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.

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.

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.