California And Its Judiciary Need A Reality Check

There was an mainstream media AP article in the news again with respect to the ruling by a California federal district court judge over the lifting of the ban on gay marriages in the State of California. It does appear this particular judge has a love for the limelight, due to making this ruling against the will of the California voters (although, of course, in this age of "out of district" funding for state and local matters, and unrepresentative government at every level, and illegally voting foreigners in many state and federal elections at this point it is even hard to ascertain what the true will of the California voters actually is), yet continuing to interject his opinions and authority weeks later.

The latest: His assertion that he doesn't feel that the groups or individuals who may be involved in challenging or appealing his ruling have any "standing" to do so since they would be unable to prove there would be any adverse "impact" directly to them should California begin granting "permission" and marriage licenses to same sex individuals in that state.

What about the public costs for the eventual divorces of over half of those unions for their dissolutions if the statistics with respect to opposite sex marriages are any indication of the chances that these marriages will last "until death us do part?"

Of course, I won't go into how totally ludicrous it is in this country in which our entire civil legal system is grounded in the common law with respect to our Constitution, and marriage actually is an institution with a history of thousands of years pre-dating even our Constitution wherein even the Roman system of government which had a plethora of gay individuals did not officially recognize same sex unions as in the same league as heterosexual ones insofar as rights of inheritance, etc. (of course adoptions now granted to gay individuals were not then afforded either, nor had "science and technology" advanced to the degree in reproductive medicine that it has today).

But I wonder how the little problem of a gay individual with a biological child, who then has an in vitro child or surrogate will be handled if there is any disputes over rights of inheritance in the future?

I mean, has this judge actually considered the impact upon future generations and our legal system with this ruling? Or the absolute arrogance of the judiciary in this country itself in its even attempting to redefine an institution that has a history of thousands of years in the present era to begin with and for which they really have no Constitutional authority over and above the common law definitions?

And don't you think that little matter of "standing" would have been addressed prior to putting that proposition on the ballot to begin with?

If the citizens of California do not have the right to challenge or appeal such a fundamental percept under our civil codes and the common law upon which our Constitution is based, then how is it that federal court judges such as Mr. Walker and the appellate courts are granting "standing" to foreigners such as the illegal Mexican immigrants under those Bill of Rights now PROGRESSIVELY?

Including that out of control 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Just what is occurring in our American law schools today, insofar as teaching the basics in our Constitution, and Constitutional law?

Hello, Mr. Walker, just who do you think those courts were provided for anyway, if not Americans - and if this is a Bill of Rights issue and challenge, and the Supreme Court has not yet reversed its fundamentally flawed decisions with respect to extending PROGRESSIVELY Bill of Rights protections to "corporate" entities (not to mention that it does not appear that the group challenging this measure is a "commercial" corporation, in any event anyway), then upon what errant nutjob prior ruling are you basing your conclusions with respect to the question of standing to begin with?

And its origins really have to do with inheritance and other rights of biological offspring, since the adoption, insemination or surrogacy process itself outside "natural" or biological procreation, and is a legal process in and of itself with respect to such issues?

This entire passion play is beginning to appear rather ludicrous and the ultimate aim for the state again self-serving for all that added tax revenues for the local coffers for those "license" fees taken into account, given that marriages are nothing more than civil contracts, and there already is in force provision for domestic unions in the State of California and many others throughout the nation for same sex domestic unions. And that there are already legal provisions under powers of attorney, and other legal instruments to secure the fundamental rights of committed individuals for property and inheritance purposes and even taxation with "head of household" provisions.

It appears once again that the major reason for this push is in order for the gay community to somehow gain "legitimacy" or social acceptance for their unions on parity with heterosexual unions, which is something that no matter how many years, and how many court decisions, is not somthing that can be forced upon 100% of the American people or heterosexual community that have any religious beliefs whatsoever in the three major religions, which at last count was at least 70% of Americans.

Moral acknowledgement is what appears to be the ultimate aim and equality of the definition of marriage itself, an institution again which pre-dates our Constitution by thousands of years and is, after all, based entirely on civil common laws which already have been expanded with regard to recordation, at least in California and the majority of other states which have provided licenses or recordation means for "civil" or "domestic" unions.

A "marriage" is nothing more than a public pledge in front of two witnesses announcing a commitment of love, and a shared life and property during the term of the union or "partnership," at its most basic, and a spiritual union between the couple and God for those that choose to have their unions sanctioned instead by their house of worship.

What will be next for the gay activist community, rather than the mainstream gay community who believe their private lives are actually private? Legislation then aimed at the clergy and churches mandating that pastors or other religious leaders must perform such ceremonies if so requested? While the aim here may be marketed to the public as one of merely "civil" rights, it does appear that there just could be a fundamentally greater agenda here in using these laws then to assault the religious community eventually whose biblical teachings on marriage would forbid extending religious sanctions to such unions at their most basic precepts.

This is, of course, where the PROGRESSIVES in their also illegally redefining the First Amendment protections of "freedom of" religion to outside its original intent to "freedom from" religion have been focusing their activities as of late due to those great statutes providing for legal fees for lawyers bringing any and all actions that can be broadly defined as "civil rights" have been using for their own stimuluses and corporate gains.

So in those civil unions before civil justices, just what part of the marriage ceremony itself is missing since there are civil unions conducted by justices of the peace there as there are for heterosexual couples which were in effect before the "activist" gay community still were not satisfied.

The civil laws have been changed to afford "parity" with respect to the common law rights of marriage, which require no "license" to begin with, save the commercial insurers with respect to health insurance provisions and the like, and the the gay community could save themselves and the other taxpayers of this country from the costs of picking up the legal tabs for this civil rights challenge by focusing more so on where it belongs.

The insurers denying them and their posterity coverage under those plans extended to heterosexual couples, although I'm sure that after this ruling those suits will be next on the agenda to keep those lawyers working for decades to come especially in light of this most recent unconstitutional mandate of Washington and tyranny in "fining" Americans who have paid for many of those community hospitals and the like with their property taxes. It appears that especially for the boomer generation are going to be bled dry even further for the "global economy" and Wall Street bankers and politicos gain at the cost of the public at large, even those not invested in Wall Street or those not affiliated with the Globalist Party in power on the Hill, and apparently also in California's positions of authority.

Just imagine when "parity" in the health care field does eventually gain more ground, the number of civic institutions which are dedicated to finding cures to AIDS will become unable to continue or exist, and then the search for the cure for this deadly disease will not be quite so important as guaranteeing a steady stream of future policy-holders which will need to take out riders for AIDs coverage. I mean, this disease is a virus and it is amazing the amount of monies those pharmaceutical companies and insurers have already mnade off the victims of this disease or the American public while a "cure" for the disease itself is nowhere in sight.

A disease that never existed until the present day, or is it merely a strain of an already identified viral infection, since it appears treating the symptoms of HIV and the AIDS virus has become an industry in and of itself PROGRESSIVELY.

The judge also commented that it was his opinion that the challengers to his recent ruling would need the "permission" of either Governor Schwartezeneggar or Attorney General Jerry Brown in order to pursue their claims.

Huh? The opposing citizenry needs "permission" of the Governor for what the gay community has continued to portray as a "civil rights" case?

Mr. Walker should be suing his law school for his tuition costs, it appears to this writer, since it appears he is another of the British trained lawyers holding court from the bench rather than ruling according to his Constitutional oath of office in issuing this latest opinion publicly in furtherance of his original ruling.

Stay tuned. Since this farce of a civil rights abridgement appears is far from over.

Texas Judge Rules Death Penalty Unconstitutional?

There's a storm brewing in Texas, it appears, over a recent ruling by a state district court judge in Houston on a murder trial.

Justice Kevin Fine, a Democrat, made a pre-trial ruling in Texas court that the death penalty was unconstitutional under Texas law.

Although his position appears to be not in accordance with the wording of the Constitution itself (U.S., that is, which would take precedence in all death penalty cases), but for moral reasons stating that it was logical to assume that there had been innocent people put to death in the past, and that he didn't think this was society's mindset right now.

"Selective" governmental initiated socialism once again rears its ugly head, since there are many in this country that would heartily disagree, if a clear reading of the Constitution itself is given any weight.

With all the criticism that has come down upon the judiciary for ruling from the bench for political reasons most of all rather than "legal" ones with judges being cognizant of just what the "law" actually is in such instances, this actually does take the cake, in my opinion.

Although the press once again went a little off the deep end in headlining a great many of the stories with a description of the judge involved as "tatted" and an ex-cocaine addict.

Of course, the hypocricy at this point in our history was missed if such a personal observation were to be used by the media in its reporting on this judge's ruling. Since it is interesting that a judge that is an admitted ex-addict (engaging in felony conduct under current Texas law) is now serving on the bench, where a great many of those that are or have been convicted under Texas law of felonies are not even afforded an opportunity to vote for the rest of their lives even after serving their time.

It makes one wonder with all the clear language in the Constitution yet his stated reasons given for his holding, if just maybe he might be suffering from what the 60's generation termed "flashbacks," or possibly his brain quite possibly affected if he was a heavy, long term user of that substance which definitely has a chemical affect on the brain.

However, what was missing in the reporting is that as an elected official he is also affiliated through a political party that has taken a platform and stand in the past against the death penalty throughout the country for any reason under pressure and lobbying from such "global" groups as Amnesty International, the Innocense Project (out of New York, a "civil rights" group headed by lawyers and as such under federal laws which have been passed taxpayer funded through reimbursements for legal fees, yet incorporated in New York it appears, but with also branches internationally) and many others.

Since that statute providing for reimbursement for legal fees incurred in bringing civil rights actions, a plethora of these lawyer lead groups have emerged also engaging in national then lobbying efforts as a sideline, rather than the independent or small pro bono groups of the past whose fees are strictly provided by private donations.

To state that it is "unconstitutional" under the Texas or U.S. Constitution rather than in his party's view, "immoral", is a blatant redefinition, once again, of the English language and the 14th Amendment.

And the fact that the death penalty was handed down in many, many instances by those founders for reasons other than capital murder.

Such as treason on that Constitution. Which actually is the highest criminal offense by an elected or appointed government official, even higher than capital murder.

He used the "due process" clause somehow in his ruling, however, the 14th amendment clearly simply states that a criminal in this country that is accused of a heinous crime involving the taking of another citizen's life, or their property even (since horse thieves were also handed down the death penalty in Texas and in many states throughout the nation, theft of personal property was also a major capital criminal offense), an American is entitled to not "mob violence," but a review and trial by a jury of his peers (due process) in the state and jurisdiction in which the alleged crime occurred, and a chance to then face his accusers and hear and repute the evidence against him.

I am unaware of just how the provisions in Texas's criminal code are written since now the states have taken it upon themselves also to either expand, or water down, the U.S. Constitution in this respect also progressively through their legislative processes, but whether or not the death penalty is Constitutional or not since it is actually addressed within the language of the Constitution itself, speaks for itself.

Or the fact that "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing as it speaks) is the common law provision which is supposed to be rule of law with respect to Constitutional interpretation clearly also was the founders intent as it is a contract between the government itself and its people, and the Bill of Rights were meant to give the people, not the government, the ultimate power in any such matter involving ANY civil or criminal offense committed by a citizen in this country.

And solidified by the 14th's clear language then prohibiting any citizen from being deprived of his "life, liberty or property" without such a right to due process, or that "trial by jury."

It appears to me that more and more the judiciary are using court rules, and legal shennagians in order to actually circumvent and neutralize the power of the jury in this country more and more.

First, by removing even that right for many criminal charges, not to mention civil offenses in ever increasing numbers, the most recent of which are now the low level DUI and "social drinking" taxes and charges with those per se laws based on a proven fallable method of testing, when unless there is property damage or bodily injury and direct victim involved is truly really under the intent of the founders and common law also, a civil offense actually to begin with.

The breathalyzer, which does not measure blood alcohol at all, but measures the concentration of alcohol (or any number of other agents) in a person's breath.

Which, when using or eating any number of other substances, other than alcohol, can affect those test results tremendously.

In fact, the interlock devices that are manufactured and ordered to be used by many who have been arrested or found themselves "guilty until proven innocent" in such matters warns not to eat bread (the yeast can affect the interlock device with a false reading).

But in the instance of the death penalty in this country, I would more understand this judge's ruling at an earlier time in our history, when the evidentiary standards for a death penalty case were much, much more lenient than in most state courts today.

The standard, after all, is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and what has occurred, however, is that more and more high profile crimes are being tried in the media and politics and public opinions are being swayed even before many of these individuals have had the opportunity to answer or even make their pleas.

The lines between the "public's right to know" and protecting the accused have gone by the wayside when the local news media is so hard pressed for news these days due to competition and "corporate" ownership concerned with the bottom line most of all than ethical standards, that most of the local news stations are more similar to Entertainment Tonight than actual news sources so biased, sensationalized and gossipy is their coverage.

And, after all, there are several different charges that should be placed before a jury in any murder trial in many instances, and not determined by a judge or the state prosecutor's office acting independently to begin with.

Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter (auto accidents, etc.), murder in the second degree (crimes of passion, precipitated or between individuals known to each other) and murder in the first degree (pre-meditated, unprecipitated murder).

This case apparently has to do with the shooting death of a woman in Houston during a robbery in which there were, apparently, witnesses to what actually occurred - an adult sister and her own children.

Now that many of these states have privatized their state prisons and are receiving federal grant monies and profits on the prison population by the head, I would expect that we will see more and more of such rulings as most of these states attempt to squeeze every dollar out of the public they can since people, even prisoners, are now commerce.

I hate to dispute this judge's stated reasons, there are now throughout the nation more and more minor offenses being criminalized in order to increase that prison population for revenue purposes as a "mitigating" factor in why our prisons are now bulging at the seams, and mostly with low level misdemeanor offenders guilty of actually victimless crimes at that.

Or more and more of such instances are occurring in order to also bulk up local court's budgets due to the fact that the Bar Association itself lobbied for a law providing for legal fee awards on their behalf for any and all cases involving civil rights actions, and this case is being prosecuted by the county attorney's office and a public defender it appears representing the accused.

So this off the wall rendering could be and most likely is, in my opinion based on the information available through our somewhat sensationalized media, politically motivated, since now the state can also gain revenue from the lengthy federal appeals process over this judge's bench ruling which obviously blatantly flies in the face of the Constitution's clear language and make money for the state coffers then while so doing.

Harris County apparently is a county which leads the nation in death penalty cases, and appears just may be one of the more poorly funded districts in the state to begin with due to the amount of poorer or indigent people living in that county.

Maybe their share of the stimulus wasn't enough, since Governor Perry refused some of those sums according to his most recent election campaign jargon, or maybe those sums which were handed out for state budgetary purposes just didn't get to Harris County but stayed in Austin.

After all, our entire country's government at this point is so unconstitutional, taking such a position in light of all the Constitutional violations going on due to the entire convoluted framework as outside Constitutional intent and parameters of our government makes this position both questionable, and almost laughable.

I would agree, however, with this judge that most likely there have been individuals that have been put to death in this country who MAY have been innocent of first degree murder, or unprecipitated murder as under the common law definitions demanding the ultimate penalty under the law - forfeiture of life.

But we aren't putting to death horse thieves anymore (or car thieves), and with the number of appeals now available to most death row inmates, there have also been those that have decided not to pursue the appeals process and even waived it.

I do feel that such drastic punishment should be reserved for those that are deemed by a jury, upon factual evidence and eyewitness testimony or truly "weighted" evidence, and should be used only according to the stated law: against those who, for whatever reason, murder innocent people as in the case of a robbery gone wrong as this appears on the surface, or many of these serial killers who cannot be rehabilitated in any way to be trusted to live among society, or at the very least, incarcerated without the possibility of parole, when there are no "mitigating" circumstances leading up to it.

But "unconstitutional," only if we are again, judicially redefining the English language and not the words of the founders or their intent since the 14th only cements what was their clear purpose at the signing as a government "of the people."

It is the jury that has the right to throw out the death penalty, if they so deem the facts of the case at hand demands it or is "societally" unacceptable in their view under the circumstances, and weight should also be given to the victim's family in such a rendering as the actual victims of the particular crime and who those prosecutors are actually supposed to be their "clients" acting for the victim's family members, state and its citizens on their behalf.

And without a clear vote of the people of Texas in any event, it would seem our judiciary is getting more and more bold in some of their fabrications and renderings now at every level balanced against their oaths of office, since the wording is pretty clear.

Or corrupted by the public opinion polls and media itself in now how many outside "globally" focused agitators and groups are getting involved in U.S. political matters to begin with, since it appears global socialism and "international" law rather than our Constitution's language itself is a trend that is also occurring at the highest level in some rather recent Supreme Court rulings and renderings.

Protection of the accused American is foremost under our stated Constitutuion. And the jury was and is intended to be that protection, baring any corruption of the jury itself.

And if it is "cruel and unusual" punishment insofar as premeditated homicide is concerned, then our jails are full of people at this point that are being incarcerated without even the right to trial by juries in a great many misdemeanor offenses more and more, and some of these misdemeanor offenders have died in local jails and prisons that were "cruel and unusual" in their facilities to begin with.

Dehydrations of low level offenders recently in some in the West, even. Where the "punishments" now truly do not fit those crimes, and made without any review or oversight of judicial renderings rather than at the will of the people based on the evidence.

Gee, maybe he should have been the judge ruling over the Teri Schiavo matter in Florida. If it is immoral or "unconstitutional" and "cruel and unusual" punishment to sentence a convicted murderer to death, then just what was it to sentence a handicapped, innocent 40 year old woman?

Where was Amnesty International then, I ask?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/05/tatted-up-texas-judge-declares-death-penalty-unconstitutional/tab/article/

Yet, this is what is going on in Harris County with respect to misdemeanor offenders with outstanding mostly civil court traffic violations:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Harris-County-sweeping-minor-offenders-in-Great-Texas-Warrant-Roundup-86726392.html

Sonia Sotomayor: Not MY Judge!

For Any and All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

After some sham public hearings, political rhetoric on both sides of the new Global Socialist Party holding court in D.C., and chess moves for re-election purposes with respect to the final vote and tally, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate today as the replacement for retiring Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court. The final vote, after all the drama and stand up vote count, was 68-31

Much fanfare was made due to this "historic" appointment in playing both the "race card" and also the fact that Ms. Sotomayor is the third woman to be appointed to the hallowed halls of the Court. Ms. Sotomayor may change the physical characteristics of the Court but it is unlikely she will change the complement of it in any manner since this court is still "liberal" insofar as Constitutional interpretation as mainly comprised of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now appointees. All liberal Administrations.

In fact, Ms. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench by a Bush, the first Bush, and it was the second Bush, George W., that referred to the Constitution as a "damn piece of paper" from all reports and whose actions post 9/11 certainly exhibited the reverence he and that Congress gave to the actual RULE OF LAW and government as set forth within its provisions.

It appears that Ms. Sotomayor in most of her responses is of like mind. As was most on the Senate panel conducting the staged public hearings with respect to her confirmation.

Her clear bias for prior precedents and judge made case law rulings was evident throughout the hearings when referring to the "Rule of Law," no matter how the panel members from both sides of the aisle tried to politically spin the issue with respect to Obama's seeking a candidate with empathy, and Ms. Sotomayor's statements with respect to her gender and race being a plus insofar as her intepretive skills over those of others.

Even when the Republicans were posturing with their objections, the main objections consisted of fear that she would not rule "according to the law" but her personal bias or emotion. But it was clear their objections were also "liberally" based in their definitions of the "Rule of Law" to which they feared she would stray as being those decisions and the many politically based prior court rulings, some of which are fundamentally and clearly outside the parameters of the Constitution.

Such as the most recent Kelo decision reached during the Bush Administration. And expanding the powers of the Executive Office outside their Constitutional restraints progressively, while diluting Congress's enumerated legal powers, and expanding the law making abilities of regulatory agencies that were never meant to have indpendent "law making" abilities with respect to the citizenry (NOT corporate business interests) in any manner whatsoever in their regulatory functions. Such as the off the wall IRS since its inception, and now the Department of Homeland Security in its jack boot bulletins and police state tactics.

In fact, Ms. Sotomayor's oath of office, as with all Justices, is to the Constitution itself, and not to any prior court rendering of it. So the liberals on both sides of the aisle used this appointment in order to deflect and distract most of all, not evaluate Ms. Sotomayor's rulings according to the true "RULE OF LAW."

And interesting the timing of Mr. Souter's resignation, and Ms. Sotomayor's new appointment.

Much has been publicized that Mr. Obama, just as the prior liberal Bush Administration, plans on addressing the status of the over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, and from all reports very soon.

Although the American people spoke rather loudly and clearly the last time this was attempted with the McCain/Kennedy "Dream Act" in 2006 under a Bush directive while our southern borders, for the most part, remain unsecured and the funding cut or denied each time the appropriations bills come up under the Secure Fence Act also passed that year, while the citizens lawful and legal civil rights continued to be attacked and take a beating on the pretense of "national security" concerns.

MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund) also heralded the appointment as "historic" along with the liberal media and press.

MALDEF, of course, is indirectly federally funded by the U.S. taxpayers due to the fact that there is a federal statute that provides for their legal fees and awards for any and all civil rights actions brought by them on behalf of Mexican Americans living in this country and who are natural or naturalized citizens.

However, within the last several years they have also been bringing suits against American citizens on behalf of many of those illegal immigrants, which costs for suit are also being honored and paid by the federal government and being billed then to the deficit and U.S. citizens.

Could this appointment have been a strategic maneuver on behalf of both "liberal" parties which have now merged into the Global Socialist Party after that foreign AIG bailout and Wall Street stimulus prior to addressing the amnesty once again in the event of a legal challenge to its Constitutionality?

Since any amnesty of those already in this country unlawfully under prior federal statutory law would clearly be an "ex post" facto law and thus unconstitutional in any event with respect to those already here who entered unlawfully or have remained other than for temporary work visa, green card or tourism reasons, and such actions would not address nor solve the problem of the influx of illegals which occurs each and every day without first securing with a physical deterrant the over 500 miles of open desert in which they, and the Mexican drug cartels and other "foreigners", cross each and every day. Simply continue the madness, and the confusion as to citizenship status.

And now with all the "privileges and immunities" given foreigners over the lawful and legal Americans, it would appear that those illegals would actually lose "rights" and their free health care, and untaxed wages if they should take Uncle Sam up on that offer anyway. Now that they have been given by the federal courts "standing" and equality and even preference over Americans rights in numerous court actions, how is it now advantageous for them to become peon Americans and potentially lose those jobs to the next crop of illegals to cross those borders within the next month or two?

Appointing such a judge also insures that the "race card" can then be used by the press and liberals again in order to silence the public in such an event, a method used now quite frequently and especially in light of the "hate crimes" legislation and continued threats of "domestic terrorism," and such event isn't unlikely given the recent despicable moves by Washington to continue with its agendas and "in your face" legislation favoring insourced and outsourced foreigner rights and further violating lawful American citizens civil rights (such as the AIG bailout, GM joint venture firing Americans while retaining ownership of outsourced GM plants in Mexico and China, war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and corporate America's outsourced foreign work force in India in tech and retail industries, etc.).

Before this country was settled for the most part even shortly after its founding, America's immigration policies were more restrictive than they are today.

The founders, after all, were protectionists building a new nation. We are in the midst of rebuilding after several natural disasters, and an economic tsunami due to amalgamating our economy with that of the global community unconstitutionally, and yet still affording carte blanche immigration to almost all comers. It has been reported that since 2006 several thousand "at risk" Iraqis now also have been added to the list annually amount to now over 20,000 native born Middle Easterners.

It will be interesting to see how this all unravels, but since we all know something has been rotten in Washington for now quite a number of years, it appears there is an agenda to the recent madness that is and continues to occur.

And this appointment smacks of "politics" and not "the Rule of Law" at all.

With more and more Americans now out of work and with the degree of insourcing that is occuring and increasing due to this worsening economy, such a measure is bound to create further outrage among the lawful population in this country.

In fact, through government contracts, the federal government itself is the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor, while continuing to increase the legal American citizens tax burdens in order to supplement and support this influx of cheap labor for their government contractors, and the big businesses and foreign investors in the financial sector on Wall Street.

In its actions, it appears Washington is almost begging for a civil war in the near future at least within the border states, the states which have been hardest hit with higher unemployment, homelessness and joblessness since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's, and are now under invasion from both the criminal property theft of the border hoppers, drug cartels and their distributors, and others that have resulted in the additional loss of Americans lives and jobs in the thousands in the eight years now since 9/11.

Stay tuned, America. The fireworks continue, and appears it is Washington that is promoting and facilitating purposely the civil unrest in this country with each and every Constitutional violation that is coming now off the Hill.

I'm wondering also, with all the still dissatisfied Americans that have been calling for the Constitutional proof of Mr. Obama's "natural born" or "naturalized" citizenship status prior to his running for the highest office in the land as should have been done due to the number of years in his youth he spent outside the United States and with one parent a non-citizen, if this push again so soon and with our economy now in the toilet, if there also is this other "political" agendas in that respect is also behind it.

The Supreme Court has been tap dancing on that one now for six months, and Congress just did attempt that little sleight of hand in a recent bogus Resolution introduced by a Hawaiian Congressman to in effect "declare" him a citizen again without any disclosure or documented proof that he so much as satisfies the bare minimal requirements for the Office in which he holds. Requirements that acually were based on the European gentry's ideas that children would be raised in this country until they were in their teens when they then left for their "European tours" to finish their educations abroad in languages and cultural differences. That was what was actually behind the 14 year provisions since geographic ties are normally formed in child and young adulthood.

And after that trick and the many, many before more so in the last eight years than at any other time, it is pretty clear that the powers that be on the Hill have no problem both violating the true "LAW OF THE LAND" or attempting in whatever unethical way possible time and again to facilitate end runs around it in order to further their liberalism, global socialism, power plays and political agendas at the cost of those they are truly charged to serve.

The AMERICAN people.