In another political move by those in Washington, Elena Kagan's nomination by Barack Obama was confirmed by a majority of the Senate along mostly partisan party lines after much political posturing by many in the "opposing" party for public consumption, since the "defectors" were again the same old, same old labeled "Republican moderates" from the Northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, etc.
Although the mainstream media continues to label the court as primarily a "conservative" court, this American Constitutional Conservative would beg to differ.
I guess since our press has progressively become so far out globalist liberal in their ownership, especially the "Associated" Press which includes foreign press and news agencies, anything right of communism would seem conservative to most of their staff writers.
This is how truly representative our current Supreme Court is at the present time.
Although no "religious" test is to be given for any public service position or political office, our Court is now comprised of three Jewish members, and six Catholics.
Seven basically East Coasters or New Yorkers by birth or length of residency.
And six graduates of Harvard Law School, and three of Yale - with quite a few with their undergraduate studies in Britain.
Leave it to the press and globalist politicans to promote to the public the "look" of the Court (six men and three women, with a mix of "racial" or "ethnic" minority members by race, religion or ethnicity) without scratching further in just how "liberal" this Court actually is and unrepresentative of the American people really in its composition.
And of the nine from East Coast schools, the most current and confirmed member threw out mandatory Constitutional law classes in favor of a more "progressive" curriculum during her tenure, while the press focused on her decision to ban the military from the ivy halls of Harvard due to its "don't ask, don't tell" privacy policies (since our military actually is supposed to be defending this country and its people from "foreign" threats, and the military actually is not supposed to be a dating service in any manner whatsoever - and what is more private than your sexual preference and how many gays in the military actually hold that their military and private lives are two different things as opposed to the "spins" and outside agitators on this issue?). The "gay issue" has also its roots in, I'm sure, creating more work for the civil rights lawyers for those Federal Reserve notes for their legal fees that Washington hands out now like candy and create more, not less, conflict within our military ranks unnecessarily.
And with the exception of Justice Thomas, none of whom actually are texturalists which, unless and until the Constitution is amended by the will of the people according to the provisions within it for amendment - and not the simply the states as it was the intent of those founders that any subsequent amendments would be placed before the people before each and every state ratified further amendments - we have nothing more than an entire British "sovereign" leaning Supreme Court down the line as was quite apparent with the most recent trashing of its provisions with respect to campaign finance laws favoring the "corporate" over the intent of the founders for a representative government at its foundation.
That being that no candidate for political office should be "sponsored" by any entity, either corporately or otherwise, domiciled outside their specific legislative districts. Period. Especially not "globally" focused corporate entities with "foreign" home offices even outside the country.
Nor is there any such entity as "corporate person-hood" including "municipal corporate-personhood" with respect to Bill of Rights provisions.
Ms. Kagan has an engaging demeanor, but given her actual actions discounting the very document upon which her "right" to even hold such a position was given the shaft while she was Dean of Harvard's Law School and thus affecting fundamentally law in this country through Harvard's "miseducation" also progressively with some of those graduates now holding public service positions throughout the country by federal appointment, doesn't that demonstrate to those Senators and the American people that she did not hold the bare minimum qualifications for the position for which she was being "interviewed?"
No wonder the West and Western citizens lives and property are being sacrificed for the "greater good," outside California and the Hollywood contingent and their "corporate" needs.
America lacks representation on any level in the highest court in the land, and progressively so as was more than apparent during tose hearings.
The British bankers and Wall Street have progressively cornered our Court, and have the majority.
A royal straight flush.
Showing posts with label justices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justices. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Obama Nominates British Trained Kagan To Supreme Court
Well, I guess it comes once again as no surprise to the Constitution believing Americans in this country.
Barack Obama has continued the tradition of nominating another justice to the United States Supreme Court that got at least some of her education outside the United States in Great Britain, and also from the liberally focused Harvard, one of its U.S. branch campus.
Elena Kagan is another East Coast liberal who obtained at least some of her schooling, according to news reports, from Oxford in England, whose system of government and also legal education is focused on the government being above the citizenry and "sovereign" while, of course, in this country our government is just the opposite.
At least on those rights as outlined in America's Bill of Rights which were meant as protection against both the government, and the corporate commercial (property) entities.
Which was why those first Americans fought to break free from British influence and control way back in 1776, while the progressives and liberals in this country seem to be hell-bent on returning this country to British rule and control.
If not directly, then through the U.S. Supreme Court.
Interesting that Ms. Kagan's first appearance before the Court was to argue on behalf of the government on that ludicrous Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case granting unlimited and outside of district "free speech" rights to corporate entities in this country.
Even if they are federally funded through taxpayer paid grant monies, as a great many of these "educationally" focused lawyer led "grass roots" corporate organizations continue to be.
In effect, nothing more than "state actors" then of the federal government with all those strings attached to those grant monies, and apparently being used more and more in this country in order to also extended 'corporate' rights under the Bill of Rights to "corporate person-hoods," - another party to the Constitution created by a bogus and rogue Supreme Court ruling way back when.
Which coincided within that time frame the creation of the Office of the Solicitor General back in 1870, a position Ms. Kagan now holds although had never previously argued a case before the Supreme Court.
Who also wrote a thesis during her law school education in defense of socialism.
The Global Socialists are hard at work on the Hill, that much is clear, with this recent nomination from both "sides" of the corporate global socialist bent political parties now in power.
Which fundamentally is a violation of those founders intent for a representative government at its core.
As was that Citizens United decision.
Interesting that Ms. Kagan did not argue the question of the Constitutionality of the unlawful creation and extention of Bill of Rights protections for corporate entities outside the clear language of the Constitution and intent of those founders, hence the Boston Tea Party which was also a demonstration against global corporate control of the people of the United States by the sovereign, King George, and the East India Tea Company public/private partnership in that initial appearance before the Court.
But then, that would in effect negate the legality of all those public officials right to hold their current offices as not "duly elected" to begin with, would it not, including those Supreme Court justices as affirmed by those now unlawfully holding public office?
I'm simply waiting for that position on one of these commercial and "corporate friendly" cases to be argued giving increasingly unequal privileges and immunities to "property" as opposed to the people of this great nation.
But I won't hold my breath.
At least not in this Administration, as with the last and so many, many before which is why this nation is where it is, clearly, at this point in our history.
Dissolving and regressing back into foreign ownership and control through both its foreign owned banks, and through its globally focused and dictated leadership PROGRESSIVELY.
Barack Obama has continued the tradition of nominating another justice to the United States Supreme Court that got at least some of her education outside the United States in Great Britain, and also from the liberally focused Harvard, one of its U.S. branch campus.
Elena Kagan is another East Coast liberal who obtained at least some of her schooling, according to news reports, from Oxford in England, whose system of government and also legal education is focused on the government being above the citizenry and "sovereign" while, of course, in this country our government is just the opposite.
At least on those rights as outlined in America's Bill of Rights which were meant as protection against both the government, and the corporate commercial (property) entities.
Which was why those first Americans fought to break free from British influence and control way back in 1776, while the progressives and liberals in this country seem to be hell-bent on returning this country to British rule and control.
If not directly, then through the U.S. Supreme Court.
Interesting that Ms. Kagan's first appearance before the Court was to argue on behalf of the government on that ludicrous Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case granting unlimited and outside of district "free speech" rights to corporate entities in this country.
Even if they are federally funded through taxpayer paid grant monies, as a great many of these "educationally" focused lawyer led "grass roots" corporate organizations continue to be.
In effect, nothing more than "state actors" then of the federal government with all those strings attached to those grant monies, and apparently being used more and more in this country in order to also extended 'corporate' rights under the Bill of Rights to "corporate person-hoods," - another party to the Constitution created by a bogus and rogue Supreme Court ruling way back when.
Which coincided within that time frame the creation of the Office of the Solicitor General back in 1870, a position Ms. Kagan now holds although had never previously argued a case before the Supreme Court.
Who also wrote a thesis during her law school education in defense of socialism.
The Global Socialists are hard at work on the Hill, that much is clear, with this recent nomination from both "sides" of the corporate global socialist bent political parties now in power.
Which fundamentally is a violation of those founders intent for a representative government at its core.
As was that Citizens United decision.
Interesting that Ms. Kagan did not argue the question of the Constitutionality of the unlawful creation and extention of Bill of Rights protections for corporate entities outside the clear language of the Constitution and intent of those founders, hence the Boston Tea Party which was also a demonstration against global corporate control of the people of the United States by the sovereign, King George, and the East India Tea Company public/private partnership in that initial appearance before the Court.
But then, that would in effect negate the legality of all those public officials right to hold their current offices as not "duly elected" to begin with, would it not, including those Supreme Court justices as affirmed by those now unlawfully holding public office?
I'm simply waiting for that position on one of these commercial and "corporate friendly" cases to be argued giving increasingly unequal privileges and immunities to "property" as opposed to the people of this great nation.
But I won't hold my breath.
At least not in this Administration, as with the last and so many, many before which is why this nation is where it is, clearly, at this point in our history.
Dissolving and regressing back into foreign ownership and control through both its foreign owned banks, and through its globally focused and dictated leadership PROGRESSIVELY.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Supreme Court, Obama and Congress Pass The Scepter
The political battle rages on post the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with respect to campaign financing, and its horrendously unconstitutional new "interpretation" of the First Amendment.
In light of all the commentary that has been made with respect to the decision "rolling back" the campaign finance laws in order to afford unlimited corporate spending by special interests groups in national campaigns, quite a bit has been left out in just what an egregious decision this actually was, in my opinion.
Starting off with truly "rolling back" the campaign finance laws by the Supreme Court would have negated "corporate person-hoods" as having any place in Bill of Rights protections in the first place.
Meaning, that in order to have a truly "representative" government, no political candidate vying for public office should be afforded to be able to accept ANY campaign financing outside his own legislative district, whether corporately or otherwise.
The fact is that in the commentary and published opinion, it appears, there was not even any distinction made between grassroots citizens groups funded primarily with individual contributions, corporate commercial concerns, national domestic corporations with their primary home offices in the United States, or foreign global corporations whose domiciled home offices are outside this country, although of course it WAS a U.S. based PAC organization that brought the action, and thus would seem only applicable to PAC organizations gaining most of their revenues from individual contributions, but already the drums are sounding as the corporate lawyers gear up to broaden now this rendering, which I would imagine was the entire reason those Supreme Court justices selected this case to begin with. (Since this action was simply brought against a federal regulatory agency, the FEC, by a "corporate" PAC grass roots purportedly special interest organization, and most likely the states, as history is replete with examples, will now follow suit granting unlimited special interest contributions also at the state level which also was one of the primary purposes in the Court "selecting" this matter to begin with, I'll bet. That and the feeding frenzy the true agenda of this case was meant to insure, as a job stimulus for the corporate lawyers also throughout the land in all the cases that will be brought due to this "precedent" expanding this rather narrow holding into making it applicable for national and even global "commercial" corporations).
So that it may be used as a "precedent" and expanded, and expanded and expanded. Sort of like Roe.
And then if there are any further appeals, just watch those Supremes in the future, for political reasons, "refusing" then to clarify this broad based travesty of an interpretation of the CITIZENS, and definitely not national or global commercial corporate concerns, right to free political SPEECH which corporate money for campaign expense purposes is not "speech" per se but campaign funding, and only public monies should be used to fund any and all candidates for public office in amounts according to the number of voters in any electoral district.
Just wait until AIG (a London based global insurer) selects our next president, or Goldman Sachs by contributing to key legislative districts with committee leadership positions at stake - alone.
It was bad enough what occurred in those bank paybacks for the 2006 candidates for their donations, just watch now what happens in the years ahead.
Maybe new disclosure laws should quickly be enacted making it mandatory that in the future all candidates for public office should be required to wear patches like those Indy 500 drivers do for all contributions over $1,000, say.
That way those corporations can also get free advertising and more bang for their bucks.
Mark my words, this decision opens the door and will become a feeding frenzy for the lawyers to bring case after case stripping away the narrow holding the Court actually made with respect to a purported "grass roots" citizens group (although with a claimed "educational" focus I'm wondering if this group actually also receives federal grant monies and funding, which would really mean that this case was partially funded by the taxpayers in this country - the actual citizens - in order to strip them basically of their Bill of Rights protections and voice in the election process over the "corporate.")
Which seems to be becoming more and more the case with many of these grassroots organizations with an "educational" focus now, many of them actually nothing more than "liberty as commerce" commercial concerns with conventions, T-shirts and book displays the actual reason for their existence - many of which are actually headed by lawyers or educators in order to divert and deflect the American people from what is truly going on here.
None of these groups are bringing the civil suits or filing the charges necessary against some of these Congressmen and judges for "high treason" as is the actual provision within the Constitution for continuing to undermine its provisions and amend its terms outside Article V and the 9th and 10th Amendments due to this progressive political party agenda on the part of both parties who have actually hijacked the entire election process progressively.
I wonder if the nationally based companies now vying and competing against those foreign based domiciled corporations will be as happy with this outcome as they actually appear to be since it is basically only the "global" Fortune 100 companies, and some of those international unions which will ultimately be benefitting, especially in those countries whose currency is higher than the U.S. dollar due to the currency exchange rates, such as the European countries and China.
Thus, the foreign bankers can use foreign governments and countries in order to influence and reap more and more foreign aid redistributing the wealth once again - global socialism does appear to be the goal here and the United States through that Supreme Court decision appears to be the country that is being "taken over" by those foreign bankers through our misrepresentatives in Washington.
Much like the East India Company and their "sovereign status" with King George that lead to the first American Revolution in this country, so have become the foreign bankers.
In other words, the Supreme Court took a step taking this country actually more and more toward British government once again (since the London banks and bankers are the majority shareholders in our Federal Reserve), and global corporate socialism, not simply in violation of the Constitution, but in violation of the sovereign status of this nation and also its people from foreign governmental or corporate interests and control.
It opened the floodgates to a massive "takeover" of our government and political process by China, Great Britain or any other foreign interest or government through currency manipulation, or a wealthy "immigrant" whose loyalties still may remain with his birth country or due to his family's holdings in other countries, even more so now than what already occurs, such as the buying up of much of our media and print newspapers by an Australian, Mr. Murdoch, and his Fox networks (which is, after all, the national animal of Great Britain).
Our entire Federal Reserve Banking System is funded by the British bankers, by and large, the result of that first unconstitutional public/private partnership under Wilson, and has resulted in our continued financial and military support to foreign nations long past World War II has ended up costing this country a bundle in both blood and treasure also "progressively", fighting on behalf of the British, a country which took in the majority of the Jewish refugees from World War II even though the Balfour Doctrine establishing the Nation of Israel pre-World War I was based on a British accord, and not a U.S. one at all.
It appears the goal is that ultimately the United Nations and their dictates will continue to supercede the true Rule of Law in this country and undermining its national sovereignty in a great many of the war resettlements, and in redefining the boundaries with respect to Israel after the '67 war.
Our federal government actually just sold out this country lock, stock and barrel to foreign interests without a shot being fired, simply the stroke of those Supreme Court justices pen, of course since the federal judiciary I predict will "liberally" construe the Court's holding purportedly in order to "guarantee freedom of speech" protections for not simply individually funded grassroots organizations(?) such as in the case before the Supreme Court, but commercial corporations also.
And would bet this finding was made with that entire agenda in mind, since it will be the corporately owned medias (Fox, CNN, etc.) that will gain a bundle for these ads for their corporate profits and bottom lines. In fact, I wonder if any of those justices just might become "political commentators" when they retire from the bench for one of the mainstream media networks, like Mr. Rove, Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Palin have become? When will we have our first former Supreme Court justice as a political analyst and commentator?
I wonder if Mr. Souter has been approached at this point, and wouldn't at all surprise me at this point.
Wonder where all your premium dollars will go, America, for that mandatory health care and your mandatory auto insurance? I'll bet a major portion will be set aside for their new marketing representatives, their local Congressman's next campaign.
Between the "extra" fees and costs levied on those policies in order to pay off dividends to those shareholders, fulfill those executive bonus contracts outside shareholder approvals, and make donations to candidates throughout the nation - I wonder just how much higher those premium costs will soar, or how much reshuffling now there will be of priorities with those premium dollars Americans will be forced now to pay, much of which will go to candidates that many of those insureds have been calling for true "change" in booting the entire Congressional delegation at this point out of office since approval ratings are at an all time low, and the two mainstream political parties losing their members now progressively.
In fact, in my former home state there actually was an initiative in order to "privatize" voting even proposing that a lottery be instituted with a cash prize awarded from the voting pool simply for voting, turnouts have become so low in non-presidential year elections.
Meanwhile Mr. Obama, one who was foremost in his leadership role during the banking bailouts and crisis, and also government takeover of General Motors and pushing the bankers agendas in the housing crisis focusing on "refinances" and "new home buyers," yells the proverbial foul mostly for his corporate political party for this latest Court unlawful amendment.
Even those two political parties that have also overtaken the U.S. political process and who have "progressively" hijacked our Constitution in the process scored a win in this one, since both are "corporately" also funded by most of those special interest groups in one form or another. Great way to also continue to guarantee that party platforms, rather than the U.S. Constitution, will continue to be the order of the day on Capitol Hill.
You know, the two political parties that more and more Americans have left due to their "corporate" agendas also superceding the Constitution now "progressively."
Now even the sham of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has been removed and instead it is now whichever industry or CEO has the most wealth which will be in power, or whichever foreign global special interest - especially those foreign lenders and bankers.
Interestingly, a chastizing by the Service Employees INTERNATIONAL Union has been much publicized in the mainstream media reports.
An international "corporation" that is and will also benefit "corporately" with those excessive union dues it collects, although apparently doing so to save face and present an image that it is, once again, there for their members and not their corporate "global" special interest who spread their members cash from their labors to select candidates whether their dues paying members support some of those candidates generally or their platorms, or not.
The unions, insurers, homebuilders and such really have no chance over any future legislation actually, since the entire wealth of this country is held, when push comes to shove, by those European bankers manipulating and valuing our currency outside Congressional oversight, and which was a major duty and function of our Congress - not a shell corporate entity (the Federal Reserve) for the British banking houses.
It is the bankers since Wilson's Administration that hold our gold, as security for their "debt notes" until, of course, those "debt notes" are eventually called in and our entire currency - and that of the world - will be through interbank transfers using those computer transfers and keystrokes and plastic instead rather than expensive paper, which can then potentially shut down the entire world's economy at the push of a button, or manipulate it really almost at will from country to country in a matter of seconds.
And save the cost of then printing all those dollars, euros and yen.
And while Mr. Obama continues to yell "foul" wasn't he also the candidate that refused to accept public taxpayer monies to fund his campaign, and instead relied on those "corporate" special interests dollars who apparently are now being paid back at the American public's expense in spades.
I'm surprised these guys, in all honesty, can continue to conduct these press conferences, or "townhalls," and look their fellow Americans in the eye. Or read those teleprompters without choking.
Hail, Britainia.
Your "legal" representatives just handed over the scepter. Almost 250 years it took, but just goes to show you that the pen actually is mightier than the sword.
I guess that is why those U.S. Supreme Court justices wear black, and not the red, white and blue. They just don't wear those wigs.
Anyone ready to consider throw throwing their dish satellite into Long Beach Harbor or for those that have cable, at least think about seriously cancelling that subscriptions before the propaganda, ala the Boston Tea Party, because these 2010 elections are going to be chock full of political incorrectness, and promises, promises, promises that none of those unduly elected representatives intends to keep just like the last one and all that redlining, ending the war, flag waving and Joe the Plumber rhetoric.
And just wait until 2012 and the long two years worth of analyzing by those corporate media pundits of the prepared speeches, double speak and propaganda once again for those keys to the White House, and that expense account with the three new presidential jets that have been ordered in this ever downward spiraling depression/recession with more and more becoming jobless and homeless by the day, which began in 2006 as a "stimulus" for the politicians and their political parties platforms and those bankers profits as payback for their "contributions" for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I wonder what terrorism threat or economic crisis will be manipulated by those bankers and politicians for the next one?
It does seem that such arrogance and political tyranny as what has been coming off the Hill post 9-11 appears that either those in Washington are clueless as to the actual pulse of the American people at this time - since it seems they are attempting to facilitate another war from within with such absolute disregard for the rights of the people over the corporate special interests.
Since that was, of course, the entire reason in addition to taxation (such as the new global warming taxes - taxing even the air Americans breathe at this point) those founders fought that original war due to the British monarchial rulings and favoritism granted to "sovereign subjects" such as this one the Supremes have ruled are "corporately" entitled to under the Bill of Rights which was clearly meant to secure the rights of the people against corporate abuse, governmental or otherwise.
In light of all the commentary that has been made with respect to the decision "rolling back" the campaign finance laws in order to afford unlimited corporate spending by special interests groups in national campaigns, quite a bit has been left out in just what an egregious decision this actually was, in my opinion.
Starting off with truly "rolling back" the campaign finance laws by the Supreme Court would have negated "corporate person-hoods" as having any place in Bill of Rights protections in the first place.
Meaning, that in order to have a truly "representative" government, no political candidate vying for public office should be afforded to be able to accept ANY campaign financing outside his own legislative district, whether corporately or otherwise.
The fact is that in the commentary and published opinion, it appears, there was not even any distinction made between grassroots citizens groups funded primarily with individual contributions, corporate commercial concerns, national domestic corporations with their primary home offices in the United States, or foreign global corporations whose domiciled home offices are outside this country, although of course it WAS a U.S. based PAC organization that brought the action, and thus would seem only applicable to PAC organizations gaining most of their revenues from individual contributions, but already the drums are sounding as the corporate lawyers gear up to broaden now this rendering, which I would imagine was the entire reason those Supreme Court justices selected this case to begin with. (Since this action was simply brought against a federal regulatory agency, the FEC, by a "corporate" PAC grass roots purportedly special interest organization, and most likely the states, as history is replete with examples, will now follow suit granting unlimited special interest contributions also at the state level which also was one of the primary purposes in the Court "selecting" this matter to begin with, I'll bet. That and the feeding frenzy the true agenda of this case was meant to insure, as a job stimulus for the corporate lawyers also throughout the land in all the cases that will be brought due to this "precedent" expanding this rather narrow holding into making it applicable for national and even global "commercial" corporations).
So that it may be used as a "precedent" and expanded, and expanded and expanded. Sort of like Roe.
And then if there are any further appeals, just watch those Supremes in the future, for political reasons, "refusing" then to clarify this broad based travesty of an interpretation of the CITIZENS, and definitely not national or global commercial corporate concerns, right to free political SPEECH which corporate money for campaign expense purposes is not "speech" per se but campaign funding, and only public monies should be used to fund any and all candidates for public office in amounts according to the number of voters in any electoral district.
Just wait until AIG (a London based global insurer) selects our next president, or Goldman Sachs by contributing to key legislative districts with committee leadership positions at stake - alone.
It was bad enough what occurred in those bank paybacks for the 2006 candidates for their donations, just watch now what happens in the years ahead.
Maybe new disclosure laws should quickly be enacted making it mandatory that in the future all candidates for public office should be required to wear patches like those Indy 500 drivers do for all contributions over $1,000, say.
That way those corporations can also get free advertising and more bang for their bucks.
Mark my words, this decision opens the door and will become a feeding frenzy for the lawyers to bring case after case stripping away the narrow holding the Court actually made with respect to a purported "grass roots" citizens group (although with a claimed "educational" focus I'm wondering if this group actually also receives federal grant monies and funding, which would really mean that this case was partially funded by the taxpayers in this country - the actual citizens - in order to strip them basically of their Bill of Rights protections and voice in the election process over the "corporate.")
Which seems to be becoming more and more the case with many of these grassroots organizations with an "educational" focus now, many of them actually nothing more than "liberty as commerce" commercial concerns with conventions, T-shirts and book displays the actual reason for their existence - many of which are actually headed by lawyers or educators in order to divert and deflect the American people from what is truly going on here.
None of these groups are bringing the civil suits or filing the charges necessary against some of these Congressmen and judges for "high treason" as is the actual provision within the Constitution for continuing to undermine its provisions and amend its terms outside Article V and the 9th and 10th Amendments due to this progressive political party agenda on the part of both parties who have actually hijacked the entire election process progressively.
I wonder if the nationally based companies now vying and competing against those foreign based domiciled corporations will be as happy with this outcome as they actually appear to be since it is basically only the "global" Fortune 100 companies, and some of those international unions which will ultimately be benefitting, especially in those countries whose currency is higher than the U.S. dollar due to the currency exchange rates, such as the European countries and China.
Thus, the foreign bankers can use foreign governments and countries in order to influence and reap more and more foreign aid redistributing the wealth once again - global socialism does appear to be the goal here and the United States through that Supreme Court decision appears to be the country that is being "taken over" by those foreign bankers through our misrepresentatives in Washington.
Much like the East India Company and their "sovereign status" with King George that lead to the first American Revolution in this country, so have become the foreign bankers.
In other words, the Supreme Court took a step taking this country actually more and more toward British government once again (since the London banks and bankers are the majority shareholders in our Federal Reserve), and global corporate socialism, not simply in violation of the Constitution, but in violation of the sovereign status of this nation and also its people from foreign governmental or corporate interests and control.
It opened the floodgates to a massive "takeover" of our government and political process by China, Great Britain or any other foreign interest or government through currency manipulation, or a wealthy "immigrant" whose loyalties still may remain with his birth country or due to his family's holdings in other countries, even more so now than what already occurs, such as the buying up of much of our media and print newspapers by an Australian, Mr. Murdoch, and his Fox networks (which is, after all, the national animal of Great Britain).
Our entire Federal Reserve Banking System is funded by the British bankers, by and large, the result of that first unconstitutional public/private partnership under Wilson, and has resulted in our continued financial and military support to foreign nations long past World War II has ended up costing this country a bundle in both blood and treasure also "progressively", fighting on behalf of the British, a country which took in the majority of the Jewish refugees from World War II even though the Balfour Doctrine establishing the Nation of Israel pre-World War I was based on a British accord, and not a U.S. one at all.
It appears the goal is that ultimately the United Nations and their dictates will continue to supercede the true Rule of Law in this country and undermining its national sovereignty in a great many of the war resettlements, and in redefining the boundaries with respect to Israel after the '67 war.
Our federal government actually just sold out this country lock, stock and barrel to foreign interests without a shot being fired, simply the stroke of those Supreme Court justices pen, of course since the federal judiciary I predict will "liberally" construe the Court's holding purportedly in order to "guarantee freedom of speech" protections for not simply individually funded grassroots organizations(?) such as in the case before the Supreme Court, but commercial corporations also.
And would bet this finding was made with that entire agenda in mind, since it will be the corporately owned medias (Fox, CNN, etc.) that will gain a bundle for these ads for their corporate profits and bottom lines. In fact, I wonder if any of those justices just might become "political commentators" when they retire from the bench for one of the mainstream media networks, like Mr. Rove, Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Palin have become? When will we have our first former Supreme Court justice as a political analyst and commentator?
I wonder if Mr. Souter has been approached at this point, and wouldn't at all surprise me at this point.
Wonder where all your premium dollars will go, America, for that mandatory health care and your mandatory auto insurance? I'll bet a major portion will be set aside for their new marketing representatives, their local Congressman's next campaign.
Between the "extra" fees and costs levied on those policies in order to pay off dividends to those shareholders, fulfill those executive bonus contracts outside shareholder approvals, and make donations to candidates throughout the nation - I wonder just how much higher those premium costs will soar, or how much reshuffling now there will be of priorities with those premium dollars Americans will be forced now to pay, much of which will go to candidates that many of those insureds have been calling for true "change" in booting the entire Congressional delegation at this point out of office since approval ratings are at an all time low, and the two mainstream political parties losing their members now progressively.
In fact, in my former home state there actually was an initiative in order to "privatize" voting even proposing that a lottery be instituted with a cash prize awarded from the voting pool simply for voting, turnouts have become so low in non-presidential year elections.
Meanwhile Mr. Obama, one who was foremost in his leadership role during the banking bailouts and crisis, and also government takeover of General Motors and pushing the bankers agendas in the housing crisis focusing on "refinances" and "new home buyers," yells the proverbial foul mostly for his corporate political party for this latest Court unlawful amendment.
Even those two political parties that have also overtaken the U.S. political process and who have "progressively" hijacked our Constitution in the process scored a win in this one, since both are "corporately" also funded by most of those special interest groups in one form or another. Great way to also continue to guarantee that party platforms, rather than the U.S. Constitution, will continue to be the order of the day on Capitol Hill.
You know, the two political parties that more and more Americans have left due to their "corporate" agendas also superceding the Constitution now "progressively."
Now even the sham of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has been removed and instead it is now whichever industry or CEO has the most wealth which will be in power, or whichever foreign global special interest - especially those foreign lenders and bankers.
Interestingly, a chastizing by the Service Employees INTERNATIONAL Union has been much publicized in the mainstream media reports.
An international "corporation" that is and will also benefit "corporately" with those excessive union dues it collects, although apparently doing so to save face and present an image that it is, once again, there for their members and not their corporate "global" special interest who spread their members cash from their labors to select candidates whether their dues paying members support some of those candidates generally or their platorms, or not.
The unions, insurers, homebuilders and such really have no chance over any future legislation actually, since the entire wealth of this country is held, when push comes to shove, by those European bankers manipulating and valuing our currency outside Congressional oversight, and which was a major duty and function of our Congress - not a shell corporate entity (the Federal Reserve) for the British banking houses.
It is the bankers since Wilson's Administration that hold our gold, as security for their "debt notes" until, of course, those "debt notes" are eventually called in and our entire currency - and that of the world - will be through interbank transfers using those computer transfers and keystrokes and plastic instead rather than expensive paper, which can then potentially shut down the entire world's economy at the push of a button, or manipulate it really almost at will from country to country in a matter of seconds.
And save the cost of then printing all those dollars, euros and yen.
And while Mr. Obama continues to yell "foul" wasn't he also the candidate that refused to accept public taxpayer monies to fund his campaign, and instead relied on those "corporate" special interests dollars who apparently are now being paid back at the American public's expense in spades.
I'm surprised these guys, in all honesty, can continue to conduct these press conferences, or "townhalls," and look their fellow Americans in the eye. Or read those teleprompters without choking.
Hail, Britainia.
Your "legal" representatives just handed over the scepter. Almost 250 years it took, but just goes to show you that the pen actually is mightier than the sword.
I guess that is why those U.S. Supreme Court justices wear black, and not the red, white and blue. They just don't wear those wigs.
Anyone ready to consider throw throwing their dish satellite into Long Beach Harbor or for those that have cable, at least think about seriously cancelling that subscriptions before the propaganda, ala the Boston Tea Party, because these 2010 elections are going to be chock full of political incorrectness, and promises, promises, promises that none of those unduly elected representatives intends to keep just like the last one and all that redlining, ending the war, flag waving and Joe the Plumber rhetoric.
And just wait until 2012 and the long two years worth of analyzing by those corporate media pundits of the prepared speeches, double speak and propaganda once again for those keys to the White House, and that expense account with the three new presidential jets that have been ordered in this ever downward spiraling depression/recession with more and more becoming jobless and homeless by the day, which began in 2006 as a "stimulus" for the politicians and their political parties platforms and those bankers profits as payback for their "contributions" for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I wonder what terrorism threat or economic crisis will be manipulated by those bankers and politicians for the next one?
It does seem that such arrogance and political tyranny as what has been coming off the Hill post 9-11 appears that either those in Washington are clueless as to the actual pulse of the American people at this time - since it seems they are attempting to facilitate another war from within with such absolute disregard for the rights of the people over the corporate special interests.
Since that was, of course, the entire reason in addition to taxation (such as the new global warming taxes - taxing even the air Americans breathe at this point) those founders fought that original war due to the British monarchial rulings and favoritism granted to "sovereign subjects" such as this one the Supremes have ruled are "corporately" entitled to under the Bill of Rights which was clearly meant to secure the rights of the people against corporate abuse, governmental or otherwise.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sotomayor On Applying The Law
Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.
These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."
She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?
It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.
With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.
In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.
Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.
And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.
Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.
For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.
I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.
And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.
As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.
I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.
I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.
I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.
It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.
She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."
And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.
These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."
She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?
It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.
With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.
In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.
Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.
And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.
Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.
For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.
I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.
And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.
As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.
I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.
I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.
I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.
It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.
She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."
And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Tiller Murder: Much More Than Media Spins?
For the last several days on most of the mainstream media outlets, there has been much reported with respect to the shooting and murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas, the middle of the Bible belt in middle America.
Such instances as have occurred in the few cases of such violence in the past have attracted extensive media coverage due to the division that still remains in this country over the abortion issue, and especially late term or "partial birth" abortions as were reported conducted by Dr. Tiller at his Kansas clinic.
Much rhetoric has been spewed by both sides of this issue, and the media feeding into the frenzy so much so that this instance has again dominated our television news casts and reporting for several days.
Much misinformation has also been a part of the media hype and reporting. On the one hand, Dr. Tiller is being painted as almost a saint due to his providing a service that few physicians perform in order to help poor, hapless women who have had to undergo abortions late in the pregnancies for various medical reasons, or due to criminal rape or incest.
On the other hand, he is being painted as a murderer of innocent fetuses who would have been viable and alive if not for Dr. Tiller' and his clinic's services.
Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and there was also a political motivation involved. No one has questioned in the slightest at this point a great many irregularities that have been reported both in the media, and the details as has been reported of the crime itself.
First, Dr. Tiller has been painted as performing a service that few physicians in this country undertake. In fact, one news source quoted that his clinic was "only one of three" that provided such services as abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy.
That is a blatant falsehood, as there are several of such clinics in most states now throughout the country due to the fact that most states have been as hesitant as the federal government in addressing the late term and partial birth issue now almost 30 years post Roe, which only addressed an abortion conducted in the first trimester pregnancy.
Second, if the perpetrator was actually a "fundamentalist" Christian and vehement anti-abortion radical, then why would this shooting have occurred, of all places, at the church where Dr. Tiller was serving as an usher reportedly? If this gentleman truly believed he was "doing God's work," as has also been reported, would he not have chosen another day rather than the Sabbath in middle America, a day of rest and worship?
And if Dr. Tiller was truly limiting his practice to those circumstances in which the fetus was no longer viable, medical emergencies, and cases of rape or incest, wouldn't a hospital rather than a medical "clinic," with better facilities in the event of potential complications be the proper place in order for such medical procedures to be carried out?
The instances and health risks of such late term abortions have been documented in many medical journals throughout the nation at this point due to the actual manner in which these abortions are carried out. Post operative hemorrahaging is becoming more and more common the more this risky procedure continues to be performed.
The militants on both sides have drawn their battle lines. Even Mr. Obama made a public statement with respect to the crime and his feelings on the abortion issue.
But still there is the negligence of our federal government and Congress to address this basic duty now thirty years post Roe, and the incidences, public outrage and political fodder has raised the national temperature over this issue, while the politicians continue to use such instances as this and the divisiveness over the abortion issue as just more political rhetoric for votes come election time.
Its a hard job, but that is what our elected officials are for, are they not? Defining "life" for Constitutional and legal purposes, and drawing a line in the sand between purely "elective" abortions and those necessitated by medical emergency or necessary premature deliveries is something that is long overdue.
Thirty years now post Roe we have birth control methods that were unknown at the time that decision was rendered, and also methods to detect pregnancy now within literally days and/or hours of conception.
The founders based an entire document in order to secure "life" for them and their posterity.
Isn't it time that our Congress got to the hard work of tackling these issues, and in addition many, many other issues and complications that have arisen due to continued federal negligence such as this, and cut the lobbyists, bankers and federal pork beggers loose for a session or two while it truly gets down to the matter of our government, rather than business and self interests?
Such instances as have occurred in the few cases of such violence in the past have attracted extensive media coverage due to the division that still remains in this country over the abortion issue, and especially late term or "partial birth" abortions as were reported conducted by Dr. Tiller at his Kansas clinic.
Much rhetoric has been spewed by both sides of this issue, and the media feeding into the frenzy so much so that this instance has again dominated our television news casts and reporting for several days.
Much misinformation has also been a part of the media hype and reporting. On the one hand, Dr. Tiller is being painted as almost a saint due to his providing a service that few physicians perform in order to help poor, hapless women who have had to undergo abortions late in the pregnancies for various medical reasons, or due to criminal rape or incest.
On the other hand, he is being painted as a murderer of innocent fetuses who would have been viable and alive if not for Dr. Tiller' and his clinic's services.
Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and there was also a political motivation involved. No one has questioned in the slightest at this point a great many irregularities that have been reported both in the media, and the details as has been reported of the crime itself.
First, Dr. Tiller has been painted as performing a service that few physicians in this country undertake. In fact, one news source quoted that his clinic was "only one of three" that provided such services as abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy.
That is a blatant falsehood, as there are several of such clinics in most states now throughout the country due to the fact that most states have been as hesitant as the federal government in addressing the late term and partial birth issue now almost 30 years post Roe, which only addressed an abortion conducted in the first trimester pregnancy.
Second, if the perpetrator was actually a "fundamentalist" Christian and vehement anti-abortion radical, then why would this shooting have occurred, of all places, at the church where Dr. Tiller was serving as an usher reportedly? If this gentleman truly believed he was "doing God's work," as has also been reported, would he not have chosen another day rather than the Sabbath in middle America, a day of rest and worship?
And if Dr. Tiller was truly limiting his practice to those circumstances in which the fetus was no longer viable, medical emergencies, and cases of rape or incest, wouldn't a hospital rather than a medical "clinic," with better facilities in the event of potential complications be the proper place in order for such medical procedures to be carried out?
The instances and health risks of such late term abortions have been documented in many medical journals throughout the nation at this point due to the actual manner in which these abortions are carried out. Post operative hemorrahaging is becoming more and more common the more this risky procedure continues to be performed.
The militants on both sides have drawn their battle lines. Even Mr. Obama made a public statement with respect to the crime and his feelings on the abortion issue.
But still there is the negligence of our federal government and Congress to address this basic duty now thirty years post Roe, and the incidences, public outrage and political fodder has raised the national temperature over this issue, while the politicians continue to use such instances as this and the divisiveness over the abortion issue as just more political rhetoric for votes come election time.
Its a hard job, but that is what our elected officials are for, are they not? Defining "life" for Constitutional and legal purposes, and drawing a line in the sand between purely "elective" abortions and those necessitated by medical emergency or necessary premature deliveries is something that is long overdue.
Thirty years now post Roe we have birth control methods that were unknown at the time that decision was rendered, and also methods to detect pregnancy now within literally days and/or hours of conception.
The founders based an entire document in order to secure "life" for them and their posterity.
Isn't it time that our Congress got to the hard work of tackling these issues, and in addition many, many other issues and complications that have arisen due to continued federal negligence such as this, and cut the lobbyists, bankers and federal pork beggers loose for a session or two while it truly gets down to the matter of our government, rather than business and self interests?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor: The Court Makes Policy?
Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.
In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.
And who did he choose?
A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).
Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.
Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.
Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.
And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become. And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.
It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.
In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.
And who did he choose?
A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).
Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.
Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.
Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.
And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become. And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.
It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
