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

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.

AARP To Endorse Its Own Bill On Health Care Deform

Just to continue to point out now how ludicrous this health care deform continues to be, and how unconstitutional actually instead of regulating those corporate interests rather than getting in bed with them as those on the Hill did all last summer, it was reported in the mainstream media that AARP is now on the bandwagon in order to facilitate passage of this massive bill that was written by AARP, the AMA, corporate labor unions, and financial sector and health care industries.

The spokesman, however, it was reported didn't want to "jump the gun" in the piece published today, since he said it was scheduled to be announced on Thursday by the "corporate" offices of AARP.

AARP ceased to be a senior advocacy group literally years ago, and is now nothing more than a front for the various special interest groups and insurers mainly that those members are marketed to for the supplemental insurance plans under Medicare at the present time.

Policies that in most instance are merely gravy for those insurers, since as the primary care provider Medicare actually calls the shots and approves the levels of treatment. And many doctors due to all the red tape involved with Medicare actually have posted notices that the are now refusing to accept any new Medicare patients.

And you think things would change in that respect with any 'socialized" Washington plan for health care?

The doctors will simply once again shift the costs for their reduced rates to either those that can afford it, or in upping the ante for their research grants and other already government welfare that these industries at the present time receive.

This story, however, was under the story about the cat in Iowa that was discovered to have swine flu, now politically renamed H1N1 so as not to upset some of the faith that believes pigs are satanic and unclean, as they were a part of pagan worships from the Roman age in Greece and Rome.

And those Iowa farmers do deserve a little kick in the pants apparently for getting all heated up after an Iowa judge "legalized" gay marriage "rights" in the State of Iowa, over the protest of a good deal of the population since it did appear that Iowa already had a civil marriage statute that actually already was in force at the time the case was brought by those gay activist civil rights lawyers who are also getting paid their legal fees courtesy of the American taxpayers for these state and federal actions under another one of those "hush hush" 1,000 page bills that Congress no longer reads.

And if this country has to now pass a formal bill and law stating that all members of Congress must read a bill before it is voted on, this country is in a good deal more trouble than most of us already have concluded watching the past Bush and now Obama Administrations since our government now resembles more Barnum & Bailey than the Stars and Stripes at this point.

While it continues to be the civilians and American people who are being victimized and made homeless and jobless more and more by the day.

You know, the GM workers, and those real Joe the Plumbers, not the Mayor Bloombergs, Arnold Schwartezneggers, and other venture capitalists who are selling off this country's prime real estate, and industrial base now right and left.

Congress, the Supreme Court, and Executive office are now titles that are merely the politically correct terminology for "insider traders" and "corporate lobbyists" themselves at this point.

As a matter of fact to show that AARP is not at all an elder advocacy group, I got an application from them many years ago actually.

Before I was even 50 hawking their "reduced rate" insurance policies and other trade affiliated vendors.

I guess 45 is the new 65.

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.

Global Socialism Agenda In High Gear: Wilson's Performance Part Of The Plan?

In light of the mass media television coverage and events that occurred at Mr. Obama's presentation and national press conference for his health care reforms the other evening, it appears that the upcoming opponent for Mr. Wilson's seat in the House scored a killing.

Raking in over $40,000 in some reports for his upcoming challenge for Mr. Wilson's seat in 2010.

Could there be a method to this madness on the part now of the Socialist Republican and Democratic parties at this juncture, who do work for those European international bankers than own and run our Federal Reserve and whose agenda is fairly clear at this point in its attempts to corner the world's economic resources under their centralized banking system control.

Right now the Democratic Socialists have a majority in the Senate needed for any upcoming legislation. Whether that legislation is Constitutional or not matters not to either party, merely that they each get a share of some air time for their candidates and positions in the process. Most of the voting outcomes are now done behind closed doors, unless you are one of those Americans that only tune in for the final tally yet don't question the results.

The House still remains somewhat of a problem in that there isn't a flush since there still is a Socialist Republican majority there. Or at least enough to cause some problems with the two thirds majority situation.

Most Americans know that none of these "representatives" represent the American people in any manner whatsoever. After all, all of them take out of district campaign donations from corporate special interest groups and industries, most which don't even have statutory offices within their own districts. Thus are not representative of their constituency in the slightest, even without the K Street lunches and cocktail parties.

It is also clear at this point that each change in Administration merely brings more of the same with these two parties in power. Simply a change in the mouthpieces, for the most part.

We are still in the war in the Middle East, the middle class Detroit workers were laid off while the foreign outsourced GM plants are humming right along, and the foreclosure rescue was initiated more to build up Wall Street and protect those foreign investors profits and flip those properties for the banks, so Mr. Obama's rhetoric at election time is nothing more than the same old same old. Flowery campaign speeches, using his amazing oratory skills wrapped in Lincoln to win that coveted prize. Election to the highest public office in land.

It almost appears he has been groomed for this all his adult life, at any rate, or at least since he attended one of America's foremost "liberal" institutions of higher learning teaching "the Law" in more the British, rather than American, manner.

The British, after all, just so happen to own our federal bank, and its subsidiary branches throughout the country. And was also the home base of AIG, the insurer whose assets Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama were more concerned with than the American shareholders - while those executives not only took a trip to one of America's finest four star resorts, but also make a trip to Britain for a "hunting trip," from media reports also while the company was "officially" in bankruptcy due to the practices of primariy its British Mayfair office from the British media reports.

There's an agenda here, folks, and it appears rather than transparency at this point, what we have are about 535 actors now worthy of their own awards show for "Best Performance By An Actor," not to mention "Best Screenplay."

Let The Games Begin: Massachusetts Politicos Vying For Vacant Senate Seat

With the passing of Ted Kennedy last week and after the weeklong media coverage of both his life, and his politcal career now over, the media's attention has now been turned toward just who might fill the empty Senate seat occupied by Senator Kennedy.

Even going so far as to call it "a Kennedy seat," in the liberal media press.

And the term liberal spreads on both sides of the aisle, since a "liberal" is merely one who "liberally" construes the Constitution by not consulting it in any manner whatsoever.

Sort of like what is occurring now on the discussions and debates on the health care issue. Not a federal function in any manner whatsoever, but one in which the states and state citizens should decide for their own communities, and at levels that are more locally accountable for indigent or other public health services.

Not foreign ruler. With the exception of regulating those national and global insurers and their practices, not take them over or get into bed with these now huge megaconglomerate concerns, many of which now are not even based in the U.S., but want the U.S. market base without any accountability in the marketing or honoring of their products or services.

Especially since the only real revenue and reason for their existence is due to the ratepayers payment of their premiums, and it is their own divestitures that also have been involved in escalating the costs by using those premiums and stockholder investments to diversity into high risk investments and fields for greater returns. While Washington has sat on its thumbs giving them carte blance in order to so do.

Providing a public option is rather laughable when Congress hasn't done its primary job in overseeing those global and national carriers. And most likely, anyone that is involved in any public option will come from the private sector health insurance industry and bring their rogue practices also with them.

And we all see how well Congress oversees most of those regulatory agencies now, like the IRS and the Federal Reserve (who are, after all, no more than front men for the European banking houses, and we all see whose "economy" the Fed is concerned with. The global one. Not at all America's, but raping American citizens to feed the foreign investors).

Massachusetts, of course, already has such a universal health care plan which was started in its liberalism, and so this push now is also highly suspect since such plans really already exist in some form or another in every state across the nation.

This state's utter outrageous representatives interpretations of our Constitution have unfortunately spread throughout the country (think California, now receiving most of the Iraq war contracts and domestic spying programs for Silicon Valley venture capitalists)due to the untold celebrity this political family somehow created after the death of John Kennedy over 40 years ago on a political career that had as many lows as highs.

Beginning with the starting of the Viet Nam conflict, our first truly non-defensive, interventionist war and which lasted then far longer than it should have to begin with, given the "threat" of that small country to our own. With then the U.S. inheriting thousands of political refugees, not to mention the debt and Americans lives lost or forever changed by that conflict (as also never a legal or Congressionally declared war under a formal Declaration of War).

The entire week's review was rather unbelieveable in its scope, and the rather unbalanced reporting which occurred in any event.

The aura surrounding the Kennedy name at this point is a little overblown in a historical context.

Several U.S. presidents had been the victims of having their lives tragedically ended prematurely, after all. And only Lincoln's has historically also been used fundamentally to aggrandize the true facts and accomplishments while in office. And records historically altered in order to make the tragedies of their deaths in office somehow all out of proportion to what their individual contributions actually were.

Abraham Lincoln, who although was a great statesman, politician and orator, clearly lacked a true understanding that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to state sovereignty, which united to begin with in order to fight a foreign government and oppressor, the British, also provided in our founding documents the right to dissolve the union if for any reason it no longer suited either the state or people's best interests.

And only gave the states, with the people's consent and directive, the power to alter or abolish it, and not the federal government at all in its original form and legal provisions under the "contract," the U.S. Constitution. Which can only be amended by the states, and people, not by federal fiat, in any of the three branches. Not the president, Congress or U.S. Supreme Court without the "consent of the governed."

The South and the slavery issue, after all, was simply what some historians have used as the basis for the civil war in this country for also generations. When actually the entire war was over state's rights, with the slavery issue really even inconsequential to Lincoln.

His solution initially offered to the South when it stated its intention to leave the union, was to afford the slaves free passage back to Africa if they so desired, which is also well documented in Lincoln's papers as one from the industrial north. The lives of those in the Northern states were not a whole lot better than those in the South at that time either. Lincoln himself came from a farming background, after all.

According to his Christian beliefs also, no man without his own consent (such as indentured servitude in exchange for work performed, or more commonly in barter exchanges for room and board ) had a right to claim "ownership" over another. Most farm workers even in the North lived on the farms and were provided food and shelter, but simply migrated during crop season.

Which was fundamentally the disagreement the founders had. Lifelong servitude, as it were.

But the slavery at the time it was ratified was not the same as was practiced in the South and occurred progressively due to also federal transgressions on protecting domestic agricultural production over foreign competition also then at lower costs due to seasonal variations in U.S. production.

Those original slaves who existed at the time the Constitution was ratified were for the most part more than well treated, well respected by those such as Jefferson, and who were sent with those men and their families abroad for further study and education in Europe, after all, as was the practice.

And was such a bone of contention also at the time that it is well documented that the founders eventually forsaw when that issue would need to be addressed and rectified accordingly as soon as this new nation had its first generation of native born new Americans.

And most freed then upon their death as Jefferson did and was provided in his will, which was also recognized as a legal right and private arrangement to be dissolved.

Many slaves were "freed" by slaveowners also upon request for simply repayment of any debts incurred on their behalf since even medical needs and assistance was provided by many.

Most were also sold into slavery by warring tribes in Africa instead of being put to death rather than as history likes to relate, brought here unwillingly by American slavetrader opportunists. Most came by way of Britain, which is where the real active slavetrading had been occurring and also why so many of the founders objected due to this British originated practice.

But it was the "progressives" actually that used them for agricultural purposes, and in the mills and factories, that abused their authority over them rather than a somewhat mutually beneficial arrangement which it originally was which lead to all the slave revoltes.

People naturally wish to escape abusive situations, and that is really what was fundamentally what lead to all the slave revolts. Mistreatment. Not a desire for freedom or independence but more in order to escape mental and physical torment.

But I digress somewhat to even prove a point with respect to Senator Kennedy's passing.

Even after all the accolades and tributes made by those in political office and his Massachusetts constituency, the nation is now being made to be witness to this transfer of power rather than simply a matter of filling a public service position with another American to so do.

And it was the "progressives" in both parties in Congress and the President that fired many of those hardworking, middle class GM workers in Detroit, a city historically with a large number of unemployed due to the outsourcing and insourcing which has occurred now throughout the nation and escalated under both Democratic and Republican Congresses.

And in leaps and bounds during the past twenty years to the point where it is the Americans now who are subsidizing through their taxes those foreign now industries and labor workforce.

This week also reminded me more of what occurs after an employee of any of America's largest corporate entities is either fired or resigns. Before the door is closed behind them, the vultures remaining seek out anything in the former occupant's desk that can be captured and used in then the performance of their job related duties.

It appears a general election is the way Massachusetts has legislated to go in the filling of the seat, and all the political ballyhoo that goes with such a procedure now part of the process.

Not the provisions as provided in our original Constittuion, which would simply call for a replacement to be voted on and selected by the current members of the Massachusetts legislature.

Who would be the best able to fill it, since the Senators were, after all, intended to represent the state and state's interests at the federal level, with the House members supposed to be then representatives of the actual citizens and people.

Which has also been undermined and abridged since both are now selected upon general elections, and in which the original campaign finance laws also are being abridged in that originally in order to retain a representative government, then such candidates in the House could only accept "sponsorship" or donations from those in their own legislative districts - so as not to be tarnished in their representation from outside "foreign" monies and interests.

Which is the major reason why today we are living under global corporate socialism.

Due to a very fundamental Constitutional violation at its core, which has hijacked our intended form of government and replaced it with something not even close to that which the founders created and envisioned.

And the natives are clearly getting restless with the "misrepresentatives" and not "duly elected" individuals now holding court in both the state legislatures, and most of all the clearly "pretenders" on the Hill serving more as CEO's of U.S.A., Inc. now instead of our intended free republic.