George Washington's Wisdom

While reading of the ongoing demonstrations throughout the country by the Occupy Wall Street protestors, it occurred to me that Wall Street, and those bankers are not the sole criminals but co-conspirators (although even the word conspiracy is being ill defined in this country) of the majority of politicians in Washington.

The continued desecration of this country and its founding principles has been, of course, a joint venture between the bankers and those in both mainstream political parties leadership, with the corporately "organized" Tea Party appearing once again without a clue as to just when and where this country began this freefall, or just how to shift gears at this point from the progressive globalism agendas.

It is Washington in bed with the European bankers and our continued alliances with them that has continued to bite this country in the butt, so to speak, and ballooned our national debt and compromised this country's sovereignty and national security in the process.

Let's hope that the masses who are now gaining strength begin to see the forest for the trees, and not their individual grievances, but the "globalism" versus "sovereign America" economic and foreign policies that have got us here.

Misaligned Priorities: Organizing Campaigns Rather Than Representation

It was announced in the mainstream media recently that while Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is recovering from the events which occurred in Tucson in early January in which six Americans and Arizonans were attacked during a political forum at an area shopping center,
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) have been hard at work organizing fundraisers and creating a PAC organization in order to raise monies for Ms. Gifford's 2012 re-election campaign.

This tragedy notwithstanding nor Ms. Gifford's amazing recovery from all reports, aren't the priorities in Washington a little off base insofar as just what their jobs truly are once again?

I mean it has been reported that it will take months and months of rehabilitation therapy in order for Ms. Giffords to recover whatever brain functions may have been lost in this attack.

Meanwhile, the citizens in her district are without representation, while members of Congress are hard at work insuring their survival and that of their political parties after this heinous attack?

It is quite unbelieveable that procedures would not be in place in order to temporarily elect another citizen to represent the citizens in District 5 while Ms. Gifford's is recovering, if it is even her intention to continue to serve after what she has been through. I wonder, has anyone consulted her insofar as her future intentions? I mean one article even spoke of a Senate race, for heaven's sake.

Politics as usual, and just wonder whose political livelihoods and future best interests these politicians are attempting to secure?

Rather than representation for the benefit of the citizens of District 5?

Happy 2011: A New Decade

Happy 2011, and the beginning of a new decade.

Ringing out the old and bringing in the new is becoming a tradition in the American political landscape and the numbers of Independents and those who are fed up with the two political party system which has merged into the Global Socialist Party seems to be increasing.

Let's hope that trend continues, and we see some real changes rather than merely a change of the face behind the podium.

With the true Americans' voices resonating across this great nation that "progress" isn't "progress" when it is merely global government regression under the leadership of the resurrected British Tory Party with global economic dominion and rulership once again the goal.

Ms. Pelosi: Stop Preaching And Do Your Job

On network news again this morning, the erstwhile Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was hogging the media in order to once again preach to the American public about the health care deform legislation that she and her political party are backing which is clearly simply another nonconsensual backdoor tax on the American people in its current form.

Especially by continuing to include those "mandatory" provisions, and fees and fines and extortion if those in this country who cannot afford it at its current levels, or even due to the fact that so many are now jobless and homeless by this and the prior Administration's industry favoring legislation, be able to afford it at any level.

No recognition or media coverage has pointed out the fact that all Americans are and have been actually supporting the health care and medical community for decades with their tax dollars, yet upon any treatment getting little, if any, recognition of all those publicly funded grants at the state, local and federal level that most of them receive since Nixon's "corportization" of the health care sector way back when.

Including even zoning and building fees and costs for a great many of those massive global and national hospitals and health care networks.

Better yet, Ms. Pelosi, how about you and those other 434 rogue Congressmen start actually doing your jobs, and change the focus to where it Constitutionally and truly belongs.

Regulating most of those national and global health care vipers sufficiently, and rescinding that bogus Act of Congress that was passed actually also precluding the states from so doing as a power move and play for those on the Hill and their corporate backers post Nixon?

3/4's of these health care providers, hospitals, and teaching institutions receive federal and state grant monies at the public's expense, yet Americans are forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (and their unaffiliated employers) to carry this industry. Most of those hospitals and medical providers refuse to even give "good faith" estimates prior to treatment for non-emergency measures to begin with.

And a good many of them overcharge so that their take of the Medicare proceeds continues to escalate, rather than bearing any relationship whatsoever nationwide in the true cost of health care in this country.

Especially since many of those doctors now are also getting federal grant monies for their educations, or we are now outsourcing more and more to doctors who either are not Americans (such as the great many East Indian doctors now practicing in this country) or were educated free of charge at some of America's foremost medical colleges and universities.

With all the money going to medical research now also, are the costs of development of those new procedures and high tech gadgetry also being credited to the American public who paid for most of those procedures development?

The entire focus of this legislation is a**backward, in my and a great many Americans opinions, and Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Obama's posturing appears to now be "preaching to the choir," and a "choir" that is, from the tone throughout the country on this legislation progressively getting more and more outraged, and about to bring out those nooses.

Maybe also it would be nice if these press conferences would stop, and members start scrutinizing more and more of the past legislation that has lead to the "crisis" we are now facing.

Like bailing out all these industries at the public's expense, while the public then is raped on the personal level further when they engage their services (such as the increases now in bank fees and charges that are occurring nationwide, and 'creative" lending policies of those banks for mortgages getting even more outrageous - since a great many of those original loans in the West and Southwest for refinances or new home purchses weren't even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates).

Or the progressively lawyer industry favoring laws which have enriched a great many of the members of the Bar in the removal of punitive damage lids throughout the nation on medical malpractice claims and those even legitimate losses, and then costs for all those lawyers now employed by the health care sector that are also paid with those premium dollars in that totally unregulated industry which is actually simply another branch of the government itself - since all lawyers are inherently members of the judicial branch and have a monopoly also due to local court rules and regulations on it - since even what might be deemed small claims matters on some of these losses in coverages and benefits become civil and not small claims actions at higher costs.

Hogging air time to present your case isn't working on a public that has less and less trust that its representatives represent anyone other than their own self-interests.

And from most of the citizen media based websites, it does appear to me that either many Americans are unaware of just how much of their tax dollars are already going to subsidize the health care industry and sector, or are actually Canadians or Mexicans that hope that they will get in on better health care subsidized by the American people than their socialized plans in their own countries - or at least coverage then in the event they have some medical emergency while in this country for their "part time" residency status, with free health care nearby rather than having to return to their own countries for treatment.

Since, of course, a good many Canadians live in either those northern border states, or the American West and Southwest as retirees on a part time basis, or with second homes due to their better currency rates, and as then non-American taxpayers, would get that free ride for their care claiming "temporary resident" or "emergency" treatment status.

A good half the posters on most of those sites supporting this abridgement of the U.S. Constitution actually are Canadian bloggers and writers.

Which just goes to show it is appeasement once again of foreigners on the backs of Americans that is somewhat responsible for this push for this legislation, rather than at the demand of the American people at all other than the public's outrage at the escalating costs, pressuring a Congress to actually do their jobs and their "regulatory" functions on this massive industry that has gone for far too long without any regulation actually whatsoever, while being funded by and large by an American public who are watching the health care standards and even infant mortality rates decline by the year in favor of "profit" over "delivery."

Since Nixon, actually, and that entire bogus health maintenance organization concept and global corportization of the health care industry was sanctioned by that erstwhile Congress way back when, where it now takes visits to five or six doctors in order to simply get a diagnosis - that is if your "referring physician" feels it is in the corporate best interest to so do.

There are now as many levels in health care provision in this country, as there is in government.

Which has also contributed to where we are today.

President's Day Or Constitution Day?

While Americans are being bombarded with the television and print ads for the great sales that can be had today, President's Day, maybe it is time for a step back in history in order to view this holiday for what it is, and what it was never supposed to be.

When I was younger, there were two holidays in February, one celebrating George Washington's birthday, and one then also celebrating Abraham Lincoln's birthday - two of our historically revered presidents for their accomplishments given their rather humble beginnings and backgrounds.

Of course, Washington himself would have been apalled at such an idea in this country that was based most of all as one in which the President actually had very little power, intentionally so, in order to keep our government separate and apart from that of most of Europe whose governments were above the people, and not at all accountable to them with respect to their lives and/or property rights.

In fact, one of the greatest historical arguments on record after that first election was the title for the individual holding the title of the highest office in the land.

John Adams, of course, had a hard time breaking free of his "sovereign" ideas insofar as this new government was concerned on this point, and attempted to get the officeholder a "title of nobility," similar to that of Great Britain, the country we fought an entire war to break free from that monarchial style of government, and that ruler's control.

He wished to put words like "Supreme" and highlight the "commander in chief" roles in time of attack when this nation was at war, which was the primary focus actually for this new office, other than as one of the checks in the branches of government over any proposed legislation given primarily simply the right of veto power (of course, with Congress then given the power to overrule even the presidential veto upon a supermajority vote).

Mr. Washington, of course, disagreed - and disagreed most vehemently, and who was elected by a unanimous vote of the people and the Congress (at which time, the electoral process did not include political parties or partisanship to the degree to which it has progressively undermining the electoral process as a result, and the announcement of the "winner" simply released to the public after an official counting by the head of the Senate, the sitting Vice President as one of his rather elementary duties also).

He insisted that the provision be made that "no titles of nobility" became henceforth a part of our Constitution, and was a humble man and insisted on simply being called, "Mr. President."

Quite unlike the last presidential election held in this country with all the hoopla and expense of a coronation, and with President's Day now mostly a commercial holiday now and stressing the "executive" rather than his intended rather minimal role envisioned by those founders

I think Mr. Washington would support a new "change" since this Administration has made "change" one of its foremost goals with respect to the prior administration and its excesses with respect to both the office, the officeholder, and extra-Constitutional functions which also "regressively" have occurred where now this office has expanded to the point that those founders never, ever intended.

Maybe instead of now all the focus being turned once again to possibly entering into another war on behalf of other foreign nations with respect to the continued involvement of this country in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and Great Britain's pre-World War I accord (from which country two terrorists attacks have caused Americans to first now have to remove their shoes prior to boarding domestic airlines - which are now also globally owned outside Constitutional intent, and potentially after this last attack, even their underwear, or undergo invasive body scanners being installed in many airports as this is written), a clear recognition once again of our true intended form of government is needed.

Happy American Constitution Day all.

Supreme Court, Obama and Congress Pass The Scepter

The political battle rages on post the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with respect to campaign financing, and its horrendously unconstitutional new "interpretation" of the First Amendment.

In light of all the commentary that has been made with respect to the decision "rolling back" the campaign finance laws in order to afford unlimited corporate spending by special interests groups in national campaigns, quite a bit has been left out in just what an egregious decision this actually was, in my opinion.

Starting off with truly "rolling back" the campaign finance laws by the Supreme Court would have negated "corporate person-hoods" as having any place in Bill of Rights protections in the first place.

Meaning, that in order to have a truly "representative" government, no political candidate vying for public office should be afforded to be able to accept ANY campaign financing outside his own legislative district, whether corporately or otherwise.

The fact is that in the commentary and published opinion, it appears, there was not even any distinction made between grassroots citizens groups funded primarily with individual contributions, corporate commercial concerns, national domestic corporations with their primary home offices in the United States, or foreign global corporations whose domiciled home offices are outside this country, although of course it WAS a U.S. based PAC organization that brought the action, and thus would seem only applicable to PAC organizations gaining most of their revenues from individual contributions, but already the drums are sounding as the corporate lawyers gear up to broaden now this rendering, which I would imagine was the entire reason those Supreme Court justices selected this case to begin with. (Since this action was simply brought against a federal regulatory agency, the FEC, by a "corporate" PAC grass roots purportedly special interest organization, and most likely the states, as history is replete with examples, will now follow suit granting unlimited special interest contributions also at the state level which also was one of the primary purposes in the Court "selecting" this matter to begin with, I'll bet. That and the feeding frenzy the true agenda of this case was meant to insure, as a job stimulus for the corporate lawyers also throughout the land in all the cases that will be brought due to this "precedent" expanding this rather narrow holding into making it applicable for national and even global "commercial" corporations).


So that it may be used as a "precedent" and expanded, and expanded and expanded. Sort of like Roe.

And then if there are any further appeals, just watch those Supremes in the future, for political reasons, "refusing" then to clarify this broad based travesty of an interpretation of the CITIZENS, and definitely not national or global commercial corporate concerns, right to free political SPEECH which corporate money for campaign expense purposes is not "speech" per se but campaign funding, and only public monies should be used to fund any and all candidates for public office in amounts according to the number of voters in any electoral district.

Just wait until AIG (a London based global insurer) selects our next president, or Goldman Sachs by contributing to key legislative districts with committee leadership positions at stake - alone.

It was bad enough what occurred in those bank paybacks for the 2006 candidates for their donations, just watch now what happens in the years ahead.

Maybe new disclosure laws should quickly be enacted making it mandatory that in the future all candidates for public office should be required to wear patches like those Indy 500 drivers do for all contributions over $1,000, say.

That way those corporations can also get free advertising and more bang for their bucks.

Mark my words, this decision opens the door and will become a feeding frenzy for the lawyers to bring case after case stripping away the narrow holding the Court actually made with respect to a purported "grass roots" citizens group (although with a claimed "educational" focus I'm wondering if this group actually also receives federal grant monies and funding, which would really mean that this case was partially funded by the taxpayers in this country - the actual citizens - in order to strip them basically of their Bill of Rights protections and voice in the election process over the "corporate.")

Which seems to be becoming more and more the case with many of these grassroots organizations with an "educational" focus now, many of them actually nothing more than "liberty as commerce" commercial concerns with conventions, T-shirts and book displays the actual reason for their existence - many of which are actually headed by lawyers or educators in order to divert and deflect the American people from what is truly going on here.

None of these groups are bringing the civil suits or filing the charges necessary against some of these Congressmen and judges for "high treason" as is the actual provision within the Constitution for continuing to undermine its provisions and amend its terms outside Article V and the 9th and 10th Amendments due to this progressive political party agenda on the part of both parties who have actually hijacked the entire election process progressively.

I wonder if the nationally based companies now vying and competing against those foreign based domiciled corporations will be as happy with this outcome as they actually appear to be since it is basically only the "global" Fortune 100 companies, and some of those international unions which will ultimately be benefitting, especially in those countries whose currency is higher than the U.S. dollar due to the currency exchange rates, such as the European countries and China.

Thus, the foreign bankers can use foreign governments and countries in order to influence and reap more and more foreign aid redistributing the wealth once again - global socialism does appear to be the goal here and the United States through that Supreme Court decision appears to be the country that is being "taken over" by those foreign bankers through our misrepresentatives in Washington.

Much like the East India Company and their "sovereign status" with King George that lead to the first American Revolution in this country, so have become the foreign bankers.

In other words, the Supreme Court took a step taking this country actually more and more toward British government once again (since the London banks and bankers are the majority shareholders in our Federal Reserve), and global corporate socialism, not simply in violation of the Constitution, but in violation of the sovereign status of this nation and also its people from foreign governmental or corporate interests and control.

It opened the floodgates to a massive "takeover" of our government and political process by China, Great Britain or any other foreign interest or government through currency manipulation, or a wealthy "immigrant" whose loyalties still may remain with his birth country or due to his family's holdings in other countries, even more so now than what already occurs, such as the buying up of much of our media and print newspapers by an Australian, Mr. Murdoch, and his Fox networks (which is, after all, the national animal of Great Britain).

Our entire Federal Reserve Banking System is funded by the British bankers, by and large, the result of that first unconstitutional public/private partnership under Wilson, and has resulted in our continued financial and military support to foreign nations long past World War II has ended up costing this country a bundle in both blood and treasure also "progressively", fighting on behalf of the British, a country which took in the majority of the Jewish refugees from World War II even though the Balfour Doctrine establishing the Nation of Israel pre-World War I was based on a British accord, and not a U.S. one at all.

It appears the goal is that ultimately the United Nations and their dictates will continue to supercede the true Rule of Law in this country and undermining its national sovereignty in a great many of the war resettlements, and in redefining the boundaries with respect to Israel after the '67 war.

Our federal government actually just sold out this country lock, stock and barrel to foreign interests without a shot being fired, simply the stroke of those Supreme Court justices pen, of course since the federal judiciary I predict will "liberally" construe the Court's holding purportedly in order to "guarantee freedom of speech" protections for not simply individually funded grassroots organizations(?) such as in the case before the Supreme Court, but commercial corporations also.

And would bet this finding was made with that entire agenda in mind, since it will be the corporately owned medias (Fox, CNN, etc.) that will gain a bundle for these ads for their corporate profits and bottom lines. In fact, I wonder if any of those justices just might become "political commentators" when they retire from the bench for one of the mainstream media networks, like Mr. Rove, Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Palin have become? When will we have our first former Supreme Court justice as a political analyst and commentator?

I wonder if Mr. Souter has been approached at this point, and wouldn't at all surprise me at this point.

Wonder where all your premium dollars will go, America, for that mandatory health care and your mandatory auto insurance? I'll bet a major portion will be set aside for their new marketing representatives, their local Congressman's next campaign.

Between the "extra" fees and costs levied on those policies in order to pay off dividends to those shareholders, fulfill those executive bonus contracts outside shareholder approvals, and make donations to candidates throughout the nation - I wonder just how much higher those premium costs will soar, or how much reshuffling now there will be of priorities with those premium dollars Americans will be forced now to pay, much of which will go to candidates that many of those insureds have been calling for true "change" in booting the entire Congressional delegation at this point out of office since approval ratings are at an all time low, and the two mainstream political parties losing their members now progressively.

In fact, in my former home state there actually was an initiative in order to "privatize" voting even proposing that a lottery be instituted with a cash prize awarded from the voting pool simply for voting, turnouts have become so low in non-presidential year elections.

Meanwhile Mr. Obama, one who was foremost in his leadership role during the banking bailouts and crisis, and also government takeover of General Motors and pushing the bankers agendas in the housing crisis focusing on "refinances" and "new home buyers," yells the proverbial foul mostly for his corporate political party for this latest Court unlawful amendment.

Even those two political parties that have also overtaken the U.S. political process and who have "progressively" hijacked our Constitution in the process scored a win in this one, since both are "corporately" also funded by most of those special interest groups in one form or another. Great way to also continue to guarantee that party platforms, rather than the U.S. Constitution, will continue to be the order of the day on Capitol Hill.

You know, the two political parties that more and more Americans have left due to their "corporate" agendas also superceding the Constitution now "progressively."

Now even the sham of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has been removed and instead it is now whichever industry or CEO has the most wealth which will be in power, or whichever foreign global special interest - especially those foreign lenders and bankers.

Interestingly, a chastizing by the Service Employees INTERNATIONAL Union has been much publicized in the mainstream media reports.

An international "corporation" that is and will also benefit "corporately" with those excessive union dues it collects, although apparently doing so to save face and present an image that it is, once again, there for their members and not their corporate "global" special interest who spread their members cash from their labors to select candidates whether their dues paying members support some of those candidates generally or their platorms, or not.

The unions, insurers, homebuilders and such really have no chance over any future legislation actually, since the entire wealth of this country is held, when push comes to shove, by those European bankers manipulating and valuing our currency outside Congressional oversight, and which was a major duty and function of our Congress - not a shell corporate entity (the Federal Reserve) for the British banking houses.

It is the bankers since Wilson's Administration that hold our gold, as security for their "debt notes" until, of course, those "debt notes" are eventually called in and our entire currency - and that of the world - will be through interbank transfers using those computer transfers and keystrokes and plastic instead rather than expensive paper, which can then potentially shut down the entire world's economy at the push of a button, or manipulate it really almost at will from country to country in a matter of seconds.

And save the cost of then printing all those dollars, euros and yen.

And while Mr. Obama continues to yell "foul" wasn't he also the candidate that refused to accept public taxpayer monies to fund his campaign, and instead relied on those "corporate" special interests dollars who apparently are now being paid back at the American public's expense in spades.

I'm surprised these guys, in all honesty, can continue to conduct these press conferences, or "townhalls," and look their fellow Americans in the eye. Or read those teleprompters without choking.

Hail, Britainia.

Your "legal" representatives just handed over the scepter. Almost 250 years it took, but just goes to show you that the pen actually is mightier than the sword.

I guess that is why those U.S. Supreme Court justices wear black, and not the red, white and blue. They just don't wear those wigs.

Anyone ready to consider throw throwing their dish satellite into Long Beach Harbor or for those that have cable, at least think about seriously cancelling that subscriptions before the propaganda, ala the Boston Tea Party, because these 2010 elections are going to be chock full of political incorrectness, and promises, promises, promises that none of those unduly elected representatives intends to keep just like the last one and all that redlining, ending the war, flag waving and Joe the Plumber rhetoric.

And just wait until 2012 and the long two years worth of analyzing by those corporate media pundits of the prepared speeches, double speak and propaganda once again for those keys to the White House, and that expense account with the three new presidential jets that have been ordered in this ever downward spiraling depression/recession with more and more becoming jobless and homeless by the day, which began in 2006 as a "stimulus" for the politicians and their political parties platforms and those bankers profits as payback for their "contributions" for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I wonder what terrorism threat or economic crisis will be manipulated by those bankers and politicians for the next one?

It does seem that such arrogance and political tyranny as what has been coming off the Hill post 9-11 appears that either those in Washington are clueless as to the actual pulse of the American people at this time - since it seems they are attempting to facilitate another war from within with such absolute disregard for the rights of the people over the corporate special interests.

Since that was, of course, the entire reason in addition to taxation (such as the new global warming taxes - taxing even the air Americans breathe at this point) those founders fought that original war due to the British monarchial rulings and favoritism granted to "sovereign subjects" such as this one the Supremes have ruled are "corporately" entitled to under the Bill of Rights which was clearly meant to secure the rights of the people against corporate abuse, governmental or otherwise.

Let The Games Begin: Massachusetts Politicos Vying For Vacant Senate Seat

With the passing of Ted Kennedy last week and after the weeklong media coverage of both his life, and his politcal career now over, the media's attention has now been turned toward just who might fill the empty Senate seat occupied by Senator Kennedy.

Even going so far as to call it "a Kennedy seat," in the liberal media press.

And the term liberal spreads on both sides of the aisle, since a "liberal" is merely one who "liberally" construes the Constitution by not consulting it in any manner whatsoever.

Sort of like what is occurring now on the discussions and debates on the health care issue. Not a federal function in any manner whatsoever, but one in which the states and state citizens should decide for their own communities, and at levels that are more locally accountable for indigent or other public health services.

Not foreign ruler. With the exception of regulating those national and global insurers and their practices, not take them over or get into bed with these now huge megaconglomerate concerns, many of which now are not even based in the U.S., but want the U.S. market base without any accountability in the marketing or honoring of their products or services.

Especially since the only real revenue and reason for their existence is due to the ratepayers payment of their premiums, and it is their own divestitures that also have been involved in escalating the costs by using those premiums and stockholder investments to diversity into high risk investments and fields for greater returns. While Washington has sat on its thumbs giving them carte blance in order to so do.

Providing a public option is rather laughable when Congress hasn't done its primary job in overseeing those global and national carriers. And most likely, anyone that is involved in any public option will come from the private sector health insurance industry and bring their rogue practices also with them.

And we all see how well Congress oversees most of those regulatory agencies now, like the IRS and the Federal Reserve (who are, after all, no more than front men for the European banking houses, and we all see whose "economy" the Fed is concerned with. The global one. Not at all America's, but raping American citizens to feed the foreign investors).

Massachusetts, of course, already has such a universal health care plan which was started in its liberalism, and so this push now is also highly suspect since such plans really already exist in some form or another in every state across the nation.

This state's utter outrageous representatives interpretations of our Constitution have unfortunately spread throughout the country (think California, now receiving most of the Iraq war contracts and domestic spying programs for Silicon Valley venture capitalists)due to the untold celebrity this political family somehow created after the death of John Kennedy over 40 years ago on a political career that had as many lows as highs.

Beginning with the starting of the Viet Nam conflict, our first truly non-defensive, interventionist war and which lasted then far longer than it should have to begin with, given the "threat" of that small country to our own. With then the U.S. inheriting thousands of political refugees, not to mention the debt and Americans lives lost or forever changed by that conflict (as also never a legal or Congressionally declared war under a formal Declaration of War).

The entire week's review was rather unbelieveable in its scope, and the rather unbalanced reporting which occurred in any event.

The aura surrounding the Kennedy name at this point is a little overblown in a historical context.

Several U.S. presidents had been the victims of having their lives tragedically ended prematurely, after all. And only Lincoln's has historically also been used fundamentally to aggrandize the true facts and accomplishments while in office. And records historically altered in order to make the tragedies of their deaths in office somehow all out of proportion to what their individual contributions actually were.

Abraham Lincoln, who although was a great statesman, politician and orator, clearly lacked a true understanding that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to state sovereignty, which united to begin with in order to fight a foreign government and oppressor, the British, also provided in our founding documents the right to dissolve the union if for any reason it no longer suited either the state or people's best interests.

And only gave the states, with the people's consent and directive, the power to alter or abolish it, and not the federal government at all in its original form and legal provisions under the "contract," the U.S. Constitution. Which can only be amended by the states, and people, not by federal fiat, in any of the three branches. Not the president, Congress or U.S. Supreme Court without the "consent of the governed."

The South and the slavery issue, after all, was simply what some historians have used as the basis for the civil war in this country for also generations. When actually the entire war was over state's rights, with the slavery issue really even inconsequential to Lincoln.

His solution initially offered to the South when it stated its intention to leave the union, was to afford the slaves free passage back to Africa if they so desired, which is also well documented in Lincoln's papers as one from the industrial north. The lives of those in the Northern states were not a whole lot better than those in the South at that time either. Lincoln himself came from a farming background, after all.

According to his Christian beliefs also, no man without his own consent (such as indentured servitude in exchange for work performed, or more commonly in barter exchanges for room and board ) had a right to claim "ownership" over another. Most farm workers even in the North lived on the farms and were provided food and shelter, but simply migrated during crop season.

Which was fundamentally the disagreement the founders had. Lifelong servitude, as it were.

But the slavery at the time it was ratified was not the same as was practiced in the South and occurred progressively due to also federal transgressions on protecting domestic agricultural production over foreign competition also then at lower costs due to seasonal variations in U.S. production.

Those original slaves who existed at the time the Constitution was ratified were for the most part more than well treated, well respected by those such as Jefferson, and who were sent with those men and their families abroad for further study and education in Europe, after all, as was the practice.

And was such a bone of contention also at the time that it is well documented that the founders eventually forsaw when that issue would need to be addressed and rectified accordingly as soon as this new nation had its first generation of native born new Americans.

And most freed then upon their death as Jefferson did and was provided in his will, which was also recognized as a legal right and private arrangement to be dissolved.

Many slaves were "freed" by slaveowners also upon request for simply repayment of any debts incurred on their behalf since even medical needs and assistance was provided by many.

Most were also sold into slavery by warring tribes in Africa instead of being put to death rather than as history likes to relate, brought here unwillingly by American slavetrader opportunists. Most came by way of Britain, which is where the real active slavetrading had been occurring and also why so many of the founders objected due to this British originated practice.

But it was the "progressives" actually that used them for agricultural purposes, and in the mills and factories, that abused their authority over them rather than a somewhat mutually beneficial arrangement which it originally was which lead to all the slave revoltes.

People naturally wish to escape abusive situations, and that is really what was fundamentally what lead to all the slave revolts. Mistreatment. Not a desire for freedom or independence but more in order to escape mental and physical torment.

But I digress somewhat to even prove a point with respect to Senator Kennedy's passing.

Even after all the accolades and tributes made by those in political office and his Massachusetts constituency, the nation is now being made to be witness to this transfer of power rather than simply a matter of filling a public service position with another American to so do.

And it was the "progressives" in both parties in Congress and the President that fired many of those hardworking, middle class GM workers in Detroit, a city historically with a large number of unemployed due to the outsourcing and insourcing which has occurred now throughout the nation and escalated under both Democratic and Republican Congresses.

And in leaps and bounds during the past twenty years to the point where it is the Americans now who are subsidizing through their taxes those foreign now industries and labor workforce.

This week also reminded me more of what occurs after an employee of any of America's largest corporate entities is either fired or resigns. Before the door is closed behind them, the vultures remaining seek out anything in the former occupant's desk that can be captured and used in then the performance of their job related duties.

It appears a general election is the way Massachusetts has legislated to go in the filling of the seat, and all the political ballyhoo that goes with such a procedure now part of the process.

Not the provisions as provided in our original Constittuion, which would simply call for a replacement to be voted on and selected by the current members of the Massachusetts legislature.

Who would be the best able to fill it, since the Senators were, after all, intended to represent the state and state's interests at the federal level, with the House members supposed to be then representatives of the actual citizens and people.

Which has also been undermined and abridged since both are now selected upon general elections, and in which the original campaign finance laws also are being abridged in that originally in order to retain a representative government, then such candidates in the House could only accept "sponsorship" or donations from those in their own legislative districts - so as not to be tarnished in their representation from outside "foreign" monies and interests.

Which is the major reason why today we are living under global corporate socialism.

Due to a very fundamental Constitutional violation at its core, which has hijacked our intended form of government and replaced it with something not even close to that which the founders created and envisioned.

And the natives are clearly getting restless with the "misrepresentatives" and not "duly elected" individuals now holding court in both the state legislatures, and most of all the clearly "pretenders" on the Hill serving more as CEO's of U.S.A., Inc. now instead of our intended free republic.

Mexico Gets The Gadgets - Border States Get The Shaft

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

It was recently announced in several online media sources that the Mexican government, in their "partnership" with the U.S. in securing the nation's southern border with Mexico, has fired all their existing border agents, and hired new university educated border guards now armed with state of the art technology in order to work in concert with the U.S. on security issues.

I guess this public relations announcement was meant also to engender favorable response in the United States for Mexico's efforts to address the historically porous southern borders, which have progressively become worse each and every decade with respect to the security and crime that has occurred in the American border states.

Interesting, it appears the United States is now using foreign governments now in order to "stimulate" the economies of Silicon Valley. This announcement failed to mention that the American government under [George Bush entered into an initiative of literally billions in "foreign aid" to Mexico in order to address the border situation.

In other words, it was the American people and taxpayers that picked up the tab for Mexico's new agents university training and high tech gadgetry. Globally socializing now border security with other nations for Silicon Valley's corporate welfare and profit. Or using the taxpayers and increasing the inflationary taxes and deficit to feed its now favored industries - the Silicon Valley telecom and security gadget industy. I guess the contracts on the Iraq War aren't paying enough to get those Wall Street numbers where they would like them to be for those private investors though publicly funded for their next campaigns.

The main use of these new agents, since they will be at their posts primarily at the official ports of entry, appears to be in order to collect Mexico's VAT taxes for purchases being brought back from the U.S. across their borders for their citizens purchases at the local Wal-Marts in the border towns, in order to seize more of those U.S. dollars for Mexico's treasury.

And in order to possibly catch the stoned marijuana dealers that are stupid enough to attempt to cross Mexico's borders with the proceeds from their latest run. Trained dog sniffers came along with this gift from the U.S., it appears.

These measures can hardly be meant to address the true security threats and criminal activity that primarily endangers those Americans living in the border states from the drug cartels and criminal auto theft rings that cross those borders literally at will. Since they hardly wait politely in line for the security checks at the official ports of entry - but instead use the over 500 miles of open desert that is totally unsecured.

Which is also the port of entry for most of the illegal immigrants brought in by the human smuggling rings that also operate cross borders. With maps printed by the local Mexican governments in order to so do.

And although mention is made, as per Ms. Clinton's errant assessments and comments, with respect to also these measures intended to stop the smuggling of guns from the U.S. into Mexico - as any who have lived in a border state for any length of time is well aware, the machine guns and heavy artillery that those cartels obtain don't come primarily from the U.S. at all, but through their own southern borders with South America.

So, it appears in this public relations press release an attempt to silence those that have been calling for true border security at our southern borders now, especially eight years after 9/11 and with the increases annually in that amount of both illegal immigrants, and criminal activity that pours over those borders on a daily basis. Which has, of course, now contributed (along with the increased property and auto insurance rates, and predatory loan practices of unregulated California lenders who sold most of those "creative" junk feed escalating loans in the West) to the high rate of jobless and homeless now in the border states in being the states with the highest rates of foreclosure during this housing crisis bar none.

With the border state residents in the inflationary taxes which will result in these foreign aid bills for Mexico actually resulting in paying for their continued victimization and abuse. We are a bankrupted nation for all intents and purposes, but still handing out foreign aid like candy for other countries, while our government officials negligently and beligerantly at this point leave America's own borders vulnerable and unsecured - their primary function and duty.

Mexico got the gadgets while the Americans living in the border states continue to get the shaft.

I wonder how many more will be stripped of their lives and property until Washington finally gets the message. Is this part of the "we all must sacrifice" agenda here. Sacrificing the lives and property of the legal Americans living in the border states for this global socialism agenda and to appease the Mexican government in continuing to provide employment for their citizens at the cost of the livelihoods of Americans? And no less pick up the tab for it, endure the six hour emergency room waits for lawful citizens treatment, and smile or feel that Americans have somehow done their patriotic duty?

It appears Washington does have a problem with the definition of the type of patriotism the founders were also speaking of, in addition to being able to read the provisions of both their jobs, and legal limits with respect to U.S. citizens. And that foreigners were not Americans.

Or is it their intent to cut loose the border states eventually, therefore leaving more discretionary tax revenue for those in the East to distribute to their Wall Street banking benefactors in the process?

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090816/4a879250_3421_1334520090816108637384

How Many Blondes On Fox?

With all the news and cable channels lately struggling to retain viewship and also ratings in order to score ad revenues for Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner and the other media moguls in New York, Hollywood, and beyond due to the "globalization" also of our media industry, it appears that a new drinking game might be in order to replace the "Kevin Bacon" game of the former dorm and college set.....

How many blondes on Fox?

Maybe it is just me, but it does seem to be that Rupert Murdoch has a marketing ploy here that I guess either seems to be working, or he must believe it does in order to promote both his politics, and his station and that is to pair his rather off the wall "political analysts and commentators" such as Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck with a blonde as eye candy for the young, old and middle age male viewers.

I wonder what Fox's stats actually are for female viewers, the major consumers?

I would bet not in the ballpark, and most of those ad agencies and government contracts paid for and billed to Americans for their social welfare and "public service" announcements are not at all reaching their "target" markets. Kids and women.

But it is also good for increasing the wallets of those U.S. Chamber members, and also our national debt with all those "grants" they are indirectly receiving such as the "association" of Fortune 500 members who just received a 100 million grant to "educate" the public on free markets and globalization at taxpayer expense.

The same organization and Chamber members getting all that taxpayer revenue for the "Just Say No" to drugs campaign and "Click It Or Ticket" screams about citizen welfare while lobbying for more and more "freebies for their corporate members and while running ads promoting terrorism on the public. They have even begun using that ploy against each other in the "terrorism" tactics in order to jack up those ratings and ad revenues. But their partnership with the governmental taxpayer funded "Ad Council" their benefactors is what is truly incredible. Not watchdogs, but governmentally funded participants.

So this is conspiracy to terrorize.

The egg frying on the sidewalk was a great one, and now the meth ads.

And did you also noticed how many supposed "lawyers" are "legal analysts," a great many of which is clear have never read our Constitution, or at least have forgotten their high school government classes. And wonder how many of those have actually ever practiced law at all for any length of time?

Or how many former educators, such as Bill O'Reilly, are used to "educate" the public in matters for which apparently he hasn't a clue and is the ultimate example of the dumbing down in our educational system. His staff most likely used the word "bloviate" at one point, and Bill, the great educator, had to look it up and was just thrilled with what he learned and is engaging in the primary teaching tool used in our classrooms.

Repetition.

Only it is repetitive propaganda both in America's schools, and on its media that seems to be the method behind the madness on the Hill.

But don't get me wrong, CNN has their formula for terrorism also, and Keith Olbermayer's apoplexic outbursts during the Bush Administration in his terrorism tactics were also quite incredible. It's amazing how silent he has been on Obama, who is just as much a big government, big business (AND corporate union) backer as Mr. Bush, if not more so, and those Fortune 500 and Chamber members and their globalizism. In fact, CNN is one of them also. Maybe with CNN, however, the game should be "How many Obama worshipers and devotees on CNN?"

So drink up LSU, ASU, UCLA and NYU. How many blondes are there on Fox?

George Washington on Political Parties, Constitution and Debt

I wonder what George Washington would think if he were alive today and reflected on the lives shed to build this nation and this new government and his precious Constitution?

Below is his advice, and also a caveat with respect to borrowing and credit. It would appear if we had heeded his advice, our country would not be facing the crisis which have now afflicted us......

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations.

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.