Ms. Pelosi: How About Taxpayer Discounts For Hospitalizations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Oscar Goes To: LaLa Land Stages Its Annual Pageant

Apparently, tonight was the night of nights for those in LaLa Land.

The Oscar awards show.

According to the buzz, this year's awards ceremony was true to form as so many before.

Politically and globally correct, at least for public consumption and appearance sake.

According also to reports, the finalists for the most coveted awards were all given accolades by former co-workers prior to the announcements, and of course the big budget film once again did not win.

Only there was a personal spin. The director of the winning film, a politically correct feature which was released almost two years ago and Iraq war film, was the former wife of that Titannic cum Avatar New Age Cecil B. DeMille, James Cameron.

Gone the Biblical epics for New Age epitronics with this and that last Steven Spielberg global warming computer enhanced epitronic.

The one that took the blue screen, and in this year's entry used it as makeup.

There was even another one on World War II.

Only this time, with a rather dark violent side and comedic spin using those Nazis once again as a back drop.

I wonder when they will do an epic on maybe Cicero with a similar turn?

I mean that era is something that many Americans at this point could identify with.

All that fiddling, while Rome (America) burns.

The set, of course, was lavish once again and polished to the hilt. And just a mere week after that last two and a half week global spectacle, the Winter Olympics.

It seems the global economy isn't all that hurting, although the American one for the "average" non-Hollywood type has meant cutting back on those recreational flicks for a good many outside Hollywood and, of course, its sister city of excess, New York.

The oohs and ahs and what was worn by both the presenters and the "contestants" I'm sure will be written about, and rewritten about for days to come with full page photo layouts in People and those other entertainment weeklies.

Much was made that a female director finally won. And with a picture about the war in Iraq at that about the soldiers whose job it is to disarm those IEDs. Of course, it was only a matter of time until the heroism of those that are now on their third or fourth tours of duty would get used for dramatic purposes and publicity.

After all since World War II, hasn't war, even when not politically correct, and especially when it is not, been the bread and butter of the industry?

Congratulations to all, presenters, nominees and industry types, on another stellar performance for almost three full hours (longer than most of those nominated films).

With television, video and second run movie house revenues (which is about what most Americans can now afford), many of us will have our own reviews when and if we ever see some of those movies while the next year's lists are lobbied for, voted and released.

Although I think I'll miss the Iraq docu-film, and the massive epic with 3D blue screen characters coming to life.

And from what I have heard, talking, politically correct, trees. Who communicate like computers?

I'm wondering when these movies, with all the special effects and digital manipulating, will start making themselves.

I mean, if blue screens can come to life, why not future full run feature films ala The Matrix?

Texas Judge Rules Death Penalty Unconstitutional?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where was Amnesty International then, I ask?

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

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

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