King's Speech Wins Best Picture: But Why?

A week ago Hollywood staged its annual fashion show and awards ceremony to acknowledge the work of its finest during the past year in a once again over the top display of excess, and its loss of touch with reality and the current American economic condition.

Most of the dresses worn by most of those leading ladies were not off the rack, but would have fed a third world nation for the next year or two or at least helped with the American homeless and jobless.

What was interesting was the winner for Best Picture, of course, along with so many other awards this year.

The film which took home the coveted Best Picture award was a British film, starring British actors and with a British director, and for the most part filmed, of course, in Britain.

So why was it not entered into the "right" category, as Best Foreign Film?

It does appear that the Brits, Canadians and Australians have pretty much taken over most of the awards and those films are not "home grown" but another demonstration of Hollywood and its own "outsourcing."

This year the demographics for the most part of the movie going audience also was on display, by choosing a young actor and actress as the hosts rather than the tried and true comedians which were meant to at least lighten up and entertain the home viewing audience during this three hour plus marathon in excess.

Hail, Britainnia. And this doesn't even take into account all those American dollars which have been poured into that other British import, the Harry Potter series of movies which total eight blockbuster receipts with also an entirely British cast, for the most part, and filmed of course in Britain.

Hollywood is officially a promoter of "outsourcing," all appearances to the contrary.

And now Piers Morgan, another Brit, has joined the other foreign hosts of America's late night television line-up which has become increasingly dominated by foreigners on our cable television networks.

And truly interesting that the movie, from all reports, was very sympathetic to the King whose speech impediment made fodder for this World War II high drama.

The Mexican Civil Liberties Union Strikes Again

The MCLU (Mexican Civil Liberties Union) has taken to the newsprint media in order to attempt to blast a small, mostly rural town in Nebraska for having the gaul to attempt to pass city ordinances (similar to those attempted in Pennsylvania) banning both the hiring, and affording housing rentals to illegal immigrants.

It appears, however, the town of Fremont which is involved is getting prepared for the onslaught of "foreigner" rights groups that they foresee will challenge the ordinance if it is passed into "law" after today's voting.

How so?

By advertising that they will institute additional taxes, and cutting city services in order to fund the lawsuit challenges, without of course disclosing that if the municipal governments are like those in Arizona (and county), they have used much of that tax revenue they collect in order to purchase insurance policies indemnifying any and all municipal employees from liability in the event of such lawsuits. Whose, of course, premiums then will go up accordingly and for which the city and state will plead the need for more revenue from the citizens in order to cover their then budget shortfalls.

Which also then provides them with an impetus to continue to pass more and more unconstitutional legislation for individual politicians benefits no matter which side of the aisle they claim to hail from. Both use politics and political maneuvering and backbiting in order to remain in power, while the citizenry then continues to be adversely affected both monetarily, and in quality of life issues - and whose children will also be burdened then with such clear treason in not carrying out their Constitutional, or even charter functions.

The municipal government are in the same positions the state's are, beholding and accountable not to the people but to their "feeder" big brother dictators.

Unbelieveable, actually, and just goes to show what is really going on here - since the municipal governments are, after all, state actors of the state government and it is the state government that continues to increase those requests in most states throughout the country for foreign workers in order to feed their corporate backers and sponsors and for them to save money on those taxes inflicted on Americans so they can continue to contribute to their future campaign coffers - and now potentially in unrestricted sums.

The criminal activity in our political systems seems to be getting worse by the month now.

These proposed ordinances are being compared to the steps Arizona has undertaken, and truthfully most of these measures simply seem to be frivolous and rather transparent actions taken by vulnerable politicians in order to use for future campaign purposes, and to feed those civil rights lawyers, many of whom are writing these laws for their own benefit, it appears and also who are receiving federal and state taxpayer dollars for the defenses or prosecutions of the laws they are writing using their legislative lackeys to actually undermine the Constitution and its provisions also by the month or legislative session.

The ACLU has become one of the biggest drains on the taxpayers ever, and is using a federal statute which was passed years ago which was meant simply to provide for their legal fees for true AMERICAN civil rights actions in order to mask most of these lawsuits they are initiating on behalf of foreigners as somehow within that statute's provisions or its intent.

The ACLU, of course, is promoting this as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which was actually meant in order to protect American citizen's rights in this country, not "corporate" entities in any manner whatsoever.

And since foreigners actually have no inherent civil rights in this country under America's Constitution unless and until they go through the naturalization process (the Preamble does state We The People of the United States....for US and OUR posterity), it can only be the corporate and the ACLU's own self serving interests that is behind all the blustering.

I wonder why the ACLU isn't actually bringing the needed lawsuit on behalf of American civil liberties in this country in upholding the Constitution's provisions in reinstituting the tax on foreign labor, and removing the tax on domestic labor, which just might turn this country's economy around and bring more jobs to Americans in this country than any "jobs bill" of Congress, which will simply provide for more government or taxpayer paid jobs at the American public's expense, and thus create more and more homeless and a widening gap between the poor and the rich and facilitate the agenda here truly of wiping out America's middle class.

So that we can then be more like Great Britain, Mexico, and a host of those other "socialized" countries with "sovereign" governments, instead of as ours is supposed to be - of the people, by the people, for the people - the American PEOPLE, not the corporate special interests such as the ACLU and their corporate backers.

The fact that the Supreme Court overturned the Pennsylvania municipal law does not surprise this writer. It has been clear that those justices on the Supreme Court have not been able to read the Constitution for literally decades.

The ACLU also stated that it is "immigration reform" that is needed, not these segregated attempts by the states and their "state actor" municipal corporations to institute such measures. Although since there is already a process for immigration on the books, can't see where the ACLU also is taking such a stance.

But what they truly really want and mean is nothing more than "amnesty" in order to again feed the legal profession who, of course, will be needed and necessary in order for these individuals to eventually gain that coveted prize - citizenship. And in which most of those truly seasonal and migrant workers will not apply for in any such instance anyway as they didn't for the Reagan amnesty.

Since most of them couldn't afford the fees, and the rest were merely here in order to feed their families back home and dollars brought their families remaining in Mexico a higher standard of living than their remaining and working in Mexico would.

If you wish to work here, apply for a green card before entering, and wait your turn.

Temporary work visas are available in abundance, but you do need to leave after that seasonal work is done and if you migrate to another area than for that which the original work visa was granted, you do need to visit INS to get it extended from my understanding.

And it is the large corporate agribusinesses in Nebraska and meatpackers that hire the most of them to cut their labor costs, since the small farmers as in decades past usually shared seasonal workers, and also provided for housing, meals and medical care for those workers for which the small towns and community as a whole shared during planting and harvesting season - as one who knows who due to marriage, had grandparents who owned land and a farm in the Midwest at one time and used migrant or seasonal workers to plant and harvest their crops. And whose grandmother took them out their lunches, or prepared full course breakfasts, suppers and dinner for them during the season and also arranged for housing if necessary in the old "bunk" house.

If you overstay your "visa" longer than the proscribed period, and are not granted an extension by the State Department or by INS (now ICE), then you are suppose to go "home," not be working here illegally, or renting an apartment.

And these laws, I'm sure, are much less stringent than those you will find in Mexico, Canada, India, or any other of the number of countries in which the U.S. has taken in literally thousands upon thousands of those who wished to immigrate legally.

If it is the expense that is the problem, then that is a simple matter of reducing the fees and original costs to that which those in some of the poorer nations can afford, such as in the "olden" day, and the original application process one in which it doesn't take a lawyer charging $300-$400 per hour to complete.

The immigration process was not intended to be one which fed the lawyers in this country, civil rights, immigration, criminal or otherwise. But that is exactly what has occurred due to the illegal extension of civil rights to even these civil rights groups that are not at all representing Americans, but foreigners.

Although with the amount of jobless and homeless in this country during the biggest recession/depression since the Great Depression, this country still in an ongoing war due to an attack on it by foreigners from within, and the shear number of immigrants this country has taken in progressively due to unconstitutional wars of the past, at this point in America's history the federal government is once again negligent in not exercising that other provision in the Constitution and not only restricting immigration, but banning it altogether at this point.

Until this "war" is over, and there are few Americans in this country without gainful employment and these corporate entities start using America's labor pools and fighting for removal of that 16th Amendment also which has circumvented and placed this country's government in a lopsided and unaccountable position across the board with the feds now reining "Supreme" over the citizens, and the states, progressively.

With even now funding this MCLU, MALDEFF and a host of other "educational" for profit non profits headed by mostly "civil rights," immigration, corporate or criminal lawyers with American taxpayer dollars illegally.

And with the Obama Administration threatening Arizona's new law, I simply hope that the Governor of Arizona files a countersuit under the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act in order to get the funding for that fence the feds promised forthwith - instead of once again feeding the industry in which the majority, it appears, now come in all three branches of government illegally representing their own self interests more and more by the decade.

That other offshoot from the Brits, and a country which more and more of these Supreme Court justices are actually educated and hail, the American Barrister's Association which has progressively returned its educational focus, it is quite clear, to not American jurisprudence but foreign jurisprudence - mostly Britain's or the UN's "accords" (created inially by Britain post World War II) and the country we fought that original war over to establish this sovereign nation and to protect its citizens from "foreigners" abuse or influence in our country's government or political matters.

So in essence in all of these ACLU, MALDEF, and other foreigner focused groups, it is the American people actually who are paying for their own abuse in most of these court actions - and in which these groups are contributing to our out of control deficits more and more for their own "welfare."

And the only true Constitutional funds that the federal government has within their powers over foreigners are:

1. To provide a naturalization process (which we have)

2. To provide the federal courts for any prosecutions against foreigners for "crimes committed against the nation" before naturalization;

3. To regulate commerce insofar as the hiring of those foreign workers in monitoring the impact that foreign outsourced labor and products affect domestic labor and production;

4. To tax the states for any and all "foreign" labor which is needed and for which those green cards are issued at their request, since it is the states that request and petition for those "guest worker" visas and work visas annually, and then forward those requests to the federal government. These taxes were meant to both protect domestic labor and commerce from foreign competition detrimental to the U.S. economy and workforce, and also provide for the needed revenue for their needs while working or visiting this country, such as the increases in "use" taxes for roads, state provided benefits for community services, etc.

So other than the costs which are now involved, and re-evaluating the process in order to make it similar to that which was in force and effect at the turn of the century, in which there wasn't this influx of illegal foreigners in any manner whatsoever (since at that time there were even restricted ports of entry for any and all of these permanent or temporary foreigners through Ellis Island primarily), just what type of "reform" is actually needed?

Perhaps enforcing the existing law on the books insofar as letting the punishment fit the crime, and not providing "immigration hearings" for those which have not immigrated legally and returning them forthwith back across those borders when proof of citizenship cannot be provided or legal guest worker status verified such as the laws in Arizona are attempting to do in codifying that federal law at the state level?

Or turning over those that commit felonies while in this country to the U.S. Marshall, and the state attorney generals actually doing their jobs and prosecuting them through the federal courts in order to get the true criminal element off the street which have been progressively victimizing the Arizonans and American people in other states in greater and greater numbers by the decade?

Enforcement and a rewind to the procedures which were instituted while I as growing up in Arizona in the 1960's and 1970's is what is needed here, in my educated opinion as both a victim and one who is familiar of the long history of this issue from personal experience, appears is what is needed, not "comprehensive" reform at all.

With the federal government actually doing their primary job - providing for the common defense, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of the American people first and foremost.

Obama Sends Out The Guard: Far Too Little, Way Too Late

In the wake of the brouhaha over the recent legislation passed by the State of Arizona after the murder of a rancher and decades of increased crime in that state due primarily to the open U.S. southern borders, it was announced by the Obama Administration that an additional 1,200 National Guardsmen will be sent to assist the Border Patrol in securing the U.S. Mexico border.

But is this simply another political ploy in order to quiet the masses and gain some public support from those recent transplants or non-border state residents for another Reagan era amnesty in the interests of commerce rather than national security, or another fine example of the federal government's response of too little, too late after literally thousands upon thousands of border state residents have been adversely impacted by this governmental negligence nine long years post 9-11?

I mean, if those U.S. borders HAD been secured, would an American rancher today still be alive, or those in Arizona particularly losing their homes by the score due to increases in property insurance and added taxation due to this situation, in addition to the federal negligence which resulted in those bogus British LIBOR based loans which were sold by California lenders to so many unsuspecting homeowners during the short housing boom?

Which bears the question: How can banks in this country be loaning out sums based on a foreign currency almost twice that of the U.S., and backed also by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without Congress's knowledge, which negligence also has not been addressed in any meaningful way after that bogus bank "bailout."

The U.S. Mexico border encompasses over 1,900 miles of expanse, a great deal of which is desert terrain and passable only by all terrain vehicles - of which the drug cartel members have in abundance due to their progressive profits at the American public's expense, including our youth. The War on Drugs is as much a commercial venture and falacy, it appears as the War on "Terrorism."

"Terrorism" that never occurred prior to the "Go Globalists" gaining an ever increasing foothold in public offices in this country through the two mainstream political parties, and basically selling off vital U.S. industries and infrastructure to foreigners over the "global" exchange.

The economy they are truly concerned with - global industry and "foreigners" profit once again.

This additional troop surge amounts to a drop in the bucket, from this writer's perspective, since it would literally take agents linked arm in arm to secure those southern borders, and the costs in salaries and benefitis of those additional border agents which this Administration is hiring far exceeds that which would be necessary to construct the border fencing.

I mean esthetically pleasing titanium vehicle spikes about six feet high would definitely preclude those drug cartels from entering in their SUVs, and reduce significantly the hard core drugs and auto theft criminal activity tremendously.

And certainly could be made to look esthetically pleasing for those environmental wackos that believe in protecting nature as a priority, rather than the lives and property of their fellow Americans who have been victimized.

Sending out the Guard, in this writer's opinion, appears again to be another political tool and ploy, since Ms. Napolitano also was sent additional troops during the Bush years and yet the crime continued almost unabated.

I hope this time, at least, they will be able to use their guns - with buckshot if not bullets - to deter the criminal element and secure this nation's borders which should have been done after the Mexican American war, but at the very least immediately after 9-11 while this country remains "at war" due to a foreign massive attack - whether it could be classified at this point military or civilian.

Since those Guard members, due to those U.S. Mexico free trade agreements, were pretty much disempowered from actually securing the border in any meaningful way.

That was also while Ramos and Compean were being prosecuted for shooting a drug peddler in the rear, for which they received jail time while the foreigner got the American lawyers.

The timing of this announcement is suspect, while this Administration and Congress have also delayed funding for that fence under the Secure Fence Act, while providing instead billions to the local and state governments for upgrades for their computers, and spent massive amounts also on extra-Constitutional functions instead.

When providing for the common defense actually is the primary reason that the United States even has a federal government at all. I mean that WAS the reason that the Constitution even came to be, in order to protect and provide for the common defense of the states, and the state citizenry from foreign attack or invasion.

Be it militarily, or through attrition which is actually what is occuring in the lower 48.

Particularly those border states, which are being "assumed" by Mexico progressively in sending their citizens to this country to find work, and hopefully strengthen the Mexican economy at the cost of America's own if not eventually bring it economy down to that of Mexico's in its two class system.

What's to say that as soon as another amnesty style bill passes, as appears is the agenda here, that those troops then are once again removed in the interests of "budgetary reasons," while, again, sums are spent for political reasons most of all rather than Constitutional ones?

This Administration, as the last, has shown its true colors in continuing to play the "race card" on this issue inappropriately by and large.

After the Patriot Act, which is still for the most part on the books and the continued marginalization of the American public who are outraged at this point with their federal and state governments over its progressively unconstitutional focuses, does it not seem hypocritical for the Obama Administration and this Congress to attack Arizona's "new" law "national origin" profiling which also is one of its primary duties and functions, the protection of its lawful and legal citizens from foreign attacks or invasion?

Apparently that connection and out and out hypocricy has been lost by those on the Hill and our mainstream media in the interest of politics and ratings.

I'm sure to most Americans this little ditty will ring true, especially those Americans living in a border state who have lived there since the first Reagan amnesty under "Reaganomics," which primarily created this situation to begin with, along with continued federal and state negligence in carrying out their Constitutional functions regarding this issue:

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Washington Giving State Governments The Pink Slip?

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

With everything that has progressively occurred under the Bush and now Obama Administrations in the ever increasing Constitutional violations with respect to overstepping their proscribed duties and functions and being the intended "lesser" government with respect to the effects directly on the American people, I feel it is an important time to ask a very basic question:

When is Washington going to give the state governments the pink slip?

More and more federal mandates have come down the bureaucratic rabbit hole to the states now even to the point where seat belt laws and DUI traffic patrols are federally trained and funded. Local police services now are prioritized at the federal level, whether they be officers for Los Angeles or Des Moines.

Federal EPA standards on particulates are also federally mandated and apply to the Pittsburg steel manufacturers, Louisiana oil rigs, and Nebraska farms alike.

Since most states already fund programs for health care for those who are denied coverage by private insurers, or indigent or uninsurable for any reason, especially children under both federal and state funding by the taxpayers, just what is this health care reform movement all about anyway except in order to centralize more and more power in Washington, and less and less at the state and more local levels.

The government that is most responsive and in touch with the people is the one that is closer, not the "distant rule," which is why it was the states, not the federal government, that was intended to have the greater power with respect to domestic issues other than defense of this nation from foreign attack or invasion.

Which is the primary job it actually has not provided except in stimulating Silicon Valley and the science based "gadget" industry economy now eight long years after 9/11 in it continued refusal to still not protect with a physical deterrant our borders from the drug cartels, auto theft rings, or other foreign invaders compromising the citizenry and their safety, security and property.

Trials are now held nationally on the cable news networks before ever being placed before a jury for national consumption, all backed by federal grant monies as "educational" resources. The largest owner of America's media fare now consisting of Fox TV and Wall Street Journal is a former Brit, who merely became a U.S. citizen in order to buy up a portion of America's media for his own personal British style political forum, using sensationalized style of journalism in that country on politician, celebrity and average citizen alike. Unbridled hearsay and innuendos dished out 24 hours a day now for public consumption. The more sensationalized, the better.

The competition on the "other" cable stations and networks then responded in turn with "this just in" style reporting ad infinitum, and even when the market was speaking and cable news subscriptions were being cancelled right and left, effectively used fascist style lobbying and got Washington to pass the digital cable bill forcing Americans to carry their products whether they like it or not.

All presented with an air of "professionalism" and "respectability" using mostly former teachers or non-practicing lawyers as "news commentators" or "political analysts." Thus making due process and impartial trials consisting of peers of the accused in the state in which the crime was committed almost impossible in any capital or criminal proceeding in this country.

Truth and integrity in journalism has been replaced by tabloid journalism at even now the local news level fed by the Washington bureaus and affiliated stations which follow the same formats. Even down to the news anchors, clones of the national versions.

Banks and banking concerns in this country are incorporated at the state level. Washington stepped in and then "saved" numerous California domiciled banks, rather than those banks utilizing the formal bankruptcy process for the districts in which those banks were incorporated and outside Constitutional authority so to do.

Grabbing another state function and protection of the citizens, since formal bankruptcy proceedings are a matter of public record and involve accountability to the state in which they are located and which has authority over their commercial practices, since effectively there are no "national" banks anymore. Or at least none that are recognized at the federal level - although 3/4s of them are member branches of the Federal Reserve itself.

The states each session other than play acting balancing their states budgets (which never reflect federal sums received in those budgets) simply go through the motions of passing legislation that is now handed down by the feds, so much so that instead of being the intended barriers for the citizens against federal abuse, they are nothing more than agents of them.

Local and municipal governments are now under federal control and mandates, such as the DUI patrols, and now terrorism involved in the Ad Council advertising for the "Click It Or Ticket" campaigns.

And the Department of Homeland Security conducts training sessions for local patrol officers now in counter-terrorism through its Fusion Centers, and now even a local traffic stop in most communities is handled as if those officers might be dealing with a potential terrorist with guns or tazers drawn.

While, of course, Americas southern borders remain for the most part unfenced and unsecured.

So just when is Washington going to get around to handing out those pink slips, anyway? Or the states themselves finally acknowledging that they had long ago without the "consent of the governed" ceded their intended superior legal authority and power to the distant ruler, removing all pretense of the Republic this nation was intended to be, and to which we as Americans pledge our allegiance to. A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

The sums paid for those positions that are no more than middle management at this point would save the citizens a bundle in taxes and be a major stimulus on our economy, streamline the bureaucracy and overlap, and eliminate this charade of a Republic which has dissolved into nothing more than a Washington monarchy once and for all.

The Tories have taken over the Capitol. The British aren't just coming, they are already here America.