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.

The Supreme Court Does It Again: Desecrates The U.S. Constitution

The Supreme Court has done it again.

Desecrated the U.S. Constitution in a recent holding granting corporations (global ones, at that, since there was no distinction even made in their opinion between U.S. based or global corporate entities) the ability to contribute unlimited funds to candidates for state or federal office.

In a roundabout way, it did nothing more than reaffirm that under the First Amendment, the language regarding the rights of the "people" also can be interpreted to mean the "corporate" and that corporations are not property (which they most definitely are, since they can be bought and sold and for which many are publicly funded even at this point in our history, and even sold over a "global" exchange, building foreigners wealth and thus foreigners gaining now more and more influence in our political system progressively) but also persons.

Corporations cannot be both - people and property, but this decision in effect stated exactly that, as did the errant ruling which started this progression into corporate socialism way back when in effect inserting another entity under the Constitution and Bill of Rights the founders never intended, "corporate personhood." (Remember the Boston Tea Party and East India Company for a clue how they felt about global corporations, and thus granting privileges and immunities to corporate "sovereign" subjects of the "crown.")

What has happened to our Constitution, and a judiciary that has strayed so far from both the intent and actual language contained within that document resting not a mile from those hallowed halls?

Where are our lawyers being educated now in this country, and who is in charge of the teaching programs at our law colleges?

The American Bar Association, it appears, a British based association at that and carryover from Great Britain which appears that the agenda is reinstituting "progressively" British monarchial style sovereign rights and sovereign rule over the citizens of this country by now our federal (and state) governments without a new Constitutional Convention, or the "consent of the governed."

Amending the Constitution now even more progressively, without the power to so do, just goes to show the arrogance now of those on the Hill of all three branches of our government, and the political nature now of the U.S. Supreme Court which was supposed to be a "check" on the government with respect to Bill of Rights protections for the PEOPLE against the CORPORATE, especially commercial corporate entities as "commerce" to be regulated actually not given rights at all (since it does state "We the People" and not "We the Corporate") and definitely not a facilitator of the new government it is progressively instituting with each and every decision now coming down the pike as of late especially, "global corporate socialism."

How can you have a representative government of any nature when global and national companies can now donate massive sums throughout the nation in each and every district in order to facilitate their agendas, most of which are at the cost of the general public at large?

The founders understood that the entire basis of a representative government demanded that no candidate for any public office would be allowed to accept "backing" or "funding" for his political aspirations from any person or entity residing or with their legal "home office" domicile outside their legislative district.

Is that concept so totally "foreign" and convoluted for the U.S. Supreme Court justices, who are holders of doctorate degrees in the "law" mind you, to understand?

Where were these justices educated? Great Britain?

I would state that this case was purposely brought in order to set another unconstitutional "precedent" now throughout the nation, although the Supremes actually also have "legally" no power granted except to render decisions on the matters placed before it based on the facts of the particular case "at bar."

Not broad based precedent power for their decisions, but limited jurisdictional powers in both original and appellate jurisdictions, and even those provisions have progressively been misconstrued, broadened and thus also circumventing the Constitution now being made applicable in some form or another throughout each and every state down to now dictating and minimizing in again inserting or redefining the English language the provisions with respect to trials by jury for civil and criminal matters in some of their recent determinations.

While the court fails to hear lawful petitions brought before them on Bill of Rights issues by the people, or even such matters as the legal citizenship status of the holder of the highest office in the land, it accepted this case in order to once again circumvent the Constitution, and all those founders fought and died for.

A government "of the people, by the people, for the people" and not the commercial corporate interests in any manner whatsoever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204341.html

ObamaCare: Leading America Further Into Regressive World Government?

For Any And All Conserve-ative Americans:

As so much has been left out of the mainstream media coverage on this abysmal health care deform concocted in Washington and led at this point by Max Baucus (D-MT), it is evident that the ownership of our news sources in this country have also been "globalized" with the British and world government corporate interests, that much has been clear.

Montana does, after all, border Canada.

And the bulk of the state legislatures that are supporting also this legislation have also selfish concerns in mind. Due, of course, to the unlawful passage of the 16th amendment that was also concocted behind closed doors and, contrary to the 9th Amendment itself, never placed before the people with respect to a tax (whether direct or indirect) on the fruits of the labor.

A type of tax, actually, that the founders had warned would leave their posterity homeless. And such has been the case in many instances since that time (1913) and during the Great Depression (manipulated by the Federal Reserve, which is no more than a European central bank branch out of London) now in possession of our true wealth, the gold, as security for all those debt notes in circulation.

Flooding the market with those notes of course, then depresses our currency which then in turn also makes U.S. corporations and even public utility companies (such as Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona servicing Arizona and parts of California) an attractive investment opportunity. Or a natural disaster and hurricane such as Katrina, or wildfires such as are now suspiciously occurring quite regularly in California more so than at any other time.

Many would say that is due to "global warming."

As one whose father was involved with the home builders and the lumber industry, I would say it is to reduce the amount of available timber in this country for, again, British (Canadian) import and trade agreements since lumber and timber is one of Canada's primary exports to this country.

But also during all of this debate, not a word has been spoken about the fact that absent Medicare and Medicaid benefits, which do cover most citizens at least for catastrophic care in their retirement years, every state in the nation now has such coverage. And it is a major expenditure due to the fact that Washington has also passed legislation affording such coverage for emergency treatments to non-U.S. citizens. And not simply foreign tourists or those working here for on-the-job injuries.

But the deliberate hirers also for the outsourced labor from Mexico, and also those here on work and student visas and other temporary arrangements. In fact, this provision instituted around twenty years ago (another backroom measure) is what has been the draw for so many of the poor Mexican citzens in the border towns, since Mexico also is one of those socialized countries where a great deal of its wealth is concentrated in Mexico City and some of the states there with the greatest populations.

Sort of like how California and parts of Texas received border fencing back in the 90's securing areas around San Diego and El Paso, while Arizona which has the largest open border by far received merely vehicle spikes for those areas which were at that time used by many of the coyotes and big time drug smugglers.

Which, of course, has changed as the terrain has in almost twenty years, since the maps printed in Mexico are revised annually.

The state legislatures which are mostly behind this just so happen to be those New England states, and border states.

The locally passed initiatives denying benefits to illegals such as has occurred in Arizona the past several years due to that state's residents contniued victimization on this issue in countless ways, has also caused those legislators grief from the federally funded illegal immigrant groups which have sprung up headed by lawyers mostly who receive their legal fees also paid by the U.S. taxpayers for any and all "civil rights" violations they bring in the U.S. courts now on behalf of illegals, whether defensive actions or now even afforded access to the courts to prosecute Americans on foreigners behalf for any manner of charges, some legitimate but many which are not. Such as the drug dealer reported suing this country in the Ramos and Compean case for the buckshot actually he received for crossing as a known drug trafficker, from all reports.

So the illegal immigrant gravy train runs wide and deep in this country for a great many in the legal profession especially, as it does for those other corporate interests who profit off those annual work and student visas.

In fact, I visited Mt. Ruthmore a few years ago and was quite surprised at the number of students from the Soviet Union that work in the ice cream store there at the park. I happen to speak with one of them who informed me that they pay immigration attorneys and/or their schools a stipend amounting to about $2,000 U.S. dollars per student per year in order to spend the summer in the U.S. working at some of our national parks and tourist attractions, facilitated through U.S. immigration lawyers.

No U.S. high school or college students were employed in the store during the summer as it was in previous generations, strictly foreigners the day I visited. And lived three and four to a room at a local hotel, which costs were subtracted then from their wages.

On the return trip from a visit to the East Coast for personal reasons also a few years back, I traveled through Williamsburg, Virginia and stayed at an inexpensive hotel there overnight since I had some car trouble on the way. The hotel, as with many of the independently owned hotels in the area, was owned by a U.S. limited liability corporation that employed also Russian students during the peak summer holiday season, and also informed me that there were many lawyers who advertised in their countries for such work visas. She also was living with three others at the hotel, and whose accomodations were also deducted from her pay, but indicated that circumstances right now in Russia are not so good, since all power lies with Moscow under their "democracy."

Although the next day as I resumed my travels I had to laugh when recalling our conversation.

Since I'm sure she knows less than most of those in this country at this point it would appear.

All power does not reside with Moscow (or Washington, for that matter, all appearances now to the contrary in our now out of control Congress and successive Administrations).

All power really lies with the bankers, as with our Federal Reserve. They do, after all, fund the campaigns and the wars for all but a very, very few countries. And both sides, since bankers have really no country loyalty other than as an investment for profit.

And they are, for the most part, British.

AIG: The Sanctity Of Contracts?

Recently "Break the Matrix" and Fox aired a segment from Judge Andrew Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" program with respect to the recent actions of Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, over the AIG executive bonuses and his actions visiting the executive's homes and demanding that these executives return those bonuses. Judge Napolitano was outraged, and relied on the Constitutional provisions with respect to contracts on the bonus issue.

I have just one problem with that. Contracts in bankruptcy or restructuring actions have never been ruled as "inviolate" when individuals are seeking bankruptcy protection, nor corporations, through the federal court system.

In fact, many contracts are set aside in such procedures depending on the assets, and future obligations are also scrutinized carefully since it is the trustee and court's job to protect the creditors primarily in getting the debts satisfied in whole or in part through whatever assets remain of the debtor and distributed accordingly at the time of filing. What can be protected by the debtor is also set by state and federal statute in order not to knock the legs totally out from under the debtor.

Also, the timing of execution of those contracts is also examined carefully, since there is a time frame prior to bankruptcy which must be met before that contract can be held valid in order to also protect the creditors - many a debtor has attempted to transfer assets using contracts in avoid their inclusion in the bankruptcy action which may be entered into when it appears bankruptcy is inevitable as an protection and avoidance tactic. How do I know this? I have had both friends and family members who have had to file bankruptcy both personally, and for their small businesses. I also worked as a contract law paralegal for many years.

Below is a copy of my letter to the Judge after viewing this segment:

Dear Judge Napolitano:

I just finished watching another interview on Fox regarding the AIG bonuses and Geithner's actions.

I am very, very confused as to where you are actually coming from.

Mr. Geithner, with respect to AIG at this point, since he was unlawfully transferred the trusteeship for this in effect bankruptcy action of a "global" corporation by Congress when they had no Constitutional authority to do so for this "restructuring" outside the federal court's jurisdiction, is in essence acting as trustee for the stockholders and shareholders and the American people.

Contracts are not inviolate under our Constitution nor under the common law and existing case law. As a matter of fact, many, many contracts are "set aside" for various reasons, especially in bankruptcy actions depending on just when those contracts were executed, whether they are "excessive" in their terms, and depending on the assets of the person or business claiming bankruptcy.

Corporations are not "persons" they are "property." They can be bought and sold. In a normal bankruptcy for an individual, all of their assets are up for grabs in order to satisfy the debts - which would include also any future obligations.

You can "contract" for a hit man, but that doesn't make that contract valid.

So just why does the media and the media representatives continue with all this smoke and mirrors with respect to the validity of this entire "bankruptcy," not to mention those bonuses - for a global corporation outside Constitutional authority to begin with?