Roberts Rules of Constitutional Obliteration

It has taken me over a week to process the latest desecration of the United States Constitution promulgated by no other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts.
The Roberts Court I predict will go down as the most liberal Court in U.S. history.

And that's saying something.

Much has been made in the media of the decision reached by Justice Roberts on the most contentious provision contained within the 1,300 page "(Un)Affordable Care Act."

His holding in that respect defies any and all Rules of Law and the common law in this country, and wipes out any illusion that the Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual Americans from federal (OR STATE) overstep.

Upholding this provision was not only overstep, it was crushing the American people under federal jack boots.

Now the "talking heads" on the cable news networks, who make their profits over sensationalized news and cases such as this one they can milk for weeks and years to come, are arguing whether this mandate is a "tax" as Justice Roberts defined it (is this man insane, or what?) or a penalty.
From Websters:

Definition of PENALTY

1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
-------------------------------------------------

It is, no question, a penalty and not a "tax," or within Congress or the Supreme Court's taxing authority under our Constitution or those founders intent.

But more importantly, just what was the purpose of Justice Roberts defining it in such a manner, since there did have to be an ulterior motive here with such an outrageous ruling.

Well, the Supreme Court has, for literally decades, refused to hear cases involving taxation due to a decision either it made independently, or after passage of another of those back door bills, that it will not hear any cases involving taxation.

Since, of course, the federal income tax itself and its passage was by no means a popular move by that Congress so very long ago...

As long as the Supreme Court defines it as such, it never, ever again has to re-examine its own ruling on this provision.

By its own edict...

In other words, Roberts both ruled it a tax, and then protected this Court (and any future Court also) from ever having to hear any more cases with respect to that provision in ObamaCare ever again.
I still haven't figured out how the Supreme Court has the power anywhere in the Constitution to refuse to hear any case brought by an American citizen, but it does so rather regularly.

This, in an of itself, is a demonstration of the high regard the Court holds for itself as the Court of last resort.

And it is still unclear to me just who the appealing parties were in this case, since it was announced that it was brought by several of the states (who also stand to gain revenue from this ruling, revenue which they can now use elsewhere in their states for more and more unconstitutional functions when they cut many of their also state funded programs).

From what I read in briefly having a chance to read the Supreme Court opinion in full before it was yanked from the web, it was brought by a "corporate" entity I had never heard of (and additional appellees).

This was not just a wacko ruling, it was a wacko ruling that had a further political purpose as its objective.

Which makes the Roberts Court one of the most liberal and political courts ever in this country.
I wonder just how much stock Justice Roberts has in the insurance and health care sector?

Since it is clear that most of those in Washington who hold all those insurance, hospital and pharma stocks will be making a killing on this ruling - and Mr. Romney is also no exception.

They all should be ashamed...as this provision actually was the most contentious, and yet most important provision within that 1,300 page bill.

Make no mistake about it....

It set a "precedent" like no other ruling before it...that the federal government's power is absolute with respect to using any means necessary to pass any old legislation it wishes...

And the first order of business in this country for any new Congress should be re-examining the law school curriculum in this country, particularly those Ivy League schools on the East Coast...

Since the amount they are charging for tuition for such a legal education as obviously Mr. Roberts must have received seems like highway robbery...or money down the drain.

I hope Mr. Roberts paid for that education, and not his parents...

And if the penalty was upheld as a tax, then it would stand to reason that the mandate to provide health insurance for individual Americans and that cost is also a tax, and all dollars paid by Americans for their own health care should then be fully deductible on their federal and state income taxes.

You can't have it both ways...

Arizonans Losers Again

This is a banner week for the U.S. Supreme Court.

First up, the recent political decision on the Arizona immigration case and the provisions of SB 1070, Arizona's tough "anti-illegal immigrant" bill which challenged the federal government's authority with respect to the ramifications to my former home state over its failure to secure our southern borders.

With the number of foreigners escalating particularly after the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's to the point where it is estimated there are literally millions of foreign Mexican and South Americans making it a "national" concern.

Except for those in the upper 48 apparently, including D.C.

Even after passage of the Secure Fence Act back in 2006, and the much ballyhooed passage of the bill which provided for a centralized database for employers to check the immigration status of potential employees.

The flow hasn't stopped significantly, but unless something isn't done soon, those numbers will eventually simply increase...a bad or good economy makes no real difference, although a bad economy makes the hiring of illegals and the drug trafficking and auto thefts in most border states skyrocket.

Problem is the government, state and federal,through their own governmental contractors, are probably the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor.

And, so very many are making a killing keeping those southern borders unsecured for the cheap foreign labor our open borders provide - not to mention how much the courts and lawyers make throughout the country on all those criminal and "civil rights" cases which are heard in our local and federal courts.

Illegal immigration, while being a jobs killer, is definitely an economic stimulus for the politicians, lawyers, and large and small businesses that profit off their labors.

As a former long term Arizonan, what was interesting to me is just how ludicrous this entire Supreme Court case actually was to begin with.

I mean, even the one provision the Court upheld was politically motivated.

The provision that enabled local law enforcement officials to require proof of citizenship be provided in the event any individual is stopped and suspected of being in the country illegally.

Since there is a U.S. District Court case pending until the Supremes decision was rendered which is directly challenging that provision on "civil rights" grounds, that was hardly a "win" for Arizona - although Arizona's Governor sure seemed to publicly whitewash and call the Supremes' decision a win for Arizona due to their upholding that provision (at least until one of their fellow brethren on the bench in the U.S. District Court strikes that one down).

It was really a win for Mexicans throughout the land, and the government of Mexico, truth be told.

The Supremes' upheld the rights of foreigners over those of Americans.

SB 1070 in and of itself was a rather political move by the Arizona legislature to begin with.
During President Bush's final days in office, he used one of those Executive Orders to grant "free pass" visa waivers with only 48 hour security checks to foreigners from over 35 different countries.

Visas for Mexican visitors haven't been required for literally decades.

So upon those "stops" just how would any officer prove in a court of law that an undocumented Mexican was in the country illegally, if there are no visa requirements anymore?

What seems more than clear was that this case was politically motivated, and was the biggest winner for the lawyers who also get their legal fees paid gratis for any deemed "civil rights" action they might bring.

And if the U.S. District Court doesn't overturn the "show me your papers" provisions of that law, I just wonder how many Arizona lawyers will be licking their chops over all the potential cases they will now have for decades to come?

What a travesty...and the passion plays go on...and on...while the Americans and Arizona citizens aren't even an after thought.

I mean, people are commerce, are they not?

Foreign or domestic.

And isn't it clear that crime certainly does pay?

As far as the Constitutional questions...

I have read and reread the U.S. Constitution numerous times, and the only power I actually see granted to the federal government in this respect is that they are to provide a "process for naturalization," and to provide the federal courts for any crime committed by a foreigner in this country before they finalize the naturalization process.

So just where is it written that it is the federal government's sole job to dictate immigration policies, or their enforcement?

Since, after all, it is the state's that petition the federal government for all those green cards each and every year by Resolution?

This just keeps getting worse and worse...just whose rights was that Constitution written in order to protect?

Americans...or foreigners?

Since, of course, being Mexican or South American, or Latino is not a race at all.

Simply a nationality

ObamaCare: The White Elephant Is Still In The Room

There has been much publicized in the mainstream media this weekend about the upcoming Supreme Court review of the controversial (and much contested) bill passed by the Obama Administration during the first year of his four year term in office.

Nothing much has changed.

The white elephant is still in the room...the United States Constitution.

This legislation not only flies in the face of that historic document and beacon of freedom in America.

It desecrates it.

Somehow, I find it rather odd that this legislation was passed at all. It also seems so very strange that it would be a black, "Constitutional" lawyer who would be behind this legislation, and his party "of the people."

Almost seems like it was ordained that way before the election was even held.

What better way to attempt to fool and re-educate the public that this bill will be one which the people will benefit, by a party supposedly known to be more representative of the people, than the Republicans - the party of corporate America.

Just who will benefit from this legislation....hmmm...

The medical community. The insurance and financial sector. The lawyers. The politicians.

The big four.

Who will be the victims?

The American public.

I listened today while some of those "political analysts" spoke of just how difficult this review would be, and how both sides can see it going either way. Using every tool in their arsenal in order to back up the positive merits of this legislation.

Which, way back when, was presented to the public with a carrot and stick.

The carrot? No insurer can refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions (no mention of any governmental regulation on just how MUCH those insurers then can charge individuals seeking insurance after a death sentence diagnosis, or chronic illness, or on the level of profits and money those insurers will be making hand over fist if Washington can shore up the "search and seizure" portions of the bill which enforcement of that individual mandate will involve).

Many of the Democrats and Republicans keep citing the "commerce clause" as being the fundamental linchpin in whether or not this legislation will eventually be deemed Constitutional.

Using past "judge made case law" as their argument as precedence.

I've got news for those media pundits, lawyers and others who continue to murky those waters.

The Commerce clause as it was written was intended to protect the individual Americans FROM the corporate, and protect state funded industries from "foreign" (outside the U.S.) or domestic (outside the state) undue competitition across state lines.

Meaning, it is the clause that gives Washington the power to "regulate" those insurance companies, huge medical clinics, and health care networks.

Problem is, due to all the monies Washington has poured into the "tech" industry, including medical technology, unfortunately the mindset seems to be that it is now the American people that will need to pay the piper for Washington's past largesse.

Since so many Americans are living longer (although those actuarial tables have changed little the past three decades) or due to the fact that there will be a larger aging public with the baby boomers, than there was with the World War II generation (if we all don't die from starvation, or homelessness first).

The Commerce clause gives Washington the power to "mandate" that Americans (individually) must purchase health insurance OR ELSE?

Hardly.

The insurance sector is also simply another branch of Wall Street and the financial sector. And many of those national insurance companies are not even domiciled in the United States, those "free trade" agreements have become so generous to foreign countries the past thirty years.

I see that individual mandate as one included in order to gradually phase out Medicare over time and turn the entire "life and death" decisions over to insurance companies (foreign or domestic).

Without having to give any of those monies the boomers, especially, have paid into that program over the years since 1964.

Another banner year in legislation.

While then also raising the Social Security age at the same time in order to marginalize as many of the boomers under those programs as possible.

My question, though, is this...

How in the world does Washington believe or expect that Americans, especially those over 40, who are now homeless AND jobless (due to the mortgage mess, and tax credits now given for hiring younger workers to those national corporations) will be able to afford to buy health insurance, no matter what the price.

When their unemployment is running out, and the job market shrinking (except those jobs which would be created by passing this legislation in the public sector (enforcement) and private sector (a few insurance agents, since most of those "cut rate" programs will be "buy online," without involvement of a human, I assure you).

Just how can Washington justify this legislation, given that in many states throughout the nation those older workers contributed to both the building, and budgets of those hospitals through their property taxes, and the tuition for those doctors through also those same property taxes at local universities?

Except, of course, for all those foreign doctors who are being trained in U.S. medical schools from India and South America, for lower wages for those corporate health care networks.

Will Washington be putting all those homeless and jobless Americans who do not or cannot comply with the mandate in the privatized state or federal jails, in order to at least make their revolt beneficial to another corporate campaign donor.

The White Elephant lives on...still.

If this law is upheld by some legal slight of hand by those black robed arbiters of Constitutional understanding (using case law, rather than intent, as their standard) - do Americans who have contributed to Medicare since 1964 get their money back so that they can pay those cut rate premiums? Or the Social Security that won't be collected by all those boomers who are not wealthy enough after this past ten year economic tsunami given to their next of kin as suvivor's benefits?

I hope that is also deliberated this week.

The "taking" of the cash for fraudulent purposes, without refund.

The Wall Street Court: Kagan Confirmed By Senate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A royal straight flush.

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.

Obama Nominates British Trained Kagan To Supreme Court

Well, I guess it comes once again as no surprise to the Constitution believing Americans in this country.

Barack Obama has continued the tradition of nominating another justice to the United States Supreme Court that got at least some of her education outside the United States in Great Britain, and also from the liberally focused Harvard, one of its U.S. branch campus.

Elena Kagan is another East Coast liberal who obtained at least some of her schooling, according to news reports, from Oxford in England, whose system of government and also legal education is focused on the government being above the citizenry and "sovereign" while, of course, in this country our government is just the opposite.

At least on those rights as outlined in America's Bill of Rights which were meant as protection against both the government, and the corporate commercial (property) entities.

Which was why those first Americans fought to break free from British influence and control way back in 1776, while the progressives and liberals in this country seem to be hell-bent on returning this country to British rule and control.

If not directly, then through the U.S. Supreme Court.

Interesting that Ms. Kagan's first appearance before the Court was to argue on behalf of the government on that ludicrous Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case granting unlimited and outside of district "free speech" rights to corporate entities in this country.

Even if they are federally funded through taxpayer paid grant monies, as a great many of these "educationally" focused lawyer led "grass roots" corporate organizations continue to be.

In effect, nothing more than "state actors" then of the federal government with all those strings attached to those grant monies, and apparently being used more and more in this country in order to also extended 'corporate' rights under the Bill of Rights to "corporate person-hoods," - another party to the Constitution created by a bogus and rogue Supreme Court ruling way back when.

Which coincided within that time frame the creation of the Office of the Solicitor General back in 1870, a position Ms. Kagan now holds although had never previously argued a case before the Supreme Court.

Who also wrote a thesis during her law school education in defense of socialism.

The Global Socialists are hard at work on the Hill, that much is clear, with this recent nomination from both "sides" of the corporate global socialist bent political parties now in power.

Which fundamentally is a violation of those founders intent for a representative government at its core.

As was that Citizens United decision.

Interesting that Ms. Kagan did not argue the question of the Constitutionality of the unlawful creation and extention of Bill of Rights protections for corporate entities outside the clear language of the Constitution and intent of those founders, hence the Boston Tea Party which was also a demonstration against global corporate control of the people of the United States by the sovereign, King George, and the East India Tea Company public/private partnership in that initial appearance before the Court.

But then, that would in effect negate the legality of all those public officials right to hold their current offices as not "duly elected" to begin with, would it not, including those Supreme Court justices as affirmed by those now unlawfully holding public office?

I'm simply waiting for that position on one of these commercial and "corporate friendly" cases to be argued giving increasingly unequal privileges and immunities to "property" as opposed to the people of this great nation.

But I won't hold my breath.

At least not in this Administration, as with the last and so many, many before which is why this nation is where it is, clearly, at this point in our history.

Dissolving and regressing back into foreign ownership and control through both its foreign owned banks, and through its globally focused and dictated leadership PROGRESSIVELY.

Citizens United: Washington, Supreme Court Reinstituting British Rule of Law?

As the hoopla continues post the presidential address last week over the comments made by Barack Obama regarding the heinous Supreme Court decision with respect to amending the Constitution once again in order to grant more and more privileges and immunities to the phantom "corporate personhood" created by a rogue Supreme Court in the late 1800's, little mention has been made of just who "corporately" will benefit the most over this latest Constititional Bill of Rights trashing.

The corporate media owners and Wall Street once again.

Interesting that such a decision would be selected by the Supreme Court to begin with and at this point in our history (who somehow have given themselves the power to refuse more and more cases brought by the actual citizens in this country, without "corporate" backing over Constitutional provisions, such as their refusals of groups addressing the 16th Amendment, and recently even the citizenship status of the individual holding the highest office in the land due to his unusual upbringing primarily outside the U.S. during most of his formative years).

Interesting due to the fact that it is those advertising revenues for those advertisements which have been dwindling for those media concerns also progressively with more and more newspapers now going belly up, and competition stiff for those ad dollars, after the advent of cable television now that there are over 95 stations for the American people to choose from and more and more appear to be choosing the weather station most of all.

This past presidential election cycle lasted for two full years, in essence with Illinois and Arizona without full Senate representation for major votes, even by those unduly elected representatives to begin with (since the Senate was comprised in the original Constitutional provisions and intent of the founders to be the voice primarily for the states, with the House the voice of the people, and Senate representatives and elections were to be decided by the various state legislatures for selection of Senators, which then kept the corporate influence other than the states issues at bay or diluted more so at least in the Senate).

And with the Murdoch machine (an actual Brit who simply became an American in order to buy up a great deal of America's print and television media, and who has used his influence and money to sway the political balances in two other countries, Great Britain and Australia previously) promoting his British style conservatism, interesting the timing of both this decision, and the holding of the Court which was more along the British style, once again, of Constitutional interpretation with respect to America's Bill of Rights protections - which was clearly intended for the citizens against the corporate, both governmental and otherwise (remember the Boston Tea Party and the East India Company's "sovereign status" with King George?).

It appears once again Washington is feeding Wall Street and its "sovereign subjects" again at the cost of the American public at large, and undermining the very fabric of our Constitution with respect to representative government in the process, which has been consistently the case now for well over 100 years by those progressives that continue to be selected by each and every Republican or Democratic "corporate" party platform and Administration.

Which platforms also supercede in many respects the actual provisions of the Constitution, and which have hijacked our political process also "progressively," per George Washington's warnings in his famous Farewell Address.

Also interesting is the group that brought this action, and their true corporate status, since it appears that although it has been also represented that this was a citizen rights focused group, as one in which there is also a claimed "educational" focus, it is also eligible for federal grant monies in matching sums.

So in essence, the federal government itself appears it is using some of these supposed "liberty as commerce" groups that have sprung up in the years since 9-11 in order to use the flag, patriotism and the public at large in order to continue to strip Americans of their Bill of Rights protections against the corporate, in all honesty.

Since why haven't any of these purported Constitutional focused groups used their donations and monies toward funding the Constitutional remedy for such continued treason and abuse of the citizenry, and filed the civil and criminal charges against some of these "misrepresentatives" which is the process that is provided in the Constitution to so do, and many of these groups are actually headed by lawyers or educators?

I would also dispute that it was the "conservative" members of the Court that were behind this latest corporate hijacking of our political process.

Since this was clearly a "liberal" construction of the Bill of Rights protections under the Constitution intended for the PEOPLE against the government and the corporate, and not a "conservative" one at all.

The corporate lawyers in this country are licking their lips over this one, make no mistake about it, and was also a major job stimulus for them, truth be told.

And this rather narrow holding with respect to a grassroots political PAC organization will be expanded, and expanded and expanded eventually to include corporate "commercial" concerns - even global ones outside the U.S., make no mistake, and appears to have been the true intention at the outset in this screening and selection of this case by the Court.

Our judiciary is simply another political tool in the now one party system - corporate socialism.

Even Obama during the health care deform consulted with the "stakeholders" and not the Constitution - "stakeholders" who have been consistently now granted more and more corporate friendly legislation over the American people's wallets and livelihoods since the Surpeme Court first trashed the Constitution in somehow adding another party to it - corporate "person-hood."

Why would Congress or the President wish to follow the Constitution and actually regulate those health care providers and concerns adequately per Constitutional provision, rather than fining homeless and jobless Americans for not purchasing their products at their excessively expensive rates, if in regulating those costs for their policies, or providing oversight of those high risk reinvestments and diversifications they continue to make with those profits, or tying any increases in annual amounts in with the CPI it would affect the amounts those Congressmen and Senators, and presidential candidates would receive for their future political careers?

Now, it appears, in unlimited amounts. Which means simply that the government in this health care legislation is mandating that you purchase a product from the financial sector, in order that they can then get your dollars through the backdoor in order to further strip you of your rights for their benefit, and your hard earned cash for their next campaign as a "donor" without even any tax credits for your donations.

And although former justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been quoted as criticizing the decision as compromising the future neutrality of the Court, her comments appear to be mere rhetoric also - since the Court has been political almost since the ink was dried on the Constitution per Jefferson's comments with respect to one branch in which there truly was not at all an adequate "check" on their powers, and who placed themselves as the arbiter of Constitutionality even outside the jury provisions which were actually meant to prevent such a clearly political decision such as this one from occurring.

And have done so consistently also through its voluminous and ludicrous Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure every since, using even some of those court rules in order to circumvent the Constitution, and people's access to the court system itself.

And the Court and Congress actually have no inherent "rights" to redefine the fundamental basis for a representative government in any statute, law or court rendering.

In other words, you cannot have a truly representative government as clearly intended by those founders if candidates are funded or "promoted" or receiving campaign backing by any individuals or corporate concerns outside their own legislative districts.

Not to mention national and international corporate monies, which in effect then eventually might mean that the bin Laden family, or the British royal family, or Mr. Murdoch himself (a British national, all appearances to the contrary) could spread their cash for key committee leadership races and not only undermine the entire American political process, but hijack actually our government placing it under foreign rulership and control.

Even more so than it already is under the British bankers which own our own Federal Reserve.

So America, while the media pundits at Fox (the national animal of the British, mind you) are celebrating this victory and painting it as heralding a return to "freedom" and the First Amendment rights of the people, while the purported "liberal" organizations are crying "foul," remember it is all simply an act for public consumption on the part of those media owners and moguls.

Since they just got handed a privilege and immunity over that of the true citizend and people of this nation purposely and deliberately that will guarantee that more and more of America's wealth, and its political process, will be "corporately" determined, and their profit margins increased and also watch the election cycle in presidential years become more and more of a circus than it already is.

A neutral and independent judiciary?

Obama and Alito should be nominated for Academy awards at this point for best actor by a politician of the new seat for the entertainment industry, Washington.

Or at least declare and disclose their true employment status and benefits packages as not public servants at all, but corporate directors.

Supreme Court, Obama and Congress Pass The Scepter

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hail, Britainia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court has done it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where were these justices educated? Great Britain?

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

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

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

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

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

Sonia Sotomayor: Not MY Judge!

For Any and All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

After some sham public hearings, political rhetoric on both sides of the new Global Socialist Party holding court in D.C., and chess moves for re-election purposes with respect to the final vote and tally, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate today as the replacement for retiring Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court. The final vote, after all the drama and stand up vote count, was 68-31

Much fanfare was made due to this "historic" appointment in playing both the "race card" and also the fact that Ms. Sotomayor is the third woman to be appointed to the hallowed halls of the Court. Ms. Sotomayor may change the physical characteristics of the Court but it is unlikely she will change the complement of it in any manner since this court is still "liberal" insofar as Constitutional interpretation as mainly comprised of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now appointees. All liberal Administrations.

In fact, Ms. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench by a Bush, the first Bush, and it was the second Bush, George W., that referred to the Constitution as a "damn piece of paper" from all reports and whose actions post 9/11 certainly exhibited the reverence he and that Congress gave to the actual RULE OF LAW and government as set forth within its provisions.

It appears that Ms. Sotomayor in most of her responses is of like mind. As was most on the Senate panel conducting the staged public hearings with respect to her confirmation.

Her clear bias for prior precedents and judge made case law rulings was evident throughout the hearings when referring to the "Rule of Law," no matter how the panel members from both sides of the aisle tried to politically spin the issue with respect to Obama's seeking a candidate with empathy, and Ms. Sotomayor's statements with respect to her gender and race being a plus insofar as her intepretive skills over those of others.

Even when the Republicans were posturing with their objections, the main objections consisted of fear that she would not rule "according to the law" but her personal bias or emotion. But it was clear their objections were also "liberally" based in their definitions of the "Rule of Law" to which they feared she would stray as being those decisions and the many politically based prior court rulings, some of which are fundamentally and clearly outside the parameters of the Constitution.

Such as the most recent Kelo decision reached during the Bush Administration. And expanding the powers of the Executive Office outside their Constitutional restraints progressively, while diluting Congress's enumerated legal powers, and expanding the law making abilities of regulatory agencies that were never meant to have indpendent "law making" abilities with respect to the citizenry (NOT corporate business interests) in any manner whatsoever in their regulatory functions. Such as the off the wall IRS since its inception, and now the Department of Homeland Security in its jack boot bulletins and police state tactics.

In fact, Ms. Sotomayor's oath of office, as with all Justices, is to the Constitution itself, and not to any prior court rendering of it. So the liberals on both sides of the aisle used this appointment in order to deflect and distract most of all, not evaluate Ms. Sotomayor's rulings according to the true "RULE OF LAW."

And interesting the timing of Mr. Souter's resignation, and Ms. Sotomayor's new appointment.

Much has been publicized that Mr. Obama, just as the prior liberal Bush Administration, plans on addressing the status of the over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, and from all reports very soon.

Although the American people spoke rather loudly and clearly the last time this was attempted with the McCain/Kennedy "Dream Act" in 2006 under a Bush directive while our southern borders, for the most part, remain unsecured and the funding cut or denied each time the appropriations bills come up under the Secure Fence Act also passed that year, while the citizens lawful and legal civil rights continued to be attacked and take a beating on the pretense of "national security" concerns.

MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund) also heralded the appointment as "historic" along with the liberal media and press.

MALDEF, of course, is indirectly federally funded by the U.S. taxpayers due to the fact that there is a federal statute that provides for their legal fees and awards for any and all civil rights actions brought by them on behalf of Mexican Americans living in this country and who are natural or naturalized citizens.

However, within the last several years they have also been bringing suits against American citizens on behalf of many of those illegal immigrants, which costs for suit are also being honored and paid by the federal government and being billed then to the deficit and U.S. citizens.

Could this appointment have been a strategic maneuver on behalf of both "liberal" parties which have now merged into the Global Socialist Party after that foreign AIG bailout and Wall Street stimulus prior to addressing the amnesty once again in the event of a legal challenge to its Constitutionality?

Since any amnesty of those already in this country unlawfully under prior federal statutory law would clearly be an "ex post" facto law and thus unconstitutional in any event with respect to those already here who entered unlawfully or have remained other than for temporary work visa, green card or tourism reasons, and such actions would not address nor solve the problem of the influx of illegals which occurs each and every day without first securing with a physical deterrant the over 500 miles of open desert in which they, and the Mexican drug cartels and other "foreigners", cross each and every day. Simply continue the madness, and the confusion as to citizenship status.

And now with all the "privileges and immunities" given foreigners over the lawful and legal Americans, it would appear that those illegals would actually lose "rights" and their free health care, and untaxed wages if they should take Uncle Sam up on that offer anyway. Now that they have been given by the federal courts "standing" and equality and even preference over Americans rights in numerous court actions, how is it now advantageous for them to become peon Americans and potentially lose those jobs to the next crop of illegals to cross those borders within the next month or two?

Appointing such a judge also insures that the "race card" can then be used by the press and liberals again in order to silence the public in such an event, a method used now quite frequently and especially in light of the "hate crimes" legislation and continued threats of "domestic terrorism," and such event isn't unlikely given the recent despicable moves by Washington to continue with its agendas and "in your face" legislation favoring insourced and outsourced foreigner rights and further violating lawful American citizens civil rights (such as the AIG bailout, GM joint venture firing Americans while retaining ownership of outsourced GM plants in Mexico and China, war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and corporate America's outsourced foreign work force in India in tech and retail industries, etc.).

Before this country was settled for the most part even shortly after its founding, America's immigration policies were more restrictive than they are today.

The founders, after all, were protectionists building a new nation. We are in the midst of rebuilding after several natural disasters, and an economic tsunami due to amalgamating our economy with that of the global community unconstitutionally, and yet still affording carte blanche immigration to almost all comers. It has been reported that since 2006 several thousand "at risk" Iraqis now also have been added to the list annually amount to now over 20,000 native born Middle Easterners.

It will be interesting to see how this all unravels, but since we all know something has been rotten in Washington for now quite a number of years, it appears there is an agenda to the recent madness that is and continues to occur.

And this appointment smacks of "politics" and not "the Rule of Law" at all.

With more and more Americans now out of work and with the degree of insourcing that is occuring and increasing due to this worsening economy, such a measure is bound to create further outrage among the lawful population in this country.

In fact, through government contracts, the federal government itself is the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor, while continuing to increase the legal American citizens tax burdens in order to supplement and support this influx of cheap labor for their government contractors, and the big businesses and foreign investors in the financial sector on Wall Street.

In its actions, it appears Washington is almost begging for a civil war in the near future at least within the border states, the states which have been hardest hit with higher unemployment, homelessness and joblessness since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's, and are now under invasion from both the criminal property theft of the border hoppers, drug cartels and their distributors, and others that have resulted in the additional loss of Americans lives and jobs in the thousands in the eight years now since 9/11.

Stay tuned, America. The fireworks continue, and appears it is Washington that is promoting and facilitating purposely the civil unrest in this country with each and every Constitutional violation that is coming now off the Hill.

I'm wondering also, with all the still dissatisfied Americans that have been calling for the Constitutional proof of Mr. Obama's "natural born" or "naturalized" citizenship status prior to his running for the highest office in the land as should have been done due to the number of years in his youth he spent outside the United States and with one parent a non-citizen, if this push again so soon and with our economy now in the toilet, if there also is this other "political" agendas in that respect is also behind it.

The Supreme Court has been tap dancing on that one now for six months, and Congress just did attempt that little sleight of hand in a recent bogus Resolution introduced by a Hawaiian Congressman to in effect "declare" him a citizen again without any disclosure or documented proof that he so much as satisfies the bare minimal requirements for the Office in which he holds. Requirements that acually were based on the European gentry's ideas that children would be raised in this country until they were in their teens when they then left for their "European tours" to finish their educations abroad in languages and cultural differences. That was what was actually behind the 14 year provisions since geographic ties are normally formed in child and young adulthood.

And after that trick and the many, many before more so in the last eight years than at any other time, it is pretty clear that the powers that be on the Hill have no problem both violating the true "LAW OF THE LAND" or attempting in whatever unethical way possible time and again to facilitate end runs around it in order to further their liberalism, global socialism, power plays and political agendas at the cost of those they are truly charged to serve.

The AMERICAN people.

NeoCon Lindsay Graham To Back Sotomayor Appointment

Mainstream news sources reported today that Senator Lindsay Graham, the NeoCon Republican from South Carolina, has given his support for the Sonia Sotomayor appointment of Barack Obama to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.

Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.

I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.

It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.

Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.

So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.

The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.

Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.

And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.

The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.

Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.

Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.

The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.

Sotomayor On Applying The Law

Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.

These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis 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 to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."

She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?

It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.

With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.

In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.

Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.

And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.

Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.

For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.

I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.

And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.

As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.

I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.

I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.

I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.

It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.

She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."

And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.

Sonia Sotomayor Vows To Rule According To The Law: But Which?

Today Sonia Sotomayor had her first "meet and greet" with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over her potential confirmation as the first Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice.

A press conference and condensed version of what occurred during this first meeting was held shortly thereafter, attended by some of the movers and shakers of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Ms. Sotomayor appeared also to be all smiles, and the mainstream liberal media soon after issued their poll results that "over 50% of Americans support" Ms. Sotomayor's nomination.

She was appointed to the federal bench by the first Bush, in which there was very little scrutiny by Congress or the brouhaha that surrounds such matters as the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, due to the fact that they still remain in office for life, and there hasn't been a hearing or impeachment of a Supreme Court justice ever under the "good behavior" provisions in over 200 years due to the unlawful extension in 1805 during the Chase impeachment proceedings of extra-Constitutional provisions of judicial immunity for any and all actions in which a claim of "political bias" can be extended.

This was the second "political" usurpation along with Marbury vs. Madison by the judiciary, which then created an "unchecked" branch in this country, and again amended our Constitution without going through that formal amendment process - since "good behavior" clearly was intended to mean ruling by the judicial "seat of the pants," as it were and not the language or provisions as contained within our Constitution

The Jefferson Democrat/Republicans were then attempting to institute this "check" provision during Chase, and it has never again been used due to "politics" rather than "the Law," holding sway a mere 18 years after its signing. And now our Supreme Court has also become more and more political, and less and less Constitutional, by the decade.

And that historically has included, it appears, just about any and all Supreme Court rulings, even the increasingly off the wall ones, and has contributed to the judicial activism in their progressively extra-Constitutional renderings to this very day.

For the record and in order to claify Ms. Sotomayor's previous remarks in 2001 with respect to the infamous statement referring to her Latina heritage as qualifying her perhaps better than another justice who hadn't "lived the life she had," Ms. Sotomayor told senators she would follow the law as a judge without letting her life experiences inappropriately influence her decisions.

"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, quoted the nominee as saying in their closed-door session.

My question is, which "law" is she referring to? Our Constitution as the ultimate authority, or federal or even state statutes or their Constitutional provisions which may or may not be in accordance with it - since it is clear more and more that our Congress is not even reading a great many bills before they are voted on and passed due to various contrived "emergencies" (such as the Patriot Act, stimulus and bank bailouts), and a great many of those former statutes throughout the years are questionably in accordance with it.

Will we continue to desecrate it in the interests of "public policy" (socialism), "public safety" (also socialism), or the nebulous "state interests" (fascism and/or socialism) when it comes to American Bill of Rights issues for lawful American citizens?

Will we refuse to hear hot potato cases or issues within the Court's jurisdiction in order to protect political interests of one or the other mainstream political parties or their "corporate" interests?

Will Ms. Sotomayor consult our Constitution and various LAWFUL peace time treaties or trade agreements entered into and ratified BY CONGRESS when it involves international concerns, or opinions of college professors, law reviews and the ultimate transgression against our Constitution, international law?

Several justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor are on record as stating that they believe that a Supreme Court justice should be afforded the right to consult international laws in rendering some of their opinons, even though "globalized" law was not at all the founders intent for the sovereign United States clearly due to the very reason for that Revolutionary War to begin with.

So I do hope that there is much more information released to the public and press with respect to Ms. Sotomayor's statements, than those that are now coming out of these press conferences, interviews with politicians, and the various press releases.

But I doubt it. In the piece Harry Reid, D-NV is quoted as stating that he had not read a single one of her opinions during her 17 years on the federal bench, and if all went as planned "would not have to do so."

I guess we know Harry's criteria is about "politics" and not about "the Law."

The fundamental question is, exactly which "ultimate" authority and law are you referring to, Ms. Sotomayor, since a great many of the sitting and former justices seem at this point with respect to both domestic and foreign issues to have been not simply confused, but truly unaware of the actual document which affords them the right to hold that lofty position.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090602/4a24a3c0_3ca6_15526200906021074699449

The Tiller Murder: Much More Than Media Spins?

For the last several days on most of the mainstream media outlets, there has been much reported with respect to the shooting and murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas, the middle of the Bible belt in middle America.

Such instances as have occurred in the few cases of such violence in the past have attracted extensive media coverage due to the division that still remains in this country over the abortion issue, and especially late term or "partial birth" abortions as were reported conducted by Dr. Tiller at his Kansas clinic.

Much rhetoric has been spewed by both sides of this issue, and the media feeding into the frenzy so much so that this instance has again dominated our television news casts and reporting for several days.

Much misinformation has also been a part of the media hype and reporting. On the one hand, Dr. Tiller is being painted as almost a saint due to his providing a service that few physicians perform in order to help poor, hapless women who have had to undergo abortions late in the pregnancies for various medical reasons, or due to criminal rape or incest.

On the other hand, he is being painted as a murderer of innocent fetuses who would have been viable and alive if not for Dr. Tiller' and his clinic's services.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and there was also a political motivation involved. No one has questioned in the slightest at this point a great many irregularities that have been reported both in the media, and the details as has been reported of the crime itself.

First, Dr. Tiller has been painted as performing a service that few physicians in this country undertake. In fact, one news source quoted that his clinic was "only one of three" that provided such services as abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy.

That is a blatant falsehood, as there are several of such clinics in most states now throughout the country due to the fact that most states have been as hesitant as the federal government in addressing the late term and partial birth issue now almost 30 years post Roe, which only addressed an abortion conducted in the first trimester pregnancy.

Second, if the perpetrator was actually a "fundamentalist" Christian and vehement anti-abortion radical, then why would this shooting have occurred, of all places, at the church where Dr. Tiller was serving as an usher reportedly? If this gentleman truly believed he was "doing God's work," as has also been reported, would he not have chosen another day rather than the Sabbath in middle America, a day of rest and worship?

And if Dr. Tiller was truly limiting his practice to those circumstances in which the fetus was no longer viable, medical emergencies, and cases of rape or incest, wouldn't a hospital rather than a medical "clinic," with better facilities in the event of potential complications be the proper place in order for such medical procedures to be carried out?

The instances and health risks of such late term abortions have been documented in many medical journals throughout the nation at this point due to the actual manner in which these abortions are carried out. Post operative hemorrahaging is becoming more and more common the more this risky procedure continues to be performed.

The militants on both sides have drawn their battle lines. Even Mr. Obama made a public statement with respect to the crime and his feelings on the abortion issue.

But still there is the negligence of our federal government and Congress to address this basic duty now thirty years post Roe, and the incidences, public outrage and political fodder has raised the national temperature over this issue, while the politicians continue to use such instances as this and the divisiveness over the abortion issue as just more political rhetoric for votes come election time.

Its a hard job, but that is what our elected officials are for, are they not? Defining "life" for Constitutional and legal purposes, and drawing a line in the sand between purely "elective" abortions and those necessitated by medical emergency or necessary premature deliveries is something that is long overdue.

Thirty years now post Roe we have birth control methods that were unknown at the time that decision was rendered, and also methods to detect pregnancy now within literally days and/or hours of conception.

The founders based an entire document in order to secure "life" for them and their posterity.

Isn't it time that our Congress got to the hard work of tackling these issues, and in addition many, many other issues and complications that have arisen due to continued federal negligence such as this, and cut the lobbyists, bankers and federal pork beggers loose for a session or two while it truly gets down to the matter of our government, rather than business and self interests?