Here's To American Constitutional Conservatism: Not The British Variety!

(Edited)

As the New Year approaches on a new decade in a new millenium, the political landscape in the United States has fundamentally changed, of that there is no doubt.

The outrage of the American people on the continuing interventionist War in Iraq in the name of a nebulous War on Terror post 9-11 is now in its ninth year under the Obama Adminstration, continuing the Bush agendas and a "new" Congress that fundamentally hasn't changed in its support and loyalty to agendas that fly in the face of the U.S. Constitution, other than obscure the issues using partisan politics in order to gain votes at election times, and then basically continue the status quo.

The word "conservative" has been bantered about, and a plethora now of "liberty" websites can now be found on the web, again in order to obscure the agendas here and provide mainly a forum for Americans outraged with a tone deaf and rogue Administration and Congress to hear their voice.

However, more and more these sites appear to be forums for venting and organized protesting by professional protest organizers holding symposiums and conventions, with paid speakers and trinkets for commercial purposes.

Using these conventions and such in order merely to gain funding from Uncle Sam as "educational" institutions, with even disclosures that ban any "free speech" or even hint of taking legal measures as provided in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in order to remove those now in office thorough legal or Constitutional means - i.e., filing the proper lawsuits and/or criminal complaints charging those members with treason, and calling for their arrest by the public's peace "officer" in charge of such matters in the Halls of Congress as intended by the founders, the Sargeant at Arms acting on warrants - "citizens' arrest" warrants were also the 'common law" measures in days gone by before political correctness was the order of the day.

Or at least one or two of those "misrepresentative" individuals on the Hill also doing so, and filing formal charges also dictated by his oath of office, and his duty to be an advocate for the Constitution before political party, or special interest backer.

Nor do most of these afford truly any free speech with respect to also discussing true revolution and overthrow of those in Washington per the original American revolution although radical even in their time, unfortunately was their last resort and method after all though peaceful methods can also be used enmasse for an outraged public in writing petitions foregoing political correctness for actual truth - but these groups appear to be fronted and organized using the same marketing techniques as that claimed "conservative" television media source, Fox TV.

Using a lawyer or other "authority" figure for its ownership and registrar, and usually a younger blond woman as their "techie" or second in command.

Like pairing Bill O'Reilly with Meghan Kelly, or the "bring out the lawyers" type reporting of a Nancy Grace trying cases now in the media prior to even charges being filed, or using "leaks" from police or other fringe "sources" in order to sway the public now in a great many high profile criminal cases now in this country, or as can be found on the local FOX affiliated networks for their news teams.

Which is, after all, well known to be owned by a British Conservative if such a "label" is used for its political postures and positions by and large, not a U.S. Conservative one at all, Rupert Murdoch.

Use of the word "libertarian" also describes a few of the positions contained on this and many claimed "conservative" station commentators, unfortunately a libertarian is actually fundamentally just as "liberal" in Constitutional construction as the far, far left insofar as most of their positions and align more with anarchy with calls for deregulation or "privatization" of vital publicly funded U.S. industry monoplies, global corporate entities and governmental functions.

Such as support for the privatization of U.S. and state prisons, public untility companies and the airlines which have progressively occurred. Now affording foreign governments even to own controlling shares of some of America's nuclear generators in the process.

How can you have true airline security protecting American lives, when foreign governments now own controlling shares of some of those regional and national airlines, not simply internationally ones?

Wonder why so many of these "terrorism" attacks now throughout the world have only been recent occurrences?

Globalization, and erasing of national sovereignties does tend to place each and every nation at greater risk of using "merged" economic tools as the weapons of those that wish to push their political agendas, or redress their grievances on a massive scale against civilian targets not simply military - because it get far greater press nowadays. Mostly from those "global" media sources hungry to sensationize each and every incident of loss of life - with now more and more spins and reporting ad infinitum.

Remember, the 9-11 tragedy was broadcast and reported for over seven full days replaying over and over again the attack on the second tower (with full camera crews there less than an hour after the first attack, in the financial district at that, during rush hour New York traffic?

Are those targeted by the "mainstream" two political party focused as "conspiracy" theorist so far off in some of their analysis as to how far fetched and unusual some of the details of that event are now in hindsight with all the film that is now available, and shock and rage of the "post traumatic stress symdrome" American public now somewhat receding enough to get through to any American with half a brain that there are some rather disturbing questions STILL surrounding that incident contrary to "official" reports?

While 9-11 and its attacks were "claimed" by an extremist Muslim groups, now it appears with the global unrest now going on, on a different scale, how many disturbed people during hunts for high profile crimes in the past in this country have claimed responsibility simply for the media attention alone?

Or with the media now being used by the government as a tool for national security in order to also now target and terrorize the American people themselves with their "watch lists" and "political ideology" profiles, even using the Bill of Rights "unalienable" (God-given rights) to somehow justify believing your average American believing in those inherent rights now and outraged at the progressive striping of them after an internal attack actually by foreigners (and the shoe bomber was also British, remember) "terorists" to be "watched."

Seems to me this is a case of the extremists in Washington now attempting to pull rank on the citizenry as tyrants, not representatives of the people but their "stakeholders" and global corporations most of all, corporations that actually have no allegiance at this point to any country whatsoever - with the U.S. media a primary global corporate entity at this point, with its foreign subsidiaries, and correspondents.

British conservatism still acknowledges the "sovereign" (monarch or in this instance, Washington and the President) as the source of all true power, any and all representations to the contrary, or somehow has now focused on calling for the states to file petitions and resolutions "reasserting" state sovereignty throughout the nation, although the 10th Amendment actually speaks for itself and needs no further "resolves."

This is something the British Conservative wouldn't understand in thedifferences between "their" conservatism, and "ours" since there are no "states" really in Britain, simply "subjects" of the realm.

And actually, in prior the 9th Amendment actually supercedes the 10th, affording the American people actually sovereignty from both federal and state government, outside their proscribed Constitutional duties and functions under both the U.S., and each state's Constitution(s).

"Res Ipsa Loquitor" is the standard under over 700 years of common law precedent in actually the powers and duties given to the judiciary in Constitutional interpretation in America as based in its "Republican" form of government, with the government actually subservient to the people with respect especially to those Bill of Rights protections included which are quite different than Britains. "The thing as it is written and speaks."

This provision, however, is not acknowledged either by the British Conservative networks, although select judicial decisions have been disputed - nor as with the AIG bailout, even mentioning the "foreign" nature of that British based corporation to begin with, rather simply disputing the "bail out" of a select insurance provider at the cost of the American people.

Not its illegality under the U.S. Constitution in even entertaining "billing" the American people for a non-U.S. domiciled global corporation - based, of course, in Britain, although apparently "run" by an American, operating out of the British Mayfair office.

Huh? Who sits on its Board? Primarily, the British, of course. With Americans influence diluted by the composition of its Board.

An American Conservative recognizes that the War in '76 was as much about "taxation without representation" as it was about unlawful taxation for a globally produced product that was given a "monopoly" by the sovereign, demanding that the U.S. colonials pay for an inferior product, and then an "extra" fee by the sovereign for so providing.

It was a public/private partnership that the colonials had no "voice" whatsoever in its "monopoly" over something so cherished by them as the freedom to select the type and brand of tea they wished to drink, or a number of other products that the East India Company was given "sovereign rights" to with respect to the U.S. market.

Sort of like some of our global and U.S. Fortune 500 corporations, and enforced taxation now for auto insurance and the pending health care deform bills.

Forced taxation and "exclusivity" now in "associations" of these large major manufactures, financial service providers, and even home builders, without any real recourse nor regulation for the citizenry absent huge, expensive, and cost prohibited now litigation for any "breaches," and with respect to mandatory auto insurance, transfer of a governmental power (settlement of property claims and disputes) to a third party without by the consent of the governed, or effective legislation and regulatory powers over them protecting the people from "corporate" abuse.

Just think what the new health care deform bill will be like insofar as costs and the smoke and mirrors that will go on with this new public/private partnership being entered into between the sovereign and the health care providers that will be on those "approved" lists insofar as denied claims, or excessive increases in premium amounts - since there is absolutely no provision for any regulatory agency charged with oversight, or fines or penalties levied against those insurance providers - simply the people once again.

British Conservatives believe in removing even the minimal in many cases existing regulation at both the federal and state levels in the name of "freedom" for those global and national concerns, a position which is diametrically opposed to the positions of those "Indians" that boarded that ship in Boston Harbor those many years ago.


And also support the War on Terror as a "just war" and redress of the attacks of 9-11, no matter how far afield at this point it has gone from the "just war" and "defensive" war provisions in the U.S. Constitution itself.

They are also the onces that support curtailing immigration from the South using whatever "state" methods work - including barricades and blockades within metropolitan city limits and using "search and seizure" methods without either warrants, or again within neighborhoods and communities - and not simply at state, county or federal boundaries and borders.

In other words, British Conservatives believe that the "end justifies the means," and that the states do not have any obligation to adhere to the Bill of Rights with respect to recognizing that in so doing, you are violating also legal American citizens with such methods and creating actually war zone conditions within city neighborhoods and civil unrest by those very methods.

Destroying communities, supporting unjust wars, and offering and supporting global monopolies of vital U.S. industries, real estate and land, and America's very infrastructure is not at all "conservative" nor "American" even for the "greater good," which is actually communism and socialism - but global socialism and communism, not even national socialism and communism.

It is British sovereignty with the "government" and "sovereign" above the people, and actually more aligned with global communism at its core.

Or a British form of "government" and takeover of America, only this time from the inside, since many of the banks which actually fund and "underwrite" those debt notes issued by the Federal Reserve are European, mainly British, banks. And even those in the U.S. with heavy European and British connections also such as Goldman Sachs, and Lehrmann Brothers - two that were recipients of "bailout" monies.

Such beliefs quite obviously spread on BOTH sides of the now fabricated and "false" two party system.

Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, said it best years ago, one who was branded a "war monger" during Viet Nam due to political party propaganda, but actually made these quotes, and voted his "conscience" as an American conservative:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.

I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. pg 15. The Conscience of A Conservative (1960)

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.

Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

I told Johnson and old colleagues on Capitol Hill that we had two clear choices. Either win the [Vietnam] war in a relatively short time, say within a year, or pull out all our troops and come home.


Here's to the return of true American sovereignty and Constitutional Conservatism in 2010, and return to Constitutional government, "of the people, by the people, for the people," and not special interests, or global socialism!

And an understanding of the true meaning and motivations of that Boston Tea party so long ago!

Freedom from "global" foreign influence, ownership or control.

Senate Passes In Your Face Health Care Deform

Well it's official.

On Christmas Eve,while Santa was flying through the globe delivering his gifts to all the children of the world, the United States Senate robbed those same children of their fundamental rights in the most "in your face" gesture yet to the American people and trashing of the United States Constitution.

Even more so than the also bogus Cap & Trade bill (passing on U.N. and global taxes to the American people once again for an unconstitutional federal function, and without their implied or express consent in an manner whatsoever, nor amendment of the Constitution in order to so do).

Even more so than the bank and financial sector bailout, billing the American people yet again for the debts of the 2006 campaigns, and also a global London based insurer, again without their express or implied consent and outside Constitutional authority.

And are posing for the cameras now as if this is somehow a victory - while the lackey Republicans that were also in on this scam play the victims when actually with a vote such as this one, it appears that the same agenda is occurring here as has many prior bills in the past.

Each party takes a turn in order to be the "heavy" for unconstitutional legislation that outrages the public.

But since both parties have control of the American electoral process (also unconstitutionally), nothing really ever changes except the demonstrations of contempt both parties show for both the intended government which our founders fought and died in order to secure for their posterity, and also the American people themselves - the ones who they betray with each and every illegal Act favoring their corporate benefactors.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are global socialists - but then so were George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain actually and were behind the global bank bailouts for the gain of the global market at the cost of the American people.

This bill is the largest tax (also with that Cap & Trade scam, and all those expenses now the taxpayers must pick up for that bogus Copenhagen meeting) ever to be passed by any U.S. Congress in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution since FDR's Social Security - and look just what is going on with Social Security, which was meant to be a "temporary" tax actually from its inception in order to guarantee at least a minimal income to all those that were affected by the Great Depression way back when, also manipulated by the very same European international banking cartel members that are behind this current recession in the U.S. for Europe's and the "global" market's mostly gain.

And with so many in this country now losing their homes and jobs right and left, inflicting another tax on the working class Americans, middle America and that midle class who are most affected, just shows that thumbing their nose at the American people is something that this Congress, as with the last, has absolutely no problem in doing.

And now what is occuring is that the Republicans are "threatening" to use this act of treason in order to gain seats for the 2010 elections.

Not, of course, bringing all those that voted for this clearly unconstitutional measure up on charges of treason.

Using it, rather, once again for political purposes just goes to show that the "outrage" was an act, and that this passion play for the American public and media means that now legislation is orchestrated with the precision of a Hollywood spectacle, with the outcome, whether the people like it or not, directed by the special interest groups and financial sector.

Voting these lackeys out won't do it America.

It appears tar and feathers is the only thing that just might, and getting that Sargeant at Arms in the Halls of Congress to start earning his taxpayer paid salary and arrest these suckers, which actually was one of his primary jobs - if you read the Constitution the only protection those "misrepresentatives" have from arrest are while traveling to and from the House and Senate floors in order to cast their votes.

And would appear those founders put in that language for a very good reason, in order that the people would have a recourse and those misrepresentatives only "limited" immunity from arrest due to the enormous power they possessed.

With the founders knowing that with those granted such powers, abuses were more than likely to occur.

Such as this one, and so many others since 9-11 it is getting hard to keep track.

Because apparently those now holding those offices are tone deaf, and need remedial reading classes and continuing education in American history and high school government classes.

But since last night after midnight was "officially" a Senate holiday, I just wonder whether this vote was even "legal" or not?

Such a game would not be beyond those now holding office, in order to protect them from charges of treason.

Such as the new game of passing unconstitutional measures in one branch, but then not passing them in the other yet then funding them anyway in appropriations bills thereafter.

Then after funding unfinished and illegal legislation, creating new bills instead granting regulatory authority then to the agencies without then legal authority to so do due to the "illegality" of those bills in the first place.

And then as the coup d' gras, using then the media to publicize and "terrorize" the public for compliance or direct the state legislatures to pass those measures at the state level on threat of removal of funding for some unrelated true federal function as their "bribe" or extortionary tactic on more and more illegal legislation to also then manipulate the public for their ultimate ends and appease most of all their special interest backers behind a great deal of these measures in the process - the ones that "invested" all those billions in their employee legislator in order to "buy" legislation feeding their corporate coffers at the public's ultimate expense.

In other words, corporate America, as with this bill, is using our Congress now as nothing more than a marketing representative, buying legislation most of all in order to sell their products, and then also reduce their risks and losses in the process for their corporate bottom line profits - which they then feed back to their "employee" legislators.

Oh the webs we weave. And this is just another example of how truly "misrepresentative" every single one of those legislators actually is at this point in both honoring their oaths of office, and also their true constituency.

The American people. Not their bankers or their special interest benefactors "corporately," in violation of America's true form of government as contained within that glass case a few short miles down the street - and the document which provides for the very offices in which they now hold yet show such little awareness of its provisions more so now within the last eight years than any other period in history.

The U.S. Constitution.

Political Incorrectness: MSM Continues Misdefinition of A Conservative

While gathering some research for additional evidence with respect to just how far afield our mainstream news sources and media have become, and nothing more now than branches of their owners and Boards of Directors political beliefs or both mainstream political parties, I came across an article and review of the new movie, "Avatar" directed by James Cameron.

In the review it indicated that several critics have made references to the content in labeling it as anti-war and pro-environmentalist although visually very entertaining.

Mr. Cameron is an avowed environmentalist that was also quoted as indicating that the United States has a habit of "raping natural resources and invading countries and displacing indigenous peoples without giving anything back."

The only thing I can state with that particular comment as a displaced Arizonan, whose political landscape has fundamentally changed into one of pro-liberalism due to the influx of mostly Californians from Mr. Cameron's home state who have left theirs due to most of the laws which have been passed due to the liberalism which have progressively bankrupted them, and now in Arizona creating the very same scenario, along with those from Canada and the East Coast, with their demands also for jacuzzi's and fountains in the desert, and propensity to also be one of the states in which most of those "displaced" refugees are also funneled after many of the prior wars of the last few decades, it would appear the same comment would apply to what is now occuring in this country with the displacement of many natural born and naturalized Americans from their jobs and homes due to now "globalization" and not only starting these wars and then taking in those refugees, but providing many with benefits and tax breaks that the average American is not entitled to.

Such as the Bosnians who attended my children's school (mostly with parents in the "science and technology" fields) and who were given brand new cars in order to attend classes.

But what was really unbelieveable in the article was that it also referred to the fact that Ed Morrissey, a supposed "Conservative" commentator, had mentioned on the website "Hot Air" that most "conservatives" would be staying away from the movie due to its anti-war stances.

I would like to know just what Mr. Morrissey's definitions of "conservative" are, because a true American Conserve-ative does believe in preserving the Constitution as it is written with the intent of the founders ever present, unless lawfully amended through the amendment process, which also includes acknowleding the 9th Amendment and placing any and all such amendments before the people of this country for their voice and vote.

And believes in Constitutional interpretation with respect to the Supreme Court's powers and duties in the common law and American jurisprudence precedent which stood for over a hundred years in "Res Ipsa Loquitor" or "the thing as it is written (or speaks)."

Not inserting words, or amending it without going through the formal amendment process in any and all such "opinions" and determinations, such as expanding presidential or Congressional power and authority without any basis in Constitutional provision.

And that Supreme Court decisions are applicable only to the "case at bar" or facts of the matter before it. Not broad based precedent throughout the land with respect to American Bill of Rights issues, especially.

And since this country was founded on the "just war" doctrines and made provision for "defense" of THIS country, would also dispute that any true American Conserve-ative would still be in support of the Middle East War on Terror since it is not at all at this point a truly "just war" nor a "defensive" one.

Conservatives believe in conserving both the blood and treasure of this nation, and not exploiting its people and their "property" for global gain or the "greater good."

Which is actually more global communism which is where we are about now, not American conservatism.

Facilitating wars in order to increase dominion most of all in the name of "democracy," a form of government the U.S. fundamentally is also not.

Barry Goldwater, the former Senator and U.S. presidential candidate from my former home state of Arizona, was a Conservative - probably THE Conservative of the boomer generation and before.

Who, even after the whipping he took in the 1964 election branded a "war monger," actually became more Conservative in his elder years in calling that war what it actually was - a horrendous mistake that was entered into also as our first major interventionist conflict (although Korea also somewhat) and for which the boomer generation has never seen a true end to war in some part of the world, particularly the Middle East since World War II and which continuing conflicts are based on a British agreement and accord, no less, entered into between a British Lord and European banker even prior to World War I (the Balfour Doctrine).

He must be watching a lot of Fox, since it appears his definition aligns more with the British version of "Conservative."