It was reported in the APP (American Propaganda Press) that the Israeli lobby, and those Senators and Congressmen beholding to them, were "outraged" at the Obama Administration's chatising of Israel in light of its announcement during Vice President Biden's visit coincidentally of a zoning decision with respect to Jerusalem that flies in the face of peace talks.
It does appear that the election cycle in the U.S. for the 2010 elections is in full swing, and Israel once again is a centerpoint of both parties political posturing for the American Jewish vote.
And while it is interesting that most of these Senators and Congressmen who do receive quite a bit of funding from the Israeli lobby in this country posture, their outrage truly puzzling.
And also strange since a great many of high level officials in the Obama Administration are and have been huge supporters of the Israeli lobby, and also are Jewish, so this "outrage" seems rather contrived, to say the least.
Israel and those lobbying organizations have claimed that Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East.
I would state that actually America has been probably Israel's strongest ally since World War II, after the Kennedy Adminstration in assisting it's military with their national defense programs and training their military, since it is rather a matter of public record that Israel has received more foreign aid from this country than any other since the end of World War II.
And does, after all, since the 1960's have its own nuclear weaponry at its disposal, and a crack military due to all the aid we have given them over the course of decades.
Johnson's Adminstration funneled literally billions to Israel, as has each successive administration since that time, whether Republican or Democratic.
That an announcement such as the Israel government's of further expansion in Jerusalem would come during this visit, and at a time when the U.S. was pushing for peace talks does seem rather strange, to say the least.
I would ask, how many Israeli soldiers are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to the amount of military aid and dollars this country has poured into Israel after it's national security has been compromised in both the '68 war, and as recently as the Carter Administration?
According to most media reports outside the U.S., Israel has enough fire power to nuke the Middle East at least 10 times over, yet is somehow threatened now by the development of nuclear weaponry by other Arab nations, when its actions such as what occurred this past week does not appear to be along the lines of truly wanting peace, but once again a totally Jewish state even outside the provisions of the Balfour Doctrine which with the British, created the state of Israel even prior to World War I.
It does appear that in the U.S. continuing to ally itself with Israel, our national security has been compromised in the process otherwise how would a 9-11 in this country ever have occurred, since our presence in the Middle East has been facilitated by our alliance with Israel these many decades, even though Britain actually was their "creator" to begin with.
The standard of living, and even national security capabilities of Israel are surpassing that of the United States in leaps and bounds, and our economy now has been fundamentally negatively impacted by the fact that even in an economic recession such as occurring in the U.S. at the present time, foreign aid to Israel still appears to be a top priority with those in Washington.
At this point in history, if Israel as an independent Jewish state is meant to be, isn't that now up to the Creator and not the U.S.?
I mean it does seem rather clear that this actually is the aim, all provisions in that Balfour accord to the contrary, since ceding Israeli land gained in the '68 war that was beyond that original accord has literally taken decades to reverse or even bring the parties to the table to rework, even though those lands were not even a part of the original British agreement at its inception.
"Trade with all nations, alliances (permanent) with none."
America's founders.
And why doesn't the Israeli lobby and their synagoges in this country, or the fundamentalist Christian community that hold with the "end of days" scenario as literal rather than allegorical, not simply donate directly to Israel, if that is where their hearts are and not with this country?
Or immigrate and move there themselves?
And isn't this really Britain's problem, more than the U.S., due to the fact that this original accord was between a British lord and zionist, and banker to begin with under the terms of the Balfour Doctrine?
I mean why is the United States, to its now continued detriment and the safety and security of its legal citizens and residents, continuing to be a major player in this scenario when it was the British that actually are responsible for this mess to begin with?
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100315/a7edf3a9-22f1-4602-8b68-902bdbf7dad2
Showing posts with label lobby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobby. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Israeli Lobby's Outrage Questionable
It was reported in the APP (American Propaganda Press) that the Israeli lobby, and those Senators and Congressmen beholding to them, were "outraged" at the Obama Administration's chatising of Israel in light of its announcement during Vice President Biden's visit coincidentally of a zoning decision with respect to Jerusalem that flies in the face of peace talks.
It does appear that the election cycle in the U.S. for the 2010 elections is in full swing, and Israel once again is a centerpoint of both parties political posturing for the American Jewish vote.
And while it is interesting that most of these Senators and Congressmen who do receive quite a bit of funding from the Israeli lobby in this country posture, their outrage truly puzzling.
And also strange since a great many of high level officials in the Obama Administration are and have been huge supporters of the Israeli lobby, and also are Jewish, so this "outrage" seems rather contrived, to say the least.
Israel and those lobbying organizations have claimed that Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East.
I would state that actually America has been probably Israel's strongest ally since World War II, after the Kennedy Adminstration in assisting it's military with their national defense programs and training their military, since it is rather a matter of public record that Israel has received more foreign aid from this country than any other since the end of World War II.
And does, after all, since the 1960's have its own nuclear weaponry at its disposal, and a crack military due to all the aid we have given them over the course of decades.
Johnson's Adminstration funneled literally billions to Israel, as has each successive administration since that time, whether Republican or Democratic.
That an announcement such as the Israel government's of further expansion in Jerusalem would come during this visit, and at a time when the U.S. was pushing for peace talks does seem rather strange, to say the least.
I would ask, how many Israeli soldiers are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to the amount of military aid and dollars this country has poured into Israel after it's national security has been compromised in both the '68 war, and as recently as the Carter Administration?
According to most media reports outside the U.S., Israel has enough fire power to nuke the Middle East at least 10 times over, yet is somehow threatened now by the development of nuclear weaponry by other Arab nations, when its actions such as what occurred this past week does not appear to be along the lines of truly wanting peace, but once again a totally Jewish state even outside the provisions of the Balfour Doctrine which with the British, created the state of Israel even prior to World War I.
It does appear that in the U.S. continuing to ally itself with Israel, our national security has been compromised in the process otherwise how would a 9-11 in this country ever have occurred, since our presence in the Middle East has been facilitated by our alliance with Israel these many decades, even though Britain actually was their "creator" to begin with.
The standard of living, and even national security capabilities of Israel are surpassing that of the United States in leaps and bounds, and our economy now has been fundamentally negatively impacted by the fact that even in an economic recession such as occurring in the U.S. at the present time, foreign aid to Israel still appears to be a top priority with those in Washington.
At this point in history, if Israel as an independent Jewish state is meant to be, isn't that now up to the Creator and not the U.S.?
I mean it does seem rather clear that this actually is the aim, all provisions in that Balfour accord to the contrary, since ceding Israeli land gained in the '68 war that was beyond that original accord has literally taken decades to reverse or even bring the parties to the table to rework, even though those lands were not even a part of the original British agreement at its inception.
"Trade with all nations, alliances (permanent) with none."
America's founders.
And why doesn't the Israeli lobby and their synagoges in this country, or the fundamentalist Christian community that hold with the "end of days" scenario as literal rather than allegorical, not simply donate directly to Israel, if that is where their hearts are and not with this country?
Or immigrate and move there themselves?
And isn't this really Britain's problem, more than the U.S., due to the fact that this original accord was between a British lord and zionist, and banker to begin with under the terms of the Balfour Doctrine?
I mean why is the United States, to its now continued detriment and the safety and security of its legal citizens and residents, continuing to be a major player in this scenario when it was the British that actually are responsible for this mess to begin with?
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100315/a7edf3a9-22f1-4602-8b68-902bdbf7dad2
It does appear that the election cycle in the U.S. for the 2010 elections is in full swing, and Israel once again is a centerpoint of both parties political posturing for the American Jewish vote.
And while it is interesting that most of these Senators and Congressmen who do receive quite a bit of funding from the Israeli lobby in this country posture, their outrage truly puzzling.
And also strange since a great many of high level officials in the Obama Administration are and have been huge supporters of the Israeli lobby, and also are Jewish, so this "outrage" seems rather contrived, to say the least.
Israel and those lobbying organizations have claimed that Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East.
I would state that actually America has been probably Israel's strongest ally since World War II, after the Kennedy Adminstration in assisting it's military with their national defense programs and training their military, since it is rather a matter of public record that Israel has received more foreign aid from this country than any other since the end of World War II.
And does, after all, since the 1960's have its own nuclear weaponry at its disposal, and a crack military due to all the aid we have given them over the course of decades.
Johnson's Adminstration funneled literally billions to Israel, as has each successive administration since that time, whether Republican or Democratic.
That an announcement such as the Israel government's of further expansion in Jerusalem would come during this visit, and at a time when the U.S. was pushing for peace talks does seem rather strange, to say the least.
I would ask, how many Israeli soldiers are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to the amount of military aid and dollars this country has poured into Israel after it's national security has been compromised in both the '68 war, and as recently as the Carter Administration?
According to most media reports outside the U.S., Israel has enough fire power to nuke the Middle East at least 10 times over, yet is somehow threatened now by the development of nuclear weaponry by other Arab nations, when its actions such as what occurred this past week does not appear to be along the lines of truly wanting peace, but once again a totally Jewish state even outside the provisions of the Balfour Doctrine which with the British, created the state of Israel even prior to World War I.
It does appear that in the U.S. continuing to ally itself with Israel, our national security has been compromised in the process otherwise how would a 9-11 in this country ever have occurred, since our presence in the Middle East has been facilitated by our alliance with Israel these many decades, even though Britain actually was their "creator" to begin with.
The standard of living, and even national security capabilities of Israel are surpassing that of the United States in leaps and bounds, and our economy now has been fundamentally negatively impacted by the fact that even in an economic recession such as occurring in the U.S. at the present time, foreign aid to Israel still appears to be a top priority with those in Washington.
At this point in history, if Israel as an independent Jewish state is meant to be, isn't that now up to the Creator and not the U.S.?
I mean it does seem rather clear that this actually is the aim, all provisions in that Balfour accord to the contrary, since ceding Israeli land gained in the '68 war that was beyond that original accord has literally taken decades to reverse or even bring the parties to the table to rework, even though those lands were not even a part of the original British agreement at its inception.
"Trade with all nations, alliances (permanent) with none."
America's founders.
And why doesn't the Israeli lobby and their synagoges in this country, or the fundamentalist Christian community that hold with the "end of days" scenario as literal rather than allegorical, not simply donate directly to Israel, if that is where their hearts are and not with this country?
Or immigrate and move there themselves?
And isn't this really Britain's problem, more than the U.S., due to the fact that this original accord was between a British lord and zionist, and banker to begin with under the terms of the Balfour Doctrine?
I mean why is the United States, to its now continued detriment and the safety and security of its legal citizens and residents, continuing to be a major player in this scenario when it was the British that actually are responsible for this mess to begin with?
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100315/a7edf3a9-22f1-4602-8b68-902bdbf7dad2
Thursday, January 28, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
