The partisan political backbiting and grandstanding continues between America's two political parties gearing up for the 2010 election cycle.

Recently, an advisor on terrorism with the Obama Administration, John Brennan, was interviewed and appeared on Meet the Press in an interview regarding the purported Christmas Day arrest of a supposed member of al Qaeda with links that have been traced back to his recruitment in Yemen by this terrorist organization.

Most of his comments were geared toward defending the Obama Administration's decision to try this individual in the U.S. criminal courts rather than military tribunals, and attacks on the Republican Party members who have criticized this decision publicly since.

In attempting to score points for the Obama Administration and Democratic Party members, Mr. Brennan failed to mention, of course, that such political backstabbing and grandstanding has become the usual course of events post one of these occurrences, and nothing has changed actually with respect to truly redressing the actual climate and conditions which have continued to make such events now almost a routine occurrence.

And that is the globalization and privatization of a great deal of America's infrastructure, open borders policies of both this and the last few Administrations since Reagan and initial attacks as far back as 1992, and placing corporate profits and special interests above the primary job of the federal government itself - to protect America and Americans from foreign attacks - whether civilian or military.

Most of our nuclear reactors and domestic and international airlines are listed on the global stock exchange, affording foreign governments and foreign interests (even those that have been labeled as "unfriendly") to purchase stock and ownership in critical and vital U.S. industries.  Thus, foreigners now own controlling interests in even our nuclear reactors, for heaven sake, many of which are mere miles from heavily populated metro areas.

And the Bush Administration (with a Democratic Congress) afforded free pass visa waivers with mere 48 hour security checks to over 34 different nations in his last 100 days in office, which policies still remain.  Our borders are being opened even wider, and our economy merged more and more with that of foreign governments and interests - so is it any wonder that more and more of these attacks or "failed" attempts are now being discovered?

I mean, we are still engaged in an interventionist war in Iraq which is, for all intents and purposes, being continued under the Bush agendas and expanded yet are affording more and more foreign investment and commercial entry and exit visas during this "undeclared" war under the leadership of both of the mainstream political parties in this country.

With more and more Americans dropping out of those affiliations by the day due to the clearly "corporate special interest" takeover of those parties progressively by the globalists, including Mr. Bush and now Mr. Obama.

America's prime real estate is now being bought up by foreign interests due to this banker manipulated recession, and in effect, foreigners are gaining more and more voice and power with respect to America's foreign and domestic policies through both of those mainstream political parties at this point.

Again, the "change" that has occurred clearly is not the "change" most Americans were seeking - a return to Constitutional government and protection of American lives and livelihoods from foreign competition and agendas at the cost of the American people in both their lives, and their livelihoods due to the global socialism that is running rampant at both the federal, and now the state, levels due to the blackmail and bribery that is occuring more and more at the state and local levels unless they also cowtow to Washington's extra-Constitutional edicts and agendas.

With all that stimulus money going mostly to the local coffers with strings attached yet with them still claiming shortfalls, especially with the massive sums being handed out with respect to domestic surveillance and security matters more and more (and not primarily surveillance of foreigners in this country, but more and more Americans also speaking out about the "corporate" favoring policies and "privileges" at the citizen's expense which are increasing)  in addition to even attaching strings to sums that the federal government is legally required to provide under the Constitution for roadways and infrastructure needs, the states also are to blame in their negligence in protecting the citizenry now also from Washington's power moves at the citizens expense.

And also being beholding to the special interests groups agendas at the state level due to the also unrepresentative government we now have due to the also extra-Constitutional campaign finance laws throughout the nation affording out of district funding for political campaigns by "foreign" interests, both individually and corporately in federal and state elections who fund also those two "corporate" political parties.

It appears that such forums as "Meet the Press" are again being used for both ratings, and campaign purposes, rather than getting to the crux of the matter insofar as national security issues also are concerned. 

Whether this individual is tried in civilian or military courts is actually inconsequential to many Americans at this point.

But just why are these attacks continuing now at an unprecedented rate, when prior to the amalgamization of the U.S. economy and its infrastructure itself, such incidents never occurred due to the fact that in prior generations those individuals that wished to either visit this country, or immigrate, were screened far better than they are today and also there were limited entry and exit points for any and all foreign visitors and immigrants.

My grandparents immigrated in the 20's, and at that time there was one major entry point for all U.S. visitors or immigrants and that was in New York.  And had to have both a sponsor, and a thorough background check prior to entry, even going so far as having a thorough dental examination.

Animals are quarantined in Great Britain for a full year prior to their being afforded to "merge" with the animal population there.  And we are to the point that the precautions taken in order to protect the animal population and even the agricultural industries and their profits, far exceed now those taken to protect the human population in the United States.

We still have fairly porous borders both north and south, even after the loss of an estimated three times the amount of lives which were lost in 9-11 in the nine years since domestically in crimes committed by foreigners, and untold loss of property by those living in the border states.

The political posturing and now mudslinging at this point does appear to make one wonder since these national security issues are being used more and more for partisan politicking in election years that you could say that actually domestic terrorism has become a "job stimulus" for the two mainstream political parties themselves to bend and use for their self-interests.

The primary question that needed to be asked during this "interview" never was broached in any significant manner whatsoever.

Just why are our borders still open, and why is our federal government continuing to favor corporate special interests and their "rights," and profit margins in this Administration and the lasts visa and immigration policies, and in affording foreign investment in our vital industries and real estate to boot post 9-11, over the national security and protection of the American people from foreign invasion and attack, their primary purpose and job?

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100207/6030748e-ccb3-4130-b2c4-3cbc0d8821a5

As the hoopla continues post the presidential address last week over the comments made by Barack Obama regarding the heinous Supreme Court decision with respect to amending the Constitution once again in order to grant more and more privileges and immunities to the phantom "corporate personhood" created by a rogue Supreme Court in the late 1800's, little mention has been made of just who "corporately" will benefit the most over this latest Constititional Bill of Rights trashing.

The corporate media owners and Wall Street once again.

Interesting that such a decision would be selected by the Supreme Court to begin with and at this point in our history (who somehow have given themselves the power to refuse more and more cases brought by the actual citizens in this country, without "corporate" backing over Constitutional provisions, such as their refusals of groups addressing the 16th Amendment, and recently even the citizenship status of the individual holding the highest office in the land due to his unusual upbringing primarily outside the U.S. during most of his formative years).

Interesting due to the fact that it is those advertising revenues for those advertisements which have been dwindling for those media concerns also progressively with more and more newspapers now going belly up, and competition stiff for those ad dollars, after the advent of cable television now that there are over 95 stations for the American people to choose from and more and more appear to be choosing the weather station most of all.

This past presidential election cycle lasted for two full years, in essence with Illinois and Arizona without full Senate representation for major votes, even by those unduly elected representatives to begin with (since the Senate was comprised in the original Constitutional provisions and intent of the founders to be the voice primarily for the states, with the House the voice of the people, and Senate representatives and elections were to be decided by the various state legislatures for selection of Senators, which then kept the corporate influence other than the states issues at bay or diluted more so at least in the Senate). 

And with the Murdoch machine (an actual Brit who simply became an American in order to buy up a great deal of America's print and television media, and who has used his influence and money to sway the political balances in two other countries, Great Britain and Australia previously) promoting his British style conservatism, interesting the timing of both this decision, and the holding of the Court which was more along the British style, once again, of Constitutional interpretation with respect to America's Bill of Rights protections - which was clearly intended for the citizens against the corporate, both governmental and otherwise (remember the Boston Tea Party and the East India Company's "sovereign status" with King George?).

It appears once again Washington is feeding Wall Street and its "sovereign subjects" again at the cost of the American public at large, and undermining the very fabric of our Constitution with respect to representative government in the process, which has been consistently the case now for well over 100 years by those progressives that continue to be selected by each and every Republican or Democratic "corporate" party platform and Administration.

Which platforms also supercede in many respects the actual provisions of the Constitution, and which have hijacked our political process also "progressively," per George Washington's warnings in his famous Farewell Address.

Also interesting is the group that brought this action, and their true corporate status, since it appears that although it has been also represented that this was a citizen rights focused group, as one in which there is also a claimed "educational" focus, it is also eligible for federal grant monies in matching sums. 

So in essence, the federal government itself appears it is using some of these supposed "liberty as commerce" groups that have sprung up in the years since 9-11 in order to use the flag, patriotism and the public at large in order to continue to strip Americans of their Bill of Rights protections against the corporate, in all honesty.

Since why haven't any of these purported Constitutional focused groups used their donations and monies toward funding the Constitutional remedy for such continued treason and abuse of the citizenry, and filed the civil and criminal charges against some of these "misrepresentatives" which is the process that is provided in the Constitution to so do, and many of these groups are actually headed by lawyers or educators?

I would also dispute that it was the "conservative" members of the Court that were behind this latest corporate hijacking of our political process. 

Since this was clearly a "liberal" construction of the Bill of Rights protections under the Constitution intended for the PEOPLE against the government and the corporate, and not a "conservative" one at all.

The corporate lawyers in this country are licking their lips over this one, make no mistake about it, and was also a major job stimulus for them, truth be told.

And this rather narrow holding with respect to a grassroots political PAC organization will be expanded, and expanded and expanded eventually to include corporate "commercial" concerns - even global ones outside the U.S., make no mistake, and appears to have been the true intention at the outset in this screening and selection of this case by the Court.

Our judiciary is simply another political tool in the now one party system - corporate socialism. 

Even Obama during the health care deform consulted with the "stakeholders" and not the Constitution - "stakeholders" who have been consistently now granted more and more corporate friendly legislation over the American people's wallets and livelihoods since the Surpeme Court first trashed the Constitution in somehow adding another party to it - corporate "person-hood."

Why would Congress or the President wish to follow the Constitution and actually regulate those health care providers and concerns adequately per Constitutional provision, rather than fining homeless and jobless Americans for not purchasing their products at their excessively expensive rates, if in regulating those costs for their policies, or providing oversight of those high risk reinvestments and diversifications they continue to make with those profits, or tying any increases in annual amounts in with the CPI it would affect the amounts those Congressmen and Senators, and presidential candidates would receive for their future political careers? 

Now, it appears, in unlimited amounts.  Which means simply that the government in this health care legislation is mandating that you purchase a product from the financial sector, in order that they can then get your dollars through the backdoor in order to further strip you of your rights for their benefit, and your hard earned cash for their next campaign as a "donor" without even any tax credits for your donations.

And although former justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been quoted as criticizing the decision as compromising the future neutrality of the Court, her comments appear to be mere rhetoric also - since the Court has been political almost since the ink was dried on the Constitution per Jefferson's comments with respect to one branch in which there truly was not at all an adequate "check" on their powers, and who placed themselves as the arbiter of Constitutionality even outside the jury provisions which were actually meant to prevent such a clearly political decision such as this one from occurring.

And have done so consistently also through its voluminous and ludicrous Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure every since, using even some of those court rules in order to circumvent the Constitution, and people's access to the court system itself.

And the Court and Congress actually have no inherent "rights" to redefine the fundamental basis for a representative government in any statute, law or court rendering. 

In other words, you cannot have a truly representative government as clearly intended by those founders if candidates are funded or "promoted" or receiving campaign backing by any individuals or corporate concerns outside their own legislative districts. 

Not to mention national and international corporate monies, which in effect then eventually might mean that the bin Laden family, or the British royal family, or Mr. Murdoch himself (a British national, all appearances to the contrary) could spread their cash for key committee leadership races and not only undermine the entire American political process, but hijack actually our government placing it under foreign rulership and control.

Even more so than it already is under the British bankers which own our own Federal Reserve.

So America, while the media pundits at Fox (the national animal of the British, mind you) are celebrating this victory and painting it as heralding a return to "freedom" and the First Amendment rights of the people, while the purported "liberal" organizations are crying "foul," remember it is all simply an act for public consumption on the part of those media owners and moguls.

Since they just got handed a privilege and immunity over that of the true citizend and people of this nation purposely and deliberately that will guarantee that more and more of America's wealth, and its political process, will be "corporately" determined, and their profit margins increased and also watch the election cycle in presidential years become more and more of a circus than it already is.

A neutral and independent judiciary? 

Obama and Alito should be nominated for Academy awards at this point for best actor by a politician of the new seat for the entertainment industry, Washington.

Or at least declare and disclose their true employment status and benefits packages as not public servants at all, but corporate directors.

 

Post the Teri Schiavo case so long ago, it appears that many states throughout the nation are using both the courts, and new statutes in order to redefine the provisions of many of those "living wills" that are being marketed and sold to a great many Americans as part of their estate planning.

Recently, a story was related to me by a resident of the State of Louisiana that demonstrated just what is occuring after the death of Teri Schiavo - who died, of course, under a judicial fiat in Florida a few years ago deeming that feeding and hydration intubation also was a artificial life support, rather than the definition that had held and was understood by most Americans to be "mechanical methods" such as respirators or other devices while the hope due to brain damage and such gave little hope for a recovery without major heart/brain or other organ function irreversable.

It seems this young woman's grandmother had suffered a stroke at a rather young age according to life expectancy charts, and was being fed due to her inability to swallow post the stroke and was being fed and hydrated by artificial means by feeding tubes and hydrated intravenously.  She was still aware and alert although had some minimal brain damage due to the stroke, which doctors felt even could be reversed.

Apparently, one of the members of the family thought and felt differently, and hired a lawyer to challenge and remove the feeding tubes and hydration methods per what occurred with Ms. Schiavo. 

The grandmother had executed a "living will," although at the time the will was executed, Louisiana law did not view hydration and feeding intubation as "artificial means" but "basic sustenance" which is needed by all humans in order to survive. 

Remove hydration, especially, and the organs progressively begin to shut down one by one.  In fact, this is the worse method for any human life to end since the body literally then feeds upon itself in order to survive.

After the Schiavo case, this young woman learned during the court proceedings that Louisiana law was change in order then post Schiavo to redefine and include "basic sustenance" also as "artificial means," and a judge so ruled again in that state that the feeding and hydration tubes should be removed per the terms of her grandmother's living will.

Now even included in hospital admittance forms some states are including such language as "artificial" life support, without also including upon the admittance of those patients that state laws are changing with respect to the clear definition of just what is, and what is not, "artificial life support." 

And how many patients, or their closest relatives or spouses charged with signing all those lengthy forms now upon admittance have the time or even awareness in such a time of fear for their loved one or emergency to ask some of those very relevant questions prior to treatment?  In the future, could not, say, an insurance company as the payor then also bring suit in order to discontinue payment for provision of such measures under these now changing laws throughout the nation?

Even now the laws regarding euthansia are being written, however, how many patients really at the time such a decision might be broached by a doctor or even relative, can make a sane, rational decision in such respect when many are even under medications that make even those "sound mind" common law provisions with respect to the execution of legal documents questionable?

Taxing not only citizens while they are living, but also now even their accumulated assets after death (upon which taxes actually have already been paid, absent the current year's assets or accumulations) does appear that greed at the state level and the commercial interests that also are involved such as those insurers and even beneficiaries without having any "legal" authority or powers of attorney "rights" given who favor death over life for personal or corporate gain are gaining legal "rights" in leaps and bound changing many of those living wills executed in years gone by fundamentally in the process.

All those boomers that are now aging to retirement age might just want to once again compare their living wills with their state laws now, and while still of "sound mind," redefine their clear wishes in this regard before it is too late and find that the state and commercial interests (or their rogue relative) has beat them to the punch.

 

Although the mortgage meltdown is still continuing primarily in the West and Southwest and Sunbelt States since the only real assistance that has been facilitated by the new Obama Administration has been directed toward new home buyers and pushing refinancing (which actually stimulates the bankers and Wall Street once more with all those upfront fees and costs for those new loans), hopefully take the advice of one who lost hers in this tsunami for various reasons - escalating property taxes due to the short lived "boom", property insurance costs due to its then increased valuation tied to those rates, auto insurance costs due to the open borders thefts and higher than normal accident rates for the Phoenix metro area, and ease and enjoyment of it due to covenants and restrictions on the property that increased in severity and costs of my enjoyment of it inflicted by "the state" after its purchase during my 12 year "ownership" of it.

Read the fine print, especially with respect to the basis for the loan itself.

My loan actually was sold by one of those "riskier" lenders due to a refinance that I was forced into for some of the above reasons, and was based upon a London market based rate - the LIBOR.

Not even U.S. prime, mind you, but a London banking rate.

Since the British pound or Euro is at higher levels in the currency exchange market, of course, that also made the increases in the ARM rate that was also a part of the loan terms increase even more than one based on the U.S. dollar and U.S. prime.

How those banks could sell loans based on the British market in this country, I haven't a clue.

But new home buyers and refinancers look out and read that fine print and make sure it is based on at least U.S. prime, since it doesn't appear any further regulation of those banks was at all part of this "rescue" for those still at this juncture losing theirs.

In fact, absolutely no regulation at all has been included addressing the terms of some of those loans in their "usurous" terms and interest rates, and of course the huge junk fees that were charged in order to even get some of those loans to begin with.

Last month again saw more foreclosures, and also a slower market than the year before. 

Apparently, the buying public is getting wise to the fact that a home purchase at this point in this country is becoming more of a liability, than an asset and a "high risk" investment that can be snatched from them during the next banker/Congressional manipulated meltdown.

Take a clue from one who learned at an advanced age (56) and after 12 years of "non-ownership" and one who this was not the first home purchase, and had legal knowledge and experience - be careful before signing on the dotted line since it seems the market is now geared toward the sharks, and not the Constitution with respect to home or land property rights and ownership.

The tsunami was one huge "taking," facilitated by Congress and the Fed in their negligence since those loans were primarily sold in the West Coast market and strangely Michigan for several years during that boom and bust cycle, and fixed rate and assumables have almost gone the way of the dinosaur for added banker profits - meaning you may qualify for that home today, but since those rates are based on a foreign currency and market better now than that of the U.S. - it will be, of course, Americans and not foreigners (from Canada and Europe now living in the U.S.) who will lose those homes.

Or those that can't speak English in order to even read those now forty to fifty page loan documents to begin with. 

And remember that any lawyer legally required at closing by the states, works more for the industry than for you since most are referred by those title companies, banks or realtors getting those huge fees also at close of escrow.

Beware the LIBOR.

 

The Supreme Court has done it again. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where were these justices educated?  Great Britain?

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

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

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

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

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

While Barack Obama is enjoying his vacation in Copenhagen along with the other world leaders in the name of saving the planet from its eventual demise due to carbon emissions (and in which the carbon emissions from the private jets of those world leaders beats the average citizen of all those countries by about 100 to 1), a Christmas gift is being prepared for the financial sector and health care industry that will, as they say, "keep on giving."

Apparently this bogus health care reform legislation just will not die, no matter how much the American people have already spoken loud and clear regarding the focus of the legislation, which is actually nothing more than a job stimulus for the top wage earners and corporate health care industries bottom line profits, at the cost mostly of middle class Americans.

That middle class that is disappearing in leaps and bounds, which will live in infamy as having become extinct in the first half of the twenty first century.

While Washington keeps promising that this will enable those that cannot now afford insurance to do so, with all the new creative spins on different options that will be available, the bottom line is that at this point there are so many now jobless and homeless that the cost of any health insurance at all is out of reach for most - yet those people will be the ones fined and penalized if this plan comes to fruition.

Also, much has been publicized about the "accountability" measure that will be built in so that the health care industry will be held accountable, which is what actually has been long overdue in regulating this vital industry on which every single American depends.  But with the bill at now over 2,000 pages, little has been said about just how these accountability measures are going to be enforced - since, of course, most of the health care insurance industries offices are actually incorporated at the state, not federal, level. 

And there are no "licenses" per se needed or given for any of these corporate entities - even though at this point many of them are actually global concerns and operating in this country without any effective regulation whatsoever.

In fact, about a decade ago Congress pass another of their backroom "Acts" which actually precluded the states from regulating most of these entities at the state level in any manner whatsoever - in the name, of course, of "free enterprise." 

Only the "enterprise" we are speaking of are Americans lives.

And also much publicized has been the fact that employers will be required to provide insurance for their employees.  Of course, in the article recently published it noted that this only applies if the employee involved is eligible for any "federal subsidies" for his health care costs. 

In other words, the only real requirement or enforcement which will be made against employers is actually nothing more than a bribe - you offer insurance to your employees, Uncle Sam and the taxpayers will then reimburse you for some of those costs.

Nor is their language that determines whether those requirements mean that the employer must pick up the full costs for that health care coverage.  Most employers of large corporations do as a fringe benefit for other than part time or hourly workers, at least for the worker. 

It is amazing that instead of providing federal subsidies for employers (not citizens, it appears), it is too difficult to actually simplify our out of control tax code and make, as with corporate entities at the present time, any and all sums paid by individual Americans for health care coverage fully tax deductible - in order to then equalize that unequal "privilege and immunity" that has been given to corporate entities over sole proprietors or self employed individuals for literally decades.

And I would like to know on what Constitutional authority Washington is basing its "mandatory" provisions in that Americans must purchase a "product," which health insurance coverage actually is, or face sanctions and fines from Uncle Sam if they do not feed their corporate benefactors?

I don't see that anywhere in the 23 page copy I have of the U.S. Constitution - in fact, it does state that no citizen shall be deprived of "property" in any manner by the government without "due process of law."

And there hasn't been any "due process" with respect to consulting the citizenry or listening to their cries for regulation, both of the costs and of the practices, of these industries. 

In fact, the only ones consulted seem to be the "stakeholders."

And as "stakeholders," does that not now mean that every single health care company, and provider, now is nothing more than an "agent" of the government, at this point - and those health care and financial sector industries - "state actors" and part of the government now itself.

Those involved are calling this legislation "historic," reminescent of Social Security - the program that the federal government has bankrupted by both unlawfully dipping into those sums for extra-Constitutional functions, and by distributing it not simply for the original reason it was intended - for those that, in their older years, were unable to work or who had not, due to circumstances beyond their control (such as the Depression, as it was intended to be only temporary) had the means to save enough through their incomes (especially after the rather questionable "tax on labor" went into effect) for their basic provision and needs. 

And just what is going to occur at the state level, since so many states are now collecting taxes hands over fist for many of the state run programs that provide health care for those that are uninsureable, or cannot afford insurance which the state citizens have been funding now for decades?

Oh, and insofar as the requirement that individuals cannot be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions? 

Watch what has occurred in other areas where the insurance industry is involved.  No denials of coverage, just setting those premiums at rates only the top 10% of the population could afford to pay.

This will be historic legislation alright. 

Legislation that is making old Ben spin right about now.

Apparently, the "smoke and mirrors" actions of those in Washington now over this health care deform disaster of a bill is getting more and more furious.

At over 2,000 pages, from its inception it is nothing more than the second Lawyers Employment Act legislation (the first being the Patriot Act itself) mostly for the revenues of those in the legal profession, many of whom in Washington are also members.

The argument over federal funding for elective abortions actually is such hyperbole it is at this point incredible, and does go to show just how much the media is being used in order to shift the focus on many of the provisions of the bill which bear further scrutiny while focusing on a really inconsequential provision.

Why inconsequential?

As with the health care bill's focus on whether or not it should provide benefits for immigrants, whether legal or otherwise (since this broad terminology will be played with in the courts in the near future on a "test" case using an illegal in order to set a precedent),  this argument now over elective abortions is redudant and really "after the fact," since at the present time health care for legal or illegal immigrants is already provided under separate legislation that was enacted "behind closed doors" but apparently only known widely by those who have lived in a border state for any length of time, as is also elective abortions. 

How so?

Many groups and "civic" organizations throughout the country receive federal funding for their programs through grant monies provided. 

Planned Parenthood, as a deemed "educational institution" primarily is one of them, and also provides services for elective abortions - in fact, is one of the civic organization that has become the focus of those opposing abortion, but also those not at all opposing abortion in and of itself, but opposing the "partial birth" abortion method utilized throughout the country at some public or low cost health care clinics now. 

The procedure that is nothing more than the "section and suction" extraction that has resulted in many women becoming subseqently sterile in the process due to the procedure itself which can and has pierced a woman's uterus effectively making her unable to carry a full term child thereafter.

And is in the opinion of many, barbaric in its method.

But this argument, without recission of the grant monies that are given now to many of these groups throughout the nation for elective abortions, has done a great job in swinging all those that have been crying foul over the entire focus of this bill to selective features of it.

Which apparently is the goal, after all, not the fact that the entire bill was written for and by the special interest groups and industries which will once again benefit without any fundamental changes in both the provision of health care in this country or its costs.

While charging many a now jobless and homeless American another "fee" and "tax" for Washington if they are unable to comply.  In essence, if Americans do not cowtow to Washington's will, they will pay a price.  A little less than the cost of getting that coverage - but either Big Daddy, or their special interest "favored subject" will profit, come hell or highwater.

Regulation, and performing their Constitutional function would address the difficulties that actually lack of regulation has created most of all, and also the expense and globalization of this financial sector into high risk investments they have progressively done with all those excess premium payments in weak economies thus then making their premium payers take some of those losses - with their very lives in denied coverages.

I mean, this legislations was the most expensive undertaking the health care industry has ever funded.  Which means their profit margins at this point are off the charts in order to have paid six figure salaries to all those lobbyists on K Street in order to once again increase their bottom line profits at the American public's expense. 

Americans will once again be feeding the global investors in the health care sector, at now the cost of their very lives - and bankbooks.

It appears, soon all Americans will be on welfare due to legislating with this mindset and logic.

 

Apparently, the "smoke and mirrors" actions of those in Washington now over this health care deform disaster of a bill is getting more and more furious.

At over 2,000 pages, from its inception it is nothing more than the second Lawyers Employment Act legislation (the first being the Patriot Act itself) mostly for the revenues of those in the legal profession, many of whom in Washington are also a members.

The argument over federal funding for elective abortions actually is such hyperbole it is at this point incredible, and does go to show just how much the media is being used in order to shift the focus on many of the provisions of the bill which bear further scrutiny while focusing on a really inconsequential provision.

Why inconsequential?

As with the health care bill's focus on whether or not it should provide benefits for illegal immigrants, this argument now over elective abortions is redudant and really "after the fact," since at the present time health care for illegal immigrants is already provided under separate legislation that was enacted "behind closed doors" as it were, as is also elective abortions.

How so?

Many groups and "civic" organizations throughout the country receive federal funding for their programs through grant monies provided. 

Planned Parenthood, as a deemed "educational institution" primarily is one of them, and also provides services for elective abortions - in fact, is one of the civic organization that has become the focus of those opposing abortion, but also those not at all opposing abortion in and of itself, but opposing the "partial birth" abortion method utilized throughout the country at some public or low cost health care clinics now. 

The procedure that is nothing more than the "section and suction" extraction that has resulted in many women becoming subseqently sterile in the process due to the procedure itself which can and has pierced a woman's uterus effectively making her unable to carry a full term child thereafter.

And is in the opinion of many, barbaric in its method.

But this argument, without recission of the grant monies that are given now to many of these groups throughout the nation for elective abortions, has done a great job in swinging all those that have been crying foul over the entire focus of this bill to selective features of it.

Which apparently is the goal, after all, not the fact that the entire bill was written for and by the special interest groups and industries which will once again benefit without any fundamental changes in both the provision of health care in this country or its costs.

While charging many a now jobless and homeless American another "fee" and "tax" for Washington if they are unable to comply.  In essence, if Americans do not cowtow to Washington's will, they will pay a price.  A little less than the cost of getting that coverage - but either Big Daddy, or their special interest "favor subject" will profit, come hell or highwater.

Regulation, and performing their Constitutional function would address the difficulties that actually lack of regulation has created most of all, and also the expense and globalization of this financial sector into high risk investments they have progressively done with all those excess premium payments.

I mean, this legislations was the most expensive undertaking the health care industry has ever funded.  Which means their profit margins at this point are off the charts in order to have paid six figure salaries to all those lobbyists on K Street in order to once again increase their bottom line profits at the American public's expense. 

Americans will once again be feeding the global investors in the health care sector, at now the cost of their very lives - and bankbooks.

It appears, soon all Americans will be on welfare due to legislating with this mindset and logic.

 

It was announced by Barack Obama that in accordance with his campaign statements that he is deploying 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq in order to seek out Osama bin Laden and the members of al Qaeda per the original Resolution passed by Congress in the wake of 9-11 (after, of course, at first promising to end the engagement in the Middle East altogether after so many lives, and so many American dollars have been lost in the over eight years since 9-11).

The question is, with the guarantee of support from the Afghan government with respect to this redress for the deaths and lives lost on that fateful September day, why the need for 30,000 troops rather than a limited deployment of intelligence and career military officers?

Not to second guess the commanders on the ground as a mere citizen, but is it really necessary to risk an additional 30,000 U.S. lives in order to capture one leader and those that were DIRECTLY responsible for giving those that participated "aid and comfort" in the planning of  9-11 which is the exact wording of the original Resolution?

The original pilots, after all, were Saudi citizens.  It was only days after the attacks that it was revealed that bin Laden had claimed reponsibility for the attacks - and with the assistance of the Taliban, as I recall, not al Qaeda, although the two have been merged now in this loosely defined "War on Terror" which evolved under the Bush Administration.

So far, the body count in Iraq is minimal compared to prior full scale declared wars but still staggering for the U.S. given that these individuals are actually using rudimentary weapons most of all, including themselves.

And the amount of money now which has been poured into the rebuilding efforts actually has resulted in the U.S. deficit soaring to unprecedented levels even before all the other "funny money" was printed in order to then "salvage" the U.S. economy in the domestic loss of jobs and the foreclosure mess which occurred in large part due to the inflationary costs and those taxes for the war itself, actually.

As funds were appropriated for the war, less funds were appropriated for domestic needs and costs and the budget for an entire new Department (DHS) and its expensive toys burst the "true" inflation (not the published spin) in rising costs for fuel, groceries and local taxes now for eight years - and then even with the stimulus, states are announcing college tuition cost increases, added taxes and a host of other new ways to bankrupt Americans, of course, after Washington then went so far as to tax the air Americans now breathe.

It was interesting and outrageous to note that one of the Congressional members is proposing a new "tax" on Americans labeled the SOS tax (Congress and the media whom it appears they consult more and more for PR purposes love the acronyms for new legislation, unlike days gone by with bills less than 50 pages tops.  The size of the average mortgage loan these days, which has also increased from less than five pages to 50 or more, with all the riders and caveats).

I wonder how much destruction we can now wreck in Afghanistan in order to bulk up the revenue, jobs and coffers of the U.S. military contractors once again in order to further plunge this country into a full out depression, since the global economy may be seeing signs of improving, but thus far the U.S. economy continues to tank in order to feed all those other nations and European investors.

By the time this war ends, it appears that what will truly have transpired is that there will eventually have been a leveraged buyout of most of America's infrastructure and assets by foreigner investors.

We will lose our country to foreigners while fighting a foreign enemy and without a shot fired on domestic soil.

One man which has somehow alluded capture now for over eight years by the finest military in the entire world.

Just when are some of those other promises going to be kept, Mr. Obama, such as making Iraq start picking up the tab actually for this rebuilding effort in which it seems the U.S. funds and builds government buildings only to then have them blown up once again?

While Ms. Clinton then attempts to switch hats, as it were, as ambassador for Iraq and urge what is left of corporate America unrelated to those military contractors to invest in Iraq?

It appears maybe that it would be only the global insurance companies that would profit on businesses that wish to now outsource American production to that country post the rebuilding effort, in hiring then cheaper Iraqi labor in order to then pay those stratospheric insurance rates.

Just how, again, can Congress and the President justify risking 30,000 additional U.S. lives in order to supposedly redress the loss of 2,500 - after, of course, having lost at least three times that many to date?

Is this now the mentality of those on the Hill in defending America, while of course leaving our borders open and affording foreign investors in our nuclear reactors throughout the country for those global markets?

Isn't it the U.S. economy, security and safety and not the global one, that is supposed to be the focus of our elected representatives, since it would appear that fighting a foreign enemy on their own home turf gives us a one down no matter what the engagement, and we've got plenty of risk now due to continued negligence and promoting "foreign investment" in American assets on our own shores at this point?

Isn't the risk of attack by foreign terrorists much greater from within at this point, than without with such skewered logic?

Just how many more lives will be risked in order to secure the Middle East as a permanent source of income for War, Inc. in the name of "jobs and the economy" for the telecom, networks, media, and thousands of military contractors?

Are these again some of the "new jobs" created in addition to those which were primarily taxpayer paid additional government jobs under the non-stimulus (rather than the red-lining promised)?

Do you think after these past two administrations particularly, the American public trusts either the Republicans or Democratic Globalists in any manner whatsoever, except to keep the balls spinning and give public appearances that belie the collusion now involved between both parties in continuing this fiasco?

Is this a war in providing for the common defense of America?  Or expansion of a global agenda and result of pemanent alliances with differing interests at the cost of America and Americans?

The proposed timeline and ending of this war really says it all.  2011.  Coincidentally, just prior to the next presidential campaign election cycle in order to be rehashed for the consumption of America and spun and spun some more by the Global Socialist Party now residing on the Hill.  It will, of course, end as "politically" as it appears that it began.

And an enemy for which this country would never, ever have if it had practiced the "defensive war" measures provided in America's founding documents per the "intent" of the founders.

These were trained terrorists, trained by the U.S. government in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, from all reports.  So trying these individuals in America's federal courts once again also seems to be a political move in order to again rachet up the temperature in America for the continuing war when the details are rehashed on CNN and FOX of the "evidence" for the accused for all America.

Of course, since it will be a world audience involved the Middle Eastern countries will get the impression that the United States citizens are still out for revenge and blood after eight years since actual combat footage of what truly is occurring in Iraq has been suspiciously absent, unlike Viet Nam, so the blood lust will be reignited for the New York trial and the American people the convictors hearing the "evidence," from foreigners that speak little, if any, English at all.

A military target was involved, and these were "soldiers" trained in covert activities.  And the mastermind still remains at large, so once captured what type of "plea bargain" will be available for any of these now to be tried, one of whom at least it is claimed was an active participant, in order to convict Mr. bin Laden?

And since our military did train them initially, would they also not be more familiar with their history and an "open" military trial, per the Nuremburg Trials, more along the lines of what is called for here?

The timing of these trials, and now announcement of the surge in conjunction, seems War, Inc. is not about to end before this country is brought to its knees both economically, and in the theft of thousands more of America's youth.

For Any And All American Conserve-atives (not the British variety ala Fox News):

In light of the upcoming funerals and media coverage of the loss of additional American lives in the wake of the Fort Hood incident in Texas this week, it appears now the media spins are getting wider, deeper and more and more furious by the day.

Since America's presence in the Middle East in some form or another has been a fact since that British "taking" of the land now comprising Israel prior to World War I in an agreement entered into between a British Lord of the Realm and a British banker zionist, America's continued loss of life on behalf of this foreign non-U.S. based accord is becoming greater and greater by the year.

And what has been interesting has been one fundamental question which the media has not in any significant manner raised during the past several days of the "analysis" that are being made on both liberally based and focused mainstream sources - funded by either the Republican Globalists or Democratic Globalists ala FOX and CNN.

Just why would an avowed pacifist and war protestor enlisted or continued serving in the U.S. military during the continuation of this war, which has now gone on for more than eight years after the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

Most enlistees, or even those career military officers - which is more likely since the accused is or was the base psychiatrist apparently - tours of duties come up for renewal in two to four year increments. 

The outrage of the American people, and the clearly questionable now basis for our continued presence in that region has been a well known fact as based upon false intelligence for over five years at this point.  And was, after all, the major focus of most of the liberals in their other extra-Constitutional positions who, however, were the major supporters of Mr. Obama in his run for the roses as the "change" candidate, after all.  Although disagreement with the continuation of this war as not in any way at all based upon Constitutional provision, or the intent of the founders with respect to defensive wars as hoping this country would remain as neutral as possible in such events as the continued Middle East situation, is not a liberal position at all, but actually a conservative one.

Most of these so called "progressives" and "liberals" of course now have continued to be suspiciously silent, although Mr. Obama is clearly following the Bush agendas and agreements which were reached with the "new" Iraqi government in his last 100 days in office calling for the withdrawal of all American troops by 2011, coincidentally just prior to the new U.S. presidential election cycle. 

So it will end just as politically as it began apparenlty - and not legally or Constitutionally brought or now ended in any manner whatsoever.

Now it is being reported the suspect will be tried in a military court, as deemed not an overt act of terrorism.  And, of course, terrorism itself is a practice used by many in our media and also those now serving on the Hill against the American people now more so than even most of these branded extremist Iraqi groups - whose very existence and training were, after all, at the hands of the U.S. military to begin with.

The suspects now behavior prior to the incident is now uncovering some connections to spiritual leaders in this country and the Middle East.

But just how did most of these individuals, after all, be approved for immigration to this country I haven't a clue, although the suspect appears to be an American citizen by birth and not an immigrant or naturalized citizen.

And at last count, over 80% of the American people are dissatisfied with our continued presence in this war now that the focus has shifted from the events surrounding what occurred those many years ago, to building up a U.S force and presence now in that region on behalf of Israel most of all once again.

And, of course, to fatten the bank books of the Wall Street financiers and those invested in the military industrial and manufacturing areas in this country.  All those "science based" technology firms which this Administration and the last were feeding at the cost of American soldiers and families.   Silicon Valley is bursting at the seams at this point, although California's governor whining about a shortfall.

Unbeliveable.

My heart goes out to the families of those affected, but it would appear that the perpetrators and blame that is shifting is being shifted from the true source of the cause of their actual losses.

And that is, once again, a foreign and military policy in this country that is centered not on national security whatsoever, but nation building and agressive and pre-emptive wars.

At the cost of the families of many Americans, not simply those that were and have been lost now in the past eight years - and a domestic security problem that has not been solved at all by the creation of that massive Department of Homeland Security.

Since that Department has decreased, rather than increased, its budgeting and funding for the measures needed to truly secure this country rather than giving monies to Mexico and Israel in the form of foreign aid for the Silcon Valley venture capitalists profits, many of whose investors are foreigners also, after all, with British and Middle Eastern investors.  

Funds were once again cut for the needed border fencing and security, and instead this and the last Administration also expanded its Visa waiver and immigration policies ten fold since 9/11 occurred.

In fact, a better name for this agency at this point is the Department of Homeland Insecurity.  With the running of their paid ads warning Americans to "have a plan" appearing to be the only real attempts to actually address the true defensive measures that would fundamentally secure this country from any such future incidents.

Such as reducing the number of airports and such available for those traveling to this country.  As Ellis Island was in the past maybe having three or four points of entry, rather than affording foreign based and owned airlines, ships and other modes of travel access to the interior airports and such would and could reduce the threat of any further attacks.

British Airways was given a contract for service to Phoenix years ago, and there are many foreign owned airlines with such contracts throughout the nation at the present time. 

It does appear that break downs in communications and also the shear number now of agencies involved in these domestic and foreign surveillance departments are having an adverse affect and not the solution, but part of the problem.

As it appears is becoming now clear in this incident, as it was in the original loss of lives on September 11th - since that also as blamed on a breakdown of communications between the FBI and DoD.  Now we have the FBI, DoD and Homeland Security pointing fingers.

So just where is the change, except more of the same, and around another 50 more dead or wounded Americans?
 

Just to continue to point out now how ludicrous this health care deform continues to be, and how unconstitutional actually instead of regulating those corporate interests rather than getting in bed with them as those on the Hill did all last summer, it was reported in the mainstream media that AARP is now on the bandwagon in order to facilitate passage of this massive bill that was written by AARP, the AMA, corporate labor unions, and financial sector and health care industries.

The spokesman, however, it was reported didn't want to "jump the gun" in the piece published today, since he said it was scheduled to be announced on Thursday by the "corporate" offices of AARP.

AARP ceased to be a senior advocacy group literally years ago, and is now nothing more than a front for the various special interest groups and insurers mainly that those members are marketed to for the supplemental insurance plans under Medicare at the present time.

Policies that in most instance are merely gravy for those insurers, since as the primary care provider Medicare actually calls the shots and approves the levels of treatment.  And many doctors due to all the red tape involved with Medicare actually have posted notices that the are now refusing to accept any new Medicare patients.

And you think things would change in that respect with any 'socialized" Washington plan for health care?

The doctors will simply once again shift the costs for their reduced rates to either those that can afford it, or in upping the ante for their research grants and other already government welfare that these industries at the present time receive.

This story, however, was under the story about the cat in Iowa that was discovered to have swine flu, now politically renamed H1N1 so as not to upset some of the faith that believes pigs are satanic and unclean, as they were a part of pagan worships from the Roman age in Greece and Rome.

And those Iowa farmers do deserve a little kick in the pants apparently for getting all heated up after an Iowa judge "legalized" gay marriage "rights" in the State of Iowa, over the protest of a good deal of the population since it did appear that Iowa already had a civil marriage statute that actually already was in force at the time the case was brought by those gay activist civil rights lawyers who are also getting paid their legal fees courtesy of the American taxpayers for these state and federal actions under another one of those "hush hush" 1,000 page bills that Congress no longer reads.

And if this country has to now pass a formal bill and law stating that all members of Congress must read a bill before it is voted on, this country is in a good deal more trouble than most of us already have concluded watching the past Bush and now Obama Administrations since our government now resembles more Barnum & Bailey than the Stars and Stripes at this point.

While it continues to be the civilians and American people who are being victimized and made homeless and jobless more and more by the day.

You know, the GM workers, and those real Joe the Plumbers, not the Mayor Bloombergs, Arnold Schwartezneggers, and other venture capitalists who are selling off this country's prime real estate, and industrial base now right and left.

Congress, the Supreme Court, and Executive office are now titles that are merely the politically correct terminology for "insider traders" and "corporate lobbyists" themselves at this point. 

As a matter of fact to show that AARP is not at all an elder advocacy group, I got an application from them many years ago actually.

Before I was even 50 hawking their "reduced rate" insurance policies and other trade affiliated vendors.

I guess 45 is the new 65.

 

A Georgia federal district court judge, Clay Land, in United States District Court once again turned down a valid challenge by a U.S. citizen with respect to the eligibillity challenges which have been undertaken by several different groups previously calling for production of Barack Obama's birth certificate as confirmation of his lawful natural born citizen status per the express terms of the U.S. Constitution with respect to any individual holding the highest office under it.
It appears that this particular judge no longer holds the common law, and codified law of the United States of "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the thing as it speaks ) with respect to Constitutional interpretation.
And ignoring such a clear legal duty and provision with respect to the judiciary to make a clear and judicious review of such documentation for both legitimacy and legality is clearly in order here.  Especially since this nation is still involved in a "global" war on terror, and now domestic spying program post 9/11.
Of course, while our own borders still remain unsecured, and the Bush Administration then also afforded over 43 countries free pass Visa waivers with 48 hour turnaround security checks prior to his leaving office.
I think most individuals would agree, that such a provision was made for obvious reasons by the founders.
So that no other allegiance or loyalty to any other country, or their interests, would precede the president's duties and obligations to this country and its citizens in the carrying out of his official duties and functions.  Especially as Commander in Chief of the military.
And this particular case was brought by a soldier who owes allegiance to both this country and its Commander in Chief while on active duty.
And considering Mr. Obama's rather unusual upbringing, much of which was clearly outside the United States which he fully admits, and as a lawyer himself would appear would see the clear need for such provision.
Since political parties themselves were also not at all included as "legal" parties to the Constitution at the outset.  Since those federalists and anti-federalists actually settled their differences upon the ratification process, and agreement and later enactment of Patrick Henry's Bill of Rights in order to protect the "people" from abuses of both their federal and state government with respect to the "unalienable" rights stated thereunder.
The judge clearly showed his bias, and actually disdain for the Constitution in his further comments, calling such requests and measures from LEGAL U.S. citizens in this country, "frivolous."
And yet the federal government under the stimulus enacted legislation calls for the creation of a National Health Care Database containing all Americans very private medical records through their now obvious "state actors," the health insurance industry and their associated organizations ala the East India Tea Company and their "favored status" with the British sovereign at the time of the original revolution?
And are continuing on legislation with respect to this health care deform which is and has been clearly disputed as outside their also legal authority, and Constitutional duties and functions other than to regulate those industries more significantly in order to reduce those costs, since it has been the costs, not the availability, that has been the major problem for most of those that still remain uninsured.
Or denials in honoring most of the representations of many of those agents which sold them to the American public now progressively, in even renegotiating and changing the provisions unilaterally in many instances without any notice, or negotiation of the insureds paying those horrendous premiums.
While closed door meetings were held with the industries on these measures, and it appears will also be so convoluted again with hundreds of pages of legalese involved in order to further give the lawyers in this country and the ACLU another stimulus at the public's expense, the federal courts are now denying proof of the clear eligibility of a publicly paid employee that is facilitating now "fining" citizens in order to once again increase Washington's bottom lines and the insurer's and their stockholder's profit margins and capital gains?
The judge also stated that such a matter was not a "duty" of the court, and went so far as to state that if he so ordered proof, that this would open the door in the event a potential candidate lied about his age in order to gain office.
This just goes to show why Washington said that political parties in and of themselves could destroy this nation from within, if foreign interests didn't do so from without.  And it appears that both the political parties and their "foreign" interests are doing just that "progressively."
And since this off-the-wall ruling that flies in the face of all manner of law and the hundreds years precedent of res ipsa loquitor that precedes it with respect to Constitutional interpretation (which few judges have followed also in the past which also has lead to where we are today, an "unrepresentative" government on every level), I wonder if the district court judge involved just so happened to go to Harvard also.
Which apparently is also either teaching more and more British based "precedents" in this country as law, or is also even at those six figure per semester tuition rates, another of our failing schools.
I bet this one comes up when or if Arnold Schwartenegger decides to take a run for the roses.
But as with our liberally cluesless media, if that is the case and another such movement should occur, I doubt that those individuals will be called "birthers," as has been the spin placed by the Obama worshippers come hell or high water (and hell is looking pretty good to some of us at this point after these first eight months in the levels of back door taxation and property thefts of the citizenry are concerned for Mr. Obama's global agendas ala Bush).
They will simply be called Americans.
And any judge that would in any such event so rule as Mr. Land has in this case, Benedict Arnold.
My only problem with this entire matter is that insofar as my beliefs, Mr. Obama clearly does not fulfill the "intent" of the founders also with respect to the entire provision, and the background from which it came and reasons therefor. And why this particular case was brought in that federal district is beyond me, when it is not really one of the most Constitution honoring jurisdictions to begin with historically in some of their renderings in the past, along the lines of the 9th Circuit in wacko California, so liberal that it also doesn't recognize the Constitution in any manner whatsoever as of late.
And due to the hijacking of our entire government by two mainstream political parties at this juncture without any also Constitutional basis in fact, not "duly elected" per the judges also stated reasons for his refusal in that the "people had chosen" the president (right, and just what were the choices, your honor, since the two political parties have an inside track on the entire process and accept even campaign donations and/or sponsorship from foreigners at this point, and were illegally elected even to Congress in the first place, having accepted "foreign" campaign donations and sponsorship and thus not "representatives" of the citizeny of their respective districts in any manner whatsoever and thus in violation and "pretenders" at this point in violation of the entire basis for the election of candidates for the representatives government written within the clear terms of the Constitution itself.
At this point, not at all "representatives" solely of the districts in which the were elected but more so the national and global lobbying organizations, or even foreign countries lobbyists and their interests.
But just look at what the alternatives are in any event also.
Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi second in line?
Hell doesn't even begin to describe that pairing, and the additional havoc they would pile on top of the already crushing burden on the middle and lower income classes and "average" Americans.
And the other branch doesn't clearly know the meaning of the term "conservative" at this point, but simply another branch of the Global Socialist Party but with different and in some instances in varying degrees, even overlapping global corporate benefactors, that's all.
Hail Britainnia.  It appears that Congress and those on the Hill are selecting more and more "British trained" globally focused "global socialist" also judges for high federal office in order to protect also their job security, and power trip moves.
Such as those educated at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and those East Coast "ivy league" schools whose law school programs clearly have been teaching the British style of government with the "government as sovereign" mindset.
And appears clearly are not at all teaching the "intent" of those founders behind much of the provisions of both the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself.  Nor clear distinctions between the "limits" of and their obligations with respect to their function and  their true powers and duties.
And this one was clearly their function and duty, without any "rights of refusal" whatsoever included within the document which actually provides for Mr. Land's lofty salary, and that of his staff.

It was announced in the AP that the insurance industry lobbyists, who were key players in Washington over the summer in closed door meetings with Barack Obama and the Senate Finance Committee with respect to Obama's health care deform measures that have been progressively coming off the Hill, that the new revisions dropping the amount of penalties for Americans not carrying insurance coverage would result in higher costs (in the thousands in some respects) for other Americans for their existing coverage.

It appears that terrorism upon the United States public at this point isn't simply restricted to Middle Eastern sects, but politicans and corporate lobbyists as their standard operating procedures in order to forment more and more unconstitutional legislation and violations.

Such as Cap & Trade. 

Now we have the health care insurance industry terrorists flooding the media waves.

I have news for those corporate lawyers who represented those industries (who are not lawyers at all, since if they were they would see the entire unconstitutional focus of this legislation for what it is), fining Americans ANY amount for lack of coverage is unconstitutional and a "taking" of American's property without their consent for a "product," and a privilege and immunity given to their industry at the cost of the citizenry in general.

Especially since most of those citizens have been funding catastrophic care coverage at the state levels already for literally decades. 

And also due to the fact that in those figures that the industry uses, they are also factoring in huge profit margins for their corporate shareholders at the public's expense, and also their diversified portfolios which transfer much of those premiums into some of their riskier investments, such as real estate at the present time, invested in much of the West and Southwest and other areas of the country.

Where many of those insurers are also based who have seen some of those profits dwindle due to the home foreclosure and mortage scams of their also financial branches and arms, the banking industy in which they are also heavily invested.

Just where are these "projections" coming from?

And there lies the rub.  The health insurace industry can use such maneuvers because there is absolutly no regulation or accountability of those huge mega national and now global concerns to their rate-payers, from which they do get the bulk of their profits.  Not their shareholders.  Their rate-payers.

To do their jobs, this is where Washington should be placing its focus.  Regulation of those industries.  Not affording them, with the now government press agency, the AP, to threaten and terrorize Americans through the media in order to continue their spins and propaganda and thus also create these factions of those that are insured at the present time, against those that are and have been unable to afford their high priced policies for literally decades due to the lack of regulation and accountabilty of them.

Or who ended up using their services, but became increasingly dissatisfied with their products. 

Since many of those that are not covered prefer to remain self-insured and not have to deal with the bureaucracy and red tape and hassles in making a claim.  Not to mention those that object on religious grounds still to invasive medical procedures being fined if they do not meet the criteria and "approved" standards of any Washington based edicts for their coverage.  Such as the Christian Scientists have against many medical treatments.

It is not Washington's job to guarantee the insurers bottom lines, but as a corporate financial industry and product, allow also those that are not living up to those policies which have been sold, to be removed from the market place and fail.

Which is not what occurred with AIG, and much of their failure also had to do with spins, since while the American branch of that huge global health insurer may have been struggling, it was struggling due to the bad business practices of their London Mayfair office from all accounts. 

Which was heavily invested in high risk ventures with much of those British policy holder premiums, which is rather strange since Great Britian has a socialized health care system.

So just what type of policies was AIG selling in Great Britain to begin with that caused their eventual financial meltdown?

As has been the case from the outset, it appears that the entire focus of Washington with respect to true health care reform could use a 180 turn in rather than listening and seeking the advice and consulting with the "stakeholders" (i.e., predators on the American public), it should be instead holding those unregulated huge national and global sharks to the fire in explaining just why, after all the years of the bull markets in this country, it is now hiking rates for their policyholders, rather than reducing them.

And maybe due to that huge AIG bailout for the British that the American public is now being forced to eat, and in which Timothy Geithner recently stated that it has been difficult to track just where most of those billions have gone over than 60 billion now to other foreign banks and interests, they could pay off that debt by providing free coverage to all Americans for the next twenty years in safisfaction.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20091012/4ad2b7d0_3421_13345200910121659508200

In the continuing media reports on all the wheeling and dealing that is now going on at the Hill on now the Baucus proposals, and the "stakeholders" (read:  industry beneficiaries) of this clearly ludicrous and unconstitutuional health care deform, one factor and point appears to be clearly missing.

Since most states throughout the nation already provide health care for indigents, and also those who are uninsured, in fact even illegal immigrants are provided health care in this country for emergency treatment at hospital emergency rooms courtesy of Uncle Sam and the U.S. taxpayers as has been the case now for over 20 years, nothing has been mentioned now about all the revenue collected by the states which has gone to fund those programs through sales taxes, sin taxes and a host of others.

Or whether there will be offset credits then made against these "fines" and or costs of provision to the taxpayers for all the public assistance and federal grant monies some of those large medical health care providers already receive for both medical research, and patient care under various state and federal programs and grants.

The real mystery is why health care costs have escalated in this country at the rate that has made it now unaffordable for most and what lead to this, since for literally decades most of those health care networks and providers have been getting federal and state grant monies also paid by the public for new equipment, building costs, and all sorts of other reasons, yet the costs then to the public have exceeded the CPI by over a thousand percent in the last ten years alone.

The cost of tuition at state and local universities also has quadrupled and bears now no relevance at all to either the CPI or the costs since most of those public universitities are also the recipients of state and federal tax monies and grants, and funded in many by state citizens property taxes, and alumni grants.  In fact, most state universities at this point could subsist on their athletic programs alone.  Not to mention the out state tuition they have been collecting from foreign students which are now educated in this country from many Far Eastern and South American countries in the medical field, such as India. 

Many seeking and receiving training in the specialities that U.S. doctors left due to the high costs of malpractice that is charged to U.S. citizens, but not at the same levels as those foreign doctors as green card holders or "permanet residents" but not "U.S. citizens."

Nowhere in all the townhall meetings were any questions posed as to whether or not some of those state taxes now collected would then be minimized in order to offset some of the potential costs of this rather unlawful federal program.  Arizona under a citizen initiative passed several years ago collects money from those that smoke to fund provision of health care benefits for children in that state.  But nothing has been said as to whether taxes such as these would then be rebated under any federally concocted program.

Which is why these matters were best left for state determination of the state citizens bearing the burden of those costs, which provided more local accountability.

These health care networks and clinic are state chartered and incorporated, and as such the state governments have been the ones who have been woefully negligent also in their duties in regulation over their practices, since according to my reading of the Constitution, the federal government has power over "interstate" commerce (across state lines, national concerns, and global ones, especially other than costs, the provisions of those policies do not at all vary state-to-state, but are "boilerplate" in almost 90 percent of the cases since their corporat lawyers for those insurers have been busy little beavers using those premium payments in order to also lobby for those industries "privileges and immunities" in much legislation which has occurred also at the state level).  The states have their power over intrastate commerce (commerce conducted within the state primarily by state chartered corporations, and it appears many state legislators are behind this in order to score more unaccountable revenue then for the state coffers from the citizens for their discretionary spending, while also then taking the heat off of them for the out of control costs which have also escalated at the state level in taxation to provide for these programs - and benefits for even non-emergency care for non-Americans at that at private health care clinics, which is then passed off also to the public for added profit over what the citizens already provide to Uncle Sam for also those benefits. 

A double whammy, in other words, for these programs, and appears this is nothing more than, again, in corporate speak attempting to "cut out the middle man," the states - now that Washington has totally abandoned the U.S. Constitution and are acting more like Boards of Directors for U.S.A. Inc. 

According to the true "Law," the federal government would have regulatory power ovedr the national and global health care providers, and the states then further for any of those those incorporated within their states and yet restricting their business and domiciles within simply their own state borders, and the country and state run facilities.  At the present time, there is absolutely zero or no regulation insofar as "citizen" protection for those megacorporate financial concerns which rake in those premiums on either the federal or state levels.

It appears that taxation without representation is actually ending up now doing exactly what the founders predicted. 

If any fines or mandatory provisions are to be anticipated in any such legislation, according to the Commerce Clause itself, wouldn't those fines and fees need to be directed toward the big business commercial organizations that are now not providing any coverage?  And any such fines then also rebated to the public in lesser costs then in the future for those services.

Or will it be like the I.R.S. who collects massive amounts of fines and penalties against many Americans for the U.S. Department of the Treasury since it came into existence, yet instead of then the bite on the remaining taxpayers lessening, it has only increased? 

Just where has all that revenue thus far collected in fines from the American people by the federal government also gone from all the various regulatory agencies throughout the years?

This "plan" is so chock full of holes, appears nothing more than another bureaucratic dark hole painted with a "feel good" spin. 

Sort of like Cap & Trade, and the Patriot Act. 

Presented to the public in the guise of the "public's good" and protectionism, but which is merely protectionism for the criminal element whose own health insurance is funded tax free and at no cost by those that are being made increasingly homeless by Washington's "self-protectionism." 

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 a political 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.