this country ever before.

The Coast Guard is primarily there for regulation of the domestic coastline perimeter in "directing traffic" and also civilian and commercial safety issues and distress entering and exiting America's ports, with no real legal authority over this ongoing disaster in the magnitude and breadth it initially and has continued to impact the Gulf waters.

Placing the blame and asking failure of our press to ask the fundamental questions does appear that they are attempting also to protect their "global" interests and not report with any accuracy the ongoing saga of Deepwater Horizon.

But continue to wonder why their bottom line profits are deteriorating also by the day, week and month as their advertising and sales revenues continue to decline.

The "global" mainstream media bailout seems to be another disaster just around the bend.

The top news stories were this, and the wedding of Bill and Hillary Clinton's daughter, to a former Goldman Sachs employee and hedge fund manager, under "cottony clouds in New York" (a direct quote from the AP report).

I won't publish the "adjective" I came up with after reading that story.