With all the brouhaha surrounding the recent passage into "law" in Arizona of "new" legislation in order to address the illegal immigrant situation and problems in that state, most of it political in nature and focusing on using once again "racial profiling" as the outcry by all those liberal groups and special interests, little has been said insofar as truly just what this legislation was intended to insure for the lawyers, politicians, state coffers and the privatized jail system.
It appears to me that this "new" law, as with most of the others which have been passed in Arizona since Reaganomics, is simply meant to insure a steady income stream for those two political parties and their members, who derive the bulk of their campaign funding on both sides of the aisle from - you guessed it - the lawyers and legal profession in one form or another.
This bill will be challenged, of course.
In fact, the outcry has been such that special interests groups such as MALDEF, the National Coalistion of "Christian" Clergy (primarily Catholic from all appearances) and a host of others will be filing their federal lawsuits real soon.
And since the federal government through the 9th Circuit has given "standing" to non-Americans and illegal immigrant groups within also the past several decades through their lawyers, the federal judiciary, Congress also passed another of its "Acts" in order to provide for taxpayer paid fees and costs to those civil rights lawyers for such cases, even when most of these "civil rights" and special interest groups for foreigners are already also the recipient of federal grant monies due to the fact that most of these groups also claim to have a purported "educational" focus.
Several years ago, due to an initiative passed by the Arizona citizens way back when calling for balanced budgets, the State of Arizona also has progressively began privatizing some of its state and local jail and prison facilities - of course, after all those jails were funded by the taxpayers in order to build in the first place.
The penal industrial complex is now rivaling the military industrial complex in the costs to the taxpayers now also due to the progressive criminalization of even minor offenses in this country for not simply foreigners, but also American citizens.
Bail costs also which are tied into statutorily set fines and fees for these minor offenses have also made it more and more likely that many Americans (not to mention a great many of those Mexican crossers, not the big time drug dealers and auto thief hoppers) cannot even make those bail sums, and thus are incarcerated then sometimes days or weeks before entering their pleas - since the state and federal court systems have become so over loaded and expensive due to this progression, with the state also then receiving sums in federal grants for "maintenance" of those prisons by the head count.
It appears more and more that crime truly does pay - the state court system, and privatized state 'corporate" jails, that is, for their budgetary and revenue needs most of all.
Tent City in Arizona is a MISDEMEANOR jail faciity, although more and more run as a maximum security facility, and houses over 2,000 inmates periodically, housing misdemeanor offenders in surplus army tents at times in 120 degree or more heat.
While the local county minimum security lockup that the Arizona taxpayers paid for decades ago, during the 1990's was instead turned into a "no kill" animal shelter - in effect the animals, most of them pit bulls which are now the subject of riders on most insurance policies, are housed in air cooled comfort while MISDEMEANOR offenders in Arizona (many of them small time drug users, not large scale suppliers) are housed in army tents with port-a-johns.
The common law intended in this country in "making the punishment fit the crime" has been turned upside across the nation now progressively in order to meet state budgetary requirements, with fees and fines now configured in order to make budget, rather than address the crime itself or the economic circumstances of the average American.
And in order to gain more and more revenue for discretionary purposes, true governmental functions are being privatized so that most of the taxpayer's monies can be used for political reason and not in providing for those governmental services which those taxes were intended to provide in any manner whatsoever.
Mandatory seat belt laws throughout the country range from $25 per infraction, to in some states approaching $100 - over ten times the average hourly wage for a crime which is a victimless crime and in which less than 5% of the driving population are involved in accidents involving any significant property damage or injury, and at a time when cars are now built with stringent safety requirements to begin with such as air bags, engines which are designed to drop down in the event of even minor collusion, and passive restraint systems.
Since it is the "corporate" and civil rights lawyers who are also writing a great deal of both federal, and state, legislation - it appears more and more that legislation is being written in order to feed their industry, without any Constitutional foundation whatsoever behind much of it.
Including this "new" Arizona law, since this new law will certainly drain the coffers of the Arizona taxpayers in the costs now to house these "criminals," AND provide state trials for them, rather than simply being deported and returned by the U.S. Marshall's office as was done in the past for misdemeanor offenders after discovery of their immigration status, and in the fees and costs which those lawyers will receive for the trials of those misdemeanor or felony offenders under the law providing for legal fees and costs for any and all actions which can in any way be designated a "civil rights" action.
And in the process, then be given access to immigration lawyers in any event after some of those large scale drug dealers or auto thieves beat their raps.
Instead of being dismissed at the state level due to lack of jurisdiction and handed over to the federal courts for trial and processing - the state has attempted to assert not simply its jurisdiction authority, but also its financial authority over them, through this legislation and now has extended access to the state courts in addition to the federal courts for a great many of these individuals, at the Arizona taxpayers double expense - and the expense of all Americans since the states receive federal pork funding also for their budgetary needs without apportionment by population, but simply by state and municipal "corporate" lobbying.
In effect not simply affording them "due process" but now even "abuse of process" and unequal privileges and immunities in many respects over legal and lawful Americans charged with offenses who must be satsified with public defenders if indigent, and don't qualify then for "civil rights" lawyers as Americans and thus not a "protected" class - which is why the "racial" and "national origin" card is being used for these "non-Americans" so frequently by these lawyer led groups.
What a mess. And the bureaucrats in Arizona, it appears, are simply once again using this issue as their own job stimulus, and for their future campaigns and eventual taxpayer paid pension plans.
I actually don't expect this legislation to be reversed for some time as it winds its way through the federal court system, with all the delays and hair splitting that will go on with respect to this rather loosely worded "law."
I mean time IS money, after all.
For both the lawyers, and for the State of Arizona - all at the expense of those whose rights they have truly violated in this political gamesplaying.
That of the American and Arizona true citizenry.
Including those bureaucrats themselves ironically, ultimately and their posterity.
Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Californication: Pelosi and Comrades Announcement Untrue
In the largest display of in- your- face legislation, even more so than the bank bailouts, GM assumption, and Scam & Trade, the House of Misrepresentatives, at the witching hour of 10:49 EST, passed the largest tax increase for all Americans since FDR.
And gave themselves a standing ovation for their efforts.
Nancy Pelosi, that Californicator, hogged center stage for most of the action on Sunday, along with her comrade-in-arms, Mr. Waxman (of the bow-tie).
Ms. Pelosi's final speech diverting and directing attention of what a massive Constitutional violation much of the language contained in this "stimulus" bill for the health care sector to women was just too incredible to believe for this female boomer.
Using women in order to gain future votes, it appears, as the savior of womankind stating that "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition?"
Please, Nancy.
Just where in that legislation is there equality or any price controls on those new "health care internet shopping malls" that are going to create new jobs, especially since there is little, if any, regulation of commercial entities on the net at the present time?
Where is it stated that women will not be charged higher rates than men of the same age, living in the same states, with the same risk factors - since at the present time, women are charged higher rates for riders for those that have a history of breast cancer, or for maternity coverage and thus those additional riders that would be again required and those higher costs also do not appear to have been addressed anywhere in this legislation.
Sure, women can't be denied coverage, just as men cannot be denied coverage, but with no price controls over just how these insurers now can "package" these plans, exactly how has this legislation helped the American public in any manner whatsoever, be it men or women?
And with all the state challenges that are now going to be initiated so that those states can now play their part in this fiasco and save face for individual Governors and legislators at the state level, how much are these now challenges that will eventually wind their way up to the Supreme Court so that it, too, can use some politically based bias to legitimate this unconstitutional legislation going to now cost the American people - both at the state and federal levels for these cases (for the legal professions benefits most of all, at the American public's expense for those legal fees and state budgets that will now be affected).
This skewed legislation seems to be a job stimulus most of all for those comrades-in-arms since there is enough garbage in this legislation to provide fodder for the legal profession for decades to come, with all the massive legalese and pages to this legislation, and loopholes.
Were those costs factored into the projections?
It wouldn't appear so.
Congratulations, Ms. Pelosi.
You've screwed single mothers, and the rest of American womanhood in this generation.
And for generations to come.
Since, of course, women do still only make about two thirds of what men make for the same occupations (with the exception of federal legislators, that is, or select other governmental positions), they will be paying a heavier burden for this stimulus for the global financial sector, world bankers and gadget industry also progressively as these "packages" and "shopping malls" become reality based upon their lower salaries and percent of income, and childbearing and cancer risk factors for a substantial number of women in this country.
Mark my words.
I mean the FTC thus far has been ineffective in preventing much internet scamming or assisting citizens who are sold down the river by misrepresented commercial websites at this point at the present time, while Washington continues to feed the out of control gadget sector, and venture capitalists from your home state, along with those rip-off bankers affiliated with the Fed and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
You know, the ones whose creative marketing even went so far as to be selling loans not even based on the U.S. currency to many, many thousands of American citizens throughout the west and Southwest which primarily led to the mortgage and foreclosure disaster which is still occurring today.
And now this.
Way to go, Nancy,
Thanks so much for your care and concern, on behalf of women everywhere across the political spectrum.
Not.
And gave themselves a standing ovation for their efforts.
Nancy Pelosi, that Californicator, hogged center stage for most of the action on Sunday, along with her comrade-in-arms, Mr. Waxman (of the bow-tie).
Ms. Pelosi's final speech diverting and directing attention of what a massive Constitutional violation much of the language contained in this "stimulus" bill for the health care sector to women was just too incredible to believe for this female boomer.
Using women in order to gain future votes, it appears, as the savior of womankind stating that "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition?"
Please, Nancy.
Just where in that legislation is there equality or any price controls on those new "health care internet shopping malls" that are going to create new jobs, especially since there is little, if any, regulation of commercial entities on the net at the present time?
Where is it stated that women will not be charged higher rates than men of the same age, living in the same states, with the same risk factors - since at the present time, women are charged higher rates for riders for those that have a history of breast cancer, or for maternity coverage and thus those additional riders that would be again required and those higher costs also do not appear to have been addressed anywhere in this legislation.
Sure, women can't be denied coverage, just as men cannot be denied coverage, but with no price controls over just how these insurers now can "package" these plans, exactly how has this legislation helped the American public in any manner whatsoever, be it men or women?
And with all the state challenges that are now going to be initiated so that those states can now play their part in this fiasco and save face for individual Governors and legislators at the state level, how much are these now challenges that will eventually wind their way up to the Supreme Court so that it, too, can use some politically based bias to legitimate this unconstitutional legislation going to now cost the American people - both at the state and federal levels for these cases (for the legal professions benefits most of all, at the American public's expense for those legal fees and state budgets that will now be affected).
This skewed legislation seems to be a job stimulus most of all for those comrades-in-arms since there is enough garbage in this legislation to provide fodder for the legal profession for decades to come, with all the massive legalese and pages to this legislation, and loopholes.
Were those costs factored into the projections?
It wouldn't appear so.
Congratulations, Ms. Pelosi.
You've screwed single mothers, and the rest of American womanhood in this generation.
And for generations to come.
Since, of course, women do still only make about two thirds of what men make for the same occupations (with the exception of federal legislators, that is, or select other governmental positions), they will be paying a heavier burden for this stimulus for the global financial sector, world bankers and gadget industry also progressively as these "packages" and "shopping malls" become reality based upon their lower salaries and percent of income, and childbearing and cancer risk factors for a substantial number of women in this country.
Mark my words.
I mean the FTC thus far has been ineffective in preventing much internet scamming or assisting citizens who are sold down the river by misrepresented commercial websites at this point at the present time, while Washington continues to feed the out of control gadget sector, and venture capitalists from your home state, along with those rip-off bankers affiliated with the Fed and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
You know, the ones whose creative marketing even went so far as to be selling loans not even based on the U.S. currency to many, many thousands of American citizens throughout the west and Southwest which primarily led to the mortgage and foreclosure disaster which is still occurring today.
And now this.
Way to go, Nancy,
Thanks so much for your care and concern, on behalf of women everywhere across the political spectrum.
Not.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tis the Season: Beware of Parking Lot Predators
With the holiday season upon us with everyone rushing to and fro from one retail outlet to another, and especially with the insurance focus of this latest disaster of a bill feeding the health care industry and lobbyists (mostly lawyers) once again due to the length of the bill, and actually no real accountability measures in it for those supposed "regulatory" measures included in it, maybe some reminders of what "mandatory" insurance has wrecked (pun intended) since it was enacted also over heavy objections of the public years ago in creating a "job stimulus" for lawyers.
Recently, someone related a story to me of an incident that happened to them regarding a rear end collusion, and I had a similar situation occur to me also.
Apparently, what is going on is that there are many "employees" of the scores of personal injury lawyers in this country who set up victims of parking lot mishaps (on private property), and then use the "hit and run" laws in order to then make claims on the "victims" of their scams through their employer lawyers for accident claims - especially during the holiday season when so many are pre-occupied.
As one who worked in the legal profession, I do know that most insurance companies will not litigate claims such as these due to the expense involved and time and staff constraints, and usually will offer a settlement on the accident as a "nuisance" claim, no matter how many prior accidents the claimed "victim" has been involved in even in one year with almost identical circumstances prior to that time.
Now this does happen to the best of drivers really a great deal due to our hurried lifestyles now, and also especially during the holidays (and especially due to the many distractions now of cell phones, kids, the shear number of errands most of us run now in the course of a week, etc).
These are a little different though as most occur in retail parking lots with an abundance of cars anyway, and the claim goes on the record of the stooge, and their insurance then goes up, creating additional profits then for the insurance company for the next three years. Times that times the amount of accidents, and that is quite a profit for both the disreputable personal injury lawyers, their "employees," and also the insurance company - all at the true victims expense.
Usually picking an older vehicle maybe with a few dings on it to begin with, in order to bulk up their "case,"
And since so many are distracted and in a hurry now, few or absolutely no witnesses to what actually occurred.
So as a safety and budgetary precaution from two such victims (and this occurs much more in large or midsize metro areas), look twice before you back out in this holiday rush these last two days.
Because the next "victim" of one of the "job stimuluses" created by the mandatory insurance laws could be you.
Most insurance industry experts will tell you that accidents such as these go up during the holidays. In fact, due to distraction and rushing, this week is by far the greatest job stimulus for the health care and insurance industries - which is maybe why those "economic" forecasts are up for this upcoming quarter also.
And have those laws truly reduced the amount of local expenditures needed for judges, juries and the like?
Absolutely not, because at least with jury trials on those property damage claims, even for minor damages, formerly in small claims courts the costs were low, and then appeals for the major accidents or bodily injury claims were also reduced since no judge can re-examine any fact matter placed before a jury.
Interestingly enough also, these same personal injury lawyers in quite a few states now are allowed and do also own several "corporate" chiropractic clinics then, where they send their "clients" and then inflate those bills also which are billed for those claims from their "employee" doctors.
Or use their employee doctors then as expert witnesses then on personal injury cases at lowered rates without that "fact matter" being placed before juries - that many of those experts are actually employees of the lawyers involved in some of these cases now and not "independent" medical witnesses at all as also had been the case year ago in selection of experts for personal injury civil trials.
And due to most court rules in most states throughout the country, those predatory lawyers and their employees also know (as does the insurance industry lawyer also) that in any court proceeding, serial fender bender histories over the course of even a year with paid out damage awards granted and determined by the insurers, not by juries, are not allowed to be used as an evidence against these individuals.
Of course, the "stooge's" lawyers then can bring in their witnesses for rebuttal, but of course then the costs of those claims go up for that stooge and his insurance company, while the costs of the employee client's doctors are really no skin off the noses of those disreputable personal injury lawyers at all, as also actual employees of the "corporate" lawyers due to their practices true "ownership."
I suffered an injury upon a move up north, and had a flare up of the injury and went to seek a chiropractor in order to treat it, and was denied treatment at one of such clinics since I hadn't been referred to it by one of their "partner" personal injury lawyers, and did not treat the public, but only upon those referrals.
So this is also why your auto insurance rates are off the charts, and the same obviously will occur with a 2,000 page bill full of legalese, with no "teeth" on the industries whatsoever in accountability - while the IRS is busy collecting those fines on the small business owners, those denied insurance and self-employed mainly for which this bill does absolutely nothing to address in any truly accountable fashion.
Of course, actually this is a mere drop in the bucket really for the insurers after all, although no less of a "crime" and why there are more insurance lawyers also now than all of the European nations combined - just look at how many and how expensive all those lobbyists were for this new health care deform, and the campaigning that went on - and all with your premium dollars.
Using your dollars then in order to lobby for legislation to get even more is what is occurring, and selling their policies now not through marketing but through legislation in addition to lobbying to also reduce their risks and losses at both the state and federal levels such as the now "criminal" victimless low level DUIs at the level they are at this point in time - cough medicine or a puff on an inhaler will brand you as "under the influence."
What a racket.
So when Obama uses the mandatory insurance laws (which actually are not at all similar in any respect to this travesty of health care legislation and its "mandatory" unconstitutional also focus on the citizens, rather than the industry), just think now at 2,000 pages how bogged up our courts will become once again - and how this will in the end raise, not lower, both the taxes, and personal expenses and budgets of all Americans.
And quite possibly, create another job stimulus for the criminal element.
Recently, someone related a story to me of an incident that happened to them regarding a rear end collusion, and I had a similar situation occur to me also.
Apparently, what is going on is that there are many "employees" of the scores of personal injury lawyers in this country who set up victims of parking lot mishaps (on private property), and then use the "hit and run" laws in order to then make claims on the "victims" of their scams through their employer lawyers for accident claims - especially during the holiday season when so many are pre-occupied.
As one who worked in the legal profession, I do know that most insurance companies will not litigate claims such as these due to the expense involved and time and staff constraints, and usually will offer a settlement on the accident as a "nuisance" claim, no matter how many prior accidents the claimed "victim" has been involved in even in one year with almost identical circumstances prior to that time.
Now this does happen to the best of drivers really a great deal due to our hurried lifestyles now, and also especially during the holidays (and especially due to the many distractions now of cell phones, kids, the shear number of errands most of us run now in the course of a week, etc).
These are a little different though as most occur in retail parking lots with an abundance of cars anyway, and the claim goes on the record of the stooge, and their insurance then goes up, creating additional profits then for the insurance company for the next three years. Times that times the amount of accidents, and that is quite a profit for both the disreputable personal injury lawyers, their "employees," and also the insurance company - all at the true victims expense.
Usually picking an older vehicle maybe with a few dings on it to begin with, in order to bulk up their "case,"
And since so many are distracted and in a hurry now, few or absolutely no witnesses to what actually occurred.
So as a safety and budgetary precaution from two such victims (and this occurs much more in large or midsize metro areas), look twice before you back out in this holiday rush these last two days.
Because the next "victim" of one of the "job stimuluses" created by the mandatory insurance laws could be you.
Most insurance industry experts will tell you that accidents such as these go up during the holidays. In fact, due to distraction and rushing, this week is by far the greatest job stimulus for the health care and insurance industries - which is maybe why those "economic" forecasts are up for this upcoming quarter also.
And have those laws truly reduced the amount of local expenditures needed for judges, juries and the like?
Absolutely not, because at least with jury trials on those property damage claims, even for minor damages, formerly in small claims courts the costs were low, and then appeals for the major accidents or bodily injury claims were also reduced since no judge can re-examine any fact matter placed before a jury.
Interestingly enough also, these same personal injury lawyers in quite a few states now are allowed and do also own several "corporate" chiropractic clinics then, where they send their "clients" and then inflate those bills also which are billed for those claims from their "employee" doctors.
Or use their employee doctors then as expert witnesses then on personal injury cases at lowered rates without that "fact matter" being placed before juries - that many of those experts are actually employees of the lawyers involved in some of these cases now and not "independent" medical witnesses at all as also had been the case year ago in selection of experts for personal injury civil trials.
And due to most court rules in most states throughout the country, those predatory lawyers and their employees also know (as does the insurance industry lawyer also) that in any court proceeding, serial fender bender histories over the course of even a year with paid out damage awards granted and determined by the insurers, not by juries, are not allowed to be used as an evidence against these individuals.
Of course, the "stooge's" lawyers then can bring in their witnesses for rebuttal, but of course then the costs of those claims go up for that stooge and his insurance company, while the costs of the employee client's doctors are really no skin off the noses of those disreputable personal injury lawyers at all, as also actual employees of the "corporate" lawyers due to their practices true "ownership."
I suffered an injury upon a move up north, and had a flare up of the injury and went to seek a chiropractor in order to treat it, and was denied treatment at one of such clinics since I hadn't been referred to it by one of their "partner" personal injury lawyers, and did not treat the public, but only upon those referrals.
So this is also why your auto insurance rates are off the charts, and the same obviously will occur with a 2,000 page bill full of legalese, with no "teeth" on the industries whatsoever in accountability - while the IRS is busy collecting those fines on the small business owners, those denied insurance and self-employed mainly for which this bill does absolutely nothing to address in any truly accountable fashion.
Of course, actually this is a mere drop in the bucket really for the insurers after all, although no less of a "crime" and why there are more insurance lawyers also now than all of the European nations combined - just look at how many and how expensive all those lobbyists were for this new health care deform, and the campaigning that went on - and all with your premium dollars.
Using your dollars then in order to lobby for legislation to get even more is what is occurring, and selling their policies now not through marketing but through legislation in addition to lobbying to also reduce their risks and losses at both the state and federal levels such as the now "criminal" victimless low level DUIs at the level they are at this point in time - cough medicine or a puff on an inhaler will brand you as "under the influence."
What a racket.
So when Obama uses the mandatory insurance laws (which actually are not at all similar in any respect to this travesty of health care legislation and its "mandatory" unconstitutional also focus on the citizens, rather than the industry), just think now at 2,000 pages how bogged up our courts will become once again - and how this will in the end raise, not lower, both the taxes, and personal expenses and budgets of all Americans.
And quite possibly, create another job stimulus for the criminal element.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Georgia Judge Places Politics Above The Law: Constitution and Res Ipsa Loquitur Trashed In The Process
A Georgia federal district court judge, Clay Land, in United States District Court once again turned down a valid challenge by a U.S. citizen with respect to the eligibillity challenges which have been undertaken by several different groups previously calling for production of Barack Obama's birth certificate as confirmation of his lawful natural born citizen status per the express terms of the U.S. Constitution with respect to any individual holding the highest office under it.
It appears that this particular judge no longer holds the common law, and codified law of the United States of "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the thing as it speaks ) with respect to Constitutional interpretation.
And ignoring such a clear legal duty and provision with respect to the judiciary to make a clear and judicious review of such documentation for both legitimacy and legality is clearly in order here. Especially since this nation is still involved in a "global" war on terror, and now domestic spying program post 9/11.
Of course, while our own borders still remain unsecured, and the Bush Administration then also afforded over 43 countries free pass Visa waivers with 48 hour turnaround security checks prior to his leaving office.
I think most individuals would agree, that such a provision was made for obvious reasons by the founders.
So that no other allegiance or loyalty to any other country, or their interests, would precede the president's duties and obligations to this country and its citizens in the carrying out of his official duties and functions. Especially as Commander in Chief of the military.
And this particular case was brought by a soldier who owes allegiance to both this country and its Commander in Chief while on active duty.
And considering Mr. Obama's rather unusual upbringing, much of which was clearly outside the United States which he fully admits, and as a lawyer himself would appear would see the clear need for such provision.
Since political parties themselves were also not at all included as "legal" parties to the Constitution at the outset. Since those federalists and anti-federalists actually settled their differences upon the ratification process, and agreement and later enactment of Patrick Henry's Bill of Rights in order to protect the "people" from abuses of both their federal and state government with respect to the "unalienable" rights stated thereunder.
The judge clearly showed his bias, and actually disdain for the Constitution in his further comments, calling such requests and measures from LEGAL U.S. citizens in this country, "frivolous."
And yet the federal government under the stimulus enacted legislation calls for the creation of a National Health Care Database containing all Americans very private medical records through their now obvious "state actors," the health insurance industry and their associated organizations ala the East India Tea Company and their "favored status" with the British sovereign at the time of the original revolution?
And are continuing on legislation with respect to this health care deform which is and has been clearly disputed as outside their also legal authority, and Constitutional duties and functions other than to regulate those industries more significantly in order to reduce those costs, since it has been the costs, not the availability, that has been the major problem for most of those that still remain uninsured.
Or denials in honoring most of the representations of many of those agents which sold them to the American public now progressively, in even renegotiating and changing the provisions unilaterally in many instances without any notice, or negotiation of the insureds paying those horrendous premiums.
While closed door meetings were held with the industries on these measures, and it appears will also be so convoluted again with hundreds of pages of legalese involved in order to further give the lawyers in this country and the ACLU another stimulus at the public's expense, the federal courts are now denying proof of the clear eligibility of a publicly paid employee that is facilitating now "fining" citizens in order to once again increase Washington's bottom lines and the insurer's and their stockholder's profit margins and capital gains?
The judge also stated that such a matter was not a "duty" of the court, and went so far as to state that if he so ordered proof, that this would open the door in the event a potential candidate lied about his age in order to gain office.
This just goes to show why Washington said that political parties in and of themselves could destroy this nation from within, if foreign interests didn't do so from without. And it appears that both the political parties and their "foreign" interests are doing just that "progressively."
And since this off-the-wall ruling that flies in the face of all manner of law and the hundreds years precedent of res ipsa loquitor that precedes it with respect to Constitutional interpretation (which few judges have followed also in the past which also has lead to where we are today, an "unrepresentative" government on every level), I wonder if the district court judge involved just so happened to go to Harvard also.
Which apparently is also either teaching more and more British based "precedents" in this country as law, or is also even at those six figure per semester tuition rates, another of our failing schools.
I bet this one comes up when or if Arnold Schwartenegger decides to take a run for the roses.
But as with our liberally cluesless media, if that is the case and another such movement should occur, I doubt that those individuals will be called "birthers," as has been the spin placed by the Obama worshippers come hell or high water (and hell is looking pretty good to some of us at this point after these first eight months in the levels of back door taxation and property thefts of the citizenry are concerned for Mr. Obama's global agendas ala Bush).
They will simply be called Americans.
And any judge that would in any such event so rule as Mr. Land has in this case, Benedict Arnold.
My only problem with this entire matter is that insofar as my beliefs, Mr. Obama clearly does not fulfill the "intent" of the founders also with respect to the entire provision, and the background from which it came and reasons therefor. And why this particular case was brought in that federal district is beyond me, when it is not really one of the most Constitution honoring jurisdictions to begin with historically in some of their renderings in the past, along the lines of the 9th Circuit in wacko California, so liberal that it also doesn't recognize the Constitution in any manner whatsoever as of late.
And due to the hijacking of our entire government by two mainstream political parties at this juncture without any also Constitutional basis in fact, not "duly elected" per the judges also stated reasons for his refusal in that the "people had chosen" the president (right, and just what were the choices, your honor, since the two political parties have an inside track on the entire process and accept even campaign donations and/or sponsorship from foreigners at this point, and were illegally elected even to Congress in the first place,
having accepted "foreign" campaign donations and sponsorship and thus not "representatives" of the citizeny of their respective districts in any manner whatsoever and thus in violation and "pretenders" in violation of the entire basis for the election of candidates for the representatives government written within the clear terms of the Constitution itself.
Not at all "representatives" solely of the districts in which the were elected and not national and global lobbying organizations, or even foreign countries lobbyists at this point and their interests).
But just look at what the alternatives are in any event also.
Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi second in line?
Hell doesn't even begin to describe that pairing, and the additional havoc they would pile on top of the already crushing burden on the middle and lower income classes and "average" Americans.
And the other branch doesn't clearly know the meaning of the term "conservative" at this point, but simply another branch of the Global Socialist Party but with different and in some instances in vary degrees, even overlapping global corporate benefactors, that's all.
Hail Britainnia. It appears that Congress and those on the Hill are selecting more and more "British trained" globally focused "global socialist" also judges for high federal office in order to protect also their job security, and power trip moves.
Such as those educated at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and those East Coast "ivy league" schools whose law school programs clearly have been teaching the British style of government with the "government as sovereign" mindset.
And appears clearly are not at all teaching the "intent" of those founders behind much of the provisions of both the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself. Nor clear distinctions between the "limits" of and their obligations with respect to their function and their true powers and duties.
And this one was clearly their function and duty, without any "rights of refusal" whatsoever included within the document which actually provides for Mr. Land's lofty salary, and that of his staff.
It appears that this particular judge no longer holds the common law, and codified law of the United States of "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the thing as it speaks ) with respect to Constitutional interpretation.
And ignoring such a clear legal duty and provision with respect to the judiciary to make a clear and judicious review of such documentation for both legitimacy and legality is clearly in order here. Especially since this nation is still involved in a "global" war on terror, and now domestic spying program post 9/11.
Of course, while our own borders still remain unsecured, and the Bush Administration then also afforded over 43 countries free pass Visa waivers with 48 hour turnaround security checks prior to his leaving office.
I think most individuals would agree, that such a provision was made for obvious reasons by the founders.
So that no other allegiance or loyalty to any other country, or their interests, would precede the president's duties and obligations to this country and its citizens in the carrying out of his official duties and functions. Especially as Commander in Chief of the military.
And this particular case was brought by a soldier who owes allegiance to both this country and its Commander in Chief while on active duty.
And considering Mr. Obama's rather unusual upbringing, much of which was clearly outside the United States which he fully admits, and as a lawyer himself would appear would see the clear need for such provision.
Since political parties themselves were also not at all included as "legal" parties to the Constitution at the outset. Since those federalists and anti-federalists actually settled their differences upon the ratification process, and agreement and later enactment of Patrick Henry's Bill of Rights in order to protect the "people" from abuses of both their federal and state government with respect to the "unalienable" rights stated thereunder.
The judge clearly showed his bias, and actually disdain for the Constitution in his further comments, calling such requests and measures from LEGAL U.S. citizens in this country, "frivolous."
And yet the federal government under the stimulus enacted legislation calls for the creation of a National Health Care Database containing all Americans very private medical records through their now obvious "state actors," the health insurance industry and their associated organizations ala the East India Tea Company and their "favored status" with the British sovereign at the time of the original revolution?
And are continuing on legislation with respect to this health care deform which is and has been clearly disputed as outside their also legal authority, and Constitutional duties and functions other than to regulate those industries more significantly in order to reduce those costs, since it has been the costs, not the availability, that has been the major problem for most of those that still remain uninsured.
Or denials in honoring most of the representations of many of those agents which sold them to the American public now progressively, in even renegotiating and changing the provisions unilaterally in many instances without any notice, or negotiation of the insureds paying those horrendous premiums.
While closed door meetings were held with the industries on these measures, and it appears will also be so convoluted again with hundreds of pages of legalese involved in order to further give the lawyers in this country and the ACLU another stimulus at the public's expense, the federal courts are now denying proof of the clear eligibility of a publicly paid employee that is facilitating now "fining" citizens in order to once again increase Washington's bottom lines and the insurer's and their stockholder's profit margins and capital gains?
The judge also stated that such a matter was not a "duty" of the court, and went so far as to state that if he so ordered proof, that this would open the door in the event a potential candidate lied about his age in order to gain office.
This just goes to show why Washington said that political parties in and of themselves could destroy this nation from within, if foreign interests didn't do so from without. And it appears that both the political parties and their "foreign" interests are doing just that "progressively."
And since this off-the-wall ruling that flies in the face of all manner of law and the hundreds years precedent of res ipsa loquitor that precedes it with respect to Constitutional interpretation (which few judges have followed also in the past which also has lead to where we are today, an "unrepresentative" government on every level), I wonder if the district court judge involved just so happened to go to Harvard also.
Which apparently is also either teaching more and more British based "precedents" in this country as law, or is also even at those six figure per semester tuition rates, another of our failing schools.
I bet this one comes up when or if Arnold Schwartenegger decides to take a run for the roses.
But as with our liberally cluesless media, if that is the case and another such movement should occur, I doubt that those individuals will be called "birthers," as has been the spin placed by the Obama worshippers come hell or high water (and hell is looking pretty good to some of us at this point after these first eight months in the levels of back door taxation and property thefts of the citizenry are concerned for Mr. Obama's global agendas ala Bush).
They will simply be called Americans.
And any judge that would in any such event so rule as Mr. Land has in this case, Benedict Arnold.
My only problem with this entire matter is that insofar as my beliefs, Mr. Obama clearly does not fulfill the "intent" of the founders also with respect to the entire provision, and the background from which it came and reasons therefor. And why this particular case was brought in that federal district is beyond me, when it is not really one of the most Constitution honoring jurisdictions to begin with historically in some of their renderings in the past, along the lines of the 9th Circuit in wacko California, so liberal that it also doesn't recognize the Constitution in any manner whatsoever as of late.
And due to the hijacking of our entire government by two mainstream political parties at this juncture without any also Constitutional basis in fact, not "duly elected" per the judges also stated reasons for his refusal in that the "people had chosen" the president (right, and just what were the choices, your honor, since the two political parties have an inside track on the entire process and accept even campaign donations and/or sponsorship from foreigners at this point, and were illegally elected even to Congress in the first place,
having accepted "foreign" campaign donations and sponsorship and thus not "representatives" of the citizeny of their respective districts in any manner whatsoever and thus in violation and "pretenders" in violation of the entire basis for the election of candidates for the representatives government written within the clear terms of the Constitution itself.
Not at all "representatives" solely of the districts in which the were elected and not national and global lobbying organizations, or even foreign countries lobbyists at this point and their interests).
But just look at what the alternatives are in any event also.
Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi second in line?
Hell doesn't even begin to describe that pairing, and the additional havoc they would pile on top of the already crushing burden on the middle and lower income classes and "average" Americans.
And the other branch doesn't clearly know the meaning of the term "conservative" at this point, but simply another branch of the Global Socialist Party but with different and in some instances in vary degrees, even overlapping global corporate benefactors, that's all.
Hail Britainnia. It appears that Congress and those on the Hill are selecting more and more "British trained" globally focused "global socialist" also judges for high federal office in order to protect also their job security, and power trip moves.
Such as those educated at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and those East Coast "ivy league" schools whose law school programs clearly have been teaching the British style of government with the "government as sovereign" mindset.
And appears clearly are not at all teaching the "intent" of those founders behind much of the provisions of both the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself. Nor clear distinctions between the "limits" of and their obligations with respect to their function and their true powers and duties.
And this one was clearly their function and duty, without any "rights of refusal" whatsoever included within the document which actually provides for Mr. Land's lofty salary, and that of his staff.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
California Screamin' Again: State's Liberalism Causes Budget Woes
California is again in the news due to its purported "budget crisis," a state that receives more federal monies in addition to New York than most all of the other states combined due to its liberal spending policies in the past two administrations in that state under both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Funding governmental functions in California takes a back seat to promoting the fantasy and delusion inherent in the California lifestyle, and one is that money grows on trees and the Governor and legislature are the state's Sugar Daddies for both corporate welfare, and foreigner welfare.
In comparison, citizen welfare is far down the list as California is a "sanctuary state" for new immigrants, illegal immigrants and foreigners almost across the board in addition to its cousin, New York.
But when push comes to shove it is the Kansas farmers and Middle America that are funding their excesses and out of control spending, and the other 48 states.
And the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and its liberal political renderings, whose reach even extended to my former state of residence, Arizona, is now assisting in destroying its economy due to that same liberalism, and the influx of political refugees that have fled from that state in greater and greater numbers after anniliating their own.
Below is some information that will help shed some light on just a small fraction of the problems in California, due to their sanctuary state policies and liberalism with respect to the illegal immigrant situation and its fiscal impact:
This was released by the Vietnam Veterans of America
Just One State
This is only one State...............If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will !
From the L A. Times
1.40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people )are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2.95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3.75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4.Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5.Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
6.Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8.Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County )
(All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue
HOW CAN YOU HELP ?
Send copies of this letter to at least two other people. 100 would be even better.
This is only one State................
If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will !
Funding governmental functions in California takes a back seat to promoting the fantasy and delusion inherent in the California lifestyle, and one is that money grows on trees and the Governor and legislature are the state's Sugar Daddies for both corporate welfare, and foreigner welfare.
In comparison, citizen welfare is far down the list as California is a "sanctuary state" for new immigrants, illegal immigrants and foreigners almost across the board in addition to its cousin, New York.
But when push comes to shove it is the Kansas farmers and Middle America that are funding their excesses and out of control spending, and the other 48 states.
And the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and its liberal political renderings, whose reach even extended to my former state of residence, Arizona, is now assisting in destroying its economy due to that same liberalism, and the influx of political refugees that have fled from that state in greater and greater numbers after anniliating their own.
Below is some information that will help shed some light on just a small fraction of the problems in California, due to their sanctuary state policies and liberalism with respect to the illegal immigrant situation and its fiscal impact:
This was released by the Vietnam Veterans of America
Just One State
This is only one State...............If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will !
From the L A. Times
1.40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people )are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2.95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3.75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4.Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5.Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
6.Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8.Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County )
(All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue
HOW CAN YOU HELP ?
Send copies of this letter to at least two other people. 100 would be even better.
This is only one State................
If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will !
Monday, June 8, 2009
U.S. States Facing Budget Crisis: Why Balance Budget Laws Don't Work
This week there have been numerous headlines with respect to the budget crises now facing most of the states throughout the United States, again with the downward spiraling U.S. economy to blame.
Mr. Obama, of course, recently participated in one of the most massive layoffs and firings of the current employees for General Motors, of course consoling them with how their "sacrifices" now would reap benefits down the road. The question is, of course, for whom?
Apparently U.S.A., Inc. and the United Auto Workers, who were given an ownership share in the deal brokered by the Obama Administration in order to add this major U.S. corporation to Washington's budgeoning stock portfolio.
Oh, and the Canadian Teacher's Union Pension Fund which also received a share, at the expense of the autoworkers' in Detroits pensions and retirement, and the smaller private bondholder's investment, from the few details available since Mr. Geithner and Obama are again handling the details outside usual federal bankruptcy court in order to skirt around those public records and disclosure provisions.
I'm sure that acquisition has set Detroit and Michigan's economy back a bit insofar as sales tax revenues. Most of those autoworkers most likely will be eating pork and beans for a while, "sacrificing" for Mr. Obama's now Government Motors. And those bond holder owners just lost a little of that retirement money for those planned road trips in their golden years.
But China picked up a steal, or should I say, steal for its steel.
Now, even after receiving "kickbacks" in the form of federal funding through the stimulus packages of billions of dollars which are to be transferred to the states and billed to the state citizens and taxpayers as a whole, the states are now still whining about their shortfalls.
And the biggest whinner, of course, is that liberally run Golden State, defined by its excess over the course of years and the high taxes and destruction which has resulted due to their own liberalism.
It doesn't appear those in state office have been able to read the California Constitution for at least fifty years if not longer, since the early 60's.
I guess the costs of their open borders, pro-illegal immigrant positions, and past "save the trees" environmentalism that has since resulted in the destruction of thousands of homes and forested acres is finally coming home to roost. Costs for which the entire nation also has paid for during those self-created disasters in their misguided environmental radicalism during a ten year drought with overgrown forests which can now be set off by static electricity in more than a few areas and almost non-existent groundwater tables. Of course the fountains and jacuzzis are still humming along nicely.
And both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger's freewheeling ways.
The OC set have never heard the word "fiscal conservatism," a term they associate with "right wing extremists," and Kansas farmers (who they would like to bail them out) when it comes to their creature comforts, limos, jacuzzis and their private jets which they cannot do without so that they can attend their next global warming lecture.
My former home state, Arizona, is also facing a crisis, or so it has been reported, even though many years ago the citizens in that state actually passed a "balanced budget" initiative.
Has it worked? Hardly.
You see, the government is the worst when it comes to following the laws and directives of "we the people." Our taxes fund literally hundreds of lawyers to advise legislators on just how they can skirt around some of those initiatives in order to continue doing business as usual.
When those budgets are released to the public, you need a magnifying glass and organizational chart to follow the money trail to find where all the funding is actually going. And even with those tools, you would only get half the picture.
Nowhere in those budgets are reported the sums that are received also from the federal government in order to fund some of these state programs. Thus, citizens in most states face dual taxation in numerous areas at both the state and federal levels.
It has gotten so bad in Arizona that they have sold former state funded prisons and/or are now contracting for local prisons and guards privatizing them, and are now charging the prisoners for their accomodations in order to make those lease payments, and giving incentives to officers on those federally funded DUI sports bar patrols in order to meet the federal grant guidelines to make those payments, which sums now are far more than the prior costs of upkeep and maintenance of some of those facilities for state taxpayers.
Most state and local impound lots also throughout the country have been privatized, many of which are owned by police officers as a further incentive in the new social drinking taxes.
Apparently, the state needed the money from the prison sale in order to assist in funding one of the state's new pet projects and new foundation under Janet Napolitano, the high tech gadget junkie, The Arizona Science Foundation.
Were the citizens consulted in this new project?
Of course not.
The state then subsequently entered into multi-year contracts with this organization (contracts with itself), which foundation is now suing the State of Arizona (again themselves or the state citizens ultimately) in order to get the funding through the backdoor, since in order to "balance" this years budget funding had to be reduced to this extra-Constitutional foundation for the press release of a "balanced" budget.
A new legal trick has now been the modus operandi in order to satisfy the state budget requirements, in now simply using the courts in order to fund some of these state created foundations and then hide all the extra revenue they are doling out for state agenda driven projects outside Constitutional authority or citizen accountability.
Then, of course, the state can appear to be "balancing" the budget while the courts and taxpayer paid "foundation" and private corporate attorneys negotiate and "seal the deals" factoring in, of course, their cut also in acting as the go-betweens of the state now in these NGO and extra-Constitutional funding matters.
Look hard, Californians, at that budget, and the court actions which have occurred in your state throughout the years.
I'm sure you'll find that there is plenty of money and there is no "budget" crisis, its just a matter of the state's priorities and legislators extra-Constitutional commitments that are the real problem.
And committing taxpayer sums and entering into contracts with either private or state created "foundation" contractors for multi-year terms in the first place, when state budgets in many states are required to be balanced annually.
To put it simply, deciding to fully fund and fulfill that multi-year contract for the newest "foundation" or multi-plex for the global visitors to Sacramento means the sums needed for vital services for which those tax monies are "legally" required such as the street repairs and garbage collection might just need to be cut, or reduced in order to "balance the budget."
Or in order to quell the masses, provide those sums in order to comply with the law, and then instruct extra-Constitutional "contractees" and developer instead to sue the State of California for their money, so that after the funds are provided and the lawsuit "settled," there is then a carry-over budget crisis and deficit again next year.
Balanced budget requirements are sort of like a shell game, with simply more and more "shells" (or shills) added each year.
That's what "liberalism" and legislating according to "living" Constitution beliefs actually does, encourages "corporate" socialism ultimately in taking from the poor (citizens) and give to the rich (foundations, corporations, developers), while the garbage piles up.
Mr. Obama, of course, recently participated in one of the most massive layoffs and firings of the current employees for General Motors, of course consoling them with how their "sacrifices" now would reap benefits down the road. The question is, of course, for whom?
Apparently U.S.A., Inc. and the United Auto Workers, who were given an ownership share in the deal brokered by the Obama Administration in order to add this major U.S. corporation to Washington's budgeoning stock portfolio.
Oh, and the Canadian Teacher's Union Pension Fund which also received a share, at the expense of the autoworkers' in Detroits pensions and retirement, and the smaller private bondholder's investment, from the few details available since Mr. Geithner and Obama are again handling the details outside usual federal bankruptcy court in order to skirt around those public records and disclosure provisions.
I'm sure that acquisition has set Detroit and Michigan's economy back a bit insofar as sales tax revenues. Most of those autoworkers most likely will be eating pork and beans for a while, "sacrificing" for Mr. Obama's now Government Motors. And those bond holder owners just lost a little of that retirement money for those planned road trips in their golden years.
But China picked up a steal, or should I say, steal for its steel.
Now, even after receiving "kickbacks" in the form of federal funding through the stimulus packages of billions of dollars which are to be transferred to the states and billed to the state citizens and taxpayers as a whole, the states are now still whining about their shortfalls.
And the biggest whinner, of course, is that liberally run Golden State, defined by its excess over the course of years and the high taxes and destruction which has resulted due to their own liberalism.
It doesn't appear those in state office have been able to read the California Constitution for at least fifty years if not longer, since the early 60's.
I guess the costs of their open borders, pro-illegal immigrant positions, and past "save the trees" environmentalism that has since resulted in the destruction of thousands of homes and forested acres is finally coming home to roost. Costs for which the entire nation also has paid for during those self-created disasters in their misguided environmental radicalism during a ten year drought with overgrown forests which can now be set off by static electricity in more than a few areas and almost non-existent groundwater tables. Of course the fountains and jacuzzis are still humming along nicely.
And both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger's freewheeling ways.
The OC set have never heard the word "fiscal conservatism," a term they associate with "right wing extremists," and Kansas farmers (who they would like to bail them out) when it comes to their creature comforts, limos, jacuzzis and their private jets which they cannot do without so that they can attend their next global warming lecture.
My former home state, Arizona, is also facing a crisis, or so it has been reported, even though many years ago the citizens in that state actually passed a "balanced budget" initiative.
Has it worked? Hardly.
You see, the government is the worst when it comes to following the laws and directives of "we the people." Our taxes fund literally hundreds of lawyers to advise legislators on just how they can skirt around some of those initiatives in order to continue doing business as usual.
When those budgets are released to the public, you need a magnifying glass and organizational chart to follow the money trail to find where all the funding is actually going. And even with those tools, you would only get half the picture.
Nowhere in those budgets are reported the sums that are received also from the federal government in order to fund some of these state programs. Thus, citizens in most states face dual taxation in numerous areas at both the state and federal levels.
It has gotten so bad in Arizona that they have sold former state funded prisons and/or are now contracting for local prisons and guards privatizing them, and are now charging the prisoners for their accomodations in order to make those lease payments, and giving incentives to officers on those federally funded DUI sports bar patrols in order to meet the federal grant guidelines to make those payments, which sums now are far more than the prior costs of upkeep and maintenance of some of those facilities for state taxpayers.
Most state and local impound lots also throughout the country have been privatized, many of which are owned by police officers as a further incentive in the new social drinking taxes.
Apparently, the state needed the money from the prison sale in order to assist in funding one of the state's new pet projects and new foundation under Janet Napolitano, the high tech gadget junkie, The Arizona Science Foundation.
Were the citizens consulted in this new project?
Of course not.
The state then subsequently entered into multi-year contracts with this organization (contracts with itself), which foundation is now suing the State of Arizona (again themselves or the state citizens ultimately) in order to get the funding through the backdoor, since in order to "balance" this years budget funding had to be reduced to this extra-Constitutional foundation for the press release of a "balanced" budget.
A new legal trick has now been the modus operandi in order to satisfy the state budget requirements, in now simply using the courts in order to fund some of these state created foundations and then hide all the extra revenue they are doling out for state agenda driven projects outside Constitutional authority or citizen accountability.
Then, of course, the state can appear to be "balancing" the budget while the courts and taxpayer paid "foundation" and private corporate attorneys negotiate and "seal the deals" factoring in, of course, their cut also in acting as the go-betweens of the state now in these NGO and extra-Constitutional funding matters.
Look hard, Californians, at that budget, and the court actions which have occurred in your state throughout the years.
I'm sure you'll find that there is plenty of money and there is no "budget" crisis, its just a matter of the state's priorities and legislators extra-Constitutional commitments that are the real problem.
And committing taxpayer sums and entering into contracts with either private or state created "foundation" contractors for multi-year terms in the first place, when state budgets in many states are required to be balanced annually.
To put it simply, deciding to fully fund and fulfill that multi-year contract for the newest "foundation" or multi-plex for the global visitors to Sacramento means the sums needed for vital services for which those tax monies are "legally" required such as the street repairs and garbage collection might just need to be cut, or reduced in order to "balance the budget."
Or in order to quell the masses, provide those sums in order to comply with the law, and then instruct extra-Constitutional "contractees" and developer instead to sue the State of California for their money, so that after the funds are provided and the lawsuit "settled," there is then a carry-over budget crisis and deficit again next year.
Balanced budget requirements are sort of like a shell game, with simply more and more "shells" (or shills) added each year.
That's what "liberalism" and legislating according to "living" Constitution beliefs actually does, encourages "corporate" socialism ultimately in taking from the poor (citizens) and give to the rich (foundations, corporations, developers), while the garbage piles up.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
