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

(Edited)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Political Incorrectness: MSM Continues Misdefinition of A Conservative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Meets With Iraq's Al Maliki: Holds To Bush Timetable For 2010-2011 Troop Withdrawals

For Any and All American Conserve-atives:

The AP reported today that in a meeting with Iraq's president, Nouri al-Maliki, Mr. Obama reiterated the terms of the agreement reached in the last 100 days of the Bush Administration for American troop withdrawals beginning in August of next year.

Although this agreement got little press with Americans diverted by the U.S. elections and appointments of cabinet members in the new Obama Administration, this meeting and the AP's report appeared to be nothing more than merely an affirmation of Mr. Obama to the Bush agenda and timetable for troop withdrawals which was quietly executed in his last 100 days in office.

Interestingly, of course, and just to show how truly political this matter also is, it calls for complete withdrawal by the end of 2011, just in time for the next presidential election cycle.

Watch for Mr. Obama and the Democratic wing of the Global Socialist Party to then to use this to take credit for Mr. Obama having "lived up to his campaign promise" to bring our trooops home and end the war.

While actually continuing to engage in it for the entire length of his first term in office, per those Bush agreements and accords.

Recently also, complications have arisen in the closing down of Guantanamo according to Mr. Obama's prior promises also along those lines. His Administration is now stating just how complicated this is going to be.

Although, of course, we have several maximum security prison facilities if need be in the United States in order to house any and all detainees with prima facie connections to the attacks in New York by the claimed responsible individuals, the Taliban, if need be.

One off the coast of California that hasn't been used in decades, but is quite secure and for little cost would provide adequate security for such foreign detainees.

Although, of course, Ms. Feinstein has a problem using a maximum security prison such as Alcatraz for the actual purpose for which it was paid for and provided by the U.S. taxpayers.

For the housing of violent criminals that needed maximum security detention while awaiting their trials if denied bail due to the severeity of their charged crimes, or upon conviction.

Imagine that, a California legislator protesting using a U.S. taxpayer funded facility (and not a part of California) in order to actually house foreign prisoners.

And due to its location also the best and most economical security facility for the American people security-wise also due to its off shore location.

It does appear that the Bush timetables and agendas continue under Mr. Obama, and the "changes" which are becoming more and more clear with each and every new announcement out of Washington and the White House now controlled press seems to simply have been a change in the mouthpiece, but not the overall agendas.

Stimulating Iraq's economy also was a topic for the pow wow between Mr. Obama and Mr. al Maliki due to the fact that Iraq's economy and infrastructure have been totally wiped out due to the "war," although the U.S. is pumping literally billions of our worthless now dollars here into Iraq in order to now rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the invasion and capture of Saddam Hussein now over three years ago.

Mr. al Maliki also mentioned his wish to stimulate international and foreign investment into Iraq in order to pump up its lagging economy.

Maybe he ought to take a history lesson into what is now going on in the U.S. with respect to its economy if his country also is entertaining "going global" in any respect.

Americans now are in the bread lines and homeless due to America's "globalized" economy, and now eating the debts for both this war on Iraq's (and Israel's primarily also) behalf, and also the foreign investors due to the international British bankers manipulation of the U.S. currency during this war that has depressed it to the point where the U.S. dollar is now at almost its lowest point ever.

While, of course, it was Great Britain that entered into that earlier "accord" creating essentially the nation of Israel even prior to World War II, an agreement between the bankers and a British Lord signed prior to World War I, actually. So America truly is under 'sovereign' British rule at this point fundamentally once again due to the U.S. back in 1913 breaching our Constitution and "privatiziing" and affording foreign investment into our most fundamental area and one of Congress's primary duties - regulation and printing of our domestic currency.

We don't even have silver dollars or silver quarters in circulation anymore due to that violation, and have had progressive depressions and recessions thereafter every since due to having a fiat, rather than full faith and credit exchange based currency system now in place.

And the British and foreign investors are now buying up our nuclear power plants and infrastructure, and even the stately homes now in New Orleans, thus under now more foreign control than this country was back in 1776 when the founders fought our first war to break free from a global government, and global control by the British.

In fact, the people in this country by and large are worse off economically and personally, than those founders were in 1776 with respect to "unalienable" rights violations such as have occurred since that fateful day in September over eight years ago.

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. al Maliki.

Diversification and foreign investment is not always postive, but can and many times is regressive and simply a change in dictators. And increase, not decrease, civil unrest due to foreign interests determing national and governmental policies.

Economic dictators, but dictators all the same.

The continuing civil unrest between the various religious factions also was discussed.

And it is unclear if it is and has been the intention of the U.S. to assist the Iraqi government and people why the suggestion that the country not be divided into states and more mirror a "republican" form of government rather than a pure democracy has not been pursued - which is actually more along the lines of the form of government the U.S. formerly had also.

Not a democracy, since our founders felt that democracies were once again nothing more than "gang rule" and ended in successive civil wars in order to change the "ruling" party, and ended up in the end destroying the countries in the process due to the costs of those continuing wars in both blood and treasure.

Nor maintaining foreign alliances past the point of the immediate need in defense of a sovereign nation and securing its country and its borders.

Which appears should at least now, three years later, be attainable without direct U.S. involvement at this point.

Especially with the U.S. economy now continuing to tank in the process, while there again were more U.S. casualties this past year than there have been Iraqi military casualties, meaning that for the skirmishes that still remain, it is clear that the U.S. military is still doing most of the fighting.

But I guess the AP story at least was a good public relations tool in order to once again promise the American people that this war, entered into under false intelligence to begin with which was fully eventually admitted by the prior Administration, "someday" might end.

I just hope that it does end before a good 3/4's the American people are homeless and jobless, rather than it appears the 1/3 that have been so far affected.

Or another mother receives another visit from Pentagon protcol with the sad news that her son has become now the latest victim.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5js_Znl58WrrbnNO-nAMzPmi4QG4AD9BEVBE00