Roberts Rules of Constitutional Obliteration

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

And that's saying something.

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

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

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

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

Definition of PENALTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By its own edict...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make no mistake about it....

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

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

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

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

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

You can't have it both ways...

ObamaCare: The White Elephant Is Still In The Room

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

Nothing much has changed.

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

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

It desecrates it.

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

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

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

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

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

The big four.

Who will be the victims?

The American public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly.

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

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

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

Another banner year in legislation.

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

My question, though, is this...

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

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

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

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

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

The White Elephant lives on...still.

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

I hope that is also deliberated this week.

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

Capitalizing on Gabby: Giffords Interview Poses Questions

As a former long term Arizonan of 45 years, I just could not bring myself to watch the entire much publicized interview with Gabrielle Giffords, the Congresswoman from Tucson who was shot ten long months ago by a gunman in a Tucson grocery store parking lot along with six others who perished in the incident.

Why?

It was far too personal, and painful for me personally...

Ms. Giffords was not my representative, but from a state that I hold dear to my heart and in which I grew up in long ago when times were different, and things were much simpler.

She, too, is a native and long term Arizonan from the second largest city in Arizona, in the still wild and wooly west (if you speak to any Easterner, that is, who has never been there for any length of time other than possibly for rehab).

I had seen snippets of the interview, which Diane Sawyer seemed to publicize on every ABC affiliated program and station in the nation the past several weeks.

Gabby is courageous, that much is evident.

And still very much healing...

What I found totally unbelieveable is that this interview comes on the heals of a book that she supposedly "wrote" with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly.

Ms. Giffords has come a long way, but is still having a great deal of trouble with her speech, although is remarkably improved from where she has been to where she is now. But capable of even corroborating on a book, while continuing her intensive therapy?

I highly doubt it.

Not to mention the fact that most of the entire segment seemed geared also toward extolling the virtues of the medical profession and her somewhat unusual therapy for her traumatic brain injuries at TIRR Medical Center in Houston, Texas (which also just so happens to be the home of her husband, a non-Arizonan).

In Ms. Giffords present condition, though again remarkable, I just wonder how much she understood and consented to this interview, given her still healing brain function, and seemed she was once again being used clearly for a political agenda.

It is, after all, less than a year until the next major election, and the Supreme Court today "advised" the public that it would be hearing the lawsuits which have occurred in light of the passage of ObamaCare, and that dreaded and unconstitutional "mandatory" provision contained within it.

Gaining public support and sympathy prior to the hearing of that case, seems to be also a focus of both the medical profession (who will benefit ultimately) and also the politicians who sold out the American people with the passage of that provision and those founding fathers.

Gabby Giffords did vote for that bill, although is receiving care that will and is far exceeding that which would be given to any "regular" American citizen under some of those "low cost" health care plans marketed through those "co-ops" Mr. Obama envisions.

And in states such as Arizona, most of the "native" citizens have been paying for many of those hospital research grants, and also operating costs through their state property taxes, in addition to the monies they contribute to their state through the income tax, and also at the federal levels.

Here's to Ms. Giffords full and complete recovery, whenever that may be...

But let's hope that Diane Sawyer, and those media types leave her alone until then...and the politicians, lawyers and the Supreme Court start arguing their case for ObamaCare on Constitutional grounds.

On which, there really aren't any...

The Twilight Zone: Texas Man Gets Face Transplant

Today it was reported in the mainstream media that a young man injured in an industrial accident from Texas was given a full face transplant by a team of over 30 doctors in Boston.

The operation was funded by his father's insurance plan apparently and it was also reported that this surgery was made possible by the recent health care legislation which afforded him to remain under his father's health care plan until he reached the age of 26, and he was at the time of the surgery 25.

Not to go too far into the rather Twilight Zone surgical procedure that also was undertaken transplanting the face of one individual onto another (although the donor also remained nameless in the article), rather than applauding again this faulty legislation for what it is, a violation of our Constitution in its present form, maybe we could ask just why this young man had run out of options and benefits prior to this legislation to begin with?

It was reported he had had over 30 operations prior to this one, and his state indigent health care benefits had thus run out, although will qualify for Medicare when he turns 26. Although I for one was covered through an employer many years ago with dependent coverage so long as those dependents, my children, were still dependent for tax purposes and either going to school, or living at home, until age 25.

I wonder, what was the overall costs for those 30 operations, while most likely those corporate hospitals and medical facilities were getting their public grant monies also for the bulk of the sums for their operating costs and expenses?

Why was this surgery also not performed in a "fellowship" or teaching hospital, due to its rather experimental nature (less than a half dozen of these surgeries have been performed at this point throughout the world).

I for one heard the Twilight Zone theme in the background while reading this particular news story.

21st Century Health Care in America: Paying More, Getting Less?

With the ongoing challenges which are now being raised in many states throughout the nation regarding the recent passage of the Obama Administration's Health Care Reform Act, this boomer has watched the progression in health care delivery from the 1960's to today, and can truthfully say that while costs have exploded in those four decades, the degree of care for the American public overall has seen better days.

In order to reduce costs for many of the public and private health care clinics and hospitals, more and more Americans are not receiving the care they deserve, but what will reduce the bottom lines for the nationalized corporatized health care system that is predominant across the nation after Nixon's HMO legislation passed in the 60's. Many even public clinics and hospitals are now "owned" through various contracts by "private" corporate entities as they have become privatized, even after their initial building costs and research grants were funded by the American public.

Upon even emergency room visits, more and more patients are being seen initially by not medical doctors or those with advanced diagnostic degrees, but by physician's assistants or other support staff but at costs that far exceed those fees and charges in the past for trained physicians and without the expertise to accurately diagnose complex medical conditions.

Throughout many states, there are even signs posted at many of these emergency clinics and hospitals advising that they are not accepting new Medicare patients. Thus, the future for the boomers and their offspring at this point in America's history has not even begun to be addressed by those in Washington or at the state levels in just why health care costs have risen so out of proportion to the cost of living even though the entire HMO concept and "free market" privatized clinics were sold to the public in order to reduce costs and provide better care when that legislation was proposed back in the 60's.

Instead, it has resulted in numerous trips to several different doctors or providers in order to get accurate diagnosis, or physicians more geared toward treating the symptoms rather than the disease and using medications which many times create even more problems or different health issues in concert due to drug interactions and complications.

Changes are needed, but not the changes that Washington appears to be focused on in merely consulting the "stakeholders" in corporatized medicine. But the American public that is paying a larger share than ever before for their health care costs, both nonemergency and emergency.

How much of the health care dollars now provided by the taxpayers and insurers are now being earmarked for all those ads on television mostly directed toward choosing a hospital for maternity and childbirth needs? Or elective procedures?

Or advertising their facilities and services for non-English speaking patients for all those federal and state grant monies in providing care for non-citizens at the general public's ultimate expense? Or the increased costs in those ten to twenty page bills passed on to the public for those highly paid lobbyists at the state capitols and Washington?

It appears to this boomer in the end, the Health Care Reform Act is more similar to the mandatory auto insurance laws throughout the nation, with the same mindset and ultimate costs in increased taxation for all in passing on governmental functions, such as the settlement of property claims, or life and death issues to the financial sector, banks and insurers who will be more concerned with THEIR bottom lines and business needs, rather than quality of care.

I mean, unlike mandatory auto insurance, an unpaid or disallowed claim has a greater likelihood and much higher percentage of eventually ending in death or bankruptcy rather than a fender bender so the analogy used in order to include that "mandatory" provision left much out in regulating both those costs, and the provision and most likely will also then, as with the insurance laws, end up again costing the taxpaying public more in providing all the courts that will be needed in order to address those "breach of contract" or "wrongful death" actions.

Progress in this area, as with it appears so many others in the new millineum to many Americans, just may come at a much greater cost than even in those Nixon years.

And it appears to this boomer that the great Health Care Reform Act just may become the precursor to the Great Health Care AND Bank bailout of 2025 or sooner, when this patient dies.

Posturing Republicans To Reverse Obamacare?

On the "high" tide of the Republican victory re-establishing themselves as the voice of the House (and, by inference, then the people although clearly those corporate special interests rather that financed that Citizens United case), it was declared that the first order of business would be to reverse that monumental Constitutional faux pas of the Democratic controlled Congress, Obamacare.

Right.

And bite the hand that actually feeds them?

Although only two Senators "officially" voted for Obamacare in order to get it through and made into "law," clearly that political move was seen by most Independents, and the non-corporate affiliated Tea Party members even for what it was.

Pure politics.

After all, Nixon was sitting in the Oval Office when the disastrous HMO concept was hatched in order to purportedly save the American people a bundle on both their insurance costs, and their out of pocket health care costs.

That, of course, didn't happen.

Instead, there is now a chain of command and numerous individuals who get a part of those insurance proceeds before you even get a diagnosis, in many cases, or treated for the malady that ails you in most of those "clinics."

With the staff of those clinics now also billing according to the amount of time each doctor spends with you, and also for filling out all those lengthy and numerous now insurance forms.

Instead of one, they now get to bill for three or four for your average physical.

Obamacare simply has increased the "corporate" control over patient care, and also the eventual costs to the public when those that are now homeless and jobless cannot pay for those even "cut rate" co-op plans that were put forth as bait in order to simply quell the outraged public and masses.

Those global and national "chains" of hospitals and health care providers have been given carte blanche over the American people's future health, especially the upcoming boomer generation, again without even a minimum of oversight or regulation other than a few "foreign" lackeys in Washington and "yes men," for their administrative decisions depending on their occupancy, budgets, and shareholders needed profit margins.

There definitely was a reason that "privatized" hospitals also were not the intent of those founders, but state and county hospitals and faith based primarily donor supported facilities.

Lower costs overall, since no shareholder profits or "advertising" expenses were needed in those budgets. And those expenses add plenty to that final bill.

And not to be a doom and gloom pessimist, but having recently experienced a three year ordeal in just how progressive and major illnesses are now treated under Medicare, can only wonder just what "cut rate" health care for the boomers will be like.

I mean, we have stepped up these death row executions within the past few years in most states throughout the nation, testing all those new lethal injection drugs on those prisoners as was recently done in Arizona using a British made drug that has been in use in this country since the 1920's (sodium pentathol), but somehow during that highly publicized event, we were "out?"

Those DNR forms also are getting attached to most admissions forms upon emergency treatment when Americans reach a certain age, so I wonder just what will happen if some of those mega-health care providers need that bed instead for a lucrative, elective plastic surgery?

And most of the boomer generation have paid far longer, and much more than the previous generations for the building of those hospitals and clinics, in both the state and federal grant monies extended to them for their building, operating and research costs through both their "income" taxes, and also their state property taxes in most states throughout the nation.

It was interesting to note a recent article that even some of the faith based hospitals are excited about ObamaCare, since it makes the value of those hospitals, built with public donations mind you, so much more valuable for them to sell to the highest "global" bidder.

Doctors are now performing for many procedures, assembly line operations for heart disease and other common degenerative diseases due to age, six and seven before even lunch.

Between ObamaCare, that carbon tax, and the foreclosure mess the Republicans certainly won't have to concern themselves much with their platform positions on the "death tax."

The boomers won't have anything left at all, when they face those DNR forms.

And this particular generation may have the shortest life span of all, for those "global" profits.

And AARP its lowest membership in their decades long history also progressively.

No wonder they start sending out those enrollment forms at 50.

Michael Moore and Larry King Spin on Chilean Rescue, Deepwater

Although I personally watch little television and haven't for quite a number of years with the exception of the weather channel, I was visiting one of those all night markets for a few items and while walking through the electronics department caught about five minutes of an interview Michael Moore had on Larry King last evening.

The short segment I viewed had them discussing the recent rescue of the Chilean miners after 69 days, and all the celebrating that is going on throughout the world on the rescue and positive outcome, and efforts of all those involved.

A monumental moment, that's for sure, given the number of days in which they were trapped.

But then Mr. Moore went on to somehow compare the rescue to the efforts taken during the Deepwater Horizon disaster in Louisiana, and how long it took "us" to plug a seven inch hole, far longer than it took the Chilean government to rescue these trapped workers.

I had to laugh, really, about the comparison and also the "blame" which was levied leaving out much again of just what did occur post-Deepwater.

After all, it didn't take "us" longer to plug that hole, it took the British that long.

Since the entire cleanup and resulting ramifications were transferred by the Obama Administration to that huge global British corporation, with the Coast Guard merely acting mostly as backup and liason on the repair and cleanup efforts. And yes, it certainly did take longer since there really wasn't much of an incentive for the British to plug that hole very rapidly.

Instead, they got permission to drill two MORE wells under those lease agreements with the U.S. government renegotiating the terms in the process of their "take" of America's offshore mineral reserves (while we continue to fight the major battles in the Mideast for the British and European's future oil needs most of all, in addition to continuing to search for bin Laden?).

This is the country whose National Health Care plan Mr. Moore couldn't lavish enough praise and attention to in one of his most recent political docudramas, and how much superior it is to the U.S. in its coverage and affordability.

In a country that has one of the highest tax burdens, and for which many of their citizens have sought citizenship in this country in order to escape. Or Greenland even.

Including my own grandparents back in the 1920's.

With, of course, Larry nodding in agreement at what a mess "we" made of Deepwater.

Which was, after all, the second "accident" by this British global corporation involving the loss of American lives.

While, of course, downplaying in his political docudrama the enormous waits that most of the Canadians also have for non-emergency procedures in their own country under their "better" taxpayer funded plans, who have also been immigrating to the U.S. by the score in the last few decades, at least in the Sunbelt states owning second homes there while being almost full time residents (except those ghastly months of June, July and August when they are on holiday elsewhere somewhat cooler or more temperate, due to their higher currency).

I applaud the Chilean government on a job well done, although do wonder if such were the case in this country, since Canadian and South African companies own the majority of the gold mines in the U.S. (with the U.S. the third country in production after Australia and South Africa - so first our oil, now our gold mineral rights have been outsourced!)...

Just how many more days in such an event would it take for either of those British or formerly British countries global corporations to rescue any trapped American miners?

If Deepwater is any indication of British know-how or priorities?

But then again, I did only watch a very small segment of the program so maybe they got to that later on...

This is not to say also the U.S. health care system is not a mess, but then as what was evident in what recently occurred also in that respect, it doesn't appear the "stakeholders" that were consulted by the Obama Administration for this health care reform had really reform in mind, other than reforming the amount of their "stake" with those new health care mandates and taxes through the backdoor - with absolutely no regulation over those health care costs, or some of these huge megacorporate health care systems and practices in any manner whatsoever.

And although the increasingly bankrupted American people and "market" have been and are continuing to speak out over both their now "British" tax bites, and health care costs, it doesn't seem the Washington "stakeholders" are listening.

I mean, the entire HMO and "corporatized" health care legislation ala Richard Nixon has simply increased costs, not decreased them, so I just wonder also about the much ballyhooed Internet markets and "new" co-op "cheaper" plans which were thrown around in order to placate the masses with this "deform" and just how effective those will be, rather than simply just another "jobs creation" bill at the general public's ultimate expense for the financial sector and medical conglomerates once again.

Obama On Road Trips For DNC?

Apparently, post the Obamanation of the Health Care Deform Act and fallout which has and continues to occur over that massive Constitutional violation of the citizenry in their Bill of Rights protections against "mandatory" laws such as the provisions in this one provides, Mr. Obama is hitting the road again on one of his many road trips in order to sell his deformed version of health care reform, and protect the careers of his fellow political party members.

It was announced by the APP that Mr. Obama is now sweeping the country holding meetings with small businesses in order to point out the benefits of this latest travesty on our Constitution, stopping for a weekend meet and greet on behalf of the DNC for his political parties benefit.

Apparently, using time as President in order to campaign and meet with his political parties corporate organization on behalf of his parties membership is not precluded while serving in office.

He is paid more than a full time salary, after all, especially with all those benefits, not a part-time one.

Although the DNC I would assume is picking up the costs for Mr. Obama's travel expenses, he is campaigning on their behalf at the expense of all the American people, however, Republicans, Democrats or Independents, since he is paid his salary from all those taxes which are collected from the American people and which it appears he and the 111th Congress don't feel is enough to sustain the federal trough.

Especially that House of Misrepresentatives, since the violations of the Senate, as representatives of the "states" interests, put them in conflict in many respects on Bill of Rights issues to begin with - since the state's interests many times can be diametrically opposed to those provisions also in the Bill of Rights for state revenue and gain at the cost of the general citizenry.

Such as what is increasingly occurring today. Corporate interests over American's "unalienable" rights progressively.

I hope those small business owners give him an earful, since this bill has absolutely no benefits to those owners in that piddly tax credit he is attempting to focus on if those employers will tow the federal government's line and provide health care benefits to their employees.

That credit is most likely less than it will be for the costs to provide those plans to their employees at their current levels.

And I wouldn't hesitate to guess, will be reduced over the course of years also if history is any indication of Washington's methods of bribery and extortion.

Which costs were what the problem was to begin with actually, which has been lost in the "process" and politicking.

Right now small businesses, and all businesses, get to deduct the costs of any health care insurance premiums from their overhead, thus inherently reduce their tax burdens in the process.

What should have happened is that the American public and sole proprietors should also be afforded that "privilege" and immunity, and all Americans should be able to deduct the expense of any monies spent on their medical care. Whether it be by insurance premiums and their costs, or directly to those physicans and hospitals for the amounts of those deductibles and uncovered expenses.

If you are placing a tax on labor illegally as that 16th Amendment provides, then any and all expenses in order to stay and remain productive throughout your lifetime in any way absent death, should be tax deductible.

I mean an elderly person in a nursing home until their last moment of life is still productive, in even educating their nearest and dearest in family history, if nothing else.

Work doesn't always equal compensation, in God's definition, since his Son carried out his work without monetary compensation whatsoever, for the most part.

It's apparent those in Washington have either entirely too much time on their hands for all the bogus legislation which now is coming down the pike, some of which even overlapping existing legislation in many respects, or have lost their ways on what their true priorities should be.

And do seem to have forgotten that their primary purposes are delineated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Give him an earful, small business owners.

And ask for the breakdown of all the expenses and hours expended on behalf of the Democratic Party, which are also being billed to the taxpayers ultimately, rather than being at his desk according to the federal holiday schedule for the Easter break and holiday.

Since it seems he started his vacation a little early in order to stump on behalf of his political party honchos and constituents now doing damage control for them, the DNC, and why he now deigns to meet with you "non-stakeholders" at all.

And this goes for all those U.S. Senators and Congressmen now attempting to do use this deform bill also as a political tool and campaign issue.

Since just where were all of them when this legislation was being hatched behind those closed doors, rather than filing the criminal charges and directing that Sargeant at Arms to earn his pay by arresting those who were behind this heinous legislation in its current form which is clearly contrary to the provisions of America's actual law, the Constitution?

Drawing their straws, or speed dialing their marketing and political strategists ala Karl Rove (also paid at the taxpayer's expense) for their own personal damage control marketing strategies?

I wonder where this country would have been if Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln had political strategist or media marketing representatives?

Perish the thought.

Oh, wait. Isn't that where we are?

Hutaree Militia Group Christian?

Much has been published in the last few days on the mainstream media regarding the purportedly "Christian" military group, Hutaree, which was planning an anti-government attack on some Michigan police officers in order to facilitate a "revolution" in this country in the name of Christ.

As a Christian myself, I would hasten to disagree that this group is either Christian, nor acting in the name of Christ.

Christ was, after all, nonviolent with the exception of his attack on the moneylenders in the Jewish Temple who were desecrating the Temple grounds with their greed and avarice on holy days especially. His attack came this very week in the Christian calendar, and lead, of course, to his eventual cruxifiction.

He was attacking the unGodly principles of those within his own faith who were abusing the masses for their own profit most of all in overcharging on currency conversions for the required tithing sums toward support of the Temple and the Temple priests.

Roman coins had been deemed unacceptable by the Sanhedrin, and thus had to be converted to acceptable currency prior to making those donations from those whose other property sacrifices (such as crops or animal sacrifices) did not meet Jewish law in this respect during Passover.

It is also interesting that these arrests and this story came at a time, once again, when the general citizenry have become increasingly outraged with the goings on in Washington, particularly over the latest unconstitutional taxation on the masses, the Health Care Deform bill which was purportedly signed into law by Mr. Obama, along with other unrelated legislation which was included in that massive bill.

Most Americans are quite aware that fining the public for not purchasing one of the financial industries products, health care insurance, does smack of tyranny and also clearly a "taking" of the public's property without "due process" of law.

Since, of course, none of those now serving on the Hill were in any way duly elected, now that campaign contributions have been afforded them by their own legislation, and recent support of the Supreme Court "legalizing" funding outside their legislative districts - which is against the very fabric of a representative government as the founders created to begin with.

The market was speaking, and the costs of those policies and terms were not affordable or within the reach of many of the boomer generation especially due to the high profit margins those financial sector insurers require in order to feed their stockholders, and also their executives and lobbyists (and, of course, those unduly "elected" candidates).

Regulation was what was called for here of those global and national insurers of their products and rate increase models and structures, and some protection of those stockholders also in the compensation packages for those executives which also impacted their investment in some of those companies. And regulation of just what additional financial products or the degree of risks those insurers could spend those public monies and premiums on.

With Washington charged to regulate national and global commerce one of their delineated duties, not get into bed with them at the general citizenry's expense.

None of those Constitutional focuses were included, or any protection of the public over the costs and annual adjustments on those premiums and the impact which those insurers have over their very lives in fulfilling the terms of those policies when sick, ill or injured, merely a gesture in prohibiting refusals of coverage, but without even addressing the costs once again those higher risk individuals would be required to pay, or be fined by Washington for their disobedience with this "law."

And which practice is already prohibited by the laws of many of the several states to begin with, although many still afford those interstate and intrastate insurers to dictate waivers for much of the public for any and all "pre-existing conditions" which is defined as involving treatment within the five year period prior to application.

Affording outside "foreign" interests then to taint then the voices of their true constituency such as what occurred with this legislation, and giving then special interests, corporately or otherwise, domiciled or living outside legislative districts of those running for office an unequal voice in both the election process, and legislation now progressively.

Corporate personhood wasn't enough of an abridgement of the Constitution and Bill of Rights protections meant to protect the few (the citizens) from the masses (the corporate), what we have here is now a corporate takeover of America, and a global corporate takeover at that by even some non-U.S. domiciled corporations, such as AIG.

In other words, those that have the bucks (or claim corporate bankruptcy for campaign reinbursement expenses) are now calling the shots, as was apparent also from Mr. Obama's consultation with the "stakeholders" for this most recent travesty.

And why this group's site was a .com site if it was a politically focused organization and not a .org site is also beyond me. It appears the site was created in 2006, and then lapsed for a time, and was renewed once again then in 2009.

I have many questions about this purported planned "attack" also, since it does seem to me clearly that politically those in high places have a vested interest in publicizing for the masses stories such as these (although the charges actually can only be those of "intent" since no true "crime" was carried out or committed it would seem), since that bogus Homegrown Terrorist Act was passed by the House of Misrepresentatives back in 2006 (which has not, to my knowledge, even been passed by the Senate, and thus does not even have the force of law fundamentally to begin with).

Seems there could be some self-interest of the government going on here in highly publicizing these purported "crimes of intent" at this point, don't you think?

Now placing the local police and police forces on higher alert just perhaps may be the ultimate aim here, in facilitating a divisive citizenry for their own self-protection post this most recent legislation, or in order to once again justify some of the recent heinous legislation which continues to violate those "unalienable" rights those founders were attempting to protect from such violative acts as this past week once again.

And it would appear that those moneylenders of old, just may be recycling their selfish and unbiblical view of "the law" in reinstituting usury upon the masses in this country again for those bankers and moneylenders profits, which have no Godly precept to begin with.

The charging of usury is forbidden in all religions, however, the interpretation differs and therein lies the rub.

Christians and Muslims believe it is prohibited to charge urusy to anyone, whereas the Jewish faith believes it is a directive that onlhy applies to other Jews. Hence, that was why the Romans put the Jews in charge of moneylending to begin with within the Jewish subsociety, however, those charged with such duties and the Temple priests who were the beneficiaries turning a blind eye to what was occuring progressively in Biblical times as is happening today was what precipitated Christ's attack then on the Temple grounds.

The Jewish moneylenders were charging usury against other Jews against Mosaic law to his people.

And insofar as I have been able to research, those beliefs still remain which was why the British government way back when and the Church of England put the Jewish immigrants to that country in charge of lending and collection of taxes, transferring the Church's historic authority prior to the Middle Ages over moneylending once again back to the Jews.

And usury is any sum over the tithing rate of 10% with respect to banking and moneylending, or taxation.

It is the government and banks continuing in the practice of usury that is actually bankrupting now this country and its citizenry across the board. State and federal taxes now are over usury of most Americans tax home pay after deductions, and then on what they use their wages then on to buy with the state and federal taxes levied combined on purchases also in addition.

Americans are buying less, because they can't afford to buy since Big Daddy and their state governments have now become so greedy, and the bankers which are even holding those sums for future purchases with their fees and costs factored in just to have a bank account or use that little piece of plastic anymore.

Or to buy a home with all those up front junk fees and costs, and escalating terms - nothing more than usury again.

And the name for this group is more similar to "Hatari," that 1960's John Wayne movie, or "Atari" the video game company, than having any Aramaic or Christian basis, it appears.

I wonder if this is another job stimulus for the civil rights lawyers, in criminalizing intent now, since they are being represented by public defenders and a civil rights defense would be most likely the basis of the defense, and thus the state public defenders office eligible for federal monies for their local coffers for this case.

Call me a cynic, but much is rotten in Washington, that much is clear, and most of the state governments increasingly since that also unconstitutional 16th Amendment was passed changing the balance of power which made them more and more dependent on federal monies also due to their excesses, and increasing discretionary expenditures at the cost of funding those duties for which they truly are charged to provide under their state constitutions.

And Michigan is one of those states, thanks to Mr. Obama's layoff of a great many of those auto workers and plant closures, due to all the outsourcing which has also gone unrestrained of the U.S. industrial base, that has been impacted by these Obamanations and this Congress as with the Bush Administration, in its tax and spend philosophies this past year progressively.

There certainly seems to be a good many questions with respect to this incident that seems would bear further research of all Americans.

Obama On Image Rebuilding Tour Of Afghanistan?

Am I the only American that found it interesting that as soon as the ink was dried on the most controversial, and egregious unconstitutional taxation law against the American people since FDR, Mr. Obama immediately went on an "unscheduled" visit to Afghanistan in a highly publicized meeting with the U.S. troops still stationed there now nine long years after 9-11.

Could this just possibly be an image tour created by Mr. Obama's marketing team in order to deflect attention from the travesty of this past two weeks, and also hope to gain a little support from those independent vote casting Baggers that still support the war in its present form, absent any real focus on capturing Osama bin Laden as occurred with the Bush Administration?

Much was made of this trip, a "surprise" one at that.

And much hype publicized over Mr. Obama's speech to the troops asking them to "perservere" and using the flag and patriotism once again with the "Americans don't quit" jargon for these men and women, some of which are on their third or fourth tours of duty, with no end to this war yet in sight.

Nor any real focus on bin Laden whatsoever.

Gracious accolades were also heaped upon the American people by the Afghanistan government, thanking all the taxpayers for funding the rebuilding efforts there for those government contractors that are rebuilding Afghanistan now from the ground up after the American invasion post 9-11.

Before, of course, the focus was shifted to Iraq and Saddam Hussein's past transgressions on the guise that he was harboring Taliban members and was friendly toward Al Qaeda.

Seems to me the consensus of those on the Hill that spend their hours devising political strategy and maneuvers (which are also paid by the American taxpayers) in advising our leaders in ways to skirt around the Constitution for political party and individual governmental officials campaign benefits most of all, must have advised Mr. Obama after the absolute desecration of the United States Constitution this health deform legislation engenders, to "get outta Dodge."

And wave the flag with the troops for the folks back home until things cool down.

Do you think?

Is ObamaCare Really Law?

With all the fallout which has occurred since Sunday and the Health Care Deform legislation supposedly signed into law by Barack Obama on Tuesday, and with the two mainstream political parties attempting to continue to milk this egregious legislation for their future political purposes for all it is worth, the fact that this law may not be law at all has failed to get any significant press in any of the mainstream news sources, or even those talking heads on national television whether affiliated with Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. organization (Fox), Turner television or GE controlled sources.

In the educated opinion of this writer, all theatrics and representations to the contrary, I would state this Act of Congress is questionably law at all, whether or not Mr. Obama has signed it, or whether or not these bogus Congressionally created "procedures" such as "reconciliation" (whatever that is) were followed to the letter.

Since any "law" passed that doesn't have a Constitutional foundation at its outset, or in any of its provisions, is really no law at all.

And Executive Orders, as most educated Americans also know, do not also carry the force of law, they are simply directives of the President to the Executive office employees and regulatory agencies which are not immuned also from Constitutional provisions with respect to validity or legality.

Using Executive Orders to legitimate illegitimate legislation is also something that is increasing with each "progresssive" Administration.

This has been the new game on the Hill consistently for about the past 50 years.

Pass an unconstitutional law, get it signed and announced as legitimate using national news sources, and then use it in the future also for political partisan fodder and for election purposes when those budgets come through from the regulatory offices then charged with enforcing these "nonlaws" in the Appropriations Committee.

Such as also all these Fusion Centers being funded under the Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, which continues to be funded through the Appropriations Committee, but which has not been passed by one branch of Congress, nor even signed by the Executive since it also clearly in a great many of its provisions targeting the American citizens is fundamentally unconstitutional.

While then also using federal mandates then to also hold the states hostage to some of these mandates, and then in shifting the burden for execution of these NonActs to the states, leaving them then liable for the outfall and lawsuits which then subsequently ensue.

Or if not using the states to execute these mandates under threats of removal of funding for Constitutional functions, using the Supreme Court instead to use legalese such as "public policy" and "state's interests", and the newest one, holding with a "living Constitution" in order to also attempt to legalize laws which have absolutely no Constitutional foundation whatsoever.

Below is the actual proof that such is the case, and with those mandatory fines still included in this bill in its present form, when it is even questionable the federal government had any inherent right to wade into these waters absent using that Commerce Clause to do its actual job, regulate those national and global health care industry vipers and also hold them accountable for unexplained increases in their rates and terms rather than throwing the citizenry to the wolves once again without oversight.

From the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions including recognizing the needed consent of the people and the states per the 9th and 10th for all matters outside federal authority for any future amendments to it, is the defacto law of the land, and a contract between the federal government, state government and the people.


Section 256. Generally.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]

A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]

The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]

An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]


The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.

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.

Spin, Deflect, Distract: Health Care Deformers Pull Out All The Stops

As the witching hour approaches on the health care deform measures that are not at all being legislated at the will or desire of the majority of the American people in its current form (without any regulation over the health care industry and sector, but rather backdoor additional taxation on all Americans in one form or another), the distract, deflect and spins cycles are getting wider and deeper, and the wagons are circling.

It was reported by FOXNews (that "fair and balanced" mainstream commercial news organization) that two Black legislators (or African American in this era's venacular, but a different label was preferred up until about 15 years ago when hyphenated descriptives for Americans using countries of origins hadn't yet come into vogue, although I don't call myself a "European American") were harassed by protestors in Washington who hurled some politically incorrect verbiage as they were walking to the House floor for a vote.

Now, I would not say that the word of most Congressional members at this point is something that approximately 85% of the American people would put any stock in whatsoever. And it doesn't appear there were any unbiased eyewitnesses to this occurrence.

Seems we use the race card more and more indiscriminantly, especially when it comes to contentious legislation, and public policy rather than Constitutional provision.

Much was made by one of the legislators likening the abuse he apparently was subjected to as similar to that which he experienced as a protestor during the civil rights movement.

It is strange that what is ocurring right now in this country both over the border issue and illegal immigrant "rights," the swine flu "outbreak" and now this health care deform harkened back to the 60's and 70's.

Only the stakes are getting progressively higher, without any Constitutional basis for them actually whatsoever, so this is not progressive at all - it is actually regressive.

Regressing into a monarchial style of government even those federalists would be apalled over.

It seems history does repeat itself, but this analogy was actually too much for this 60's boomer, since what is occurring now has nothing to do with equal rights of all AMERICANS in employment and educational opportunities most of all, but a backdoor taxation on the public, many of whom are jobless and homeless at this point in the worst recession this country has seen since the Depression, also manipulated by this past Administration and Congress, and this new/old one, since it appears the agendas of the Bush Administration with respect to the war, illegal immigrants, etc., is steaming right along at the behest of the true power beneath the dome, the financial sector and globalist world bankers.

The two party system is what is broken here, and using such political tools and weapons against the masses who are justifiably upset that it was the "stakeholders" that were consulted on this legislation, and the people's true outrage at the escalating costs of health care, and "corporatization" of it since Nixon which has resulted in even lowered birth survival rates with stories such as this one just goes to show the bag of tricks of those Misrepresentatives on the Hill knows no bounds.

A comment was also made with respect to the analogy that one of these Congressmen had never heard of "freedom for the uninsured" or a campaign against MediCare. Say what?

Such a statement is truly incredible the total bending of the Constitution in order to justify somehow the unjustifiable.

I have news for this Congressman also as one of those boomers, Medicare had more than its share of detractors for just such reason as are being brought forth in this new legislation.

There was absolutely no regulation included over the health care providers that were to be the recipients of those backdoor taxes insofar as provision of care. And in fact, there are more and more doctors now refusing to take new Medicare patients for just such reason, lots of paperwork and dictating actually also just what level of treatment is even covered, since alternative treatments which even may be cheaper or less invasive are not MediCare friendly, and most of those benefits get eaten up by the time all those numerous referrals are done simply to get a diagnosis on most elder care - and that would also appear to be behind this new legislation also.

MediCare is broken also, due to its restrictive nature on the types of treatments which are even available, some of whice are lower than those which MediCare does cover. Such as degenerative spinal disorders or other bone and joint problems which are frequently the case for older Americans, which can be treated outside surgical procedures.

Paring down in this legislation also MediCare benefits, forcing more and more of those upcoming boomer retirees to purchase additional insurance just to even have catastrophic health care from those supplemental providers seems to also be part of this disasterous feeding of Wall Street once again on the backs of the American people now for their very lives and health.

But to use the "race" card once again, is getting so, so old to many Americans. Especially connected to legislation such as this.

And also the untruthful statement with respect to those objecting, since it does seem that those who have a problem with this legislation in its current form, and see it for really what it actually is, cross all races and political philosphies.

And if being held accountable by your constituents, the American people no matter what the color, is similar to the walk to Selma, I guess that oath of office meant to hold accountable all civil servants just might not have been clearly understood.

All those free lunches aside mean you are not Joe Private Citizen any longer, but servants of the people, and the people are speaking loud and clear, and they are the ones doing the protesting this time for their very lives.

But FOX and these two Congressmen certainly know how to sensationalize, since this little incident became net news instanteously in attempts to place another sensationalized story and issue in order to shift the focus, once again, which seems to be also the MO on contentious debate and ratings generators for these media moguls who are also part and parcel of the ever increasing garbage coming out of Washington.

And as more than a few Americans have asked, just wonder where both these Congressman can quote that the federal government has any authority whatsoever to give "privileges and immunities" to one segment of the population corporately over another, and mandate that Americans must buy a "product," which health insurance is since it is "commercial."

Very commercial, actually, and very lucrative for all the lawyers, lobbyists, legislators, and looters, such as AIG, where their true job and function is to be regulators of commercial corporate entities (national and global ones particularly, with the states to regulate those commercial corporations operating within strictly state borders under the separation of powers contained in that Constitution as also the intent of the founders for a republican government).

I mean, doesn't this simply mean that Congress is more like a marketing department for the health care industry and their profits, or Wall Street PR men, rather than representatives of the people and their representatives and employees increasingly rather than those living within their legislative districts, their true constituents?

I wonder if these two Congressmen hold any health care sector stocks?

Since it appears to me that this entire last six months has been a study in political spins, deflections and distractions by both of those mainstream political parties - and if the vote goes as has been the case historically with the Cap & Trade, and other unconstitutional legislation, I just wonder who is drawing the short straws this time, and just bet a great deal of these backroom negotiations has to do with bargaining between the Congressional members insofar as just who is, and who is not, going to take the fall come next election, and who has the most credibility to weather the storms to come (such as Mr. Stupak's posturing on the abortion nonissue for the folks back home, since federally funded abortions have been the standard throughout the country since Planned Parenthood went into the abortion business along with its family planning birth control education for lower income Americans and young families as far back as the early 80's).

And what is really incredible is that this vote would be taken on a Sunday to begin with. A day that actually is a holiday for even legislators, and appears that in so doing once again Washington is asserting its sovereignty over the entire foundation of this country's government.

The Creator mentioned and recognized by those founders as the giver of those "unalienable rights," and not government, political parties, or erstwhile rogue Congressmen and women.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/20/health-care-protesters-hurl-verbal-epithets-african-american-lawmakers/

Ms. Pelosi: Stop Preaching And Do Your Job

On network news again this morning, the erstwhile Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was hogging the media in order to once again preach to the American public about the health care deform legislation that she and her political party are backing which is clearly simply another nonconsensual backdoor tax on the American people in its current form.

Especially by continuing to include those "mandatory" provisions, and fees and fines and extortion if those in this country who cannot afford it at its current levels, or even due to the fact that so many are now jobless and homeless by this and the prior Administration's industry favoring legislation, be able to afford it at any level.

No recognition or media coverage has pointed out the fact that all Americans are and have been actually supporting the health care and medical community for decades with their tax dollars, yet upon any treatment getting little, if any, recognition of all those publicly funded grants at the state, local and federal level that most of them receive since Nixon's "corportization" of the health care sector way back when.

Including even zoning and building fees and costs for a great many of those massive global and national hospitals and health care networks.

Better yet, Ms. Pelosi, how about you and those other 434 rogue Congressmen start actually doing your jobs, and change the focus to where it Constitutionally and truly belongs.

Regulating most of those national and global health care vipers sufficiently, and rescinding that bogus Act of Congress that was passed actually also precluding the states from so doing as a power move and play for those on the Hill and their corporate backers post Nixon?

3/4's of these health care providers, hospitals, and teaching institutions receive federal and state grant monies at the public's expense, yet Americans are forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (and their unaffiliated employers) to carry this industry. Most of those hospitals and medical providers refuse to even give "good faith" estimates prior to treatment for non-emergency measures to begin with.

And a good many of them overcharge so that their take of the Medicare proceeds continues to escalate, rather than bearing any relationship whatsoever nationwide in the true cost of health care in this country.

Especially since many of those doctors now are also getting federal grant monies for their educations, or we are now outsourcing more and more to doctors who either are not Americans (such as the great many East Indian doctors now practicing in this country) or were educated free of charge at some of America's foremost medical colleges and universities.

With all the money going to medical research now also, are the costs of development of those new procedures and high tech gadgetry also being credited to the American public who paid for most of those procedures development?

The entire focus of this legislation is a**backward, in my and a great many Americans opinions, and Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Obama's posturing appears to now be "preaching to the choir," and a "choir" that is, from the tone throughout the country on this legislation progressively getting more and more outraged, and about to bring out those nooses.

Maybe also it would be nice if these press conferences would stop, and members start scrutinizing more and more of the past legislation that has lead to the "crisis" we are now facing.

Like bailing out all these industries at the public's expense, while the public then is raped on the personal level further when they engage their services (such as the increases now in bank fees and charges that are occurring nationwide, and 'creative" lending policies of those banks for mortgages getting even more outrageous - since a great many of those original loans in the West and Southwest for refinances or new home purchses weren't even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates).

Or the progressively lawyer industry favoring laws which have enriched a great many of the members of the Bar in the removal of punitive damage lids throughout the nation on medical malpractice claims and those even legitimate losses, and then costs for all those lawyers now employed by the health care sector that are also paid with those premium dollars in that totally unregulated industry which is actually simply another branch of the government itself - since all lawyers are inherently members of the judicial branch and have a monopoly also due to local court rules and regulations on it - since even what might be deemed small claims matters on some of these losses in coverages and benefits become civil and not small claims actions at higher costs.

Hogging air time to present your case isn't working on a public that has less and less trust that its representatives represent anyone other than their own self-interests.

And from most of the citizen media based websites, it does appear to me that either many Americans are unaware of just how much of their tax dollars are already going to subsidize the health care industry and sector, or are actually Canadians or Mexicans that hope that they will get in on better health care subsidized by the American people than their socialized plans in their own countries - or at least coverage then in the event they have some medical emergency while in this country for their "part time" residency status, with free health care nearby rather than having to return to their own countries for treatment.

Since, of course, a good many Canadians live in either those northern border states, or the American West and Southwest as retirees on a part time basis, or with second homes due to their better currency rates, and as then non-American taxpayers, would get that free ride for their care claiming "temporary resident" or "emergency" treatment status.

A good half the posters on most of those sites supporting this abridgement of the U.S. Constitution actually are Canadian bloggers and writers.

Which just goes to show it is appeasement once again of foreigners on the backs of Americans that is somewhat responsible for this push for this legislation, rather than at the demand of the American people at all other than the public's outrage at the escalating costs, pressuring a Congress to actually do their jobs and their "regulatory" functions on this massive industry that has gone for far too long without any regulation actually whatsoever, while being funded by and large by an American public who are watching the health care standards and even infant mortality rates decline by the year in favor of "profit" over "delivery."

Since Nixon, actually, and that entire bogus health maintenance organization concept and global corportization of the health care industry was sanctioned by that erstwhile Congress way back when, where it now takes visits to five or six doctors in order to simply get a diagnosis - that is if your "referring physician" feels it is in the corporate best interest to so do.

There are now as many levels in health care provision in this country, as there is in government.

Which has also contributed to where we are today.

Health Care Deform: Taxpayers Already Fund Elective Abortions

With all the smoke and mirorrs occurring in this horrendously unconstitutional Health Care Deform of the Obama Administration, it has not ceased to amaze me the propaganda and political spins that are occurring as this abridgement of the founders government once again is being hashed out behind closed doors.

Republicans and Democrats are posturing and using this as a political tool for future election purposes, apparently, in basically taking exception to any federal funding that may occur that would fund abortions in this country under this legislation.

I've got news for you, America, the political manure is getting deeper and deeper, with the media actually buying into this also, apparently.

Planned Parenthood, at its inception back in the 1970's, was incorporated as an "educational" foundation which primarily provided birth control for those that could not afford it when the Pill was finally approved by the FDA and available to the public.

The costs at that time for those monthly prescriptions was more than most lower income, or younger Americans could afford (about $30.00 per month back in the 1970's, or $1.00 per pill), and was the original focus of this "non-profit" organization - providing birth control to lower income females in this country and "education" in family planning for young familes.

That is not the case any longer. Planned Parenthood is supported by many corporation organizations at this point, although its "legal" status as an education foundation has not changed insofar as the IRS is concerned or now its expansion also into providing low cost abortions as part of its family planning focus.

And with an "educational" focus, does qualify for federal grant monies for its programs and funding. And no longer simply provides for low cost birth control but has expanded also into providing low cost abortions through its affilated doctors.

So my quesiton is, whether this bill is worded insofar as precluding federal monies under this Health Care Deform being provided for abortions, are the grants that are also handed out like candy by the federal govenment to many health care institutions and even corporate medical practices also going to be regulated at this point so that there isn't now a double whammy on the American taxpayers?

In other words, now having to pay out hundreds of dollars per month to provide for their own health care needs, but also then continuing to subsidize through their taxes these large corporate medical practices, hospitals and foundations such as Planned Parenthood in the process in the federal grant monies that add to our deficit and result then in those inflationary taxes for just about everything?

It would seem to me that this legislation is nothing more than an additional tax, if that is not the case.

And what about all the taxation that Americans have been paying at the state level for provision of health care for those that cannot afford it, is that also going to be refunded along with those taxes paid and that were levied in prior years in order to build many of the county hospitals throughout the country?

It seems to me that Americans have been paying for their health care already, in funding all those county hospitals throughout the nation and grant monies for research and development, and even doctor's salaries at most of the teaching hospitals.

Are those taxes and costs going to be refunded, rather than "penalizing" Americans for not having health insurance, when they have already paid at the state level for now even the health care of foreigners in this country, not to mention their own?

This such legislation would not even be an issue if the state governments, way back when, had not also desecrated the founders government in the backdoor passage of the 16th, 17th and Federal Reserve Act under Wilson, thus upsetting the balance of power they so carefully crafted in order to avoid just such taxation, invasions of privacy, and enforced tyranny as this measure appears to be.

In this economy, and with the costs of health care right now so high due to past legislation tying the hands of the states with respect to the insurers operating within their state borders, and lack of any true regulation over those huge health care networks and providers also at the federal level, yet receiving untold billions in federal grant monies for research and even building costs at the public's expense, it appears Washington's arrogance knows no bounds and this measure with its still included fines for noncompliance upon the citizenry, another measure that guarantees more people will actually be on welfare than already are.

With so many also now working below their former income levels in the middle class and losing their businesses right and left, the public has spoken about the taxation levels that already exist in this country at the present time at all levels of government.

And since the public is providing the health care coverage for all government employees without having any leftover income in order to buy their own, this type of in your face legislation is exactly why the standard of living for a good majority of Americans, while taking in more and more foreigners and refugees due to serial wars, is approaching Third World status more and more each and every day.

Most of these hospitals and huge medical co-ops and practices are already publicly funded through many state residents income, property and other taxation that have also increased in leaps and bounds.

In fact, most states throughout the nation, even after the huge amounts they received in that cure-all stimulus, went to upgrading governmental offices and buying new toys, rather than provision of those governmental services for which the entire tax system in this country was intended to provide - and have been beating the drums for increasing state taxes also in one form or another.

Huge taxes were recently levied on cigarettes throughout the country, and a great deal of those taxes actually go to fund provision of health care benefits for children and the indigent at the state levels.

Will all those taxes and costs be refunded for the boomers especially, the ones who have carried the load for both the World War II generation, and the next generation, both publicly and privately in ever increasing taxation at all governmental levels, and in the cost of most durable goods and services which has progressively occurred since World War II?

Ms. Pelosi: How About Taxpayer Discounts For Hospitalizations?

It is interesting the countdown which is now occurring with respect to the great health care debate and summit, and the legislation which is being proposed by the House Democrats in order to "reform" health care throughout the country.

Although it appears that only the "stakeholders" are the ones who are actually being consulted on most of this legislation, or the "misrepresentatives" who represent those stakeholders.

Throughout the country right now there are federally funded clinics that are set up and funded by U.S. taxpayers through their federal income taxes for those that do not have health care insurance, or cannot afford it based upon their incomes.

Right now, there are government grants given to a great many hospitals and health care clinics that have any loosely defined "educational" goals as part of their corporate structure, such as those "stop smoking" clinics, and women's hospitals providing for prenatal care and child birth and delivery.

Even large metropolitan hospitals that are staffed with pre-med or medical students upon graduation for their internship rotations get federal grant monies as teaching institutions.

Most states throughout the nation also have county hospitals, and VA clinics serving both the poor, and our servicemen for injuries or illnesses that are not war related.

Now, the Obama Administration wants to "take over" health care and reform it?

It appears the only reforms which are actually being made are those which are more of the nature of now, after all those hospitals have been funded and built by the taxpayers, and also county and state facilities, requiring now Americans to buy health care coverage whether they can really afford it or not, thus feeding mostly the private doctors and those few hospitals that do not have an educational branch and thus are not eligible for state or federal grant monies.

In Arizona, for example, smokers in that state pay for the health care plans for children of parents who cannot obtain insurance for them at any price. In fact, smokers throughout the country are funding most of the health care plans now in existence for kids of parents who cannot afford it.

A great deal of sales, property and/or state income taxes also are also geared toward funding those hospitals and clinics, and county hospitals, and the federal government has simply been providing matching sums for those facilities since, of course, the American people pay through the nose to both the feds and the states for many of the same governmental functions.

Not to mention, that most hospitals are also receiving huge sums though their various foundations from those Americans who are wealthy and needing tax write-offs, since the majority of hospitals also are deemed in this respect as "non-profits" for which citizens can deduct any and all donations.

With the amounts billed against most people's insurance, or those bills that many Americans receive, you would think that these hospitals have no other source of income other than that which they receive from the people that use them, or that these are truly "private" hospitals existing merely on what they receive for services rendered.

In fact, many hospitals and doctors office won't even take new Medicare patients, and some will only take them if those patients can be used in order to meet the requriements for their annual grant monies from the state or federal government, i.e., many will only accept only women who are pregnant for prenatal care and deliveries, as I found when attempting to schedule an appointment with a doctor in the South. No provision for women after childbearing age were being accepted under any public plans.

With these new reforms rather than those "coupons" that have been the hook which has been fed to the public in order to gain acceptance for this unconstitutional function of the federal government in assuming a local and state function, if anything, will there also be escalating tax rebates included in order to credit the taxpayers for all those state taxes they are paying which have been earmarked for health care, but which will most likely now go also to the state kitty for them to spend willy-nilly, and without accountability?

This country has never seen more homeless and jobless, and to even entertain mandating that Americans must now once again feed the health care and financial sector (such as AIG) and Wall Street instead of regulating those out of control greedy little bankers using those premiums currently to reinvest in riskier investments for higher gains for their global shareholders (and the big international health care providers and international bank who are gaining more and more power and say in domestic policies progressively with no regulation also whatsoever) seems Washington's arrogance at this point knows no bounds.

And where is it written that Washington or the states, for that matter, have any authority to mandate Americans purchase a "product" such as a health insurance policy, or our government go into any joint venture with them with taxpayer monies in more and more legislating just what Americans can spend their "left over" hard earned dollars on after Washington and the states take out their ever increasing shares, to begin with?

Shiavo vs. Quinlan: Two Different Right To Life Cases

After a posting by a citizen journalist from India, I did some research on the facts as published by various sources on two very different "right to life" cases in the United States, and also as one who was living and remembers both cases relatively well since one occurred in the 1970's-1980 and the last rather recently.

While both of these cases may seem similar to those not at all familiar with the relevant facts and details surrounding both the times, or history of both as either not living in the United States, or even born, below I have outlined some rather significant differences between the two that don't make the final outcome of either remotely similar.

Karen Quinlan's picture is embedded in the brains of most of the boomer generation from the one that was published during the decade long battle also over her life or death from her high school yearbook.

The events surrounding her accident and brain trauma injury were precipitated by a drug (Valium it was thought) and alcohol mixture taken at a party, from all reports, in concert with a severe diet and weight loss she had undertaken as a late teen prior to the event. She lapsed into a coma upon her return from the party, and never woke up.

Evidence was presented that it was possible she simply aspirated her own vomit rather than the drug and alcohol mixture being the true cause, but since the patient could not relate the events leading up to the coma, medical supposition also was involved as to what actually lead to the coma.

Her doctors used the words "persistent vegitative state" to describe the depth of the coma as one, upon their best medical opinion and belief, from which she would never recover.

She was on a respirator and being fed intravenously, and had little to no real brain activity.

Her parents petitioned the court to remove the respirator (not the feeding or hydration tubes) from her so that she might either live, or die, as God's will and during the case proceedings due to the fact that she was not breathing on her own, had little to no brain activity, and was in a deep, deep coma the judge eventually so ordered the respirator only be removed.

She then surprised the world and lived on for several years thereafter, though, breathing on her own and no additional attempts were then made in order to "end her suffering" since to the best of the medical community's knowledge, there is no real pain or suffering for most whose brains have suffered oxygen deprivation (thus the word "brain dead) to that extent. It was believed she went without oxygen for quite a while before she was resuscitated at the scene, and then thereafter.

Karen eventually died rather "naturally" of complications of pneumonia she eventually contracted at the extended care facility she was placed after the initial hospitalization.

Teri Schiavo, on the other hand, purportedly suffered her injury due to a fall while at home, according to her husband's account.

She was older than Karen Quinlan at the time her injury occurred which also resulted in a brain trauma injury due to either the fall, or the lack of oxygen also thereafter. Diet and a sudden weight loss also was involved or used as a contributing cause, although as with Karen, there had been no real medical problems in her past, and the injury and details of just what had occurred remained disputed by the medical experts.

She was, however, conscious to a certain extent, and not in a coma. She did have brain activity, although limited, and there was major damage to areas of the brain, and according to her parents who visited her religiously throughout the years, was responsive to a limited extent.

Rehabilitative efforts were initiated, but quickly abandoned by her husband after a large medical malpractice award was brought on her behalf by her husband, and which resulted in a large settlement meant to provide for her future rehabilitative and other needs and to supplement the insurance coverage she had at the time covering her injuries.

She could not feed herself or swallow, so was on intravenous feeding and hydration, and was "light" responsive, if I also remember the reports at the time correctly.

Her husband's character was brought into question by some of the individuals involved in providing for her needs at the various hospitals and care facilities, and eventually had "moved on" and established a pseudo-marriage with another woman that had resulted in also having a child or children prior to the resolution of Teri's fate through the Florida and federal court system.

In fact, by the time Teri's eventual fate was determined, he was in a clear "common law" marriage with another woman, and so for all intents and purposes was legally "divorced" from Teri during the process. A guardian was assigned as a supposed "neutral" third party, but who was also being paid from the proceeds of the settlement of Teri's medical malpractice claim, of which her (ex) husband was trustee.

She had two parents who then challenged the desire of her former husband to have the feeding tubes AND hydration tubes removed (although the press stressed merely the feeding tubes, rather than also hydration, as the basis of the case), who indicated that both financially and personally they would more than willing to provide for whatever additional care Teri would need until her natural death.

She was in her early 40's, and from all reports a devoted and practicing Catholic (who would never most likely even divorced a spouse due to religious beliefs except according to her Church teachings, nor consented to anything remotely likened to voluntary assisted suicide) when a federal judge in Florida ordered the removal of both the feeding and hydration tubes, whereupon she died 15 days later after literally starving and dehydrating to death.

Karen Quinlan was also raised Catholic.

Two "right to life" cases with the same outcome - death.

One process "natural," the other not so.

And very, very different.

Senate Passes In Your Face Health Care Deform

Well it's official.

On Christmas Eve,while Santa was flying through the globe delivering his gifts to all the children of the world, the United States Senate robbed those same children of their fundamental rights in the most "in your face" gesture yet to the American people and trashing of the United States Constitution.

Even more so than the also bogus Cap & Trade bill (passing on U.N. and global taxes to the American people once again for an unconstitutional federal function, and without their implied or express consent in an manner whatsoever, nor amendment of the Constitution in order to so do).

Even more so than the bank and financial sector bailout, billing the American people yet again for the debts of the 2006 campaigns, and also a global London based insurer, again without their express or implied consent and outside Constitutional authority.

And are posing for the cameras now as if this is somehow a victory - while the lackey Republicans that were also in on this scam play the victims when actually with a vote such as this one, it appears that the same agenda is occurring here as has many prior bills in the past.

Each party takes a turn in order to be the "heavy" for unconstitutional legislation that outrages the public.

But since both parties have control of the American electoral process (also unconstitutionally), nothing really ever changes except the demonstrations of contempt both parties show for both the intended government which our founders fought and died in order to secure for their posterity, and also the American people themselves - the ones who they betray with each and every illegal Act favoring their corporate benefactors.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are global socialists - but then so were George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain actually and were behind the global bank bailouts for the gain of the global market at the cost of the American people.

This bill is the largest tax (also with that Cap & Trade scam, and all those expenses now the taxpayers must pick up for that bogus Copenhagen meeting) ever to be passed by any U.S. Congress in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution since FDR's Social Security - and look just what is going on with Social Security, which was meant to be a "temporary" tax actually from its inception in order to guarantee at least a minimal income to all those that were affected by the Great Depression way back when, also manipulated by the very same European international banking cartel members that are behind this current recession in the U.S. for Europe's and the "global" market's mostly gain.

And with so many in this country now losing their homes and jobs right and left, inflicting another tax on the working class Americans, middle America and that midle class who are most affected, just shows that thumbing their nose at the American people is something that this Congress, as with the last, has absolutely no problem in doing.

And now what is occuring is that the Republicans are "threatening" to use this act of treason in order to gain seats for the 2010 elections.

Not, of course, bringing all those that voted for this clearly unconstitutional measure up on charges of treason.

Using it, rather, once again for political purposes just goes to show that the "outrage" was an act, and that this passion play for the American public and media means that now legislation is orchestrated with the precision of a Hollywood spectacle, with the outcome, whether the people like it or not, directed by the special interest groups and financial sector.

Voting these lackeys out won't do it America.

It appears tar and feathers is the only thing that just might, and getting that Sargeant at Arms in the Halls of Congress to start earning his taxpayer paid salary and arrest these suckers, which actually was one of his primary jobs - if you read the Constitution the only protection those "misrepresentatives" have from arrest are while traveling to and from the House and Senate floors in order to cast their votes.

And would appear those founders put in that language for a very good reason, in order that the people would have a recourse and those misrepresentatives only "limited" immunity from arrest due to the enormous power they possessed.

With the founders knowing that with those granted such powers, abuses were more than likely to occur.

Such as this one, and so many others since 9-11 it is getting hard to keep track.

Because apparently those now holding those offices are tone deaf, and need remedial reading classes and continuing education in American history and high school government classes.

But since last night after midnight was "officially" a Senate holiday, I just wonder whether this vote was even "legal" or not?

Such a game would not be beyond those now holding office, in order to protect them from charges of treason.

Such as the new game of passing unconstitutional measures in one branch, but then not passing them in the other yet then funding them anyway in appropriations bills thereafter.

Then after funding unfinished and illegal legislation, creating new bills instead granting regulatory authority then to the agencies without then legal authority to so do due to the "illegality" of those bills in the first place.

And then as the coup d' gras, using then the media to publicize and "terrorize" the public for compliance or direct the state legislatures to pass those measures at the state level on threat of removal of funding for some unrelated true federal function as their "bribe" or extortionary tactic on more and more illegal legislation to also then manipulate the public for their ultimate ends and appease most of all their special interest backers behind a great deal of these measures in the process - the ones that "invested" all those billions in their employee legislator in order to "buy" legislation feeding their corporate coffers at the public's ultimate expense.

In other words, corporate America, as with this bill, is using our Congress now as nothing more than a marketing representative, buying legislation most of all in order to sell their products, and then also reduce their risks and losses in the process for their corporate bottom line profits - which they then feed back to their "employee" legislators.

Oh the webs we weave. And this is just another example of how truly "misrepresentative" every single one of those legislators actually is at this point in both honoring their oaths of office, and also their true constituency.

The American people. Not their bankers or their special interest benefactors "corporately," in violation of America's true form of government as contained within that glass case a few short miles down the street - and the document which provides for the very offices in which they now hold yet show such little awareness of its provisions more so now within the last eight years than any other period in history.

The U.S. Constitution.