Trayvon Martin Media Blitz Goes On...and On...

This week's mainstream media news has been dominated by two sagas that have gone on...and on... The arrest and continuing investigation in the death of Trayvon Martin, and the goings on in Colombia that has led to the resignations of several of Mr. Obama's Secret Service detail.

No surprise this is an election year. With these two cases also politically reported, for the most part, on all national cable and news stations.

The media spins and politicalization of the Trayvon Martin case is being used to propagandize and challenge American's Second Amendment rights, and also a law passed in the Florida legislature upholding the common law and a citizens right to bear arms and protect his life and property.

This case continues to be one of the fact that there were no clear eyewitnesses to what occurred, and only telephone conversations with both a girlfriend, and the 911 operators prior to the death of Mr. Martin. It is also being used to facilitate the "hate crimes" legislation recently passed by the federal government - a law which makes basic human emotions when committing a crime also a crime in and of itself.

Not merely motivation at this point, but a crime for any American to have any ill feelings or act upon those feelings in any manner whatsoever a federal crime.

No matter what the origins or "mitigating circumstances" for that emotion might "justifiably" be.

I mean hate is wrong in and of itself. Humans definitely MUST NOT hate anything or anyone. Although God was a little partial in his wisdom as far as his tolerance levels. He definitely did have a bottom line.

It is a criminal matter to hate based upon gender, race or sexual preference. Of course, legislating emotions is now also within the purview of "the State."

Not simply any crimes which may be committed upon those emotions as evidence of motivation.

The handling of this case also bears a great deal of scrutiny and questioning.

The Fifth Amendment provides:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Where is the Grand Jury indictment here?

Well, the prosecutor decided to petition the court in order to have a "bench indictment" issued in this case, bypassing the Grand Jury (or people) of the State of Florida.

Of course, this will also drag out the case for months, or possibly years...since all those motions and bail hearings and other legal maneuvers can now be ruled upon and sanctioned merely by a judge. When a Grand Jury would be charged with determining whether or not there was enough evidence to even bring Mr. Zimmerman to trial, thus saving the taxpayers the costs of a trial if it was determined by the Grand Jury that there wasn't.

I understand and can empathize with Mr. Martin's parents...truly...to loose a child in such a way in any circumstances must be devastating for them.

But we have a Constitutional process here that, for all intents and purposes, is being ignored which is also feeding the media frenzy, not to negate the efforts of Mr. Sharpton also to get his face time before the cameras, rather than simply calling for the "will of the people" in the proscribed manner to be carried out here.

And I continue to wonder...just why is it that so many of these highly publicized and high profile crimes or incidents seem to happen in Florida?

As far as the second story, what happened in Colombia obviously isn't going to remain in Colombia.

Nor should it.

I just wonder why Mr. Obama was in Colombia to begin with...since we do have a Secretary of State and ambassadors to handle all those global conferences that seem to increase by the year.

Tune in next week.

I'm sure it will be more of the same.

Obama and Calderon Plan Meet and Greet While More Americans Die

It was announced by the White House press corps that Barack Obama plans to meet with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon in the near future with respect to the border situation. A meeting announced and purportedly planned prior to the recent events in both Arizona and Mexico which have once again cost several Arizonans and Americans their lives due to the escalating tensions over the border situation, and another recent death of a U.S. border patrol agent in Mexico this past week.

A death that then also was attributed to guns smuggled into Mexico from the U.S., which firearms just so happened to trace back to the State of Texas?

I mean, as a long term Arizona resident it doesn't appear that drug cartel members are "buying" guns from the U.S. but from those smuggled in from South America which are unregistered and thus for the most part untraceable as has been historically the case. Or those they appropriate from the many law enforcement personnel whose lives have also been taken during the escalating violence at the border.

I wonder, at this point in America's history with the decades long and increasing violence, and the number of American lives and property losses which have also increased ten to twenty fold since the mid 1950's in the border area, would the founding fathers still be holding discussions with the government of Mexico over the loss of American lives and property, rather than actually securing our porous southern borders and providing for the common defense of the citizenry as is their primary Constitutional duty and function?

The "discussions" are continuing, and one of the topics is "immigration reform" of those poorer citizens from Mexico who also have had to flee that country due to its poorer economy and also the violence which continues to occur there so that those cartels, and the auto thieves that operate cross borders can continue to market their products on both sides of the border.

A situation which has also fundamentally increased since the Reagan years, when the interstate also from Mexico through the State of Arizona was widened and also the first amnesty was passed thus affording those wealthy profiteers to then apply for American citizenship and thus facilitate also their "commerce" cross borders.

Just what WILL it take for the federal government to actually even begin to do their fundamental job and begin practicing true "human rights" and protecting the lives of the American people, their property, and also the lives of those Mexican nationals who are dying in the desert at the hands of their former countrymen from Mexico who are for the most part those Coyotes charging them thousands of dollars to only leave them in the desert to perish.

Liberal Lunacy: Colt Isn't The Tommy Gun

Contrary to the progressively lunatic "liberal" fringe element, the Arizona State legislature has proposed a bill that will make the single action Colt which harkens back to Arizona's territorial days the "official" state firearm.

To me, the world "liberal" with respect to the second amendment, and also so very many other provisions of the first ten amendments makes that label for the clearly socialist and communist bent a conundrum in terms.

I mean the socialist/communistic media is now even scrutinizing and stalking the house and parents of the man-child accused in the January shooting deaths of six Arizonans and wounding many others who have reportedly taken to isolating themselves in their home also in response to the curiosity seeking press camped on their doorstep, and neighbors who obviously also wish their 15 minutes of fame regardless of the reason.

As a former long term Arizonan, I truly believe the legislature has better things to do in light of also Arizona's progressive decline under the two political party system, and I really had to ALMOST laugh at the outrage over this one.

I mean the Colt is hardly an assault weapon, nor is it akin to Chicago's brutal history and love affair with the Tommy Gun.

What worries me, however, is that this move just might spread and Illinois may move to make the Tommy Gun its official state firearm.

Utah is also on the move to favor the Browning semi-automatic weapon as their gun of choice. One upmanship maybe?

I mean, doesn't the state have much better things to do and needed legislation in so very many areas with respect to the border situation and that open desert in which progressively more people have died there than in all Arizona's history at the hands of a cowboy bearing a Colt?

Another border agent was killed recently from all reports, just another of so very many on both sides of that expanse of desert.

Will wonders never cease?

Misaligned Priorities: Organizing Campaigns Rather Than Representation

It was announced in the mainstream media recently that while Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is recovering from the events which occurred in Tucson in early January in which six Americans and Arizonans were attacked during a political forum at an area shopping center,
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) have been hard at work organizing fundraisers and creating a PAC organization in order to raise monies for Ms. Gifford's 2012 re-election campaign.

This tragedy notwithstanding nor Ms. Gifford's amazing recovery from all reports, aren't the priorities in Washington a little off base insofar as just what their jobs truly are once again?

I mean it has been reported that it will take months and months of rehabilitation therapy in order for Ms. Giffords to recover whatever brain functions may have been lost in this attack.

Meanwhile, the citizens in her district are without representation, while members of Congress are hard at work insuring their survival and that of their political parties after this heinous attack?

It is quite unbelieveable that procedures would not be in place in order to temporarily elect another citizen to represent the citizens in District 5 while Ms. Gifford's is recovering, if it is even her intention to continue to serve after what she has been through. I wonder, has anyone consulted her insofar as her future intentions? I mean one article even spoke of a Senate race, for heaven's sake.

Politics as usual, and just wonder whose political livelihoods and future best interests these politicians are attempting to secure?

Rather than representation for the benefit of the citizens of District 5?

Sedona and Tucson: Who Decides?

This week other than the Egyptian crisis, there have been two stories which were carried in the mainstream media which also demonstrates how regional news and stories get buried by the big box media in the second or third pages of most American newspapers, even less than a month or year after the events.

One was the pending trial of the Jim Jones of Sedona, James Arthur Ray, who was the leader of a for profit organization of "Spiritual Warriors" and Californian who was conducting a lucrative retreat in Sedona, Arizona in which two women and a man perished after being mentally browbeaten from leaving a plastic tent filled with other devotees a little over a year ago and died of suffocation and heat related illness.

The other, of course, was the accused from the Tucson massacre, Jared Loughner, and his trial in which it was recently also reported that due to the fact that he is charged with both federal and state crimes in the incident in which Mr. Loughner used a 9mm Glock (an automatic police weapon) in order to gun down six people, including a federal judge and U.S. Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, it may take "years" for his case to wind through the criminal justice system.

So much for speedy trials, in which the true evidence may be still fresh.

What is interesting about both these cases is the politics which are occurring with respect to the prosecution of them, and just who has jurisdiction and who will be responsible for determining these two individual's fate.

The Sedona incident occurred in Yavapai County, Arizona in a California style "new age" community, and was allegedly committed by an out state resident in which most of the attendees of this paid event were also not Arizona residents, but from the East Coast, Midwest or California. Apparently, due to the media coverage the defense wishes to move this case out of Yavapai County and into Maricopa County (Phoenix) so that the accused can be assured of a "fair trial," in the hopes that Phoenix or Phoenicians would be more likely to be unbiased with respect to the facts and evidence in the case.

Although would state as a former Arizonan, that the media coverage of what occurred shortly thereafter and the interviews with the victims' families were carried far more in the metro Phoenix papers than those in Yavapai County, and those in Yavapai County most likely would not know personally any of the victims.

Witness costs also would not be impacted, since most of the witnesses also were out state residents from all reports.

Mr. Ray's actions brought shame to the State of Arizona, a state in which such an unregulated commercial enterprise could even occur by one who had no medical training or had any true knowledge of even the spiritual practices behind his highly publicized and profitable venture.

Two women were killed, and one older man. Women have far fewer sweat glands than men and thus do not biologically have the means to cool down their bodies, which is why such practices by the American Indian community were restricted to males as a "rite of male passage" into adulthood, and in which a tribal healer was always present.

Our Constitution does specially provide that in any capital offense, the trial must be held in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred, if the accused is a U.S. citizen and the victims also U.S. citizens.

Mr. Loughner's crime, of course, was witnessed by a great many, all Arizonans.

Mr. Loughner himself was an Arizonan from Tucson and so were all of his victims, whether governmental or civilian, a life is a life.

And the loss of that life at the hands of another is a matter of state, not the federal government.

Between the border situation, and now Mr. Loughner's crimes, it appears the federal government is perhaps failing to carry out its true functions under our Constitution (such as securing our porous and exposed southern borders), while then prosecuting a case which ocurred within state borders that just may have been the result of the political arena and climate in the community in which it occurred.

After all, it did occur at a political event, and purportedly a politician was one of the targets along with other Arizonans. All of the witnesses are Arizonans from Tucson.

If this crime was in no way political, as so many in the media have stated, but merely committed by a "disturbed" loner, and man-child as has been written and widely publicized, then why is the trial now becoming so very, very political?

Rather than Constitutional?

Free Speech and Right of Petition Merely An Illusion

With all the political fallout post the recent tragedy in Arizona, an event which precipitated all the dialogue between the political analysts on television with respect to free speech and civility, the fact remains that in the land of the free and home of the brave free speech and the right of petition is merely an illusion, no matter how civil.

How would I know? My personal story post my exile from my former home of 45 years is proof positive.

I am a 57 year old white female and mother of three grown adult children. Hardly a threat to anyone, and in fact have been the victim of numerous property crimes within the past ten years, including the loss of a home I had lived in for over 12 years, my last home in Arizona as a single mom raising my children.

In my younger years, I worked in law and also the travel industry after my divorce, making not a whole lot of money but with hours that afforded me to continue to be a present parent during the tumultuous teen years. My kids all had their rebellious years, and my birth family was spread out throughout the country due to jobs and marriages. I and one of my children were asthmatics so Arizona remained home throughout their growing up years.

My youth was also somewhat rebellious, but mild in comparison in looking back. I excelled in academics, and also was involved in civic and extra-curricular activities and eventually married my high school sweetheart, although it did not last.

After the mortgage boom and bust, and due to other corporate friendly laws and statutes in Arizona, I eventually lost my home or at least any enjoyment in it my last child's final year in high school.

Graduation plans were intermingled with listing my home and attempting to find a buyer while the market was tanking. I had had to refinance during the boom due to increasing property taxes and insurance, and got caught up in a loan underwritten by Indy Mac bank which also then factored into the eventual loss. But the lawyers, realtors, title companies and bank made out as I was able to eventually find a buyer and got off much better than some, although also lost a small business I had during this time in which I worked from home in order to be around until the last graduated.

I sold most of what I owned to pay off the debts, and also borrowed from relatives in order to pay off more. From parents who were living off a small pension from my father's former employment, and their social security and whose health was failing - and who were also residents of Louisiana and had been evacuated for Katrina. Both had undiagnosed heart disease for literally decades.

I moved to the Midwest first, but unfortunately the climate did not agree with me, and subsequently got involved in the housing and mortgage situation writing articles on a small blog and letters to my former representatives in Arizona about how and what occurred that resulted in the loss of my home. Moving at 20 is hard. At 50 it is much, much harder.

After several months there, I was stalked in my apartment complex parking lot.

A lawsuit had been filed against me over a matter which had occurred over four and half years prior over an insurance claim, and in which it wasn't even filed until four months after I had left the State of Arizona, and after I had returned most of the monies sought to the insurance company for settlement with the contractor. The amount sought with interest was over three times the claimed debt in addition after four and a half years.

I then heard through the family grapevine that my parents health was not at all good, and decided to travel to Louisiana to be nearer to them at least. Another mistake, as that climate definitely did nothing for my also up and down health after the move, although with the multiple hospitalizations of my parents ended up staying there almost two years. I was there for Gustav, and then got even sicker as mold is one of my asthma triggers. I couldn't even lift my arms for an extended period of time, and was eventually recommended by a doctor that I leave and seek a drier climate just prior to my father's massive heart attack in January, 2010. He, of course, had all the symptoms of heart disease for literally a decade, but was only given blood thinners until the inevitable occurred as a Medicare patient, with a 95% blockage in a major artery.

I continued to write on my small blog (with about 200 views), and also my letters to my former representatives in Arizona. I also began writing on a globally focused website (which also had minimal circulation) my political take after my experiences on the housing and mortgage crisis, border issue, and the health care debate as an "expert" due to my experiences and longevity living in Arizona, and my personal experiences and having gone through the health care system with my parents progressive disease. I also had a mother-in-law that died at 54 of undiagnosed heart disease, so it is a disease that goes undiagnosed in women and men many times until it is far too late.

Most of my petitions were civil, although held much truth due to my experiences. But my free speech rights nor my rights of petition have been respected, and have not at all been unaffected by my continued involvement. Even though it is also those politicians lives and that of their children that are also my concern. Even those who wish me ill.

Presently, I get Golf Digest magazine although never subscribed to it. I have been followed and chased from state to state as I seek a climate in which I can actually breathe by those who obviously are threatened by what I have to say.

Imagine that. A mere 57 year old woman, with a readership of less than 300, if that.

My voice is simply one of many, but there is no civility when you challenge the powers that be. There is simply stalking.

I have less than $4.00 in my bank account, and the contents of what I have left of my possessions now fill less than a 5x10 foot area from a 1,900 square foot house in North Phoenix. Most of them are merely Christmas decorations, dishes, towels and personal records.

This is America, and I am living proof that there is no free speech no matter how civil.

Or how true.

The Wisdom Of Mr. Jefferson Remix

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Mar 9, 1821

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821

One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825

The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819


Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803

Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

The construction applied...to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate Congress a power...ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.

Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821


On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 182

It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given to them. It was intended to lace them up straightly with in the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on a National Bank, February 15, 1791

On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 12, 1782


It is not honorable to take mere legal advantage, when it happens to be contrary to justice.

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on Debts Due to Soldiers, 1790

Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 1824

It is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Hugh P. Taylor, October 4, 1823

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, fair copy of the drafts of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 1798

For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens. (In other words, since there is now a federal "income" tax, then to Jefferson it was then "double jeapardy" to then tax "consumption" also such as court fees, patent and trademark fees, gasoline taxes, etc., etc., on top of the "income" tax - either one or the other) . The same would hold true in those states with an "income" tax also which are then taxing "consumption" with sales taxes, use taxes, gasoline taxes, etc., etc.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own, can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force.

Thomas Jefferson, January 26, 1788

It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query 19, 1781

It must be observed that our revenues are raised almost wholly on imported goods. (NOT "free" as in "no cost" trade, but "free" as in unregulated as to our ports for commerce between all nations).

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Gouverneur Morris, 1793

Our properties within our own territories [should not] be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. (No world government)

Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.

Thomas Jefferson, 1784

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to The Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland, March 31, 1809

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787

Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands.

Thomas Jefferson, 1784

Election 2010: More Spins Than The NFL

Since the November midterm elections are coming to the wire, the political ads and spins are coming as fast and deep as those touchdown passes on Monday Night Football.

But at least those arm-chair quarterbacks in the booths can't spin quite as much as the special interest two mainstream political parties can.

As one who lived in two states that have been "political" hotbeds especially these past ten years, Arizona and Louisiana, (the former my "home" state, and later that of extended family members in which I was located for a couple years after fleeing Arizona in 2006 after over 45 years for various political reasons), it is rather discomforting to know that the same old, same old occurs now in this country no matter where, it seems, you may be at election time.

That Citizens United case was a boom for the telecom industries, and certainly has stimulated their budgets, while of course making our elections less and less Constitutional by the year...

I mean, how can you have a representative government when those running for office are afforded to now accept massive campaign monies from "out of district" bundlers and global and national corporate entities in state elections?

Such another wacko decision by the "liberal" Supreme Court once again undermines and clearly negates the entire foundation upon which our Constitution is grounded as those representatives being the voice of the "people" in their particular districts.

In any event, the two parties are at it again, and with more fervor than ever.

There is an election here for a Senate seat.

Of course, the Democratic ads are portraying the opponent as one who is behind cutting and/or eliminating Social Security, cutting education funding, increasing the budgets for the prisons (for those federal grant monies, of course, and also since I have learned this state also has "privatized" some functions of the penal system under outsourced "corporate" government contractors, unconstitutionally transferring a clearly governmental function), and a host of other "benefits" for big business.

The Republican ads, of course, have the same tenor but different spins. These ads portray the opposing candidate as one who voted for "government run" health care (although that is definitely NOT what occurred, rather, the Democrats too fed big business on that one in those upcoming clearly unconstitutional "health care taxes" and mandates and then even without absolutely any regulation over those mega health care networks and insurers whatsoever), and a "wasteful" spender on the stimulus which stimulated nothing but the government, and both parties government contractors and special interest corporate campaign supporters.

Feeding the global and national special interests on both sides of the aisle, of course, and due to Citizens United then there is so much more "outside" campaign monies to tap again come next election by those two mainstream parties whose platforms have really nothing whatsoever to do with Constitutional government at this point whatsoever.

I mean both keep funding the war, and both keep feeding Wall Street and the global economy at the cost of America's own.

We clearly do have at this point, the "best" government that the most lucrative "special interest" can buy.

And after that bank and Wall Street stimulus, I wonder which sector that might be?

We're in the final quarter, and I just wonder how many of the voters already left at halftime?

But before you cast your vote, you might check with the Vegas bookmakers on this one.

Since I'm sure they, rather than those mainstream "political analysts", have the inside track.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: California Judiciary Does It Again

After the gay marriage issue and the unconstitutional denial of prisoners' voting rights (even while on parole, after serving jail time for low level criminal offenses) now this...

Apparently, a San Diego judge has placed an injunction on the military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, again just weeks before an election according to a published AP article.

My question on this issue has always been, just how many in even the gay community serving at this point even care or would actually prefer to keep such a private issue as their sexual preference truly private?

I mean, the military is not supposed to be a dating service anyway, so just what has this particular rather personal issue have to do with serving in the military in this country, other than without such disclosure it does make battlefield housing and living arrangements a bit more complex?

This article also set forth that the American people at this point are less concerned with "social" issues such as these and the war than they are with the economy. Which again goes to prove just how far off the mainstream media are, and wonder just who is conducting and what segment of the population are being used for their polls.

The war has much to do with the economy, and joblessness and homeless in this country. After all, the costs for continuing this war for now nine long years has escalated and added to our deficit far more than even those discretionary expenditures for those bridges to nowhere. And will so for decades in all the veterans benefits and costs that will be needed for the next, oh say, fifty to sixty years.

A decision such as this should not be made by a federal or state judge, but as a policy decision, especially in times of war.

I believe this goes along the lines of all those policies regarding "fraternization" while serving, and also during times of war. I mean, just how much time do most of those serving really have for developing romantic attachments?

Maybe we need to rethink this entire "standing army" concept, or leave those decisions to those who are more aware of the ramifications. And again, just how many gays are actually serving, is what I would like to know, since it would seem that the majority of gay individuals are not exactly also supportive of this ongoing war either at this point to begin with, at least from my experience.

So just how many really are enlisting, and I would not hesitate to guess, not many and many of those that are or have, don't seem to be those which continue to push this agenda, but the civilian activists that somehow perceive that in keeping such a fundamentally personal issue private is denying them their "rights." But "rights" to what, I'd like to know.

Solicit?

The courts do seem to be continuing to accept cases and extending standing to "disinterested" parties more and more, including those now brought on behalf of "foreigner's" rights somehow in this country, under our Constitution and Bill of Rights ("We the People of the United States...for US and OUR posterity"), or using some perceived injustice or disenfranchised individual on behalf of a special interest group in order to feed the legal industry most of all under those federal statutes that provide for the payment of legal fees, at the taxpayer's expense, for any and all actions which can in any way be perceived as a "civil rights" case.

Your sexual preference is a "civil right," but while serving in the military (which is not a "civil" organization, in more ways than one, it would appear as of late) is not.

The military and its members are fighters, after all, not lovers.

Just think of the complications of a totally gay and separate unit with such a policy, and the additional questions that would need to be asked in such an event for at least housing purposes.

For example, "What are your tendencies, "butch" or "queen?"

California and its judiciary does it again, and no wonder there continues to be more at least generational Americans leaving that state, than new residents.

I just wonder whether they also just might work, through their political connections, for the AP which more and more does tend to focus on sensationalize, explosive and exploitive politically charged journalism and their "polls" each and every decade, rather than even questioning a military policy being addressed in a civilian court outside any true Constitutional basis or intent of those founders whatsoever.

Who would most likely hold that gays are more than welcome to serve in the military and volunteer army to protect the homeland if it is their desire.

But disclose they would have no time for dating, and if that was their objective than maybe the career military or a foreign engagement during a time of war wouldn't suit their primary or the military's ultimate aims.

Ninth Circuit Denies Voting Rights To Prisoners

It was announced in the mainstream media that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a prior panel ruling (?) which had found the State of Washington's prohibition banning voting by felons unconstitutional.

The case apparently was grounded and brought as a "racial discrimination" case, however, and the basis for the decision appears politics also just may have been a factor in this recent ruling.

After all, with the exception of two states in the nation all have some provisions barring convicted felons from the election process. Some more stringent than others, and even a few that actually prohibit felons from voting for life (forget "letting the punishment fit the crime," or after the punishment has been handed down and fulfilled "records" being then wiped clean upon petition for felons, and automatically for misdemeanor offenses).

Seems to me maybe the lawyers for the case might have missed using that other Constitutional provision, the "privileges and immunities clause," that also might have been another legal avenue to travel. I mean, two states do not remove voting rights for felons, so aren't those prisoners getting a "privilege" that those prisoners in other states do not, since the buzz words also being used by the spin doctors on this one is that voting is a "privilege" in this country, and not a "right?"

Huh?

In a government of the people, by the people, for the people it most certainly is a "right" in this writer's view, but then we have also quite clearly lost any measure of having a representative government due to just such wacko court decisions as these, as of late, all the way to the top branch in that last Citizens United "corporate" case brought by a somewhat "commercial" entity, or perhaps dare I say, federally funded through its "educational" focus?

I mean, foreigners now are exerting their influence in the hallowed halls of Washington more and more, both through their lobbying efforts and also through their campaign donations to those "bundlers."

The court also cited a "precedence" from an 1886 case, and strange that this "progressively liberal" court would hold with a case while bypassing the intent of the founders and their reverence for just what type of government they were creating, and which actually had to do more so with capital offenses in which jury trials actually were given in those days, and cases were not plea bargained, or those jailhouse appeals denied as regularly as they appear to be more and more then thereafter.

Many times, for budgetary reasons.

I wonder if Washington State has privatized its state jails as Arizona has?

I mean, the fewer inmates, the less those Wall Street penal conglomerates get for their budgets and shareholders, and the less the states also get from the federal government in order to also run some of those state prisons. This is, after all, another emerging industry creating all those jobs for those homeland security graduates and ex-military primarily.

Is it any wonder that more and more of those pro se jailhouse appeals are getting either denied, or "lost," as was the case in Louisiana several years ago in a published article which was written after a Clerk of the Court committed suicide presumably due to his guilt over having been a participant in such a court process for at least a decade.

And while Arizona's prisons have been privatized right and left supposedly due to "budgetary" constraints, I just wonder where all those monies also are coming from in order to upgrade and build all those new jails especially with the budget being of such major concerns to a great many states these past five years, while the most monies that went in that stimulus actually did go to the states for such purposes. I guess this is another "outsourcing" of governmental powers and duties to private industry in these now "commercial" prisons once again that will have their bottom line profits most in mind in running them, and with little state oversight whatsoever as was recently in the headlines.

I mean in this "ends justifies the means" style governing now on every level, the more and more that minor offenses are criminalized which don't involve loss of property or injury, the more "jobs" it creates, and dividends for those shareholders who are invested in those commercial ventures at this point.

This is the mentality that seems to be running rampant at the city, county, state and federal levels more and more.

Just think how much crime stimulates the economy, and creates jobs. Construction jobs, security and prison guards for the returning military and homeland security grads, the "tech" industry for all those cameras and surveillance devices, identity theft protection companies and jobs, insurance company profits for expanded coverages then needed on homeowners and auto insurance due to the rising auto theft rates in most state throughout the nation - why it does appear that it is a major stimulus for quite a few sectors of Wall Street.

In fact, if there wasn't crime at all, just think how many more would be lining up at the social service offices right now.

Maybe that is also a factor in this economic depression.

The need for more criminals in order to stimulute also the global economy, Wall Street, and the U.S. economy - after a theft, you have to go out and buy something to replace what was taken, after satsifying that deductible, that is. After your car is stolen or broken into, you need to satsify that deductible when making those repairs, or buying tha new (or used) car to replace it.

Maybe this is why more and more in local communities there are no neighborhood patrols really much anymore in residential communities, since that would affect and impact the economy and jobs of those private security companies too, although they have no real legal authority to do anything really other than place a call to the local police force if the worst should happen and there should be a property crime in their jurisdiction.

It just might not be the budget at all If there were regular neighborhood patrols once again there just might be less crime, maybe, and thus less jobs and profits for those on the "crime does pay" gravy train. Or if the economy actually did improve significantly.

But with lesser offenses, this country IS supposed to be the "land of the free" - so just why has there been such a progressive move to criminalize more and more petty offenses, offenses in which there is no direct victim such as many of those minor "possession" charges on marijuana use, not sale, and others. You can spend jail time even for misdemeanor offenses at this point in most states throughout the nation.

Many of the even public misdemeanor jails are charging inmates for their own meals, or confiscating their wages then from any work they do for the "privatized" jailhouse general stores upon their return. I mean being in jail itself, deprived of your freedom and separated from society for your crime, was SUPPOSED to be THE punishment for major offenses.

Those incarcerated, especially those felonies not involving harm or injury to another, are or were taxpayers - but it appears when handing down their double, triple and even quadruple penalties for even minor felony offenses, the states are forgetting the common law provisions on civil and criminal crimes in this country. And most aren't even "convicted" but are plea bargained also for "budgetary" needs by those public defenders.

Letting the punishment fit the crime has been lost in the process. And even giving those juries the instructions that they also have not only the duty to hand down their verdict on the evidence presented, but also the duty to examine the law and punishments attached by statute also as to legality in their view as representatives of "the people," and not "the state."

Although even obtaining a jury of your peers is almost impossible, since juries are now profiled by the lawyers involved, or are comprised of citizens that truly are not "peers" of the defendant at all - many of whom are themselves city, state, county or federal workers who are paid from some of those fines and fees attached to those crimes - especially the minor offenses.

And yet, there is a concerted move also progressively to continue to attempt to remove trials by jury for more and more offenses even. With the state acting as both the charging party, and jury in more and more "bench" trials for misdemeanor criminal offenses, and with even traffic fines at all time highs requiring most to enter into "payment plans" at added costs even over and above those fines, which should be a clue right there as to the levels at which they are now set. The very definition of fascism, actually.

So how is removal of voting privileges in any manner letting the punishment fit the crime, unless it truly is the highest offense within our Constitution.

High treason.

I mean spies, and those in high political office should not be afforded that "right" when by their actions they have shown that it is not this country or its Constitution which guides their actions, or to whom they owe their fealty.

I wonder, just how many in Washington that are highly publicized casting their votes even while running for office, should have their ballots challenged?

Maybe what we need at this point is a recount ever decade, rather than a census.

I just wonder how many "foreigners" and "party politicians, including those "mavericks" of both mainstream political parties whose political leanings have nothing to do with Constitutional government, votes would then be thrown out.

Another ruling by the Ninth that appears to be following British law at the time of the American Revolution contrary to those Bill of Rights primarily and fundamentally, and not U.S. true law at all, as this ruling to this writer flies in the face of the entire intent of America's founders in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Weighed against the increasing access to the U.S. Courts by foreign individuals for even prosecution matters not to mention their appeals paid for through Americans taxes for those numerous appeals before deportation for true capital offenses, who are not even American citizens, speaks volumes in just how far off this recent decision is as by this court especially, as opposed to Constitutional intent in the entire foundation of America's intended form of government.

Whose "prisoner" voices should be heard most of all really, as those who have been many times "politically" convicted due to "budgetary" restraints, or whose crimes have been criminalized which under the common law are merely civil crimes without a clear "victim" to begin with.

While those pardons are given to high level Wall Street officials whose "direct victims" were literally hundreds or thousands of individuals in property theft, rather than banning them from any further employment in the financial sector for at least a good many years, the pot smokers and low level DUI offenders under those three strike rules are banned from the political and voting process, or those plea bargained lower felony "civil" victimless offenders "for life" in a few states?

Or how about those foreign drug dealers and auto thieves who are peddling their wares to America's youth most of all or stealing cars cross borders, who then are afforded to gain "standing" somehow in the U.S. courts and turn around and sue for "emotional distress," as what occurred by at least one foreigner after having been shot in the rear by the American border patrol, to then profit from their crime?

San Francisco, your "heart" seems to be misplaced, along with this Court's fundamental understanding of Constitutional government.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

BP Excuses Beginning To Sound Hollow

I have to suspect that I must not be the only American that has come to the conclusion that the excuses that are now being given by BP (British Petroleum) over their inability to cap this oil spill that just so happened to occur as the American public was demanding more domestic production, and less reliance on foreign crude due to the ongoing and continuing War on Terrorism (oil) are beginning to sound rather hollow...and familiar.

And Louisiana and the U.S. government's hand wringing also suspect.

Obama has stated that he plans to be "hands on" in the cleaning up of this disaster due also to globalization and foreign ownership of another American vital industry which apparently went for the most part unregulated which resulted in the loss of more American lives at the hands of foreigners.

It is interesting that this was a British company involved, and that although Mr. Obama's efforts have been restricted for the most part in formulating another panel at the taxpayers expense to study just what occurred, I wonder if he has also directed them to study some of those "free trade" agreements with global corporations which are operating outside U.S. regulatory body oversight more and more?

I mean post Katrina and the U.S. recession, it is the British and Canadians who are buying up a great many of those million dollar homes in the French Quarter and Garden District, many of whom also work for BP.

And I wouldn't hesitate to guess that as the U.S. gets involved now in this disaster posthumously, that there is a move in Washington to increase the gasoline taxes then in order to provide for the revenue to clean up this spill, even given the announced "fines" that are being levied against BP (which, I'm sure, will be appealed under those "free trade" agreements, leaving again the American public holding the bag).

Washington, and the Global Socialists in both the Republican and Democratic parties have become oh so predictable.

Sort of like Hollywood, that has taken to making more and more "remakes" of both cancelled television series formats, "digitally enhanced" versions of rereleases, or earlier Hollywood blockbusters as their standard fare.

This country can place a man on the moon, and developed the nuclear bomb, and can't clean up an oil spill.

Since we also have shared that technology with Britain and also those other foreign countries and "allies" who now have again risked American lives for their global commercial gain.

While Congress, and this Adminstration as the last, creates panels and twiddles its thumbs.

Fairly similar to the Katrina disaster and subsequent response, for which many lost their homes for eventual foreign and commercial gain.

For which many of those working still on the reconstruction are, once again, foreigners or illegal government contractor or day labor immigrants.

I wonder if the BP reconstruction will be a replay of the Katrina repairs?

Providing for the jobs and the economy, once again, of foreigners for that global economy?

First AIG (American International Group, but London home domiciled) and now BP.

Kinda makes you wonder....

Well, after the oil settles (pun intended) there will, after all, be then future oil reserves discovered again in the future to guarantee those oil barons and their families continued wealth. I mean this is not really a renewable form of energy for the most part.

Hmmm...maybe BBC Worldwide (an ally of the Fox USA network, it would appear) also needed the cash since this has been a major news story now for a good deal of the last month and those ad revenues and advertisers needs must also be satisfied, no matter what the cost or the spin.