A Personal Story: The Patriot Act, Unemployment And Political Harassment

In this post-911 world, and after passage of the Patriot Act, it has been amazing to this writer just how this Act of Congress is being used also by special interest groups and politicians in order to use as a means and weapon subliminally in order to facilitate their agendas against Average Americans who have been more and more addressing the two party system and also the continued Constitutional violations which have escalated since that time.

I was nothing more than a "retired" legal professional, and also mostly at home employed then "self employed" mother doing her best to raise three children post a divorce in the 90's in a city that I grew up in that was spinning out of control over the border situation, and explosive growth which had occurred through the past several decades - Phoenix, Arizona. Adolescence particularly was tough under those circumstances, especially given the area in which we resided post-divorce off a major metro thoroughfare not so very far from the north-south corridor and interstate throughout the State of Arizona.

An area particularly hard hit after the expansion of that interstate from Nogales to Flagstaff in the 1980s for "commercial" reasons.

My costs of ownership on a home I had purchased post-divorce were also spinning out of control, and escalating not merely by the decade, but by the year. And also progressive loss of any and all ownership rights I even had to the property due to special interest legislation that also escalated post my purchase.

I eventually lost the house, or any interest in retaining it since the writing was clearly on the wall and a legal action pretty much "took" my home from me in the end. I, of course, wished to spread my story so that at least some unaware Americans could be spared my fate, also from a historical perspective as one who had almost seen it all through four decades.

What has occurred since that time due to also progressive policies of Washington could be characterized as "subliminal" harassment through both my published articles, and also other means.

My credit rating after what occurred is not "prime," although throughout the first almost four decades of my life received offer after offer of increasing my credit limits, or taking out new credit cards due to the access those credit companies had to my credit scores in the 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's prior to my divorce. With children that had, through my spouse's and my joint income, during their most formative years come to a certain standard of living that I most certainly struggled to maintain post divorce.

And was mostly successful in downsizing quite a bit our housing, and other costs but of course those teen years were trying, and those expenses quite high with new drivers in a state where auto insurance rates for youth, especially, not to mention the general public had gone off the charts primarily also due to the open border situation, accident rates in a city which had quadrupled in size in less than two decades, and as a tourism spot for snowbirds.

I started writing the legislature about what had occurred, and also political matters which had adversely impacted the state, and low and behold started receiving speed dialed "collection" calls on a cell phone which continued even after I discontinued the original service, and started buying some of the cheaper "pay as you go" models due to my lower credit score after the litigation, and losses I had suffered in a business then also going under during that "abuse of process" action based on a small claims action that resulted in an over $17,000 attorney fee award - a great deal of the equity eventually of my home, along with the $16,000 realtors "fee" for handling the eventual transaction. And all those other "closing" costs.

When I say subliminal, here is what occurs.

You begin receiving "collection" calls daily from a lawyer's recorded message that indicate they are looking for someone else, and to call them in order to be removed from their lists after being instructed to "hang up" if you are not the party they are seeking. And usually these calls occur later in the evening. I've had at least three different entities at this point seeking three different individuals with their recorded messages contact me in such a manner during the past four years after leaving my former home state.

And usually right after I publish any article on some of the citizen journalism sites, my own blog or forward any of them to my former legislators.

Since, of course, these collection lawyers have carte blanche to access under that Patriot Act any citizens personal information or phone numbers even through those telecom companies, or their private "homeland security" trained investigators in the name of creditor rights.

And politicians also, who just might be a little peeved at having the public get any information at all on what is truly occurring in this American economic meltdown and national security fiasco from any source other than those which have been deemed "politically correct" which will publish the fiction.

Those credit scores and credit reports, and background checks are being used to politically target quite clearly those citizens who are not simply the "sheep" but were actually educated in American history and government at a time when the federal government had far less power over the state and local schools, and take exception more and more in what is going on in our courts, our schools, and our federal and state government which truly has led to where we are. And America's intended form of Constitutional government revered above all other countries. Not world government, but American government.

And it seems that although what I and many writers who have become more politically active disclose, although the truth and clearly more mainstream than those publishing the spins, the politicians and government leaders still don't get it.

The proof of what we speak is all around them in the fact that the housing market hasn't picked up, the war is costing this country and its future posterity their legacy, and this globalization in this global economy is bankrupting this country by the week, at this point.

Instead, they spend their time harassing the victims and attempting to marginalize them while this scenario gets worse and worse.

And it is quite clear to see, that a Harvard or Yale education clearly isn't worth the parchment anymore it is printed on, and Joe the Plumber (actor though he may be) has a better feel for the pulse of the American people than those serving at the state capitols, or on the Hill.

Fox, BBC Worldwide, and the British Barrister's Association, and Ivy League globalists have contributed to the American economic meltdown far more than those Tories of so long ago.

Plea bargained, even low level felony American citizen prisoners were just denied their voting rights?

Hello, Great Britain circa 1776. And I certainly am not the only one in this country that can now see the forest, for the trees.

I just hope with the next number, I can remember it.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: California Judiciary Does It Again

After the gay marriage issue and the unconstitutional denial of prisoners' voting rights (even while on parole, after serving jail time for low level criminal offenses) now this...

Apparently, a San Diego judge has placed an injunction on the military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, again just weeks before an election according to a published AP article.

My question on this issue has always been, just how many in even the gay community serving at this point even care or would actually prefer to keep such a private issue as their sexual preference truly private?

I mean, the military is not supposed to be a dating service anyway, so just what has this particular rather personal issue have to do with serving in the military in this country, other than without such disclosure it does make battlefield housing and living arrangements a bit more complex?

This article also set forth that the American people at this point are less concerned with "social" issues such as these and the war than they are with the economy. Which again goes to prove just how far off the mainstream media are, and wonder just who is conducting and what segment of the population are being used for their polls.

The war has much to do with the economy, and joblessness and homeless in this country. After all, the costs for continuing this war for now nine long years has escalated and added to our deficit far more than even those discretionary expenditures for those bridges to nowhere. And will so for decades in all the veterans benefits and costs that will be needed for the next, oh say, fifty to sixty years.

A decision such as this should not be made by a federal or state judge, but as a policy decision, especially in times of war.

I believe this goes along the lines of all those policies regarding "fraternization" while serving, and also during times of war. I mean, just how much time do most of those serving really have for developing romantic attachments?

Maybe we need to rethink this entire "standing army" concept, or leave those decisions to those who are more aware of the ramifications. And again, just how many gays are actually serving, is what I would like to know, since it would seem that the majority of gay individuals are not exactly also supportive of this ongoing war either at this point to begin with, at least from my experience.

So just how many really are enlisting, and I would not hesitate to guess, not many and many of those that are or have, don't seem to be those which continue to push this agenda, but the civilian activists that somehow perceive that in keeping such a fundamentally personal issue private is denying them their "rights." But "rights" to what, I'd like to know.

Solicit?

The courts do seem to be continuing to accept cases and extending standing to "disinterested" parties more and more, including those now brought on behalf of "foreigner's" rights somehow in this country, under our Constitution and Bill of Rights ("We the People of the United States...for US and OUR posterity"), or using some perceived injustice or disenfranchised individual on behalf of a special interest group in order to feed the legal industry most of all under those federal statutes that provide for the payment of legal fees, at the taxpayer's expense, for any and all actions which can in any way be perceived as a "civil rights" case.

Your sexual preference is a "civil right," but while serving in the military (which is not a "civil" organization, in more ways than one, it would appear as of late) is not.

The military and its members are fighters, after all, not lovers.

Just think of the complications of a totally gay and separate unit with such a policy, and the additional questions that would need to be asked in such an event for at least housing purposes.

For example, "What are your tendencies, "butch" or "queen?"

California and its judiciary does it again, and no wonder there continues to be more at least generational Americans leaving that state, than new residents.

I just wonder whether they also just might work, through their political connections, for the AP which more and more does tend to focus on sensationalize, explosive and exploitive politically charged journalism and their "polls" each and every decade, rather than even questioning a military policy being addressed in a civilian court outside any true Constitutional basis or intent of those founders whatsoever.

Who would most likely hold that gays are more than welcome to serve in the military and volunteer army to protect the homeland if it is their desire.

But disclose they would have no time for dating, and if that was their objective than maybe the career military or a foreign engagement during a time of war wouldn't suit their primary or the military's ultimate aims.

Questions Surrounding Proposition 8's Perry vs. Schwartzenegger

It was announced in the mainstream media that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (don't you just love that court!) has stayed resumption of the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex individuals in California pending the outcome of appeals with respect to the challenge brought over the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, a referendum and initiative passed by the California voters last year (although brought by an organization by the name of "Protect Marriage," which solicits contributions from individuals in order to continue to defend in this action nation-wide, and on whose website very little information is available in just who and what "Protect Marriage" is).

Except that it does include an "educational" component to their organization, which would lead this writer to believe that it also then just may be getting federal grant monies for its existence in addition to those solicited donations.

What truly has been interesting is the legal shenanigans going on in this case, which was filed apparently as "Perry v. Schwarzenegger," and not "Perry vs. the State of California" since it was, after all, a state initiative passed by the California voters and thus the proper defendants in the case would be the State itself, and not Governor Schwarzenegger as merely the Governor at the present time.

What is also interesting is that both the Governor and State Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend in this case on the grounds that they believe that gay marriages should be afforded in California, their personal opinions which really have no grounding in either California, or the U.S. Constitution at all.

Since, of course, marriage and its definition is grounded in the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based at its signing, and marriage is an "institution" under the common law and has been for literally thousands of years in its definition as between two opposite sex individuals for the purposes of procreation, property ownership and inheritance purposes in a purely legal sense, and in a spiritual sense, a pledge of fidelity and love between the couple and God, who is pretty much on record in both the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran in just what his definition of marriage was and is in a spiritual sense.

The fact that Attorney General Brown has refused to defend in the action speaks volumes in his understanding of his powers and duties of office.

Apparently, his oath meant little as apparently did the Governor's.

There is provision, after all, for domestic and civil unions in California's statutes prior to this movement, and also legal instruments that can be bought at the local bookstores in the form of powers of attorney and the like for any and all other matters. You can, after all, leave your property to your next door neighbor or even your dog as has been the case with some eccentrics, not to mention your spouse, companion, friend, children or domestic partner with a simple will, or disinherit them if that is also your wish.

The standing issue was addressed by the 9th Circuit even in this ruling, although from the wrong angle, it appears, questioning instead of the wrong "parties of interest" to the matter the standing of this group, Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the proposition, to defend.

It appears maybe that may be the reason it was brought incorrectly to begin with - to use the standing issue as one in order to murky the waters, and force also the Governor and Attorney General to show their true colors, and set this case then up for an eventual challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court again inappropriately as not brought by the true parties in interest as the Constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (rather than common law "institution" which did exist in its common law form at its signing).

A court that hasn't recognized the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based for literally decades, and never more so than in the last thirty in many respects, including using foreign jurisdictional law now even for some of its renderings rather than American jurisprudence, and giving more and more "rights" to "corporate" entities, including the government itself, above those of the citizenry with respect to Bill of Rights issues in so many matters it is incredible.

I hope that before it reaches that point it is corrected to Perry vs. State of California, otherwise it would appear that any decision rendered in this matter will be null and void in either case. Since it truly isn't naming the "parties in interest" and in so NOT doing, has made the defense in this matter one in which the government appears to be facilitating this case also in order to set a nation-wide precedent with this legal technicality their scapegoat against really treason in this smoke and mirrors game.

And with the complement of the "progressively" unAmerican Supreme Court with these last several appointments particularly ones in which during those Senate hearings little questioning had to do with those justices understanding of just where their powers end with respect to Constitutional interpretation, and under what "standard" they are to reach their opinions (not judicial "case precedent" but with the intent of the framers ever present in Bill of Rights issues fundamentally, and don't think the mention of extending or expanding the definition of marriage was even entertained in their minds as a Bill of Rights "inalienable" right and outside governmental authority really, to begin with as "personal" relationships were intended to be).

The 16th again and its ramifications again rears its ugly head on this issue also, which would never be the case if the "intent" for taxation in this nation was reinstituted to its Constitutional intent.

Since there were gays back in '76 and there were marriages also, it would appear to this American Constitution believer that in such a Constitutional challenge on the "right" to marry and definition of marriage itself, which is what this case really boils down to, this would be a no-brainer.

But look for an excuse such as "good public policy" or "freedom of association" (assembly) to be their underlying rationale, in order to support that state, and the legal community at large, for another "stimulus" at the true cost of freedom and the expense of the public at large.

Then look for the medical community to get into the act mandating AIDS testing prior to issuing those licenses, so that the state (and feds in this health care reform national database that was hidden in those bills) then has a record of any and all individuals who are HIV positive, at the stroke of a keyboard, or mandate HIV treatment prior to the issuance of those licenses.

I don't believe the activist gay community has any idea how they are being used over a fundamental right to privacy of their personal lives and sexual preferences, until it hits them in about five years down the road, brought by another government funded legal defense or civil rights group, as this massive politically brought case and its defense clearly is using those licenses for more taxation and profit for either the government, or its select global industries. And "science and technology" seems to be their baby at the present time most of all.

Those domestic relations lawyers looking forward to those fees for the divorces and pre-nups are also licking their chops right about now, and the hotel, tourism and wedding planning industries in that state.

Not to mention the number of "new jobs" for judges and lawyers this will also create, for those domestic relations courts, and the county justices of the peace that will now also be needed to increase those county coffers at "for profit" prices for those licenses, although with California continuing to expand its budgets and cry poverty at the same time it continues to bankrupt its citizenry.

Schwarzenegger is, after all, not simply an avowed "capitalist" for California in for profit governmental public/private partnerships, but a personal one too.

Wonder how much he has invested in the hotel, resort and medical industries personally that just might profit from his personal, rather than Constitutional, views? Or Attorney General Brown, who has his eye on heading that state after Mr. Scwarzenegger steps down, from all reports.

If it is mandated that insurers must cover gay individuals and their domestic partners equally with herterosexual individuals without taking "risk" into consideration, or the high cost of those in vitro and other alternative reproductive costs that are "class" distinctive and are instead spread amongst the pool of policy holders, it appears that the global corporatists have found another way to "socialize" the costs of health care for higher risk groups to all - so just watch the costs of those policies skyrocket, instead of getting more affordable as the Obama Administration touted during that farce of a Health Care Reforem legislation.

I guess the costs and profits for all those drug manufacturers for this "new" disease treating the symptoms hasn't been enough, since according to my research the patent on inferon and some of those other expensive drugs is scheduled to expire in 2013, just prior to when the new mandates for health care for all begins.

This is a disease, after all, that has become an industry in and of itself along with breast cancer "awareness" and those recommended tests and races have brought in a bundle to the medical community for "reasearch", although few strides in really preventing or curing those diseases has been in sight.

I would question whether the instances of new cases of breeast cancer, as with AIDS, are going up or if some of these "treatments" themselves are resulting in new cases, such as annual invasive radioactive breast x-rays, and live virus injections and treatments.

Hello, gay community, it just might be that you are being had.

California And Its Judiciary Need A Reality Check

There was an mainstream media AP article in the news again with respect to the ruling by a California federal district court judge over the lifting of the ban on gay marriages in the State of California. It does appear this particular judge has a love for the limelight, due to making this ruling against the will of the California voters (although, of course, in this age of "out of district" funding for state and local matters, and unrepresentative government at every level, and illegally voting foreigners in many state and federal elections at this point it is even hard to ascertain what the true will of the California voters actually is), yet continuing to interject his opinions and authority weeks later.

The latest: His assertion that he doesn't feel that the groups or individuals who may be involved in challenging or appealing his ruling have any "standing" to do so since they would be unable to prove there would be any adverse "impact" directly to them should California begin granting "permission" and marriage licenses to same sex individuals in that state.

What about the public costs for the eventual divorces of over half of those unions for their dissolutions if the statistics with respect to opposite sex marriages are any indication of the chances that these marriages will last "until death us do part?"

Of course, I won't go into how totally ludicrous it is in this country in which our entire civil legal system is grounded in the common law with respect to our Constitution, and marriage actually is an institution with a history of thousands of years pre-dating even our Constitution wherein even the Roman system of government which had a plethora of gay individuals did not officially recognize same sex unions as in the same league as heterosexual ones insofar as rights of inheritance, etc. (of course adoptions now granted to gay individuals were not then afforded either, nor had "science and technology" advanced to the degree in reproductive medicine that it has today).

But I wonder how the little problem of a gay individual with a biological child, who then has an in vitro child or surrogate will be handled if there is any disputes over rights of inheritance in the future?

I mean, has this judge actually considered the impact upon future generations and our legal system with this ruling? Or the absolute arrogance of the judiciary in this country itself in its even attempting to redefine an institution that has a history of thousands of years in the present era to begin with and for which they really have no Constitutional authority over and above the common law definitions?

And don't you think that little matter of "standing" would have been addressed prior to putting that proposition on the ballot to begin with?

If the citizens of California do not have the right to challenge or appeal such a fundamental percept under our civil codes and the common law upon which our Constitution is based, then how is it that federal court judges such as Mr. Walker and the appellate courts are granting "standing" to foreigners such as the illegal Mexican immigrants under those Bill of Rights now PROGRESSIVELY?

Including that out of control 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Just what is occurring in our American law schools today, insofar as teaching the basics in our Constitution, and Constitutional law?

Hello, Mr. Walker, just who do you think those courts were provided for anyway, if not Americans - and if this is a Bill of Rights issue and challenge, and the Supreme Court has not yet reversed its fundamentally flawed decisions with respect to extending PROGRESSIVELY Bill of Rights protections to "corporate" entities (not to mention that it does not appear that the group challenging this measure is a "commercial" corporation, in any event anyway), then upon what errant nutjob prior ruling are you basing your conclusions with respect to the question of standing to begin with?

And its origins really have to do with inheritance and other rights of biological offspring, since the adoption, insemination or surrogacy process itself outside "natural" or biological procreation, and is a legal process in and of itself with respect to such issues?

This entire passion play is beginning to appear rather ludicrous and the ultimate aim for the state again self-serving for all that added tax revenues for the local coffers for those "license" fees taken into account, given that marriages are nothing more than civil contracts, and there already is in force provision for domestic unions in the State of California and many others throughout the nation for same sex domestic unions. And that there are already legal provisions under powers of attorney, and other legal instruments to secure the fundamental rights of committed individuals for property and inheritance purposes and even taxation with "head of household" provisions.

It appears once again that the major reason for this push is in order for the gay community to somehow gain "legitimacy" or social acceptance for their unions on parity with heterosexual unions, which is something that no matter how many years, and how many court decisions, is not somthing that can be forced upon 100% of the American people or heterosexual community that have any religious beliefs whatsoever in the three major religions, which at last count was at least 70% of Americans.

Moral acknowledgement is what appears to be the ultimate aim and equality of the definition of marriage itself, an institution again which pre-dates our Constitution by thousands of years and is, after all, based entirely on civil common laws which already have been expanded with regard to recordation, at least in California and the majority of other states which have provided licenses or recordation means for "civil" or "domestic" unions.

A "marriage" is nothing more than a public pledge in front of two witnesses announcing a commitment of love, and a shared life and property during the term of the union or "partnership," at its most basic, and a spiritual union between the couple and God for those that choose to have their unions sanctioned instead by their house of worship.

What will be next for the gay activist community, rather than the mainstream gay community who believe their private lives are actually private? Legislation then aimed at the clergy and churches mandating that pastors or other religious leaders must perform such ceremonies if so requested? While the aim here may be marketed to the public as one of merely "civil" rights, it does appear that there just could be a fundamentally greater agenda here in using these laws then to assault the religious community eventually whose biblical teachings on marriage would forbid extending religious sanctions to such unions at their most basic precepts.

This is, of course, where the PROGRESSIVES in their also illegally redefining the First Amendment protections of "freedom of" religion to outside its original intent to "freedom from" religion have been focusing their activities as of late due to those great statutes providing for legal fees for lawyers bringing any and all actions that can be broadly defined as "civil rights" have been using for their own stimuluses and corporate gains.

So in those civil unions before civil justices, just what part of the marriage ceremony itself is missing since there are civil unions conducted by justices of the peace there as there are for heterosexual couples which were in effect before the "activist" gay community still were not satisfied.

The civil laws have been changed to afford "parity" with respect to the common law rights of marriage, which require no "license" to begin with, save the commercial insurers with respect to health insurance provisions and the like, and the the gay community could save themselves and the other taxpayers of this country from the costs of picking up the legal tabs for this civil rights challenge by focusing more so on where it belongs.

The insurers denying them and their posterity coverage under those plans extended to heterosexual couples, although I'm sure that after this ruling those suits will be next on the agenda to keep those lawyers working for decades to come especially in light of this most recent unconstitutional mandate of Washington and tyranny in "fining" Americans who have paid for many of those community hospitals and the like with their property taxes. It appears that especially for the boomer generation are going to be bled dry even further for the "global economy" and Wall Street bankers and politicos gain at the cost of the public at large, even those not invested in Wall Street or those not affiliated with the Globalist Party in power on the Hill, and apparently also in California's positions of authority.

Just imagine when "parity" in the health care field does eventually gain more ground, the number of civic institutions which are dedicated to finding cures to AIDS will become unable to continue or exist, and then the search for the cure for this deadly disease will not be quite so important as guaranteeing a steady stream of future policy-holders which will need to take out riders for AIDs coverage. I mean, this disease is a virus and it is amazing the amount of monies those pharmaceutical companies and insurers have already mnade off the victims of this disease or the American public while a "cure" for the disease itself is nowhere in sight.

A disease that never existed until the present day, or is it merely a strain of an already identified viral infection, since it appears treating the symptoms of HIV and the AIDS virus has become an industry in and of itself PROGRESSIVELY.

The judge also commented that it was his opinion that the challengers to his recent ruling would need the "permission" of either Governor Schwartezeneggar or Attorney General Jerry Brown in order to pursue their claims.

Huh? The opposing citizenry needs "permission" of the Governor for what the gay community has continued to portray as a "civil rights" case?

Mr. Walker should be suing his law school for his tuition costs, it appears to this writer, since it appears he is another of the British trained lawyers holding court from the bench rather than ruling according to his Constitutional oath of office in issuing this latest opinion publicly in furtherance of his original ruling.

Stay tuned. Since this farce of a civil rights abridgement appears is far from over.

State Governors Declare Halts In Offshore Drilling

In the wake of the Louisiana BP explosion and disaster, and at the behest, of course, of those also governmentally funded environmental groups in the United States, two states have made noise about banning offshore drilling off their respective coastlines - Calfornia and Florida.

What has been of interest to me has been the timing of this particular disaster, at a time when the American public has been pressing toward more domestic production and less dependence on foreign oil.

Governor Schwartzenegger of Calfornia and Governor Crist of Florida both have publicly stated for the record that both felt in light of the BP disaster in Louisiana that their states were taking a second look at increasing offshore exploration and development of new wells.

Could it just possibly be also that given that there is regulation in this country of oil production and development which was initiated and stepped up primarily due to the fallout from past disasters, especially in Alaska, that it is far more productive and profitable for those who are heavily invested in Wall Street and those U.S. corporations to get their oil from the Middle East, bypassing many of the restrictions and oversight that is involved with those added costs for domestic production?

I mean, it does seem rather fortuitous that this disaster occurred at this time, since the wars in the Middle East continue to be propagandized as one involving mainly our presence there and need for foreign oil - when this just may be a banking and economic war due to fundamentalist Muslim beliefs which has resulted in their having their own banks outside the World Bank and European banking system?

Of course, this disaster, after all the investigations are finally completed, will also involve major repair and reconstruction of those rigs, thus feeding Wall Street and the British bankers and BP once again which has been left out of the mainstream reporting.

Right now, Louisiana is still recovering from both Katrina and Gustav, and construction has become its major industry even surpassing oil and gas exploration, its historic industry.

Which companies also hire a great many of those illegals that supposedly have left the United States due to the decline in the economy - although you wouldn't know it if you had recently visited Louisiana since there is a boom in construction occuring there at the present time and many of those government contractors are hiring those illegals.

Two British terrorist bombers attempting to enter the U.S., and now a British based company involved in the Louisiana disaster.

It does make at least a few Americans pause.

Especially due to the "globalized" economy now in which the U.S. is entrenched thanks to Washington's Constitutional negligence, and that deficit to those British based bankers that own our Federal Reserve is clearly growing in leaps and bounds, while it appears we are taking in more and more of their population from Canada and Australia due to their now stronger currency.

There couldn't be an agenda here, could there?

Los Angeles Boycotts Arizona: Hooray!

With much ceremony and political rhetoric, it appears the City of Los Angeles has boycotted doing business with Arizona businesses in response to the "new" illegal immigration measures signed into law by Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer.

As a former 45 year Arizonan and victim of illegal loans sold to thousands of Arizonans through California domiciled banking institutions that were not even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates, all I can say is hooray!

It doesn't appear to me that the City of Los Angeles knows anything at all about how corrupt some of their own politicians and businesses are, so since it is more expensive to bring litigation in the California courts due to all those outrageous hotel and bed taxes levied there, this boycott appears it will work in favor of the Arizona businesses whose contracts will be illegally broken due to the Council's actions.

It seems California's budgetary problems will become even more extreme after this latest scene right out of Hollywood.

Interesting also that during all those illegal immigrant rallies held in Los Angeles in years past, during the one in which the rubber bullets were used, the Mayor of Los Angeles just happened to be out of the country in Mexico at the time.

It would appear that since most of those Arizonan businesses also hire local day laborers in Los Angelese to assist with some of those contracts, the Council has just taken a stand that may cost a few illegal immigrants their jobs.

Way to go, Mayor and Council, you made your constituents proud.

At least those that are waiting in front of the Home Depots now, but you might want to schedule a few more trips out of the country when those jobs dry up.

Just a suggestion from one who has waited a long, long time for California to show their true colors in just how far afield they have gone from even giving the slightest credence to the U.S. Constitutuion.

Or California's.

And I wouldn't be looking for many of those Zonies on the beaches, so the Governor might need to up the budgets on those "See California" ads for the rest of the country, at least in those which have state citizens that can still afford those bed and tourism taxes.

Hey, if Arizona can't get its water back that you've stolen, just give them the cash.

They will need it for all those deportation hearings, including over half California's former residents who fled to Arizona within the last fifteen years due to its "progressively" regressive policies such as these.

Maybe even some of them will too finally leave, since it is a great many of those former Californians who may have left California, but brought their same excesses and expectations with them.

Which has progressively also impacted the long term and native Arizonans along with the illegal immigrant situation, many of whom are now living in those desert washes.

Do you think you can get San Francisco and San Diego, and the rest of the state to join you?

Please?

The first that need to go are all those California New Agers that have taken over Sedona - including those that even recently baked a few women in a plastic tent after charging them over $10,000 each for the privilege.

State, Local Tourism Taxes Keeping Americans Home?

In addition to the piss poor economy in the United States at the present time (pardon my French), it appears that the U.S. Chamber and travel and tourism industry have yet to also discover just why occupancy levels are down, and more and more Americans are staying at home during normal vacation periods.

And that would be that the taxation rates now in the travel and tourism industry in many major U.S. cities, especially those that depend on tourism for a great deal of their tax revenue, has increased in leaps and bounds during the past two decades.

Many are exceeding the benchmark taxation rates which most Americans are willing to pay of 10%.

This "passing on" of the taxation which has been levied by state and local governments on rooms, meals and assundry related taxes has hurt this industry, although appears the corporate types of most of the major U.S. chains have yet to realized just why so many are choosing "cheaper" destinations, camping or purchasing or renting RVs instead of visiting those much ballyhooed hotel discount trip planning sites.

California is the largest advertiser bar none of its tourism industry, with the Governor and Hollywood types even participating as was evident during the recent Winter Olympics.

Although it is truly unbelieveable also the liberal political mindset in this particular state.

Many of those beach communities throughout California have banned both smoking, and pets on most public beaches in the interest of safety and health concerns.

Which knocks out an entire major segment of the population insofar as choosing California as a vacation destination, rather than the mountains (those which are not suffering drought conditions) or other locales.

I wonder what will be next in the Golden State.

Banning sun bathing on the beaches (after all, skin cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer and far exceeds that of second hand smoke, thus the biggest health risk to the sun worshippers of all).

So U.S. Chamber, before wining and dining the members of Congress and local and state governments for your next hotel development project, or loss at the public's expense since it appears there continues to be literally hundreds of new hotels now in the works, you might just step back and re-evaluate your corporate policies in order to attract Mom, Dad and the kids rather than your corporate clientele.

Since it appears your economies favor the "corporate" also, and not the citizenry, since those AAA discounts don't apply to the taxes passed on to the average American family.

Avoidance of the paying of usury is one biblical precept that many, at least of the boomer generation, still practice whenever possible.

Hence the number of "tea party activists" that identify themselves also as Christian, and this is a basic tenet of that religion, and several others found in this country.

Not to mention those who, in order to reduce their household budgets to be able to afford their mortgages and necessities at this point, do not include vacations or discretionary travel outside business or necessity at all.

Since in many states this is a "transaction privilege tax" on the commercial entity which is being passed on indiscriminantly to the public, please consider this simply a heads up from one who has been amazed due to business related travel at rates approaching 15% added additional taxes for overnight stays in many cash hungry states added to those predominantly large corporate chains wishing to "capitalize" on the public in historically tourism heavy states even with higher and higher base rates such as those found California, Inc.

There are very valid reasons that most states are seeing fewer and fewer return visitors.

At least the U.S. family variety, after also factoring in those astronomically high Disney passes for your average family of four into the mix.

Which industry also in many instances has been financially subsidized by the American public through federal, state and local tax benefits, subsidies and other freebies or "give mes" both during construction, and thereafter.

The Mortgage/Foreclosure Rescue Is No Rescue

It appears that the much ballyhooed mortgage rescue for all those homeowners living in primarily the West and Southwest, and Michigan appears to have been no rescue at all.

Last month once again saw a record number of foreclosures in those states and there has been no significant rebound of the housing market throughout the nation. Of course, the boom and bust cycle has been blamed by the mainstream media in claims that most of those buyers either "borrowed too much" or bought too much home.

As one who lived for many years in a state that has seen these boom and bust cycles since the 1970's, Arizona, I can tell you there is much more to it than that.

What lead to this disaster simply has not been widely reported, nor has been addressed in any significant manner by either this, or the prior Administrations.

What hasn't been disclosed in the mainstream media is the fact that most of those states are "foreclosure friendly" states to begin with, and states with a high turnover rate due to the fact that they are retirement states for most of the Canadian and East Coast retirees.

And that most of those new loans and refinances weren't simply "creative" loans, or even "interest only" loans at all, but many were not even based on the U.S. prime interest rates, but on the London banking rates (the LIBOR, or London Interest Bearing Origination Rate).

At the current exchange rate, that means most of those loan adjustments will be based on a currency rate that is one and a half times that of the U.S. dollar at this point.

Which means that an adjusted rate of 3% based on the London market rates is another one and a half percent over one based on the U.S. prime.

With all the publicity and mass media promotion of the Fed's slashing interest rates during this economic tsunami, little has been said that if a home mortgage rate isn't even based on the U.S. prime, the Fed's slashing of interest rates isn't going to assist in any significant manner whatsoever those home buyers who were "sold" loans based on a foreign currency and interest rate.

Which begs the question, how in the world could U.S. charter banking institutions be selling mortgage loans in this country that are not even based on the U.S. currency to the American public?

One of the prime lenders of these loans was based in Michigan, and most of the others were based in California, although even the Michigan bank which is under investigation at this time, it was announced, heavily sold loans in the West and Southwest through its offices there. However, nothing has been published on the London bank rate loans some of these entities were selling to the unsuspecting public.

Interestingly enough also, those states that are affected have the highest number of Canadian retirees, or as with Michigan, border Canada. Which would mean perhaps that those banks were attempting to compete with the Canadian banks for a share of the Canadian market for homes purchased by Canadians in the United States but using "their" currency rates in order to so do thus bulking up the profits of those lenders in the process.

And they were bankrupt?

Which is even more troubling that banks in this country which are federally insured by the FDIC and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be compromising the economy of this country on behalf of foreign investors in second "vacation" home properties, or were somehow unaware that their affiliated banks were selling loans based on a foreign interest rate or currency. That would be highly suspect, as such information would be readily discernible during any bank audit, and I'm sure one or two of those big box lenders especially in California had to have been audited during that boom.

Although many of the Canadians especially in Arizona only live in the United States for six months out of the year, they don't pay any U.S. federal or state income taxes nor a proportionate share of the sales and other taxes United States full time resident citizens pay, although as with the bank bailouts, it was the United States citizens that ate the risk for those banks that wrote many of those loans for those foreigners who defaulted also, since many were second homes to begin with and while they may have lost their investment for most of those huge closing costs that also were a part of some of those loans, they didn't lose their true "home" at all.

Not like the Americans who were also sold those loans in order to both bulk up the profits of those banks, and also assume some of the risk through the backdoor for those loans which were sold to the Canadian market.

While Obama then "saves" the pension plans of the GM Canadian workers, while giving the "buck up, we all must sacrifice" speech to the U.S. autoworkers in Detroit then that were laid off.

It appears this proclaimed "citizen of the world", as with the last Administration, is more concerned with appeasing the "world" audience and investors, rather than protecting the homesteads of the U.S. citizens.

Since the actual terms and conditions of those loans actually have not changed when there was no meaningful regulatory functions included with the bank bailouts.

Instead, it does appear that in this Administration is promoting now primarily refinances, and advertising these slashed Fed rates for new home buyers and purchases with tax credits, it would appear, again the "hook" so that instead of "rescuing" or protecting the U.S. citizens home investment, the Obama Administration is simply working for the European bankers and attempting to get more and more Americans into those fraudulent London market rate loans so that even more Americans lose their homes during the next boom and bust cycle.

This "rescue" sounds more like a set up for the next generation, and those retiree boomers, or possibly the "new" Americans that Congress and this Administration, as the last, wishes to "legalize," who cannot read English or at least might have a little trouble with all that legalese now in those 50 page loan docs.

You know all those "kids" that this Administration and the last used at election time in order to score points with the voters, to be the next victims in another ten to twenty years, in order to lose even the small amount of equity they may have built up with those usurous rates.

I do believe that there may be more important legislation needed here than the No Child Left Behind Act in order to protect America's children from the banking industry so that maybe they, too, can someday truly realize the American dream of home ownership and not simply "stewardship" for the British or the U.S. banks working in partnership of their home and land.

And now these properties in the West and Southwest are once again being hawked in the East Coast and Canadian markets for the upcoming boomer generation - many of whom are hardly the golf cart type, but be forewarned all you East Coast and Canadian tenderfoots. Promoting all the "steals" now that can be had.

The term "steal" is actually quite accurate, in this case, literally.

The British bankers are on their way to reclaiming the West and Southwest for the Crown, with the assistance of the Tories in Washington who apparently are selling not only a great deal of our vital industries and infrastructure to foreigners through the "global" stock market, but now even the private land in this country through the backdoor by not simply not regulating the U.S. banks and their lending practices, but actually facilitating a British takeover of our entire country parcel by parcel, as it were.

California's Budgetary Morass: What A Spin!

It was reported in the mainstream media that a solution to the California budgetary crisis is expected by Sunday. Apparently, there has been some concern in the Golden State due to the fact that it has been reported that some of the banks are refusing the IOUs which have been issued in order to fund governmental contractors which have not been paid due to this crisis.

And it is clear this is no more than a P.T. Barnum spectacle in order to gain more and more leverage with the California residents in the mess that has occurred due to that states progressive liberalism over the years.

Since California most of all, due to the continuing war in the Middle East, should be in the black and not the red at all if they were utilizing those public sums primarily for the state government's true Constitutional functions, rather than also funding special interests primarily with grant monies and no-bid contracts as occurs throughout the nation now in the corruption in state and municipal governments.

After all, Silicon Valley is the largest producer of all the now high tech security devices that are being installed throughout the nation, and one of the largest holder of federal contracts for technology needs in this continuing war, and are huge mega holders of U.S. government contracts.

And I wonder if this is actually the case, why the Hollywood elite have not thought of having their own benefit for the State of California instead of the next AIDS or PETA benefit.

Most of them due to their wealth and global holdings could float the state for a number of years if they were taxed at the rate the middle class actually is, or even the lower income workers - rather than having access to their offshore accounts, and tax attorneys who work the "privileges and immunities" on capital gains so well for all of them for their shell corporations, and trust accounts. Rather than being taxed on the truth "worth" of their holdings or "property."

And California is primarily a liberal Democratic state or "blue" state, yet many of whose individuals are the direct beneficiaries of the claimed Republican favoritism for the wealthy on those capital gains benies. Go figure.

In fact, while many of the people throughout the country are now facing homelessness and joblessness in increasing numbers, I read an article this week that David Arquette is planning on holding a sit in for the global Food for the Hungry in New York shortly in order to raise a few million in order to feed those living in third world countries.

I wonder if he has visited his local Los Angeles soup kitchen lately, since the class of individuals now is including the former middle class in increasing numbers.

Or why he didn't simply write a check from his own excess wealth instead of using it for a PR stunt and in order to "socialize" the donations for a cause in which he individually supports and believes? He could donate his own wealth and it would take care of quite a number, I would suspect. Or maybe the sums he pays to his tax accountant.

It was also interesting to note that California is not a right to work state, so many of the California public employees are outraged since they now feel they are being victimized by this also "budget crisis." Since they are state employees and public servants, I wonder where in the California or U.S. Constitution it gives public employees the right to "unionize" in order to gain more taxpayer sums for themselves? The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is also playing politics with the issue (and just what other citizens in other countries does this U.S. "corporate" union claim it represents?)

Municipalities are nothing more than "state actors" for the states themselves, so this is truly confusing that state employees would be allowed to unionize to get more of the taxpayer bite to begin with.

Although the CPI and statistical data published by the U.S. Department of Labor is a joke in and of itself (artificially concocted due to the fact that most union contracts and salary increases are tied in directly to the CPI, so there is some also "creative accounting" on those figures that bear no actual relevance to the true increases in costs for many products and services), teacher's salaries have gone up at three and four times the rates of inflation, as have several other of the public service occupations.

And with California also primarily one in which there is an additional layer of government in most newer suburban areas in the form of homeowners associations collecting taxes for former municipal services such as street repairs, street lighting and such, just wonder where all that revenue that the state has collected truly has gone? Since they are collecting more revenue, but providing less each and every year and transferring those costs back onto the public in those "socialized" land ownership communities.

If they are under "balanced budgets" initiatives, just how are they also then entering into multi-year contracts then with developers and other government contractors to begin with? How is that "legally" possible?

Sounds more like the classic case of fiscal mismanagement and misappropriation of funds is the true root of California's claimed budgetary woes. And maybe a few too many of those Sacramento pow-wows and state benefits given to the likes of the Donald Trumps & Co. at the state resident's expense for the global tourism industry and U.S. Chambers agendas in turning the U.S. into nothing more than a tourist attraction and investment opportunity for foreigners.

All at the cost of their fellow countrymen and their jobs and earned and owned "property" for their global monopolies and executives and fellow "corporate" brothers and subsidiaries benefit packages in the process at the price of the small businessesmen and any and all emerging American entrepreneurs due to their strangleholds now on the market due to favoritism and their "greased palms" political connections.

The delusion goes on. And nowhere more than the home of the "OC," "Desperate Housewives," and "Californication."

That state is a world unto itself, whose delusion and fantasy extend far beyond Disneyland.

California Screamin' Again: State's Liberalism Causes Budget Woes

California is again in the news due to its purported "budget crisis," a state that receives more federal monies in addition to New York than most all of the other states combined due to its liberal spending policies in the past two administrations in that state under both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Funding governmental functions in California takes a back seat to promoting the fantasy and delusion inherent in the California lifestyle, and one is that money grows on trees and the Governor and legislature are the state's Sugar Daddies for both corporate welfare, and foreigner welfare.

In comparison, citizen welfare is far down the list as California is a "sanctuary state" for new immigrants, illegal immigrants and foreigners almost across the board in addition to its cousin, New York.

But when push comes to shove it is the Kansas farmers and Middle America that are funding their excesses and out of control spending, and the other 48 states.

And the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and its liberal political renderings, whose reach even extended to my former state of residence, Arizona, is now assisting in destroying its economy due to that same liberalism, and the influx of political refugees that have fled from that state in greater and greater numbers after anniliating their own.

Below is some information that will help shed some light on just a small fraction of the problems in California, due to their sanctuary state policies and liberalism with respect to the illegal immigrant situation and its fiscal impact:

This was released by the Vietnam Veterans of America

Just One State
This is only one State...............If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will !

From the L A. Times

1.40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people )are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

2.95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3.75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4.Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5.Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

6.Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8.Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County )

(All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue

HOW CAN YOU HELP ?

Send copies of this letter to at least two other people. 100 would be even better.

This is only one State................

If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will !

U.S. States Facing Budget Crisis: Why Balance Budget Laws Don't Work

This week there have been numerous headlines with respect to the budget crises now facing most of the states throughout the United States, again with the downward spiraling U.S. economy to blame.

Mr. Obama, of course, recently participated in one of the most massive layoffs and firings of the current employees for General Motors, of course consoling them with how their "sacrifices" now would reap benefits down the road. The question is, of course, for whom?

Apparently U.S.A., Inc. and the United Auto Workers, who were given an ownership share in the deal brokered by the Obama Administration in order to add this major U.S. corporation to Washington's budgeoning stock portfolio.

Oh, and the Canadian Teacher's Union Pension Fund which also received a share, at the expense of the autoworkers' in Detroits pensions and retirement, and the smaller private bondholder's investment, from the few details available since Mr. Geithner and Obama are again handling the details outside usual federal bankruptcy court in order to skirt around those public records and disclosure provisions.

I'm sure that acquisition has set Detroit and Michigan's economy back a bit insofar as sales tax revenues. Most of those autoworkers most likely will be eating pork and beans for a while, "sacrificing" for Mr. Obama's now Government Motors. And those bond holder owners just lost a little of that retirement money for those planned road trips in their golden years.

But China picked up a steal, or should I say, steal for its steel.

Now, even after receiving "kickbacks" in the form of federal funding through the stimulus packages of billions of dollars which are to be transferred to the states and billed to the state citizens and taxpayers as a whole, the states are now still whining about their shortfalls.

And the biggest whinner, of course, is that liberally run Golden State, defined by its excess over the course of years and the high taxes and destruction which has resulted due to their own liberalism.

It doesn't appear those in state office have been able to read the California Constitution for at least fifty years if not longer, since the early 60's.

I guess the costs of their open borders, pro-illegal immigrant positions, and past "save the trees" environmentalism that has since resulted in the destruction of thousands of homes and forested acres is finally coming home to roost. Costs for which the entire nation also has paid for during those self-created disasters in their misguided environmental radicalism during a ten year drought with overgrown forests which can now be set off by static electricity in more than a few areas and almost non-existent groundwater tables. Of course the fountains and jacuzzis are still humming along nicely.

And both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger's freewheeling ways.

The OC set have never heard the word "fiscal conservatism," a term they associate with "right wing extremists," and Kansas farmers (who they would like to bail them out) when it comes to their creature comforts, limos, jacuzzis and their private jets which they cannot do without so that they can attend their next global warming lecture.

My former home state, Arizona, is also facing a crisis, or so it has been reported, even though many years ago the citizens in that state actually passed a "balanced budget" initiative.

Has it worked? Hardly.

You see, the government is the worst when it comes to following the laws and directives of "we the people." Our taxes fund literally hundreds of lawyers to advise legislators on just how they can skirt around some of those initiatives in order to continue doing business as usual.

When those budgets are released to the public, you need a magnifying glass and organizational chart to follow the money trail to find where all the funding is actually going. And even with those tools, you would only get half the picture.

Nowhere in those budgets are reported the sums that are received also from the federal government in order to fund some of these state programs. Thus, citizens in most states face dual taxation in numerous areas at both the state and federal levels.

It has gotten so bad in Arizona that they have sold former state funded prisons and/or are now contracting for local prisons and guards privatizing them, and are now charging the prisoners for their accomodations in order to make those lease payments, and giving incentives to officers on those federally funded DUI sports bar patrols in order to meet the federal grant guidelines to make those payments, which sums now are far more than the prior costs of upkeep and maintenance of some of those facilities for state taxpayers.

Most state and local impound lots also throughout the country have been privatized, many of which are owned by police officers as a further incentive in the new social drinking taxes.

Apparently, the state needed the money from the prison sale in order to assist in funding one of the state's new pet projects and new foundation under Janet Napolitano, the high tech gadget junkie, The Arizona Science Foundation.

Were the citizens consulted in this new project?

Of course not.

The state then subsequently entered into multi-year contracts with this organization (contracts with itself), which foundation is now suing the State of Arizona (again themselves or the state citizens ultimately) in order to get the funding through the backdoor, since in order to "balance" this years budget funding had to be reduced to this extra-Constitutional foundation for the press release of a "balanced" budget.

A new legal trick has now been the modus operandi in order to satisfy the state budget requirements, in now simply using the courts in order to fund some of these state created foundations and then hide all the extra revenue they are doling out for state agenda driven projects outside Constitutional authority or citizen accountability.

Then, of course, the state can appear to be "balancing" the budget while the courts and taxpayer paid "foundation" and private corporate attorneys negotiate and "seal the deals" factoring in, of course, their cut also in acting as the go-betweens of the state now in these NGO and extra-Constitutional funding matters.

Look hard, Californians, at that budget, and the court actions which have occurred in your state throughout the years.

I'm sure you'll find that there is plenty of money and there is no "budget" crisis, its just a matter of the state's priorities and legislators extra-Constitutional commitments that are the real problem.

And committing taxpayer sums and entering into contracts with either private or state created "foundation" contractors for multi-year terms in the first place, when state budgets in many states are required to be balanced annually.

To put it simply, deciding to fully fund and fulfill that multi-year contract for the newest "foundation" or multi-plex for the global visitors to Sacramento means the sums needed for vital services for which those tax monies are "legally" required such as the street repairs and garbage collection might just need to be cut, or reduced in order to "balance the budget."

Or in order to quell the masses, provide those sums in order to comply with the law, and then instruct extra-Constitutional "contractees" and developer instead to sue the State of California for their money, so that after the funds are provided and the lawsuit "settled," there is then a carry-over budget crisis and deficit again next year.

Balanced budget requirements are sort of like a shell game, with simply more and more "shells" (or shills) added each year.

That's what "liberalism" and legislating according to "living" Constitution beliefs actually does, encourages "corporate" socialism ultimately in taking from the poor (citizens) and give to the rich (foundations, corporations, developers), while the garbage piles up.

Lawyers Strike Back: Gore v. Bush Lawyers to Challenge California Ruling

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation. All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions. And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parents actually for?

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted? It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it?

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense? Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent providing more jobs for lawyers.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/

California Screaming: Golden State Needs More Than Mamas and Papas

Recently on one of the major networks it was reported that the State of California is facing a massive budget deficit, with the citizens of California screaming.

It appears Governor Schwartzenegger's solution to the catastrophy, one which again has a great deal to do with the past and current administration's governmental excesses from all reports, is now to request that the citizens of the United States bail out California much like the AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts (and it appears, the Big Three auto manufacturers).

California, the home of such programs as "Californication," "Beverly Hills 90210," "The OC" and the like, is hardly an innocent victim in their predicament, but a state who has built it's own reputation on fantasy and excess.

Apparently, it is those hard working Midwesterners and farmers that those in the Golden State now wish to come to their rescue, in addition to the out of work steel and auto workers, and those now homeless due to many of the practices of a number of banks who make their home also in the Golden State.

My former home state, Arizona, is now full of the refugees from California who essentially have destroyed that state with their excesses, and are working on destroying my former home in leaps and bounds with their liberal agendas.

Governor Schwartenegger, here are some suggestions for restoring economic viability in California:

1. Reduce all governmental salaries by at least 25%, in recognition that you, and all public employees of that state, also have blue ribbon health, dental, and pension plans that a good 2/3's of the private sector employees in California do not have (with the exception of Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and Nobb Hill).

Place freezes on additonal new hires until the size of government in the state can actually bear relevance to need, i.e., since the cities and local governments are state actors of the State of California, both legally and by judicial interpretation, just maybe your bicameral legislature could be parred down to a unicameral one such as Nebraska has, which is actually more in accordance with the federal Constitution, since there are only three "legal" entities within it - the federal government, the states, and the people.

And Senators rarely represent the municipalites solely in state government, but usually also large corporate interests just as the House members now do although elected through supposedly "democratic" local elections. Although those candidates merely are representatives of political party and corporate interests, by and large, and many of which funded by out of district slush money.

The U.S. Senators were actually provided to represent "the states" with the U.S. House then representing the people. The 17th Amendment somehow changed all that and is why we now have Senators courted by foreign governments and corporate lobbyists, since if elected by the state legislatures as originally provided, they were accountable to the states themselves.

Such a change in California government would result in shorter legislative sessions, less bureaucracy, and less costs to the taxpayers with greater accessibility, and would also be a great idea for the other 48 states which have yet to recognize this "double whammy, double bureaucracy" excess. What a concept!

2. Institute gaming and gambling just like the State of Arizona and so many other states across the nation have rather recently done, and then in conjunction with the new social drinking taxes, have officers wait outside the casinos to pick up the low level DUIs after the casinos have plied them with alcohol. Either they lose the money in the casinos to the state, or just in the event they win or truly do not excessively imbibe, they lose it in the DUI fines and fees after leaving.

Then put them in the privatized county court system, so that the state, counties and cities can at least get their share of the fees and fines, and federal pork pie for those expenses and incarcerations which are factored according to arrests and conviction, and which are now made by juries who are becoming increasing comprised of primarily state or municipal employees. This, of course, has become the procedure in order to insure those conviction rates stay high and those dollars continue to flow in.

Or, as is also now spreading the country due to an errant unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling, remove those jury trials for those now criminal actions entirely, so that the city or county judge can simply act as the state revenue agent instead in the interests of claimed "budgetary needs," due to having now criminalized 2/3rds the population on a Friday or Saturday night.

Oh, and also install statewide those speeding cameras so that you can gain another several billions on those progressive fines and fees for speeding violations based upon those fallible machines. That should bring in billions!!!

Alas, though I see that the State Supreme Court is going to "review" the legality this week of Proposition 8, which passed recently under a citizen's initiative restricting marriages to two sex couples.

Overturn that "people determined" decision due to budgetary needs, and of course you can look forward to all those licenses fees, and the "for profit" court costs and fees for all those divorces sometime in the future. Not to mention all those added taxes that will be necessary in order to provide those courts for at least some of those divorces if only 1/3 of them end up in the courts eventually.

And also those future campaign contributions from the California Bar Association Domestic Relations Division due to the gold mine such an action would engender for their corporate interests in state permission and licensures of personal relationships, rather than simple recordations of these oral or written personal contracts.

The above should fix your budgetary woes, although with respect to California's total tax bill to the rest of the nation, does this take into consideration the effect and costs of those wildfires of yours due to the aging 60's hippie environmentalists and their offspring, nor the "global warming" scam supported by Hollywood in order to now tax the air we breathe.

I don't think Californians should be screaming, but the rest of the nation.