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."

British Send Prince Harry To Do Damage Control

It was interesting to note that in the AP today one of the top stories was with respect to one of the British royal family's attendance at The Mets-Twins game.

Prince Harry threw out the first pitch, apparently sent to the U.S. to do damage control over the Deepwater Horizon and continuing BP disaster.

Unfortunately, what might work for those New Yorkers, many of whom are globalists and Tories in disguise, doesn't work with mainstream America.

You see, we eliminated royalty back in 1776, and the royal family doesn't hold much sway with Middle America, outside of California and New York.

But nice try, Brits.

In fact, we don't like our President or Congress too much right now if you hadn't noticed, in their alliance with you Brits now that has compromised both American lives (11 American lives were taken in that disaster) and our sovereignty by the decade.

So tell the folks back home, and the British bankers that Americans fundamentally are an independent sort, and don't like foreigners who compromise the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

Or their Gulf coastline, oil and mineral rights, or as it is becoming increasingly evident, attempting to regain Louisiana and the Port of New Orleans as part of the British empire once again.

Just how many of those million dollar mansions have the BP executives gotten through that British real estate firm, Sotheby's, post Katrina, anyway?

And just how many extra barrels of oil in excess of that illegal lease have sailed out of the Port of New Orleans to British refineries in the six weeks since this disaster began under cover of night on those British tankers lined up in the Port harbor?

First Paul McCartney, and now Prince Harry...I mean, not even William?

So when is the Queen going to be arriving for our Fourth of July celebration to light the first firecrackers?

Sallie Mae Pushing British LIBOR Loans On Students

In light of the ongoing mortgage and foreclosure mess and crisis primarily in the West and Southwest due to the boom and bust cycle and rising costs of ownership which resulted in many Americans refinancing their original mortgage loans under loans marketed out of California illegally based on British banking index rates (the LIBOR - London Interest Bearing Origination Rate), I was astounded to see that a supposedly "private" banking entity, Sallie Mae, is promoting these same loans to recent high school graduates and college students for their further educations.

Loans not even based on the U.S. currency, and for which the interest rates are well above U.S. prime for any and all students that commit themselves to adjustable and flexible repayment terms, especially if those terms exceed seven years.

Formerly, guaranteed student loans in this country based on the U.S. currency and issued by the government for educational purposes carried ten year repayment terms at fixed low interest.

It seems while Obama is pushing education for both our youth and unemployed adult population, he and Congress once again are simply acting as agents for the British bankers and lenders, while those tuitions continue to increase annually and now are off the charts as opposed to the actual Cost of Living Index in this country and Department of Labor figures for goods and services.

The President of ASU's salary (formerly of Colombia University, one of those British Ivy League colleges) now exceeds over $700,000 from all reports, even more than the President's salary, plus extensive benefits alone.

Although it is clear that our college graduates are actually coming out of college many times overqualified for the jobs left in this country that haven't been outsourced to foreigners.

Those jobs, it appears, that Congress and the President also feel that Americans DO want, although since this President and Congress is about as out of touch as the last with the people in this country, that position is truly laughable when it comes to this media created "immigration" debate.

The fact that the name "Sallie Mae" is so similar to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two entities actually created by Congress and the Carter Administration, which many of these British based loans were also promoted and backed to adult homeowners in this country is misleading. And also the fact that their "disclosure" that this entity has no connection to the United States government is in very small print on their advertising literature, and also a questionable representation since the printing and regulation of our currency was actually illegal privatized by a rogue Congress and President back in 1913, in addition to then inflicting the U.S. income tax on American labor also outside Constitutional intent in order to so do.

Which, after all, in its initial stages was quite different and at lower and non-usurous rates also (less than 10%) when it was first initiated, while the tax on foreign labor which is Constitutionally provide was abandoned altogether instead. Thus, causing this lopsided foreign favoring labor pool we now have in this country, rather than the domestic variety.

It seems the fraud and continued misrepresentations by the banking industry even post the mortage mess and tsunami is another area in which both Congress, and this Administration is "looking the other way."

Similar to the BP (BRITISH Petroleum) disaster now ongoing.

Gotta love those allies.

http://www.salliemae.com/get_student_loan/apply_student_loan/interest_rates_fees/libor.htm