Health Care Deform: Taxpayers Already Fund Elective Abortions

With all the smoke and mirorrs occurring in this horrendously unconstitutional Health Care Deform of the Obama Administration, it has not ceased to amaze me the propaganda and political spins that are occurring as this abridgement of the founders government once again is being hashed out behind closed doors.

Republicans and Democrats are posturing and using this as a political tool for future election purposes, apparently, in basically taking exception to any federal funding that may occur that would fund abortions in this country under this legislation.

I've got news for you, America, the political manure is getting deeper and deeper, with the media actually buying into this also, apparently.

Planned Parenthood, at its inception back in the 1970's, was incorporated as an "educational" foundation which primarily provided birth control for those that could not afford it when the Pill was finally approved by the FDA and available to the public.

The costs at that time for those monthly prescriptions was more than most lower income, or younger Americans could afford (about $30.00 per month back in the 1970's, or $1.00 per pill), and was the original focus of this "non-profit" organization - providing birth control to lower income females in this country and "education" in family planning for young familes.

That is not the case any longer. Planned Parenthood is supported by many corporation organizations at this point, although its "legal" status as an education foundation has not changed insofar as the IRS is concerned or now its expansion also into providing low cost abortions as part of its family planning focus.

And with an "educational" focus, does qualify for federal grant monies for its programs and funding. And no longer simply provides for low cost birth control but has expanded also into providing low cost abortions through its affilated doctors.

So my quesiton is, whether this bill is worded insofar as precluding federal monies under this Health Care Deform being provided for abortions, are the grants that are also handed out like candy by the federal govenment to many health care institutions and even corporate medical practices also going to be regulated at this point so that there isn't now a double whammy on the American taxpayers?

In other words, now having to pay out hundreds of dollars per month to provide for their own health care needs, but also then continuing to subsidize through their taxes these large corporate medical practices, hospitals and foundations such as Planned Parenthood in the process in the federal grant monies that add to our deficit and result then in those inflationary taxes for just about everything?

It would seem to me that this legislation is nothing more than an additional tax, if that is not the case.

And what about all the taxation that Americans have been paying at the state level for provision of health care for those that cannot afford it, is that also going to be refunded along with those taxes paid and that were levied in prior years in order to build many of the county hospitals throughout the country?

It seems to me that Americans have been paying for their health care already, in funding all those county hospitals throughout the nation and grant monies for research and development, and even doctor's salaries at most of the teaching hospitals.

Are those taxes and costs going to be refunded, rather than "penalizing" Americans for not having health insurance, when they have already paid at the state level for now even the health care of foreigners in this country, not to mention their own?

This such legislation would not even be an issue if the state governments, way back when, had not also desecrated the founders government in the backdoor passage of the 16th, 17th and Federal Reserve Act under Wilson, thus upsetting the balance of power they so carefully crafted in order to avoid just such taxation, invasions of privacy, and enforced tyranny as this measure appears to be.

In this economy, and with the costs of health care right now so high due to past legislation tying the hands of the states with respect to the insurers operating within their state borders, and lack of any true regulation over those huge health care networks and providers also at the federal level, yet receiving untold billions in federal grant monies for research and even building costs at the public's expense, it appears Washington's arrogance knows no bounds and this measure with its still included fines for noncompliance upon the citizenry, another measure that guarantees more people will actually be on welfare than already are.

With so many also now working below their former income levels in the middle class and losing their businesses right and left, the public has spoken about the taxation levels that already exist in this country at the present time at all levels of government.

And since the public is providing the health care coverage for all government employees without having any leftover income in order to buy their own, this type of in your face legislation is exactly why the standard of living for a good majority of Americans, while taking in more and more foreigners and refugees due to serial wars, is approaching Third World status more and more each and every day.

Most of these hospitals and huge medical co-ops and practices are already publicly funded through many state residents income, property and other taxation that have also increased in leaps and bounds.

In fact, most states throughout the nation, even after the huge amounts they received in that cure-all stimulus, went to upgrading governmental offices and buying new toys, rather than provision of those governmental services for which the entire tax system in this country was intended to provide - and have been beating the drums for increasing state taxes also in one form or another.

Huge taxes were recently levied on cigarettes throughout the country, and a great deal of those taxes actually go to fund provision of health care benefits for children and the indigent at the state levels.

Will all those taxes and costs be refunded for the boomers especially, the ones who have carried the load for both the World War II generation, and the next generation, both publicly and privately in ever increasing taxation at all governmental levels, and in the cost of most durable goods and services which has progressively occurred since World War II?

Obama Speak: Baucus Measures Not A Tax?

CNN today carried a report that Mr. Obama has stated that the new proposals for mandated health care coverage as proposed by Max Baucus (D-Mt) is "absolutely not a tax" on the middle class or American people.

I think, Mr. Obama, that Patrick Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and those other great framers and founders would dispute your claims. Since "mandating" a seizure of property (money) from the American people to buy a "product" which is what health care insurance actually is, is not within your powers or duties of office nor of the U.S. Congress.

Not without their express consent. Not simply political party publicity focused townhall meetings, not public opinion polls.

Mr. Obama attempted again to spin the measure likening it to mandatory auto insurance which is mandated by most states throughout the nation. Also which laws and statements were really a falsehood and those laws unconstitutional in and of themselves, since there are provisions also in many states that merely provide that you must show proof of financial responsibility in other forms, not mandatory insurance coverage at all.

And that coverage is, after all, determined correctly at the state level, not by federal mandates.

And is, after all, simply for any and all personal liability you might have which might damage the property or other automobile of another driver. And the laws also provide for alternate provisions than insurance, and without such alternatives also technically in violation of most state and the federal Constitution anyway and have made a great business for those professional auto wrecker criminals and their activities, many of whom are employed in the insurance industry themselves or their "preferred vendors", in the process.

And many Americans already, correctly so, dispute those laws on Constitutional grounds also.

Since the entire reason they were passed in the first place actually was in order to lessen the burden to the taxpayers also in the amount of small claims and fender bender property damage court actions that had progressively occurred as more and more Americans started owning automobiles.

And really was a gold mine for the auto insurance industries, and many state residents have been calling for long overdue reform in those laws also progressively, and regulation and accountability of those insurers whose premiums also have increased over and above the CPI levels for many who have never made even a claim, or have had substandard provision under those policy or contractual provisions "progressively" ever since gaining that access to the public's purse unconstitutionally during the last recession in the 70's.

Especially since many states then even took it one ludicrous step further and mandated that you now must have "uninsured" and "under-insured" coverage, which laws are definitely unconstitutional. Meaning you must carry coverage in order to protect yourselves from the damage or fault of another if they object to those laws or are uninsured for any reason.

And strangely enough, foreigners of course are not required to carry auto insurance in this country at all, which has resulted in the higher rates for citizens now in the borders states especially due to accidents caused by uninsured foreign visitors to those mostly tourism focused states, or the Mexican illegals crossing at will.

Since driving is a risk in and of itself, than what actually is lawful and legal in that respect is also making insurance a choice. If you have an expensive automobile than as a piece of property you can choose whether or not to insure that property for risk of loss. If it is damaged due to willful or deliberate negligence of another driver, than the courts are there for such reasons. The entire passage of mandatory insurance laws and that illegal move is now being used in order to somehow paint this Baucus measure as similiar, when it is fundamentally not.

And any such laws mandating the taking of an Americans property for corporate gain and welfare is actually a tax, so I hate to break it to Mr. Obama, but Harvard's law school curriculum at this point truly is suspect in its Constitutional Law courses. That much also is abundantly clear at this point.

Congress and the President have no such authority, period - all their representations to the citizens and public to the contrary. They work for the people, not the other way around, nor do the people work for the insurance industry in this country and their profits and gains at the public's ultimate expense.

What is within their authority is regulation and oversight of these massive global and national insurers. Not getting into bed with them, nor the also huge supplemental plan organizations such as AARP, which sell those policies that are nothing more than gravy for the insurance industries, since they rarely have to provide any benefits under them, using the primary care provider such as Medicare then as the heavy whenever treatments are denied, or the payment of benefits refused. It's all in that fine print.

So how Mr. Obama can NOT paint this as an additional tax on the middle class I haven't a clue. And his amazing oratory skills really are wearing thin on many in this respect and many others. We know a sales gimmick when we see it. The dumbing down of the populace has not reached those proportions quite yet.

The fact that this "proposal" came from a Senator from the State of Montana, a Western state also historically known for its conservatism in Bill of Rights protections and also less populated due to its expansive Western mountain ranges and areas, bespeaks also politically putting a public face on this unconstitutional legislation for public consumption which is, while not socialism that can be outrightly labeled as such in governmentally mandated and taxed provision, nothing more than "corporate" socialism masked as in the "public interest." Which it is not.

Since it is clear that there is a sizeable majority of Americans that see this for what it is. No reform. Simply feeding the insurers and industries once again at the public's ultimate expense since there is little, if any, regulatory or accountability measures included over those insurers and health care providers, or the financial sector and these Wall Street traders that own a great stake in these industries, and also have progressively divested these industries into high risk financial investments which have also impacted the American public in the costs for health insurance in general.

And the middle class auto workers in Detroit, and homeless in Arizona, truly not those you can fool once again in just how much Washington and those on the Hill actually care for the welfare of its lawful and legal citizens, rather than foreign and industry backers at this point in history.

Washington Facilitating Foreign Leveraged Buy-Out Of American Assets?

For Any And All Conserve-ative Americans (not Global Socialists):

Due to many recent events, and some independent research I have done on my own rather recently as a now political refugee in stateless exile from the State of Arizona due to the ramifications which have progressively occurred to many long term residents and former natives in the loss of their homes, jobs and very state to an invasion now that is occurring from Mexico with the federal government's explicit support (hence, twice attempting to provide a "pathway to citizenship" and also amnesty for Mexican nationals in this country presently), and other rather recent legislation that was foreigner friendly at the cost of Americans, it is long overdue in asking some fundamental questions.

Is Washington purposely facilitating a leveraged buyout of American assets, in corporate speak.

After the truth of the bogus "foreclosure rescue" scams have now come to light more and more as throwing money at the Federal Reserve bank branches that were primarily responsible for writing some of those overly restrictive, and high cost "low interest" or "interest only" loans (when many were loaded with junk fees and costs also on the front end) as being nothing more than using those banks to "buy down" those investor's debts in order to then flip those properties for more banker revenue, the MO in Washington is becoming clearer.

Those homes now are being depressed to the point that if Mr. Obama (as Mr. Bush) again pushes for an amnesty, some of those properties taken from the existing Americans who were raped of much of their assets, and now with credit reports precluding any new home purchase for at least a decade, that it will be those "new" Americans that will be seeking some of them.

Who, of course, won't speak very fluent English and thus prime patsies for the next economic manipulation and depression in the next 20 years under those now 40 year loans. That has been the case since this is the third such manipulation in the Southwest in 30 years. First in the 70's, then during the savings and loan Keating disaster, and presently.

Right now, foreign investors own a great deal of stock in some of America's foremost industries, some outright now such as China and the Hummer Division. And even a great many of the American public utility companies, believe it or not, when Washington and the state governments afforded those "public" corporations then to privatize.

Even our nuclear power plants at this point, since Palo Verde in Arizona was privatized after the ratepayers were promised the moon in reduction of utility costs in order to "go green" and go nuclear.

After which, rates skyrocketed then to provide for those foreign investor profits, since their currency also was then higher than our own due to Federal Reserve manipulation.

Which is, after all, owned by the European and British banking cartels.

Interesting enough also, while then homeless yet also concerned for the somewhat declining health of my elderly parents who live outside New Orleans and were evacuated for both Katrina and Gustav recently, and as a now struggling artist and photographer I visited the French Quarter while I was there for an extended period of time during which time my mother suffered two heart surgeries for blockages in her arteries by a South American heart surgeon.

As having both a public and private supplemental plan provided by AARP, the corporate practice to which he belonged failed to check for a blockage when her blood pressure was off the charts and did relatively nothing insofar as testing basically until she eventually did suffer the inevitable.

At that time I also had a chance to visit the still recovering New Orleans greater metropolitan area.

And made a visit to the French Quarter, which I had visited on former trips with my family since my extended family has lived there over 30 years.

The area is still struggling and rebuilding. Mostly with federal contractors hiring illegal immigrant labor for much of the construction, and has it own now Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in order to promote their agendas and welfare.

And the homes which were built on the only really habitable land there in the French Quarter which was surveyed by those original settlers and chosen for their settlement as a port on the highest ground available, are still standing and suffered relatively little damage due to the degree of construction used by those original inhabitants. And of course also built on the highest ground near the Mississippi.

Many are now listed for sale mostly by a British real estate firm, Sotheby's of London, and being marketed to mostly British and Candian citizens.

In fact, I ran in to several of them while walking through the Garden District taking some photographs.

Due to the differences in accents, it didn't take a formal statement of country of origin. Some of the licenses and identifying personalized stickers on their vehicles also were in plain view.

And the most famous "new" American who now owns a good deal of our media and internet news sources is also a former Brit from Australia, Rupert Murdoch.

And bringing his British style of reporting and political agendas with him in the process as not really also assimilating to this country, but attemping to make it more like his own.

So for all you foreigners wishing to leave yours in the belief that America still stands as that beacon of freedom and liberty, and land of opportunity in order enjoy the fruits of your labor, and lower taxation I have news for you.

The British won the war, apparently, without most of the American public being aware, and without firing a shot.

They simply bought our bank. And have progressively also been buying up most of our valuable real estate.

Including those homes now being lost that you hear about on your news in the Southwestern United States for the Mexican nationals, and Canadian retirees.

Who, of course, will be the next victims in this global pyramid scheme.

Obamacare TownHalls: Let's Make A Deal? Or Green Slime And Feathers?

The focus this month on the townhall meetings and such which have been conducted across the nation bears at this point bringing up some rather obvious observations from this reporter and baby boomer generation American.

What in the world is going on here?

Lately, these townhall style meetings have come into vogue with our Congressional leaders. Before recently, these type meetings were deemed "public hearings," and usually went untelevised, and were called usually because some citizen got wind of some unconstitutional legislation, and was a forum for the betraying "representative" to defend mostly his actions, or at least answer his accusers.

Now they appear to be more intended for public exposure for the Congressional members, and in order to keep their faces before the public when they know damn well they are going to pass the questioned legislation whether the public likes it or not.

It gives them a measure to use for political purposes promoting their individual positions with respect to the legislation or their party's, while the wheeling and dealing that has gone on in the backroom between the two political parties for re-election purposes on such legislation is kept behind those closed doors.

Keep in mind this legislation on health care reform, while fundamentally unconstitutional on its face, is simply being debated as to what the bill will eventually entail.

Not that the entire bill is a slap in the face of our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights provisions contained within it that any such function of Congress to even entertain such a bill would need an amendment in order for them to so do.

Instead, it appears these townhall meetings are actually being used like shareholder meetings in corporate America. A forum for the shareholders to vent to the CEOs, rather than be acknowledged as the true "owners" of the corporate and as such needing their "express" approval for any such "corporate" undertaking.

It appears we have more and more CEO types in Washington, than true actual citizens or "representatives" of the people. And ignorance of our Constitution really is no excuse whatsoever, especially with respect to this legislation.

After all, it is merely 23 pages, and written in English, not Spanish.

And the American taxpayers are paying for literally hundreds of lawyers for those representatives just in case they failed high school or grammar school English classes.

Townhall meetings for PR purposes simply detracts from the ultimate question here, and also appears these meetings are being also inflamed by the shear presence of the media in the process. I wonder how many had placed their own corporate press representatives at the meetings in order to either "sell" Obamacare to make this rougue Administration look good for the next cocktail party circuit, or "inflame" the public in order to sell their corporate parties agenda as an "alternative" for election 2010?

When by this time it should be clear that both parties work for the Wall Street bankers, and not our Constitution or the actual legal American citizens in this country in any manner whatsoever. Merely their "corporate" best interests - their own re-election and stock portfolios.

Otherwise, just why are these Congressmen specifically including their own exemption from any such federally concocted program, or provisions?

And if it takes 1,000 page bills at this point to write laws in this country, then the entire point seems to be to fill them with legalese for the eventual benefit of the legal industry. So maybe most of those sums marked for educational purposes need to go to America's law schools so they can get back to basics once again, instead of focusing on "science based technology," since mastering the basics in simply reading comprehension quite obviously still hasn't been achieved for most now graduating from America's universities.

And just who is alerting the press on the location of these townhall meetings? The Congressional staffers, no doubt. Certainly not the Joe the Plumber Americans.

These aren't townhall meetings at all. What the true agendas can only be likened to would be meetings with the Congressional Monty Hall in Washington's version of "Let's Make A Deal."

How about when the next townhall meeting is announced in your local area, America, bringing the buckets with the green slime instead?

And a few feathers. I'd even go so far as to say the noose, but then I might be accused of being a "one issue" Right Wing Terrorist.

When my "one issue" is actually how far afield we have now gone from the true patriots and leaders who gave their blood, treasure and honor to establish a new nation which provided that treason such as what this legislation truly entails in much of its provisions with respect to Bill of Rights protections, and those in the prior stimulus providing for the "National Healthcare Database" including Americans private health care records federally accessible, is really the highest criminal offense in this country of all.

The criminals are dictating the terms here, America. And you are lowering yourself to "debating" them, rather than calling a spade a spade outright?

What it appears all have forgotten is that there is a Rule of Law and if Congress was doing their jobs in accordance with it, this health care crisis need not have occurred, and rather than taking over health care which leaves Big Daddy in the position of determining who lives and dies without real citizen recourse in the event of denials of treatment, calling them on their negligence.

Health care providers merely exist on rate payers premiums, and were never intended to be "for profit" entities at all. They ALL were co-ops at one point. And what is needed is Congressional regulation of the global and national entities now doing business in this country, and the policies that they are selling to the public.

And regulating sufficiently at the state levels the medical professionals and doctors who are incorporated and licensed within those states, and removal of their licenses if guilty of gross negligence under the three strike rules and common law.

And a national database set up for citizens complaints on both insurers, doctors or health care networks that deny treatments, hike premiums without provation, or abuse the system and rape the insurance companies in billing for double tests, or fraudulent claims.

And rinstituting once again the common law lids which existed since the Magna Carta on punitive damage awards for gross negligence to three times the amount of the actual loss or damage. That would also lower doctors professional liability costs and more would then stay in practice. Right now, our birth survival rate is less than that of Cuba since so many left obstetrics once those lids were removed and could not longer afford to practice in what were considered "high risk" areas.

No wonder Obama and Congress are so big on "political correctness" and governmentally defined "healthy" debate.

How about this then: When the people and this nation's honor has been impuned by those charged to protect and honor the sacrifices made by so many Americans to protect those freedoms and our Constitution as a government "of the people" and not the corporate, has been violated in the most deliberate and unlawful way possible now consistently for well over a decade with respect to taxation, war, and on behalf of corporate special interests, many foreign at that, by those now serving in Washington in all three branches and its unaccountable and unregulated Reserve Bank owned by greedy "European" bankers at that, has the time honored tradition of dueling also been outlawed at this point?

The High Cost Of Health Care: From Then To Now

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:


With all the hard sell both the Democrat and Republican Global Socialists on the Hill have been doing and will continue to do this month before they "readdress" Obama's call for health care reform and using it as public forums for re-elections in their "versions" and the revisions they personally have either included or attempted to place in this heinous Big Daddy government again legislation, maybe it might be worthwhile to take a stroll down memory lane to see how we got from affordable health care now to the astronomical rise which has occurred, along with our progressively declining infant survival rates.

First, global and national insurers formed a union of insurance providers and started meeting supposedly in order to increase the quality of health care in the United States. During those meetings, however, they also began standardizing health care coverages and price fixing the policies which were offered to the public.

Initially simply businesses that existed as a "shared pool" for the premium payers, they instead became megacorporations and took on a "business model" mindset in that profit, and profit alone, was their driving force. They then hired lobbyists with their extra premium monies from their policyholders, and began lobbying the federal and state legislatures throughout the country in order to gain more profit at the policyholder's expense.

The politicians, of course after being wined and dined, complied. Instead of regulating those large now "commercial" corporporation, they began to write more and more industry favoring laws which then also afforded these large global and national insurers to invest those premiums in high risk stocks and investments, and then to also to conglomerate and branch out into other areas of the financial sector such as also owning banks, real esate companies, and other forms of commerce.

Hence Prudential Insurance also owned Prudential-Bache Securities, and Prudential Real Estate. All with the policyholder's premiums and then individual shareholders as their main sources of investment capital. Thus, the insurers used the premium payers premiums actually against them in order to gain more.

Congress then passed an Act attempting to negate the provisions of the Commerce Clause with respect to insurance companies forbidding any and all states from effectively also regulating the insurers who were incorporated within their state borders. Although, of course, this was also not within their Constitutional authority to so do, as the federal government actually was intended to work for the states and people and accountable to them, not as their sovereign ruler as it were dictating extra-Constitutional authority at the state level then also affecting the rights of the people, not corporate interests, in the process. An amendment, of course, would be needed for such a "privilege or immunity" with respect to regulation of this now commercial industry being exempt by the feds for any nationwide or global insurer. And could not ban in any event the states from regulating any that were incorporated within their own state borders with respect to policies sold to state citizens as "intrastate" and not "interstate" commerce.

Then, the Trial Lawyers Association progressively also started its own lobbying efforts at the state level in order to remove and rewrite the civil codes under the common law in the states which then removed the "lid" on punitive damages for medical malpractice claims which had been in effect since the Magna Carta and under the British common law at a maximum of three times the amount of the actual damages in any negligence claims on the part of doctors. Doctor's malpractice insurance rates then skyrocketed and went off the charts. Many in high risk fields simply left the practice of medicine, such as obstetrics, or went into other areas where their insurance was more affordable.

Due then to inflation and spiraling costs of college tuition which bore no relevance whatsoever to the cost of living, the cost to train new doctors made most of those who graduated paupers and bankrupt before they even graduated, much less were able then to pay the costs for setting up their private practices. Many ended up filing bankruptcy, and then working for othe physicians as lab assistants or hospitals until their bankruptcy records were cleared and the were able to qualify for loans.

Then, Richard Nixon during his last term of office, also succumbed to more lobbying pressure and afforded the health care providers to "unionize" also in order to spread their risk and costs since the costs of malpractice insurance then continued to climb with each and every outrageous punitive damage award that then came down the pike. Now there are HMOs and health care networks which involve seeing multiple doctors many times in order to simply get a diagnosis, or even your average physical. Boards of Directors of these huge networks then were evaluating and determining patient care rather than the physicians themselves. Factory line operations then became the norm, as did the 24 hour childbirth or mastectomy.

Doctors were "fined" huge sums, but due to the fact that their medical licenses are issued by the states but for which there is also little regulation or procedural statutes addressing consistently negligent doctors for removal of their licenses, many of these awards became even greater still upon successives suits and claims.

Of course, the lawyers got the bulk of the "extra" awards over the compensatory losses, rather than the one third that was also provided under common law for contingency awards. And started factoring in profit margins for their costs for the expert witnesses also needed in such claims for lawyer profit.

So there you have it. The history of the high cost of health care in this country, and why we now are where we are with respect to both the decline in quality of care, and exhorbitant increases in cost.

And Obama and this Congress have been busy little bees this past few months colluding with the very same industries and associations which are responsible now for where we are today due to their huge profits and campaign lobbying efforts. Instead of backing up, and closing the door, and reviewing all the industry favoring statutes and laws which have progressively occurred in their failures to truly regulate commerce and these huge commecial corporations at both the state and federal levels in order to protect the citizens who actually have provided the profits which afforded them this unconstitutional leverage from the wolves. THEY are not their constituents. They are industry.

Somehow, it appears the name and provisions of of this bill as is being reported and presented as any true reform under the title, "The Affordable Health Care Act," smacks of the same mockery and betrayal of the American people on behalf of "foreign" interests and commerce that the "Patriot Act" consisted of.

Liberal Lunacy: Fire Proof Cigarette Legislation Sweeps Nation

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:


It appears that another Big Daddy move has now swept the nation in conjunction with some of those liberal government funded PACs and organizations that have nothing better to do with their time apparently than not only parent their own children, but the rest of the nation.

Along, of course, with the Big Business industries that also benefit from such legislation, and their political ties that bind due to the amount also of lawyers in this country without real jobs except to hang around the Halls of Congress for their corporate welfare on the backs of the United States taxpayers.

Case in point: The new laws that are spreading now throughout the country mandating now the sale of "fire safe" cigarettes.

Now, this sounds all well and good like much legislation that starts with good intentions. The only problems are that they seldom get the results for which they were originally intended and also tend to violate the civil rights of others who have not at all asked for their parenting tips and are adults themselves.

Of course, the arguments are now being used regarding how many lives will be saved with these new cigarettes in prevention of fire due to cigarette use by the citizenry. These cigarettes apparently have been made with "bands" of fireproof paper in incremental millimeters which will snuff the flame out after about 30 seconds of non-use.

In fact, rather encouraging chain smoking and more secondhand cigarette smoke in the process, but that little detail has been left out in much of the advocates positions, and their lackeys on the state legislures who have promoted this legislation. In practice, it actually increases the amount of primary and secondary smoke which results from citizens who are smokers.

Exhaled smoke although actually has less carcinogens in it for the nonusers exposed, not so when the cigarettes have to be re-lit time and time again from the smoke which results due to the lighting itself. And I guess Bic must also have been on the bandwagon for this one, since the sale of lighters will go off the charts due to this legislation.

And doesn't appear that there has been any studies done (since they just hit the market within the past few years) of just what the added chemicals now contained within the paper itself will do to the lung cancer or other respiratory related diseases in the long term. But that "scientifically based" governmentally funded program I'm sure is now in the works at taxpayers expense I'm sure the results of which will be disclosed in about 30 years after it is removed from the locked safe and drawers it is now contained so that the chemical companies can increase their profit margins on this generation of smokers.

The price for cigarettes, of course, due to this extraordinary paper which is now part of the production has also skyrocketed due also to increased federal and state taxes in order to fund health care programs for children.

Children who are now being made homeless and increasingly needing such services due to the bankruptcy of their parents that Congress continues to facilitate at a rather rapid clip in all these corporate welfare scams under both the Bush, and now accelerated under the Obama Administrations in particular.

Especially for the financial and insurance industries most of all, which actually have merged and become one. Most banks and financial institutions holding companies also provide insurance and vice versa.

Many of them "global" or "national."

The fact that insurance companies began as nothing more than publicly funded shared risk pools and not for-profit corporate conglomerates has been all but lost in the process. Nor the fact that it appears in reducing their perceived risks and also costs, why is it that the more insurance and financial sector friendly legislation that is passed, the less and less it trickles down to the American citizens funding their actual industries and those risk pools?

Or, such as with the mandatory insurance laws for automobile owners which were initially meant to lessen and relieve the burdens on taxpayers for the small claims and civil courts, the costs for the use of our courts in filing fees and added cost also now precludes the average citizen their use of this publicly and Constitutionally provided legal remedy in such matters since most end up facing a team of corporate insurance lawyers even at those small claims levels if a subrogation lawyer for the insurer feels it is in the "corporate" best interest to fight paying off on those claims?


The support for both industries and their corporate welfare at the cost of Americans and their own livelihoods spreads on both sides of the aisle in this Republicrat nightmare called government.

Not to mention that insurance costs rarely go down with such measures as these, their profit margins simply increase as does their executive compensation levels, and political palm greasing for more legislation in order to both market their products, and reduce their risk and losses like this one. All based, as this one is clearly was, on not long term or scientific data in the slightest, but short term gains at the cost of public at large.

We are targeting cigarette smokers more and more and using backdoor methods in the attack as another example of the socialism that is and has been running rampant in this country for the last century. Its a bad and unhealthy habit, that much is clear, but so is excess in any and all areas, even the healthy ones such as exercise, and hygiene.

Look how many Hollywood celebrities are the result now of plastic surgeries gone wrong. And how truly robotic they now look. Stepford homes and Stepford faces. That's socialism for you.

In light of the basis and "science based" treatment plans that are behind the L. Ron Hubbard/Orwellian Universal Health Care Plan now being legislated as we speaks (which is supported by many principals in the zero population growth movement of the 1960's and 1970's of the liberal wing), since humans are not their "protected" group, but rather the whales, polar bears and seals in the Arctic, and starving children in Africa not those in the good old U.S.A., or "rights" of Americans over those of foreigners, that is really the plan anyway.

Who needs the genetic rejects that have addiction problems, if it isn't for animal rights causes, global warming scams, or Swiss and German chocolate anyway? Maybe this is another "stimulus" actually for the science based health care sector and medical community in disguise once again passed off as "protecting" the life of those smokers.

Many smokers also tend to imbibe in a glass or two of wine occasionally, so maybe this is the cure for both those social ills, to their way of thinking.

Perhaps those states that have now mandated such laws, can now slice the budget for the fire departments and those taxpayer's cost for their salaries and benefits by half? In fact, this legislation is actually sponsored by many fire and emergency personnel associations throughout the land. Of course, these individuals salaries are paid by the taxpayers, and complain rather regularly and petition for increases in their salaries, although with their benefit packages would put most in major metropolitan cities at above-average income levels.

And apparently have enough extra income in order to form their own lobbying organizations (of course, with added grant monies also funded by the taxpayers for these "educational" efforts) in order to basically promote more likely cutting their work schedules to give them more time at the gym or local high school tennis courts during their non-emergency time in order to stay in shape (as occurs at least in the major metro area in which I lived for many years). The "volunteer" fire departments are gone, and now have so much time and added income they are associating at the public's expense to lobby then against the public for more R&R, but more likely the scenario is are simply the "respectible" agents and front men for the chemical companies truly behind this legislation.

It's clearly a way for the chemical companies making this chemically treated paper to have a respectable front for also their lobbying efforts for their income streams.

Dow and DuPont, after all, need to find and provide work for all those scientists they employ, and then gain the patent rights for their discoveries through those taxpayer paid grant monies for research and development (including those taxes paid by the scientists themselves). I wonder when the downside of this "new and improved" paper and its health risks are going to be revealed from those "trade secret" locked drawers? I guess when the profits are high enough that some scientist or corporate lawyer employee then leaks them to the media, the class action is filed on behalf of the victims, and the scientist then gets his bonus for his discovery testifying at the trial for a few hundred an hour as an "expert" witness, while the victims then get the crumbs in the class action settlement.

After all, anything "science based" is the new focus of Big Daddy, since "science" is the key to detroying the morals, common law and values upon which our original form of government was built. Godly and moral values, not "science based" technology, since fundamentally with the exception of the few "laws" of science which have definitely been proven (Newton and Einstein's work primarily), much of science is "theory" based, which is no more proveable than faith based reasoning. Except that faith based reasoning actually has a 6,000 year old history and much of which science is now "proving" or proved in the past (such as the Earth being round, instead of flat) was actually pre-ordained before its scientific "discovery" and written in scriptural text, and more and more acheological studies are bearing biblical history out even to this day.

At this point, state government actually is also headed for the extinction of the dinosaur now that Big Daddy is dictating even the local laws such as the DUI patrols and their training, and now the "Click It or Ticket" fear campaigns and its funding (seen at your local movie theatre and TV, and paid for by the taxpayer funded Ad Council no less), using up then local resources in order to address "petty" crimes as federally mandated priorities at this point, and now with the terrorism task forces and National Fusion Centers, to suspect anyone and everyone of terrorism due to federally trained agents now "political" profiling, while then turning around attacking free speech and "crimes of perceived intent" not simply as a motive but as a crime in and of itself, with respect to "racial" or other alleged discriminatory practices of the citizenry with the recent "Hate Crimes" legislation.

Isn't that what a jury is for and to determine, the "motivation" for any and all capital crimes as part of the criminal proceeding?

I mean, just what purpose does our state legislature actually serve anymore than actually as JV for Washington and Congress, after all?

Certainly not representatives nor the barrier against federal abuse they were intended to be. And with commercial buildings, hotels and such the major expense in rebuilding costs and loss of life or injury in such events, and with building codes, sprinklers and fire alarm standards well in excess of prior generations for these commercial properties mandated in most states throughout the nation after those Las Vegas hotel fires years ago, just how many fire related deaths throughout the nation have there been anyway? I mean is this, on balance, with all these increased measures and emergency personnel now with GPS tracking devices in such events as reported fires - actually more frequent than it was in prior generations? I doubt it.

Probably less than those lives and property losses in the border states due to our open borders, and the homeless and joblessness and drain on the public purse that situation has created, and the outsourcing and insourcing and lack of regulation of these global and national concerns in the financial sector preying on the public with governmental consent, assistance and support.

So light up, America. Again. And Again. And Again.

And use up more of that protective oxygen those trees are giving out in order to protect our planet from its eventual demise due to those carbons that have also been increased due to these "new and improved" cigarettes. After all, what is the statistical data on the chances we will all reach immortality if we can just get rid of all these public safety "threats" through Big Daddy government one puff at a time.

I wonder how many still can afford cigarettes now at all, much less the new and improved fire safety ones.

So is RJ Reynolds yet lobbying for their corporate welfare? Or Bud? Since it would appear at this rate it shouldn't be too much longer since few now are lining up for those "Cash for Clunkers" coupons that are also being used as a financial scam to stimuluate those "bailed out banks" and feed USA, Inc. now that it is part owner of General Motors, after all, along with those banks who issue our currency and are making unbelieveable profits off the public with their assundry fees and charges, and "flex" loans, and Obama's main misson seems to be to get Americans back in debt and in servitude then to USA, Inc., and it member banks and insurance industries, and back into the shop til your drop addiction, rather than the nicotine variety, a more "politically correct" addiction and job stimulus for the financial sector and Wall Street from the liberal (Republicrat) point of view.

Our politicians are not only profiting from these bills and legislation and Wall Street manipulations, they are actually blatantly now directing them and nothing more than insider traders no matter which particular Wall Street sector or industry they personally are vested.

Auditing The Federal Reserve: Is A Bill Required?

FYI: For All American Conservative Constitutional Constructionists

On several of the liberty focused website there has been a great deal of buzz and announcement with respective to Ron Paul's sponsorship of a bill in order to audit the Federal Reserve. So far, I believe it has over 200 sponsors, and I guess I am perplexed with this "solution" to getting some accountability with respect to the operations of the Federal Reserve and its Board and owners.

Congress actually created the Federal Reserve under an Act of Congress called the Federal Reserve Act back in 1913. Why it would be necessary to initiate legislation in order to "audit" an entity that Congress itself created defies the imagination.

What WOULD be necessary is simply a motion made on the floor in both the House and Senate, and a roll call vote. Not a formal bill.

This actually seems again nothing more than a movement in order to quell the masses who are demanding some accountability and continued to be outraged at the goings on at our nation's capitol.

From my understanding also within the Federal Reserve Act is a provision that our government can "buy back" our economy from the Federal Reserve for a set amount.

And it is unconceivable that the members of the Senate and House Banking Committee members would not be receiving regular reports from the Fed, and also be sitting members on its Board as a government created entity.

But why a formal bill, again, to "audit" an entity that was legislatively created to begin with? This two party system is getting more and more cohesive in their spins for the populace through their PR reps it appears each and every session. Perhaps Rep. Paul's lawyers are also, as it is clear many are not, serving their functions in advising him with respect to such matters and what would be really required.

Since they are writing bills more and more that have absolutely no foundation in our Constitution, and now expanding them to over 1,000 pages in order to obviously create more and more work for themselves and thus logjam our courts even more than they already are. It appears lawyers, bar none, are the largest "welfare" recipients in this country now of all as a group in some way or another. And are primarily responsible for the hijacking of our Constitutional government, the health care now crisis, and banking mess also due to their "contracts" which are not really" "contracts" at all in the sense the founders were referring.

And this entire movement seems similar to the 10th Amendment movement. Simply another distraction and attempt to quell the masses. Since why would the states need to "reaffirm" or "resolve" their status as pre-eminent in most matters over the federal government since it is already written in stone in the Constitution to begin with?

With the exception of those unalienable Bill of Rights provisions (which cannot be "contracted away" as "unalienable" to begin with, nor "legislated" away by the states or federal government with the consent of the governed, not even by federal statute or the Supreme Court), and those specifically designated to the federal government? Just why would a redundant resolution be necessary in order to assert those already given? Ludicrous, and merely another diversionary tactic used by both levels in order to silence the outraged now masses.

I guess this is another example of where our high school American Government classes and particularly our American collegiate law schools and liberal arts programs, are again failing.

Hate Crimes Bill: Federal Overreach Again Undermines States, Citizens

Apparently, the "Hate Crimes" bill which passed the House last April is now coming up for a vote in the Senate as reported in the mainstream media earlier today.

The Democratic Global Socialists, of course, are ecstatic since it appears this time they may just be able to sneak this one through due to their majority status, of course with the assistance of a few of the Republican Global Socialists who are not up for re-election in 2010.

As most citizens have become aware, the federal government in the last decade now has become nothing more than dictatorship of 535 out of control nutjobs. The only time reality actually sinks in is apparently close to election time, or when the budget requests come through for more and more increases in expenditures for added security measures for federal and state office buildings.

You would think those requests and measures alone would provide a clue to the discontent of many in this nation with the Washington wackos.

This measure is being pursued in order to expand a prior unconstitutional measure addressing ill defined "hate crimes" against selected minority groups. The degree to which these "misrepresentatives" defend the bill as simply an "enhanced version" of existing law, and not in any way meant to criminalize "perceptions of intent," or infringe free speech of various religious groups in their biblical teachings speaks volumes right there, since the inclusion now of both homosexuals and the disabled are being included.

The disabled were included for purely political reasons apparently, since targeting a truly defenseless person either mentally or physically handicapped actually is something most juries throughout the country at least in this generation would find repugnant and reprehensible.

Homosexuality, of course, is a little different to a great many in this country since there is a biblical moral prohibition to its practice, and fundamentally has religious then overtones in all three of the major religions, and many groups fear politically motivated actions then also potentially could be the result because of the rather open ended language contained in the bill.

Legislation now is written primarily in order to stimulate the economies of the judiciary members (lawyers) it appears most of all. Since they, of course, are huge contributors to both federal and state public office campaigns.

In fact, there are still a few rather outdated laws on the books in some states prohibiting its practice (most of which have not been enforced, however, for literally decades), so the federal government is actually attempting to again assert its authority over the states and local governments on this as it has in so many other areas, and never more so than during the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now eras.

Of course John McCain, in order to keep his name and presence in the media and in the forefront due to his upcoming re-election run in 2010 is objecting on religious and moral grounds as also potentially a bill which could target pastors and religious leaders for teaching biblical doctrine with respect to homosexuality, although did bring the Constitutionality issue up as a side note.

Arizona does have a heavy Mormon population, and also formerly was a more "conservative" state, although that has not been the case for many years due to the number of California refugees and East Coast retirees now living in Arizona after fleeing their own states due to impact in taxation of their former states liberal agendas, and Arizona's was formerly less expensive than some of those more liberal states as a result of its conservatism. That was about 25-30 years ago, however.

But the true measure actually of how redundant and unconstitutional it is is that there are already laws in 45 states addressing these "mitigating" circumstances in any criminal proceeding. Since the states have authority over criminal matters which occur within their boundaries as "crimes against the state," in general and not simply against the victim.

Pre-meditated murder, stalking, assault and other criminal actions targeting anyone for any reason are punishable in every state in the nation, irrespective of the motivation other than self-defense, or proveable precipitating circumstances.

Our criminal code is already a matter of settled law with respect to criminal actions based on proveable evidence, and such motivation is clearly something for a jury to determine. Upping the penalties for those crimes against anyone equally is Constitutional, not "piling on" additional punishments and penalties based on purely motivation, since there is leeway in the sentencing of many of these crimes also - and the more evidence and proof of criminal intent and motivation, the harsher penalty most juries or judge if they are also fulfilling their legal duties and functions would be.

It does appear at times our federal government just simply wishes to flex its muscle, or prove that those Senators and Congressman deserve those six figure salaries, pensions and expense accounts.

Since in a Republic, it is clear these would be matters for the state and "people" against whom that crime is committed in their communities, and not the "distant ruler" to "lawfully" under our existing law determine.

And with a foreign war now going on eight full years with no end again in sight but following the Bush plan and with America's southern border the true national security threat, an economy in the toilet due to federal negligence with respect to oversight and regulation of the banks and lending institutions in this country and their practices, and homelessness and joblessness increasing by the day yet passing now additional taxes on the air Americans now breathe, the moral outrage most Americans at this point have isn't at all directed in any respect for the gays or gay community - but those on the Hill.

Who truly do not acknowledge the boundaries of their power, nor true legal responsibilties.

And it is interesting to note that a push for this bill would also be made now publicizing also the former "hate crimes" legislation, just prior to also another contentious measure in which Washington is attempting again to put its will over that of the rights of the lawful American citizens and their Bill of Rights, the illegal immigration "reform" bill - of course, without addressing the state of our open borders and daily flow which will not cease until those borders are secured, and now also eight years after 9/11 and three years after the Secure Fence Act was passed, and after many Americans have died since at the hands of unlawful foreigners - appears also the timing is politically related as a precusor to another "in your face," Washington move.

House Passes "New and Improved" Hate Crimes Legislation

On April 29, 2009 the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League was victorious again in complicating unnecessarily civil rights actions in this country with respect to criminal tort actions, and the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009.

The Bill was passed by a vote of 248-175, with 18 Democrats voting against the Bill, and 17 Republicans voting for. Which, in and of itself, demonstrates that there was much politicking and backroom wheeling and dealing with members of the House concerned about their re-elections affecting some of those votes. The Bill now goes on to the Senate.

This piece of legislation expands the Hate Crimes legislation passed several years ago to include crimes connected with gender and other biases. It also affords the ACLU and other civil rights legal organizations an "economic stimulus" and bigger pool of clients for their taxpayer paid legal fees for civil rights cases.

And also increases the tax burden in expanding government in order to provide the sums in order to enforce this new law at the local level in providing for a surveillance detail to the tune of 10 million over the course of the next two years.

Since there is already provisions for equality in criminal actions based upon the actual crime committed, such as stalking, harassment, assault, and bodily injury or property damage, it does appear that our Congress continues to expand its reach even though it appears with the current U.S. economy and ongoing war it has more than enough on its plate already.

Since there are grant monies involved, it will also strain local law enforcement personnel, even with the added sums, and take them away from pursing the property and violent crimes that are actually committed and increasing in most states across the nation. Local law enforcement and the states actually know what crimes their particular states and local communities actually have the most trouble with, and each state's needs inherently different in that respect. Now we again will have political arrests for state budgetary needs and revenue, and the also more federally funded actions for outrageous fee awards and lawyers welfare needs potentially for any and all crimes against ever increasing protected classes when all taken together in total are now the majority of Americans.

The crimes which most often occur in the border states, for example, in drug related crimes and property theft will once again be shoved aside - since we all know that all federal grant monies come with strings and performance standards attached. Such as the now low level DUI and social drinking enforcement actions.

Since there are already state and local laws for each and every criminal action which occurs irrespective of race, sex, gender, etc., shouldn't the motivation for any such crimes be left for a jury to decide as a fact matter, and the punishment for provable intentional biased-based criminal activities be up to them depending on the evidence presented at the actual trial?

Why is the federal government involved in handing out and dictating the punishments now for state criminal actions, in direct violation of our Constitution and outside their jurisdiction?

Now the federal government is involved in dictating local police actions and priorities. Just when will it end?

What will be next, a law providing extra penalties for telling blonde jokes at the water cooler, or male menopause jokes at the local gym?

I don't mean to make light of this, but it does appear that Congress does have greater priorities at this time, and also the fact that these laws simply seem redundant and really should be left to state and local authorities, and the jurors as "crimes against the state."

The power of the jury and voice of the people continues to be whittled away due to a great many of these recent interferences by federal officials in what the founders provided were state and local criminal matters under both Bush with the social drinking taxs and laws, and now Obama in state and local civil and criminal matters at an ever-increasing rate.

An Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming Scientist Banned From Hearings

As if a tanked economy, ongoing foreign engagement, potential war in the not so distant future at our Southwestern borders, and exploding costs of government were not enough, the Washington theatrics and political power moves at the citzens' expense continue.

It was reported in several lesser known news sources that Margaret Thatcher's former science advisor, global warming expert and skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton, was prevented from testifying at the widely publicized hearings conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee held recently during which Al Gore ("An Inconvenient Truth") was also slated to testify.

Apparently, House Global Socialists (this time from the Democratic side of the aisle) were concerned that Mr. Gore might be upstaged by Lord Monckton's expertise with the issue.

As an American citizen I can understand, perhaps, disallowing Lord Monckton's testimony as a British and not American citizen.

However, since the subject matter was GLOBAL warming and Mr. Gore, although an enthusiastic activist, is without scientific credentials insofar as the long view on this issue, such a move smacks of a staged hearing and not a fact gathering session.

Certainly there are positives to even the worst case scenario which might occur. Development of new species in the arctic regions, for example.

Isn't it statistically more probable that the earth could be hit by a large asteroid at some point? Then this entire global warming argument won't matter one hoot, nor will Mr. Gore's Nobel Peace Prize or his contributions to this scientific debate be remembered.

Leave it to the global socialists to use the world community and earth's survival or destruction in order to up their profits, the ultimate terrorism weapon. And the one's with the largest carbon footprints by far due to their globe hopping for their various causes.

Working toward world peace and solving world hunger are not big enough bites of the apple. Now it is saving the world and all humanity, animal and plant life from ultimate destruction.

Whether apparently such fears or concerns have any factual basis or are truly warranted or not doesn't seem to be the issue.

It seems only these fortune tellers have the answer to solve that age old question: Just how long will the earth exist and/or be habitable?

At least most accredited scientists will give the most obvious answer: Only God knows.

What the science community knows is the history of climatic progressions, and it would appear we've been on a somewhat warming cycle naturally since the Ice Age. Our class, genus and species most likely would not exist now but for that warming cycle.

After all, environmentalists and their vehement advocacy has, in the past, resulted in more harm than good on more than one occasion.

The current and past serial wildfires in the West and Southwest is one which quickly comes to mind due to what is now occurring in and near Santa Barbara.

Drought conditions with only moderate to non-existent wind factors have leveled literally thousands of acres of forested land due to the density of some of our state and federal forests and parks.

"Saving the trees" end result is we have now lost more mature trees than the lumber mills and their needs for construction and other durable goods did, and also has devastated and made homeless more and more Americans with each passing year. Not to mention hit countless others in increased bank mandated home and property insurance due to the costs to cover all those disaster claims.

Except, unlike the hurricanes of the Gulf and Southeastern states, some of those disasters just might have been prevented with better stewardship rather than misguided claimed "conservation."

And Mr. Gore, after all, as a "global warming" proponent has made quite a hefty sum off his Nobel prize winning book, and his travel costs and expenses for his global speaking engagements.

Yet as an activist has left quite a carbon footprint of his own traversing the globe now publicizing both his book, and his carbon tax solution. A year ago about this time he was in Rome appearing on Italian television and conducting his lectures.

Power plays, again, at the expense of the American people since apparently Lord Monckton has also offered to debate Mr. Gore on this issue, even to his favored audience, internationally, but as of yet Mr. Gore has not responded.

I guess there hasn't been an opening yet in his travel and speaking engagement schedule.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

http://faddaeart.blogspot.com/