In the mainstream media this week, there was an article publishing the fact that two of the wealthiest Americans, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, have been holding luncheons with various members of the upper 10% income earners in order to gently arm wrestle them into pledging to give 50% of their wealth to charitable organizations.
It does seem ironic in this writer's opinion that these two individuals, both of whom have gained their wealth through government contracts and legislative lobbying for "privileges and immunties" not given to the general public for their corporate interests, would be heralded for such a venture.
Which civic organizations I wonder are they referring to? Those that benefit America and its economy and citizens or primary those of the "global good" as is the focus from published reports of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, as globalists primarily while Americans are losing their homes and jobs due to the globalism focus of many of these global industrialists.
Most of their wealth has been gained also by their global interests which have progressively, at least in the instance of Mr. Gates, caused loss of American jobs due to now computerized systems that have replaced American workers, not to mention the outsourcing also that has cost so many Americans their jobs in order to build up profits for their corporate interests.
Interesting also that John Kyl, the junior Senator from Arizona, was quoted as stating that "did we really need to raise taxes on individuals that provide jobs."
For whom, Senator? For government employees at the taxpayer's ultimate expense, or from foreign outsourced labor?
Corporations do only pay taxes on their profits, and by hiring more American workers or reinvesting in their businesses it ultimately lowers their tax rates across the board, so am I missing something here?
Perhaps rewinding the intent of the founders for taxation on "property" which is what each and every American corporate interest is, would ultimately be the most beneficial tax system of all.
Simply taxing those corporations on the value of their fixed assets annually and valuations as a "property tax," might be the fairest tax of all.
And taxing those imports, labor included, in order to rebalance the scales and provide more jobs for domestic labor, as opposed to the foreign variety.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/318157
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Wall Street Court: Kagan Confirmed By Senate
In another political move by those in Washington, Elena Kagan's nomination by Barack Obama was confirmed by a majority of the Senate along mostly partisan party lines after much political posturing by many in the "opposing" party for public consumption, since the "defectors" were again the same old, same old labeled "Republican moderates" from the Northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, etc.
Although the mainstream media continues to label the court as primarily a "conservative" court, this American Constitutional Conservative would beg to differ.
I guess since our press has progressively become so far out globalist liberal in their ownership, especially the "Associated" Press which includes foreign press and news agencies, anything right of communism would seem conservative to most of their staff writers.
This is how truly representative our current Supreme Court is at the present time.
Although no "religious" test is to be given for any public service position or political office, our Court is now comprised of three Jewish members, and six Catholics.
Seven basically East Coasters or New Yorkers by birth or length of residency.
And six graduates of Harvard Law School, and three of Yale - with quite a few with their undergraduate studies in Britain.
Leave it to the press and globalist politicans to promote to the public the "look" of the Court (six men and three women, with a mix of "racial" or "ethnic" minority members by race, religion or ethnicity) without scratching further in just how "liberal" this Court actually is and unrepresentative of the American people really in its composition.
And of the nine from East Coast schools, the most current and confirmed member threw out mandatory Constitutional law classes in favor of a more "progressive" curriculum during her tenure, while the press focused on her decision to ban the military from the ivy halls of Harvard due to its "don't ask, don't tell" privacy policies (since our military actually is supposed to be defending this country and its people from "foreign" threats, and the military actually is not supposed to be a dating service in any manner whatsoever - and what is more private than your sexual preference and how many gays in the military actually hold that their military and private lives are two different things as opposed to the "spins" and outside agitators on this issue?). The "gay issue" has also its roots in, I'm sure, creating more work for the civil rights lawyers for those Federal Reserve notes for their legal fees that Washington hands out now like candy and create more, not less, conflict within our military ranks unnecessarily.
And with the exception of Justice Thomas, none of whom actually are texturalists which, unless and until the Constitution is amended by the will of the people according to the provisions within it for amendment - and not the simply the states as it was the intent of those founders that any subsequent amendments would be placed before the people before each and every state ratified further amendments - we have nothing more than an entire British "sovereign" leaning Supreme Court down the line as was quite apparent with the most recent trashing of its provisions with respect to campaign finance laws favoring the "corporate" over the intent of the founders for a representative government at its foundation.
That being that no candidate for political office should be "sponsored" by any entity, either corporately or otherwise, domiciled outside their specific legislative districts. Period. Especially not "globally" focused corporate entities with "foreign" home offices even outside the country.
Nor is there any such entity as "corporate person-hood" including "municipal corporate-personhood" with respect to Bill of Rights provisions.
Ms. Kagan has an engaging demeanor, but given her actual actions discounting the very document upon which her "right" to even hold such a position was given the shaft while she was Dean of Harvard's Law School and thus affecting fundamentally law in this country through Harvard's "miseducation" also progressively with some of those graduates now holding public service positions throughout the country by federal appointment, doesn't that demonstrate to those Senators and the American people that she did not hold the bare minimum qualifications for the position for which she was being "interviewed?"
No wonder the West and Western citizens lives and property are being sacrificed for the "greater good," outside California and the Hollywood contingent and their "corporate" needs.
America lacks representation on any level in the highest court in the land, and progressively so as was more than apparent during tose hearings.
The British bankers and Wall Street have progressively cornered our Court, and have the majority.
A royal straight flush.
Although the mainstream media continues to label the court as primarily a "conservative" court, this American Constitutional Conservative would beg to differ.
I guess since our press has progressively become so far out globalist liberal in their ownership, especially the "Associated" Press which includes foreign press and news agencies, anything right of communism would seem conservative to most of their staff writers.
This is how truly representative our current Supreme Court is at the present time.
Although no "religious" test is to be given for any public service position or political office, our Court is now comprised of three Jewish members, and six Catholics.
Seven basically East Coasters or New Yorkers by birth or length of residency.
And six graduates of Harvard Law School, and three of Yale - with quite a few with their undergraduate studies in Britain.
Leave it to the press and globalist politicans to promote to the public the "look" of the Court (six men and three women, with a mix of "racial" or "ethnic" minority members by race, religion or ethnicity) without scratching further in just how "liberal" this Court actually is and unrepresentative of the American people really in its composition.
And of the nine from East Coast schools, the most current and confirmed member threw out mandatory Constitutional law classes in favor of a more "progressive" curriculum during her tenure, while the press focused on her decision to ban the military from the ivy halls of Harvard due to its "don't ask, don't tell" privacy policies (since our military actually is supposed to be defending this country and its people from "foreign" threats, and the military actually is not supposed to be a dating service in any manner whatsoever - and what is more private than your sexual preference and how many gays in the military actually hold that their military and private lives are two different things as opposed to the "spins" and outside agitators on this issue?). The "gay issue" has also its roots in, I'm sure, creating more work for the civil rights lawyers for those Federal Reserve notes for their legal fees that Washington hands out now like candy and create more, not less, conflict within our military ranks unnecessarily.
And with the exception of Justice Thomas, none of whom actually are texturalists which, unless and until the Constitution is amended by the will of the people according to the provisions within it for amendment - and not the simply the states as it was the intent of those founders that any subsequent amendments would be placed before the people before each and every state ratified further amendments - we have nothing more than an entire British "sovereign" leaning Supreme Court down the line as was quite apparent with the most recent trashing of its provisions with respect to campaign finance laws favoring the "corporate" over the intent of the founders for a representative government at its foundation.
That being that no candidate for political office should be "sponsored" by any entity, either corporately or otherwise, domiciled outside their specific legislative districts. Period. Especially not "globally" focused corporate entities with "foreign" home offices even outside the country.
Nor is there any such entity as "corporate person-hood" including "municipal corporate-personhood" with respect to Bill of Rights provisions.
Ms. Kagan has an engaging demeanor, but given her actual actions discounting the very document upon which her "right" to even hold such a position was given the shaft while she was Dean of Harvard's Law School and thus affecting fundamentally law in this country through Harvard's "miseducation" also progressively with some of those graduates now holding public service positions throughout the country by federal appointment, doesn't that demonstrate to those Senators and the American people that she did not hold the bare minimum qualifications for the position for which she was being "interviewed?"
No wonder the West and Western citizens lives and property are being sacrificed for the "greater good," outside California and the Hollywood contingent and their "corporate" needs.
America lacks representation on any level in the highest court in the land, and progressively so as was more than apparent during tose hearings.
The British bankers and Wall Street have progressively cornered our Court, and have the majority.
A royal straight flush.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Deepwater Horizon: Blaming The Coast Guard?
It was interesting this weekend to see articles in the mainstream media now reporting that the Coast Guard has been "authorizing" British Petroleum to use "contaminants" in order to break up the ever widening oil spread in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon incident over three months ago.
It appears the spins continue almost as far and wide as this oil has now spread.
In light of the questions of just how and why Congress and the Obama Administration has, for all intents and purposes, given British Petroleum free rein in the containment efforts since this tragedy began, a story such as this bears question. Since it is quite possible that the only "containment" efforts that have been ongoing is the "containment" of thousands of extra barrels of oil for the benefit of the British under those illegally given mineral rights to America's offshore oil reserves.
Now blaming the Coast Guard due to the negligence of this Congress and Administration in originally and immediately pulling BP's offshore leasing rights in light of this SECOND incident involving the loss of American lives and property does seem that Washington and those media moguls are sinking to a level not seen in this country ever before.
The Coast Guard is primarily there for regulation of the domestic coastline perimeter in "directing traffic" and also civilian and commercial safety issues and distress entering and exiting America's ports, with no real legal authority over this ongoing disaster in the magnitude and breadth it initially and has continued to impact the Gulf waters.
Placing the blame and asking failure of our press to ask the fundamental questions does appear that they are attempting also to protect their "global" interests and not report with any accuracy the ongoing saga of Deepwater Horizon.
But continue to wonder why their bottom line profits are deteriorating also by the day, week and month as their advertising and sales revenues continue to decline.
The "global" mainstream media bailout seems to be another disaster just around the bend.
The top news stories were this, and the wedding of Bill and Hillary Clinton's daughter, to a former Goldman Sachs employee and hedge fund manager, under "cottony clouds in New York" (a direct quote from the AP report).
I won't publish the "adjective" I came up with after reading that story.
It appears the spins continue almost as far and wide as this oil has now spread.
In light of the questions of just how and why Congress and the Obama Administration has, for all intents and purposes, given British Petroleum free rein in the containment efforts since this tragedy began, a story such as this bears question. Since it is quite possible that the only "containment" efforts that have been ongoing is the "containment" of thousands of extra barrels of oil for the benefit of the British under those illegally given mineral rights to America's offshore oil reserves.
Now blaming the Coast Guard due to the negligence of this Congress and Administration in originally and immediately pulling BP's offshore leasing rights in light of this SECOND incident involving the loss of American lives and property does seem that Washington and those media moguls are sinking to a level not seen in this country ever before.
The Coast Guard is primarily there for regulation of the domestic coastline perimeter in "directing traffic" and also civilian and commercial safety issues and distress entering and exiting America's ports, with no real legal authority over this ongoing disaster in the magnitude and breadth it initially and has continued to impact the Gulf waters.
Placing the blame and asking failure of our press to ask the fundamental questions does appear that they are attempting also to protect their "global" interests and not report with any accuracy the ongoing saga of Deepwater Horizon.
But continue to wonder why their bottom line profits are deteriorating also by the day, week and month as their advertising and sales revenues continue to decline.
The "global" mainstream media bailout seems to be another disaster just around the bend.
The top news stories were this, and the wedding of Bill and Hillary Clinton's daughter, to a former Goldman Sachs employee and hedge fund manager, under "cottony clouds in New York" (a direct quote from the AP report).
I won't publish the "adjective" I came up with after reading that story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
