The New Obama BP Settlement Czar

The New Obama Price Is Right BP Settlement Czar


It has been interesting watching the "no change" change which has occurred under the Obama Administration, at this point, which Administration is more like the Bush Administration than even the Bush Administration.

Case in point: With all the campaign rhetoric about "redlining" unnecessary federal agencies and employees, the Obama Administration has been appointing "czars" outside Congressional authority right and left ever since he took office.

But the red pencil must have gotten lost since the majority of jobs which have been created during both the Bush and Obama Administrations have been primarily government jobs mainly in civil spying networks (homeland security jobs, programs and degrees now offered at local colleges throughout the country "certified" by the Department of Homeland Security, no less - even online degrees in this "new" field are being solicited by "new" DHS "accredited" universities).

And of course the biggest sector of jobs created during this recession has been for collection and foreclosure lawyers, mortgage "counselors" (former realtors or bankers) and bill collectors and "credit counselors."

And with the still open Southern borders, the gadget and identity theft industries are booming.

The newest czar:

A well-known and well-heeled lawyer appointed by Mr. Obama to oversee the BP claims from the "reserve" account which BP was ordered to provide also under presidential decree, which was supposed to cover mainly the emergency costs and losses which were affecting those businesses and people living within the affected regions of Louisiana.

Of course, due to the failure to cap those wells sufficiently for over four months, that oil has now spread all the way to Florida, from all reports.

The lawyer chosen was the same lawyer who oversaw the "claims" process over those affected by 9-11.

And, of course, the terms have changed with respect to the filing of claims.

Those filing it now appears in order to get any compensation at all, must sign waivers waiving their Constitutional rights to sue at a later date if their losses multiply, agreeing then that they will not sue BP independently for any additional sums - and must prove their actual losses without taking into consideration potential future losses, and whose settlements will be based upon this czar's using the distance the claimant is or was from the disaster as the primary basis for the final settlement.

So we have a presidentially appointed new "czar" rewriting our Constitution through his own independent judgment and criteria by simply royal edict, as an appointed baron over the Gulf Region, as it were.

Although, of course, the ramifications from this disaster, if Exxon Valdez is any indication, could impact that region and by extension the entire nation for decades to come since this spill has not been contained and the clean up efforts are still ongoing.

And will be for some time.

Appears to this writer that that "reserve" account was established by the Obama Administration most of all in an attempt to attempt instead to "slap" BP, protect or "mitigate" their losses for its protection and the "global economy" in which most of those on the Hill are also significantly invested in those global oil, gas and energy stocks.

Along with many of the unions, public employee's pension plans, etc., etc.

Once again, protecting the "corporate" (and in this case a foreign global corporation illegally given mineral rights to America's precious offshore reserves) over the lives and livelihoods of the "Joe the plumber" average American and poorer and middle class small business owners, who are not significantly invested in this "global" economy at their expense, but touting this reserve initially as a slap at BP and "redress" for those affected.

Although there are still reported over 300 lawsuits pending, most likely for corporate interests which can afford all those advance costs in order to pursue their claims thrush the courts, or as class actions (which were also mandated somehow outside Constitutional authority through federal court rules in order to mitigate some of those losses once again obviously, after publicizing that over 2/3rds the federal district court judges would have to disqualify themselves due to their own personal oil holdings).

My question also is just where in the Constitution does it give the president the authority to bypass the civil process on damages and losses, or attempt to deny those individuals their right to have their "day in court" in front of a jury of their peers, in using this carrot on a stick for the protection of this British global giant who is now responsible for the loss totally of over 40 American lives?

Or the courts in consolidating many of those cases, which may or may not be at all similar in the degree for which those losses will or might be ongoing.

And, for all intents and purposes, it will be every single American impacted in one way or another paying for this disaster whether at the pump, or through their businesses, or gas taxes when after all the dust has settled, those gas prices begin to rise once again along with those federal and state taxes on Americans own oil reserves sold back to them then by the British under those "free trade" leases.

And how can the extent of those damages for most of these individuals be determined when the clean-up efforts are still ongoing, and the actual ramifications of this tremendous oil spill have yet to even begin to be realized?

Since, of course, it will be the entire nation that will be paying the costs for this in higher gasoline prices across the board since BP is a former holding of the British royal family, and does hold the "rights" through a great many of these leases to literally the majority of oil reserves throughout the world.

Outside, of course, those which they lost when the Shah of Iran was removed from power back in the 1970's, and for which it appears at this point that that loss is not something the Crown has forgotten - hence, why Iran continues to be marginalized and targeted at this point due to its development of nuclear power outside royal edict and sitting on a bucket load of oil reserves lost also due to a change in power way back when (and the Brits, royals and their bankers, hold the majority of leases also on most of those nuclear reactors in the world through their ownership of stock in the holding companies for most of those reactors).

I wonder just how much of the Presidential, Congressional and judicial pension plans are invested in AIG, BP and energy stocks, anyway or state and federal public employees at this point?

And just how many extra barrels of oil those Brits were able to scam under those leases the last four months while these "efforts" to contain the spill were continuing?

Senate Approves 600 Million For Border: But Where's The Fence?

It was announced with great fanfare by the mainstream media that the Senate has approved on voice vote an additional 600 million dollars in order to reportedly secure the U.S. Mexico border.

Just in time for the upcoming November elections.

The funds provided are to be utilized in the hiring of an additional 1,500 government employees (whose salaries and benefits will escalate over time, and is once again expanding the costs of government rather than reducing it, and who also will be disempowered in effectively doing their jobs through internal regulatory backbiting) and more toys for the monitoring of the border with unmanned aircraft and the like for the defense contractors and Silicon Valley.

But where are the sums for the fence, the true security which is needed at least along the Arizona border which encompasses over 300 miles of open desert?

It would literally take agents arm in arm to secure that desert adequately against those new and improved all terrain vehicles those large scale hard drug dealers and auto theft rings have been able to purchase with their massive profits PROGRESSIVELY.

The pickup trucks crossing with the loads of Mexico Gold are a mere drop in the bucket, and don't have the speed or familiarity with those stretches of desert that those repeat large scale drug operations do, or homie domestic distributors and suppliers they have signed up on the U.S. side of the border after the last amnesty under Reagan who are now plying their wares to middle school students.

I'll bet the cost for four to five foot titanium spikes would be far less than the costs of this newest "solution" to the open border situation will actually be.

And far less likely to potentially add billions more to the bottom line deficit for those fees and costs for that other group of government contractors, the illegal immigrant "civil rights" lawyers and PAC organizations at the U.S. taxpayers expense who are now forced to literally pay for their own abuse in many of these illegal, in more ways than one, civil rights cases with the illegals getting free lawyers gratis the U.S. taxpayers including those U.S. citizens, municipal and state governments who are getting hit in double and triple whammies for those illegal cases since the Mexican government surely isn't providing the legal fees for these migrant workers and drug dealers through the American courts.

Mr. Obama heralded the bill and is expected to sign it on Friday, again using this ineffective and costly "solution," which has been tried numerous times before throughout the decades to push his "comprehensive immigration reform" agenda ala George Bush and that of the globalists serving on the Hill from both the mainstream political parties who dominate our elective and appointed offices across the board both at the federal and state levels.

A "high tech" physical fence is what is needed here, not a virtual fence that can be turned off and on at will at the flip of a few switches and monitored once again by government contractors (in the name of "jobs and the economy" in these ever increasing public/private partnerships for mostly Wall Street's eventual gains) that just might be tempted to look the other way for a cut of this profitable Mexican commerce in this underground trade agreement.

The sums for this Silicon Valley and defense contractor stimulus it was announced is going to be funded by an increase in the taxes levied on personnel agencies that provide foreign labor.

Say, what? The majority of those that legally wish entry into this country to my knowledge do not go through "personnel agencies" at all, but through immigration lawyers who solicit their clients overseas and who arrange for those green cards at huge fees for the average Eastern European or South American.

Which, of course, simply means that the profits for the mostly naturalized Mexican coyotes will increase, since those taxes for those foreign workers will be passed on to them as part of their "application fees", making it more than likely that the U.S. will be seeing an increase in Western European immigrants whose countries have higher currency rates for the legal Visas and green cards, than those from poorer countries who will simply again take their chances on the coyotes leading the across that desert.

Which just goes to show that the Democrats are not the party of the "common" people they claim to be, but also identical to that other branch of the Globalist Party, the NeoCon Republican wing, since this solution is really no solution at all and has been used numerous times in the past - even under Ms. Napolitano when she was Governor of Arizona but did not at all reduce the numbers in any significant manner of "new" crossers.

Or this will simply give some of those new internet "homeland security" graduates those 1,500 jobs along partisan lines according to which party is in power for their party members, the ones most likely that will flip the switches on those virtual fences, and then create eventually another agency or panel to investigate and monitor the monitoring of the virtual fencing after the next high profile rancher's death occurs.

So again I and literally tens of thousands of other present and former border state residents and victims, and others throughout the nation now feeling annually more and more the impact of this PROGRESSIVE negligence, ask this Congress and this Administration - WHERE'S THE FENCE?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/12/pol.senate.border.funding/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_politics

UPDATE: Obama, as reported, signed the bill with much mainstream media ballyhoo as was expected. Another political move, and not Constitutional one.

In former Goldwater Arizona, I can unequivocally state that given the level of victimization of the American people, and the fact that we are STILL engaged in a foreign war primarily due to an attack that was carried out from within the country by illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas and were not screened adequately prior to allowing entry, and the amount of homeless and jobless in a state which he truly loved as a native, that he would have had the marines, army and coast guard patrolling those borders - and during this war would have had any and all "visitors" expelled before one boot set on Afghan soil....

So, again, WHERE'S THE FENCE?

Los Angeles Times Vets Kagan

With the upcoming confirmation hearings for Obama's second selection in less than two years for the U.S. Supreme Court it should come as no surprise that the Los Angeles Times came out with an article favoring the selection of Ms. Kagan, based upon their conclusion that Ms. Kagan was not a "leftist" as has been portrayed, but more of a moderate.

Coming from the Times, any further right than the USSR would be moderate, in this writer's opinion.

Of course, the L.A. Times is owned by the Tribune Global conglomerate based out of Chicago so I guess the hometown crowd may have had a bit of influence on the reporter's perspective, don't you think?

They do own "Hoy" a Spanish language newspaper sold in this country as one of the more "globalist" world government news organizations from the get go.

The facts given in the article demonstrating Ms. Kagan's more "moderate" views, of course, failed to mention quite a few salient facts.

Harvard's progressively more "conservative" curriculum under Ms. Kagan was highlighted, backed up by the opinion of one lawyer that graduated from this institution of higher learning stating that Harvard has now become now for its conservative course curriculums.

I guess if your definition of conservatism is more aligned with the British variety, since Ms. Kagan was dean when one of her administrative acts was to remove the mandatory Constitutional Law classes and replace them with more globally focused "progressive" classes.

During her confirmation as Solicitor General, she brought to her hearings some of her old friends from Cambridge, a British school of higher learning.

Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge and some of those West Coast liberal law schools seem to have a rather open student exchange program, so I guess those students who attempt to transfer credit between universities have much less of a problem than most students in the U.S. who simply attempt to get their credits transferred between U.S. colleges during their course of studies.

Ms. Kagan is the child of Russian Jewish immigrant parents cum New Yorkers, a fact also mentioned in the article.

And Russia was a communist country for an awful long time, and those of Russian Jewish lineage do tend to be more rather "socialist" in their outlook. Many American Jewish children of past generations were sent to Israel for the requisite two years during their adolescence in order to live on a kibbutz and also visit their "homeland." It does appear that this selection is actually meant to replace Ms. Ginsburg, since it does appear Ms. Kagan is almost exactly as "conservative" as Ms. Ginsburg with her beliefs that the Constitution is a "living document" which can be amended by those justices outside Constitutional provision.

And as with Ms. O'Connor before her, a labeled "moderate" yet also more a converted Globalist in her later opinions, believes that there is a place for international law and precedence in rendering their opinions, although it clearly was the founders intent that this nation remain a sovereign country and not influenced in any manner by what Europe (and especially Britain) or the rest of the world's government provided.

The Romans attempted world government, all those philosphers that were also important influences on those Caesars and senators.

But the United States was not in any manner to even parallel Rome's government, although it has become clear, especially in the last several decades, that this is exactly the mindset of those on the Hill.

Yes, this age is different from that of the founders. I mean, they had an entire Eastern Seaboard and coastline to defend with simply rudimentary cannons and muskets against some of the finest standing armies in the world, and pirates on the high seas.

Ms. Kagan has a "worldly" view of government, not a founder's or framer's view.

But leave it to the global socialists in this country to care more about how the Court "looks" than how true those sitting on it are to the charter which even gives them those lofty positions.

Ms. Kagan appears to be another of the British trained lawyers which are gaining more and more influence in all levels of government.

Harvard abandoned the Constitution under Ms. Kagan. Although most law schools throughout the nation appear to be focusing much more on judge made and international law, rather than the Constitution and those founders intent outside a clear amendment of it sanctioned by the people through the states with those justices having absolutely no legal authority to so do independently.

And that isn't what has "progressively" occurred by those British trained yet American "civil servants."

Isn't that enough for a "no" vote.

But don't hold your breath, since after those BP hearings and those "staged" Congressional confrontations by those Tories on the Hill in bed with those global corporatists, I expect Ms. Kagan will get confirmed after a few Senators have a chance for some media face time for the folks back home before next elections, her fellow Globalist Brits, whose percentages in all three branches of government are now at unprecedented levels.

The question is not whether she can read English or was educated at Harvard, but can she read American and is she at all familiar with the document which provides for her potential position - especially after removing its study from the Harvard curriculum.

Beware, America, of any Senator that uses the words "judicial precedent" as part of his criteria also for confirmation.

To most Americans who are even minimally politically aware, there have been a bucketload of Supreme Court decisions that have been rendered that have been so unconstitutional they are laughable, and have contributed significantly to why this country is in the mess it is in. Including the most recent one on unlimited spending by corporate entities as somehow a "free speech" right, and within Constitutional intent. Just how CAN you have a representative government, when those potential representatives are afforded to be sponsored by "foreign" entities outside their legislative districts, I ask you?

The L.A. Times also focused on her fundraising ability for the university as a positive measure of one who would "get things done."

The question is: Constitutionally, or "progressively."

Goldman Sachs Passion Play Misses The True Crime

While the entire even minimally politically aware citizenry of the United States is on overdrive due to the far-reaching events of this past week with respect to the war zone conditions that are more than apparent in the border states and particularly Arizona over the illegal immigration situation, with those on the East Coast per a Saturday Night Live News segment slamming the state, while being totally ignorant of what actually led to the actions taken by the state government to begin with, there has been more afoot on the Eastern Seaboard.

Such is the insulation in this country, and lack of a national identity at this point that those not directly affected by the porous southern borders and drug cartels doing business cross borders almost unimpeded for the past thirty years, have once again attempted to minimize the impact on those victims, rather than putting pressure on the federal government to actually do their jobs and get our southern borders secured FOR ALL.

This week, however, another drama is being played out in the media which also majorly impacted those living mostly in the West and Southwest and Sunbelt states (the states with the continuing foreclosures, which are increasing by the month) and that is the hearings being conducted over the Goldman Sachs securities fraud.

Little connection, however, or reporting has been forthcoming insofar as just who were the actual true victims in the Goldman Sachs fiasco.

And it was not primarily the investors of those CDOs which were pawned off on them by Goldman Sachs knowing full well that those collateralized loans were junk, and that one of their major clients was hedging their bets though derivatives in the process.

After all, Goldman Sachs is the Cadillac of investment houses and most of their clients are not neophytes but savy investors, or at least minimally aware of risk when making some of those investments.

I mean, these investors were playing the market, after all.

In fact, there are quite a number of Goldman Sachs investors who, I'm sure, invest for the tax writeoffs they receive for losses on some of those investments.

Although mere disclosures also of the risks for most of these investments is clearly inadequate for many, due to the legalese with which most prospectuses and other investment documents are written to begin with.

And selling your investors down the river for a favored investment client firm is not good business practice, nor is it legal in the sense the founders intended irrespective as to whether or not there are codified laws allowing mere disclosure as a protection for these huge Wall Street banking firms in order to mitigated their potential losses since Wall Street is pretty much left alone by the SEC and Congress more and more while the investment grades and risks are becoming greater and greater, for the average American individual investor, that is.

In fact, I would simply state that Goldman Sachs had a huge ethical problem, and conflict of interest actually, in order to win favor with one client at the cost of so many others and can not understand for the life of me just how that would not have been in violation of at least several SEC or United States Code provisions.

But the true victims actually are the American homeowners mostly in the West and Southwest who were sold most of those bad loans which Goldman Sachs has admitted full well knew were bad while they were unloading them.

People who were first time homebuyers, or who were forced into refinances in those states due to the rising costs of ownership during that very short boom cycle, many of whom also were owners of homes during a similar scenario involving Charles Keating in the 1980's - who was selling risky investments to elderly retirees in also the West and Southwest and who ended up losing their homes and everything they had when Lincoln Savings & Loan went bust.

Many of these risky and bad CDO's were also guaranteed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

We all know what happened then since it is and has been the American people who are also bailing out those two entities, all for Goldman Sachs' investors, since the homeowners whose loans were involved and their interests are far down the list and in which at this point for many actually have no underlying debt, as it were, since they were resold.

AND the American people were billed for cash advanced literally in the millions directly to Goldman Sachs (a part owner of our own Federal Reserve actually, according to several reports), so actually it appears Goldman Sachs was using Congress to write themselves their own checks, while billing then those costs to the American public at large on their investors behalf.

And yet it is and was the American homeowners who are still being threatened by these banks and lenders in bed with thsoe Wall Street wheeler dealers and Washington, and few have been able to refinance under more favorable terms since Congress has yet to address the actual terms of those bogus contracts to begin with.

In fact, most of Congress and Obama's attentions have been in attempting to hawk refinances instead to get more and more Americans, it appears, into some of those bogus loans in order to use to pay back some of these investors, apparently.

Or for those "new" jobs created in the mortgage industry of now "mortgage counselors" to settle those debts with those investors by renegotiating the terms of those loans as the middle man with those homeowners, weighing the cost/benefit against foreclosing on the property and reselling it as to which would get those investors and those banks affiliated with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae more.

Many of those loans, of course, were sold through California lenders which were not even based on the U.S. currency, but on the British LIBOR rates.

In the banking industry, the connections between New York and Wall Street and California and those mortgage bankers is strong.

After this week's bust and play acting by the Senate with respect to any true financial sector/Wall Street reform, I'm wondering when those in Washington will get around to addressing the fallout to the true victims of this passion play.

The American people, and mostly those American homeowners in the West and Southwest which New York and its brash comedians maligned in a roundabout way once again last Saturday night.

Watch Washington give Goldman Sachs a lengthy tongue lashing, as what occurred today by selected Senators needing some face time with the media for the upcoming elections, and then purportedly levy a heavy fine.

While the true victims continue to lose their homes, jobs and even lives in the West and Southwest due to Washington's continued political maneuvering protecting the bankers and appeasing the foreigners while raping the citizenry.

U.S. Senate Passes Unpatriotic Act By Voice Vote

Well, we certainly got "change" alright, haven't we America?

Yesterday it was reported by the AP that the Senate rather hastily extended the terms of the United States "Unpatriotic" Act for another year, without any fundamental changes with respect to many of the unlawful provisions and search and seizures now being instigated by the Department of Homeland Insecurity after its original passage in the wake of 9-11.

Prior, of couse, to our invasion of Iraq then after being in Afghanistan for less than a year, hunting for the mastermind of 9-11, which was committed by Saudi citizens. Not an American Joe Citizen in the bunch planned the attack, or was an accessory to it that was living in the country prior to 9-11.

But, of course, shares in our airlines and nuclear reactors are still being traded on the global stock exchange, and our northern and southern borders more porous now than even before 9-11 after the DHS and Bush Administration's Visa waiver program was expanded to include now citizens from over 34 different countries.

Including Great Britain, home of two of the latest terrorists, the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber.

Whose father, according to British sources, who supposedly reported on his son's radicalization by a Yemen connected al Qaeda sect, actually was a high level banking official, and who lived (as a student, supposedly) in one of the premier London neighborhoods amongst most of the British banking houses wheelers and dealers.

The vote was taken via voice vote, not roll call.

There is little wonder why.

Those 2010 election campaigns are now in high gear, and we wouldn't want that black mark as having voted for this unconstitutional Act once again to somehow ruin any of the chances of some of these Senators being re-elected.

So our Democratic Congress is really no different than our Republican one. This way they can all individually state that the didn't vote to extend this ludicrous act which is such a violation of the Bill of Rights it is outrageous in some of its provisions.

And mostly directed at those telecom companies, you know the ones that Congress was attempting then to also grant immunity to in order to honor those National Security Letters, and go along with this Act when I'm sure most of their corporate lawyers knew how totally violative it was of the Bill of Rights, and warned their clients accordingly - who, of course, then went screaming to Congress so that after its passage, they then couldn't be held liable for following this unconstitutional law to begin with, no matter who the target of those letters might be, American or foreigner.

Which "legally" according to the common law upon which ours is based, our government has no Constitutional authority to so do either in order to forment their agendas or cover their rears for the Constitutional violations promoted against those "unalienable" rights (God-given), indemnify a corporate entity against liability for criminal activities.

But passive Americans and those now that have been "fed" by the television media to buy into such propaganda just goes to show how totally "rogue" most of those players on the Hill actually are at this point.

The dumbing down of America, all appearances of Washington's "concern" for the education fo our youth to the contrary, has been deliberate and progressively regressive insofar as American history and government.

Unbelieveable what this two party system has dissolved into, since it is apparent that the Global Socialists within each of them has control of the reins of both our government, and their "corporate" political parties.

Or have simply re-established the British Torie Party on these shores once again.

Of course the House still hasn't passed it yet, but the new game has been to pass such legislation as this, the Cap & Trade, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Act, and a host of others in one branch, yet leave it in the hopper in the other without then a formal passage into law.

But then in some of those horrendously long appropriations bills, fund those "Non-Acts" anyway, as if they had the force of law.

Or simply codify a regulatory agency, such as Homeland Security, with authorization to execute on these non-Acts through those appropriations bills that are now also 1,000 pages long, while the media concentrates on the "pork" rather than the substantial sums appropriated also to fund NonActs of Congress more and more.

The "pork" isn't the problem, since most of that pork is simply returning the taxpayer's sums back to the states for their duties and functions - with the exception that with the feds holding the purse strings, they of course place conditions and strings then on those sums so the states also tow the federal line since the states really ceded their powers to the feds in all matters unconstitutionally with the passage of the 16th and 17th, and are nothing more than lobbyists also at the federal trough forever changing the balance of power and undermining regressively then the rights of the people from that day forward.

Of course, without the consent of the governed way back when per the 9th placed the states actually subservient to the people on further Constitutional amendments after passage of those first 10.

The games and spins are coming fast and furious off the Hill now, and so are those election promises once again, and creatively attempting to rewrite history in the process by both of those political parties which are collusive in their abridgements of the rights of the people, at this point that is for sure.

Maybe the next poll will reflect a -10 approval rating.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100224/78432380-4abf-4a03-b7da-b6fa6a7879c1

Senate Celebrates While Constitution Burns

(Edited and Revised)

It was announced by the AP today that Senate Democrats are ready to hand Barack Obama his "victorious" health care deform bill on Christmas Eve - the bill that was concocted mostly by consulting with the industry "stakeholders," such as the global insurers, AARP trade affiliated vendors marketing to senior citizens, and the AMA who now can potentially refuse treatment to any and all Americans that do not have some health care coverage, or use now this bogus measure to deny life saving treatments to many if their federally sanctioned plans do not so provide.

While, of course, providing free emergency treatment to illegal immigrants and foreigners under separate legislation that was enacted under the Reagan Administration after the first amnesty bill was passed, and through various trade agreements, especially with Mexico and Canada.

And, of course, even the government has its own escape clause in such instances. It is called the Federal Tort Claim Act, which only provides for compensation in such event for actual losses or damages, not punitive awards in any manner whatsoever for deaths or injuries which occur in which even those now "governmentally approved" plans provide.

So go try to get a lawyer in order to help you redress a federally sanctioned plan that has denied you coverage and watch the lawyers squirm, or quote you an hourly rate that would have you bankrupted within a week at their hourly rates which now at over $300 to $400 per hour (how many times is THAT over the minimum wage), and in some states throughout the nation, that rate won't even get you a few hours of legal research or status reports by their secretaries or paralegals, the profit margins on that profession are now so stratrospheric.

My main question has been, due to the length of this bill at over 2,000 pages of legalese which proves it was written by lawyers, for lawyers most of all, - just where has the ACLU, that organization dedicated to supposedly protecting American's civil rights and the Bill of Rights, been during this entire fiasco which has been ongoing since last summer?

The organization that was behind the "death by dehydration" of Teri Schiavo, as a "right to choose," whether or not medical treatment should be extended at all to the disabled if not responsive - even in the event where rehabilitation had been denied such individual even though covered by insurance provision, and who was clearly still breathing independently without any mechanical assistance whatsoever?

I mean, it would appear that in their silence now for six long months, their stances in the Teri Schiavo matter clearly were nothing more than empty rhetoric, and legal smoke and mirrors.

Where is the protection of the Constitutional rights for Americans to not be denied "life, liberty or property" without "due process" of law - since health care insurance is a product, and Congress really has no authority whatsoever to "mandate" that Americans must purchase a product or be "fined" and "sanctioned" by Uncle Sam if not in compliance.

Especially without a Constitutional Amendment granting such authority outside their enumerated powers and duties. If anything, this is a "state" matter and not a federal one in any manner whatsoever.

And one in which every single state in the nation already has existing plans in order to cover the very individuals that this bill presumes to include - the indigent, or those that are clearly denied coverage or cannot afford to provide it given their economic circumstances.

Although much has been made mention of the inclusion of the small regulatory function (their legal duty in such a matter, if any, over corporate concerns affecting the citizenry) of mandating that insurers cannot deny coverage for those with pre-existing medical conditions - in any the summaries I have read there is nowhere any federal regulatory agency charged with oversight, nor fines imposed on insurers that do not comply.

Nor is their language or any control over just how much it will cost, once again, for those that DO have pre-existing conditions.

The trick has been in the auto insurance mandatory laws due to states that have included such language for their state residents, simply to charge such an outrageous price for the coverage that only about 2% of the population could afford it.

Or the state's then collect more taxes from the general public in order to so provide those SR-22 policies that the state's then get a share in.

Yes, this is the bill that will "keep on giving" to the industries and financial sectors, at the cost once again of the American people resulting in lower and lower economic circumstances for most, and steadily continuing to wipe out the middle class in the process.

So it is clear that truthfully both parties have merged into the "global socialist party" and both work for their corporate benefactors.

With simply a small change in which major benefactor they are attempting to feed at the American public's ultimate expense.

And our Constitution be damned.

Health Care Deform: Another Stimulus For Financial Sector, High Wage Earners

While Barack Obama is enjoying his vacation in Copenhagen along with the other world leaders in the name of saving the planet from its eventual demise due to carbon emissions (and in which the carbon emissions from the private jets of those world leaders beats the average citizen of all those countries by about 100 to 1), a Christmas gift is being prepared for the financial sector and health care industry that will, as they say, "keep on giving."

Apparently this bogus health care reform legislation just will not die, no matter how much the American people have already spoken loud and clear regarding the focus of the legislation, which is actually nothing more than a job stimulus for the top wage earners and corporate health care industries bottom line profits, at the cost mostly of middle class Americans.

That middle class that is disappearing in leaps and bounds, which will live in infamy as having become extinct in the first half of the twenty first century.

While Washington keeps promising that this will enable those that cannot now afford insurance to do so, with all the new creative spins on different options that will be available, the bottom line is that at this point there are so many now jobless and homeless that the cost of any health insurance at all is out of reach for most - yet those people will be the ones fined and penalized if this plan comes to fruition.

Also, much has been publicized about the "accountability" measure that will be built in so that the health care industry will be held accountable, which is what actually has been long overdue in regulating this vital industry on which every single American depends. But with the bill at now over 2,000 pages, little has been said about just how these accountability measures are going to be enforced - since, of course, most of the health care insurance industries offices are actually incorporated at the state, not federal, level.

And there are no "licenses" per se needed or given for any of these corporate entities - even though at this point many of them are actually global concerns and operating in this country without any effective regulation whatsoever.

In fact, about a decade ago Congress pass another of their backroom "Acts" which actually precluded the states from regulating most of these entities at the state level in any manner whatsoever - in the name, of course, of "free enterprise."

Only the "enterprise" we are speaking of are Americans lives.

And also much publicized has been the fact that employers will be required to provide insurance for their employees. Of course, in the article recently published it noted that this only applies if the employee involved is eligible for any "federal subsidies" for his health care costs.

In other words, the only real requirement or enforcement which will be made against employers is actually nothing more than a bribe - you offer insurance to your employees, Uncle Sam and the taxpayers will then reimburse you for some of those costs.

Nor is their language that determines whether those requirements mean that the employer must pick up the full costs for that health care coverage. Most employers of large corporations do as a fringe benefit for other than part time or hourly workers, at least for the worker.

It is amazing that instead of providing federal subsidies for employers (not citizens, it appears), it is too difficult to actually simplify our out of control tax code and make, as with corporate entities at the present time, any and all sums paid by individual Americans for health care coverage fully tax deductible - in order to then equalize that unequal "privilege and immunity" that has been given to corporate entities over sole proprietors or self employed individuals for literally decades.

And I would like to know on what Constitutional authority Washington is basing its "mandatory" provisions in that Americans must purchase a "product," which health insurance coverage actually is, or face sanctions and fines from Uncle Sam if they do not feed their corporate benefactors?

I don't see that anywhere in the 23 page copy I have of the U.S. Constitution - in fact, it does state that no citizen shall be deprived of "property" in any manner by the government without "due process of law."

And there hasn't been any "due process" with respect to consulting the citizenry or listening to their cries for regulation, both of the costs and of the practices, of these industries.

In fact, the only ones consulted seem to be the "stakeholders."

And as "stakeholders," does that not now mean that every single health care company, and provider, now is nothing more than an "agent" of the government, at this point - and those health care and financial sector industries - "state actors" and part of the government now itself.

Those involved are calling this legislation "historic," reminescent of Social Security - the program that the federal government has bankrupted by both unlawfully dipping into those sums for extra-Constitutional functions, and by distributing it not simply for the original reason it was intended - for those that, in their older years, were unable to work or who had not, due to circumstances beyond their control (such as the Depression, as it was intended to be only temporary) had the means to save enough through their incomes (especially after the rather questionable "tax on labor" went into effect) for their basic provision and needs.

And just what is going to occur at the state level, since so many states are now collecting taxes hands over fist for many of the state run programs that provide health care for those that are uninsureable, or cannot afford insurance which the state citizens have been funding now for decades?

Oh, and insofar as the requirement that individuals cannot be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions?

Watch what has occurred in other areas where the insurance industry is involved. No denials of coverage, just setting those premiums at rates only the top 10% of the population could afford to pay.

This will be historic legislation alright.

Legislation that is making old Ben spin right about now.

Let The Games Begin: Massachusetts Politicos Vying For Vacant Senate Seat

With the passing of Ted Kennedy last week and after the weeklong media coverage of both his life, and his politcal career now over, the media's attention has now been turned toward just who might fill the empty Senate seat occupied by Senator Kennedy.

Even going so far as to call it "a Kennedy seat," in the liberal media press.

And the term liberal spreads on both sides of the aisle, since a "liberal" is merely one who "liberally" construes the Constitution by not consulting it in any manner whatsoever.

Sort of like what is occurring now on the discussions and debates on the health care issue. Not a federal function in any manner whatsoever, but one in which the states and state citizens should decide for their own communities, and at levels that are more locally accountable for indigent or other public health services.

Not foreign ruler. With the exception of regulating those national and global insurers and their practices, not take them over or get into bed with these now huge megaconglomerate concerns, many of which now are not even based in the U.S., but want the U.S. market base without any accountability in the marketing or honoring of their products or services.

Especially since the only real revenue and reason for their existence is due to the ratepayers payment of their premiums, and it is their own divestitures that also have been involved in escalating the costs by using those premiums and stockholder investments to diversity into high risk investments and fields for greater returns. While Washington has sat on its thumbs giving them carte blance in order to so do.

Providing a public option is rather laughable when Congress hasn't done its primary job in overseeing those global and national carriers. And most likely, anyone that is involved in any public option will come from the private sector health insurance industry and bring their rogue practices also with them.

And we all see how well Congress oversees most of those regulatory agencies now, like the IRS and the Federal Reserve (who are, after all, no more than front men for the European banking houses, and we all see whose "economy" the Fed is concerned with. The global one. Not at all America's, but raping American citizens to feed the foreign investors).

Massachusetts, of course, already has such a universal health care plan which was started in its liberalism, and so this push now is also highly suspect since such plans really already exist in some form or another in every state across the nation.

This state's utter outrageous representatives interpretations of our Constitution have unfortunately spread throughout the country (think California, now receiving most of the Iraq war contracts and domestic spying programs for Silicon Valley venture capitalists)due to the untold celebrity this political family somehow created after the death of John Kennedy over 40 years ago on a political career that had as many lows as highs.

Beginning with the starting of the Viet Nam conflict, our first truly non-defensive, interventionist war and which lasted then far longer than it should have to begin with, given the "threat" of that small country to our own. With then the U.S. inheriting thousands of political refugees, not to mention the debt and Americans lives lost or forever changed by that conflict (as also never a legal or Congressionally declared war under a formal Declaration of War).

The entire week's review was rather unbelieveable in its scope, and the rather unbalanced reporting which occurred in any event.

The aura surrounding the Kennedy name at this point is a little overblown in a historical context.

Several U.S. presidents had been the victims of having their lives tragedically ended prematurely, after all. And only Lincoln's has historically also been used fundamentally to aggrandize the true facts and accomplishments while in office. And records historically altered in order to make the tragedies of their deaths in office somehow all out of proportion to what their individual contributions actually were.

Abraham Lincoln, who although was a great statesman, politician and orator, clearly lacked a true understanding that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to state sovereignty, which united to begin with in order to fight a foreign government and oppressor, the British, also provided in our founding documents the right to dissolve the union if for any reason it no longer suited either the state or people's best interests.

And only gave the states, with the people's consent and directive, the power to alter or abolish it, and not the federal government at all in its original form and legal provisions under the "contract," the U.S. Constitution. Which can only be amended by the states, and people, not by federal fiat, in any of the three branches. Not the president, Congress or U.S. Supreme Court without the "consent of the governed."

The South and the slavery issue, after all, was simply what some historians have used as the basis for the civil war in this country for also generations. When actually the entire war was over state's rights, with the slavery issue really even inconsequential to Lincoln.

His solution initially offered to the South when it stated its intention to leave the union, was to afford the slaves free passage back to Africa if they so desired, which is also well documented in Lincoln's papers as one from the industrial north. The lives of those in the Northern states were not a whole lot better than those in the South at that time either. Lincoln himself came from a farming background, after all.

According to his Christian beliefs also, no man without his own consent (such as indentured servitude in exchange for work performed, or more commonly in barter exchanges for room and board ) had a right to claim "ownership" over another. Most farm workers even in the North lived on the farms and were provided food and shelter, but simply migrated during crop season.

Which was fundamentally the disagreement the founders had. Lifelong servitude, as it were.

But the slavery at the time it was ratified was not the same as was practiced in the South and occurred progressively due to also federal transgressions on protecting domestic agricultural production over foreign competition also then at lower costs due to seasonal variations in U.S. production.

Those original slaves who existed at the time the Constitution was ratified were for the most part more than well treated, well respected by those such as Jefferson, and who were sent with those men and their families abroad for further study and education in Europe, after all, as was the practice.

And was such a bone of contention also at the time that it is well documented that the founders eventually forsaw when that issue would need to be addressed and rectified accordingly as soon as this new nation had its first generation of native born new Americans.

And most freed then upon their death as Jefferson did and was provided in his will, which was also recognized as a legal right and private arrangement to be dissolved.

Many slaves were "freed" by slaveowners also upon request for simply repayment of any debts incurred on their behalf since even medical needs and assistance was provided by many.

Most were also sold into slavery by warring tribes in Africa instead of being put to death rather than as history likes to relate, brought here unwillingly by American slavetrader opportunists. Most came by way of Britain, which is where the real active slavetrading had been occurring and also why so many of the founders objected due to this British originated practice.

But it was the "progressives" actually that used them for agricultural purposes, and in the mills and factories, that abused their authority over them rather than a somewhat mutually beneficial arrangement which it originally was which lead to all the slave revoltes.

People naturally wish to escape abusive situations, and that is really what was fundamentally what lead to all the slave revolts. Mistreatment. Not a desire for freedom or independence but more in order to escape mental and physical torment.

But I digress somewhat to even prove a point with respect to Senator Kennedy's passing.

Even after all the accolades and tributes made by those in political office and his Massachusetts constituency, the nation is now being made to be witness to this transfer of power rather than simply a matter of filling a public service position with another American to so do.

And it was the "progressives" in both parties in Congress and the President that fired many of those hardworking, middle class GM workers in Detroit, a city historically with a large number of unemployed due to the outsourcing and insourcing which has occurred now throughout the nation and escalated under both Democratic and Republican Congresses.

And in leaps and bounds during the past twenty years to the point where it is the Americans now who are subsidizing through their taxes those foreign now industries and labor workforce.

This week also reminded me more of what occurs after an employee of any of America's largest corporate entities is either fired or resigns. Before the door is closed behind them, the vultures remaining seek out anything in the former occupant's desk that can be captured and used in then the performance of their job related duties.

It appears a general election is the way Massachusetts has legislated to go in the filling of the seat, and all the political ballyhoo that goes with such a procedure now part of the process.

Not the provisions as provided in our original Constittuion, which would simply call for a replacement to be voted on and selected by the current members of the Massachusetts legislature.

Who would be the best able to fill it, since the Senators were, after all, intended to represent the state and state's interests at the federal level, with the House members supposed to be then representatives of the actual citizens and people.

Which has also been undermined and abridged since both are now selected upon general elections, and in which the original campaign finance laws also are being abridged in that originally in order to retain a representative government, then such candidates in the House could only accept "sponsorship" or donations from those in their own legislative districts - so as not to be tarnished in their representation from outside "foreign" monies and interests.

Which is the major reason why today we are living under global corporate socialism.

Due to a very fundamental Constitutional violation at its core, which has hijacked our intended form of government and replaced it with something not even close to that which the founders created and envisioned.

And the natives are clearly getting restless with the "misrepresentatives" and not "duly elected" individuals now holding court in both the state legislatures, and most of all the clearly "pretenders" on the Hill serving more as CEO's of U.S.A., Inc. now instead of our intended free republic.

NeoCon Lindsay Graham To Back Sotomayor Appointment

Mainstream news sources reported today that Senator Lindsay Graham, the NeoCon Republican from South Carolina, has given his support for the Sonia Sotomayor appointment of Barack Obama to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.

Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.

I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.

It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.

Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.

So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.

The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.

Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.

And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.

The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.

Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.

Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.

The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.

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.