As Congress this week ponders the new "global warming" and energy bills, some thoughts and points that have long troubled me with this "scam" on the public might be of interest to some of the more aware Americans clued in on Washington's continued psychotic agendas:

Who manufactures the gadgets that are going to measure these "greenhouse gases?"  Do they come with a warranty, and who is the government contractor who will be awarded the contracts for all the science based theory technology.

So far, science hasn't been able to predict the weather accurately, so again how accurate are these estimates?  And when there is a "normal" cyclical change, is the EPA and the honchos on the Hill going to now take credit for becoming "masters of the universe," in controlling the weather?  Harnessing energy, controlling the weather, find a cure for cancer, populating the moon, developing "new forms" of energy - and a meteor hits the planet long before the Hollywood scenario in all its HDR resonance ever occurs.

It appears either these scientists, who still haven't found the cure for the common cold, after all, for now over 2,000 years might be biting off more than they can chew. Or simply the 21st century versions of P.T. Barnum, with Congress even more clueless than the public has already pretty much determined as of late, and may need those shrinks in order to determine if narcissm and self-delusion are symptomatic of holding public office.

While everyone keeps send money for AIDS research in order to find a cure, don't you find it strange that those expensive miracle drugs to treat the symptoms arrived on the scene about three years after the first diagnosis, and a lawsuit then ensued for over 10 long years in order to extend the patent for those pharmaceutical companies (since patents don't run until any dispute over ownership is settled) with two companies now splitting the proceeds on Inferon and the other spinoffs? 

The patents expire in 2017, and I hope I live long enough to see whether a "cure" then will suddenly be discovered, or whether they will then bleed the generic market dry while getting grants annually still "working" on a cure, since it is viral and we sure came up with that "swine flu mix" vaccine and had some on hand, conveniently, through the WHO "donations" as soon as that new "strain" was announced. Sort of makes you wonders, since AIDS has now become an industry also all its own with all the Hollywood benefits, by those open borders "blue" liberals, and even the "red" state liberals due to their big industry benefactors of the AIDS outbreak.  AIDS became actually the best method of birth control, and stimulus for the latex industry and Dow Chemical ever.

And each "threat level" scare a stimulus for the medical industry.  It does seem that the terrorism that occurs to Americans now is at a level unprecedented in this country, and not as with the border issue, the major threats don't at all seem to be from a small Middle Eastern terrorist sect, that we did, after all, even train in their guerilla tactics.  

So per the 9/11 report and those "facts," it would appear Giulianni's outrage at the blamelessness of Washington for 9/11 does seem rather ludicrous - although Hillary's claim about America's "insatiable" need for drugs is actually also due to both governmental terrorism (at this point who wouldn't want to zone out for some relief) and also negligence.

But instead we'll give Mexico Black Hawk Helicopters (that will eventually be used to America's overall detriment by the cartels or Mexico), and a choice of all terrain vehicles now over the GM Pathfinders, new Hummers.

Hey, we were all just forcefed digital for the industries profits now forcing Americans to literally have to pay for the airwaves, so it mustn't seem such a leap in now taxing our very breath, and with all those towers and sonar equipment now outdated for "sciences" benefit not even given an "offset" credit.

Recently Barack Obama continued his "sell the agenda" snow job tours he has been making throughout the country on behalf of his big business, big union agendas and spoke to the members of the American Medical Association with respect to his plan to nationalize health care costs and coverage in this country.

He has been patting himself on the back in various speaking engagements ever since due to his perceived success in selling this agenda to the medical community and doctors, many of which are already affiliated with big business health care networks and professional associations other than the huge American Medical Association. 

Thus, dealing now with Boards of Directors determining care, and also private health care providers due to the negligence of Washington actually performing their jobs in "regulating commerce" and its historic abuses over their practices, which is truly what is needed and would reduce the costs of health care tremendously since maybe some of those huge medical malpractice awards would cease due to their contributory negligence in many of those cases.

Especially since the lid on punitive damages for such awards were removed through the lobbying efforts of the Trial Lawyers Association years ago, which started this mess.  Many doctors can't afford to practice, or their rates went off the chart due to the huge amounts they had to pay for malpractice.

And just who are the citizens going to redress a grievance on a governmentally denied claim, or bureautic morass that results in more citizen loss of life or injury?  You would think the TLA would be screaming foul at the top of their lungs at this point, since it would appear their livelihoods and gravy train just might be adversely affected, along with their own eventual medical needs and care. 

And at least would be happy to rethink their own contributions to this mess of high health care costs in the process, and what the long term effect has been to put this country where it is today. 

And work on busting up some of those health care networks which have compromised the quality of care now across the board also after Nixon's bogus HMO concept was signed into law in the 70's, thus the "industry," rather than "profession" changed forever - and not for the better as our infant survival rates now will attest.  Lower now than Cuba.

Right now, coverage under Medicare and Medicaid leaves much to be desired for the World War II generation.  I can attest to that since after months of high blood pressure registering off the charts, and then even after edema set in, my elderly mother's health care provider never tested her for a blockage and a day after New Year's a little over a year ago, suffered a heart attack which eventually resulted in two different surgeries to correct.

So much for comprehensive coverage.  And she even had a "supplemental" plan, no less.

Mr. Obama went on to assure the doctors that this would be another one of his "partnerships," and that it would not in any manner affect private health care coverage, simply expand and provide coverage for those at the present time that cannot afford it.

And I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

Since the primary purchasers of health care are private industries and businesses, what makes Mr. Obama think that these businesses will continue to pick up the costs for private coverage which eats into their profit margins, after all, for those labor costs when they can simply direct their employees to sign up for the governmental "cut rate" plan? 

And even with "supplemental" insurance then purchased individually by citizens to afford preventive care (since I'm sure those costs will not be picked up by any public plan), if the government is the primary carrier in such instance (as it was in my mother's case) would it not be the government then still that would determine the level of care and not the secondary provider?

Many private practice doctors have simply now posted signs that indicate that they do not or will not accept new Medicare patients, due to the governmental hoops and red tape involved in getting compensation for their services, and/or dealing with the bureaucracy rather than being able to actually treat patients.

And which government contractor/benefactor will be getting this lucrative new contract? 

Mr. Buffett as with his Geico Insurance through another joint venture outside SEC scrutiny? 

I know Mr. Geithner is overseeing that AIG restructuring outside the scrutiny of the public and Congress at the present time.  Not many have the bucks to buy some of that "debt" (if there is any as a "globally" based corporation, other than that London office mess Americans are now stuck for the tab).   I wonder how the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders would fare in such a deal, or whether they would be cut out as the public shareholders were in the GM "joint venture."

Even if that isn't the case and it is funded through taxation and administered by the federal government rather than another "public/private" partnership and governmental contract, exactly how many new employees in Health and Human Services will be needed in order to administer such a hugh undertaking? 

Does Washington simply plan to enlist all the current employees of the separate state funded plans simply changing their civil service codes?  When those employers and businesses drop those plans, how many new taxpayer paid government workers will be needed? 

This sounds like another Chamber of Commerce dream come true, and another unaccountable source of revenue for the Feds bottom line to dip into at will, sort of like Social Security.

And how much time and how many sessions will it take to work the bugs out and tweak that legislation which most likely has enough holes and caveats in it to fill the Grand Canyon so the lawyers can run with it, and how much will it cost in the added courts that will be needed when the lawyers then bleed the families and public dry so the government and federal judiciary can then begin denying claims and coverages in order to set precedents whatever reason? 

How many more trillion is this going to cost the taxpayers?

Maybe these Fortune 500 and global businesses, instead of getting capital gains tax breaks, and favored status with legislators at both the state and federal levels, should be paying taxes based upon ther "worth" as property as was the original taxation method used by the founders.  Property is taxed.  Income is not. 

Then maybe some of those buildings on K Street would clear out.  And our public servants could get back to "governing," rather than "appeasing" their favored subjects for political (and personal) gain one again.

As with the foreclosure "solution," Middle East whirlwind tour, stimulus sales pitch, illegal joint venture with the Big Three and unions firing and laying off thousands of Americans and raping them of their retirement nest eggs, and now the illegal alien amnesty ploys, Mr. Obama's "Ask Not" speeches are getting harder to swallow, and used car salesman persona and slick salesmen gimmicks less and less credible with each passing month and as this country sinks further and further into a full out recession/depression.

It appears he might want to put away his Blackberry, and start speaking with the people and not the campaign backers, moochers and yes men since it appears this Constitutional lawyer hasn't a clue, other than what the fawning media pundits propagandize, and the U.S. Chamber members and foreign aid lobbyists wheelers and dealers spew  - and most of the "news" station ratings are now in the toilet.

That speaks volumes right there on the credibility of the agenda at this point. 

Fancy speeches and throwing money at the big business/big union lobbyists and mandating now health care coverage when many are homeless and jobless at this point truly shows that maybe a mental health check is now what is in order for each and every corporate socialist  "representative" on the Hill. 

No one is listening anymore.  Except the news anchors, and that enclave of delusion, Hollywood.

The "Don King" of race relations strikes again.

Recently there appeared an article indicating that Al Sharpton has now visited Phoenix to take on the "baddest Sheriff in the West" in my former home state of Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Interesting that two press hounds such as Al Sharpton and Sheriff Joe are now being engaged in an "Al and Joe" show for the locals in Arizona, and also now moving it to the federal stage.

Sheriff Joe, of course, is now under investigation by the Senate Judiciary for his alleged "profiling" done in some of his barricades conducted throughout the City of Phoenix, in which I lived for over 45 years on his "immigration sweeps."

The charges, of course, were politically brought by Phil Gordon, Mayor of Phoenix and assisted, of course, by Ms. Napolitano, my former governor who is behind the "right wing extremist" memorandums and Fusion Centers training local law enforcement in jack boot citizen surveillance tactics, and strip searches at the domestic airports. After, of course, making Arizona a "sanctuary state," while attempting to appear to be addressing the situation by calling out the National Guard, and then disempowering them in the process.

Which now, of course, two years later has resulted in the deaths of many Arizonans due to the spillover of the drug cartel wars going on in the border towns, and increases in gang related drug and property thefts in metropolitan Tucson and Phoenix, and is a contributory factor for many now in Arizona which are losing their homes and jobs right and left, of course left out of the media spins on the foreclosure mess. Arizona is second or third, depending on the month, in the amount of home foreclosures.

Property and auto insurance rates, especially in Phoenix and Tucson, are becoming off the charts due to this federal negligence, and affecting the general population living in the border states in increasing numbers by the year in their inability to afford comprehensive coverage anymore. Of course, the Mexican drivers along with the tourists are responsible for a good number of the auto and truly drunk driving deaths also in the metro area, while the police focus on the sports bar crowds primariy for those federal grant monies for their patrols, and the lease payments for jails they sold several years back to private industries without the public's general knowledge.

The hypocricy is actually quite incredible.

Statistically, the majority of the crimes committed against the lawful citizens actually are committed by the border hoppers, who are Mexican nationals and not U.S. citizens. The ACLU, of course, through the courts for their profit also have gained "more than equal" or "privileges and immunity" now for illegal foreigners committing criminal acts above those that were actually intended to protect the citizens from foreign "attacks" and criminal activity under our Constitution, even though it clearly states: "We the People of the United States...for US and our posterity."

Mexico has a policy of shooting on sight many South Americans intent on criminal activity who are within their borders, and deports or incarcerates immediately any that cannot produce adequate identification or docmentation at the local level under their Constitution. In fact, so much as minor traffic violations can be settled with the arresting officers in payment of their "fines," unless it appears more can be gained politically and financially in incarcerating foreigners charged with even misdemeanor violations in that country.

Most of Sheriff Joe's raids actually have been for no more than publicity, sort of like Al Sharpton's agenda. Since the majority of employers which hire those illegals have hardly been Sheriff's Joe's targets - the developers, construction companies, chain car washes, resort and hotel industries and the like. Nor the cartel members or large drug dealers, more the petty criminal "employee" drug users of some of those cartels and the kids who have become addicted due to the target market for their wares. Or trumped up traffic violations and busted tailights for the self-employed gardeners or car wash employees, although they, too, have victimized the community. My identity theft and stolen credit card happened at a locally owned car wash known for hiring them since all of them do.

Instead, he busted a putt putt course using more than nine Sheriff's deputies to arrest five claimed "illegals." For show.

You see, most of those big and small businesses contribute to civic organizations that support the Sheriff's Office and local police departments. A "politically correct" way to insure protection from any and all police action under the employer sanctions laws passed by the lawful citizens in Arizona several years ago. So the major employers are not the targets of Sheriff Joe's possee. Those which have been undertaken have been no more than publicity stunts.

However, both Phil Gordon and Ms. Napolitano actually were just as negligent in their giving protecton to the criminal element through their continued negligence in pressing the state legislature to petition the federal government or file a federal lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona if necessary under the U.S. Constitution "common defense" provisions in getting the monies in order to fund the needed fencing to stop the flow, and the border hopping drug dealers, car thieves and gang members.

They just gave 100 million to the Chamber of Commerce in order to "educate" the public on why their free global markets are much more important than the publics safety and security, and major reason we have a federal government to begin with - to protect this country from foreign attack and invasion. Not the "jobs and economies" of corporate America. The federal government truly has lost its way in what its true function actually is, and priorities for expenditure of public sums or incurring public debt.

So, for that matter, has every single level of government apparently. Cally-for-nia is a prime example, many of whose former residents are now wrecking havoc in Arizona and bringing it to its knees with their developers agendas and demands, not realizing that Arizona is not beach front property but a desert.

Sharpton getting involved and painting this as a "racial" issue truly does take the cake, although Sheriff Joe under the true law has been out of line in his enforcement tactics by targeting and setting up his barricades and patrols within city limits, rather than county boundaries - which would be his lawful jurisdiction for such actions. Preventing any and all foreigners without visas or green cards from crossing county lines is well within his jurisdiction and authority.

And then, instead of incarcerating them in his "cruel and unusual" punishment tent city jail - in which there have been numerous deaths which have cost the state citizens a bundle and for which the prisoners are now actually charged by Joe for their own incarcerations in that hell hole - turning them over to the U.S. Marshall's office for processing and deportation. As "illegals" there is no inherent right to deportation hearings, and this was the process that was done and was effective and reduced the border problem significantly when I was growing up in Arizona during the 60's and 70's.

The criminal and immigration attorneys, however, wanted their cut of the drug monies seized, and so petitioned for "civil rights" now for foreigners under our Constitution, and which the U.S. Surpreme Court again now has inserted another party into it. Non-Americans, when those fundamental protections were the "carrot" in order for foreigners who came to this country to forswear their allegiance to their former home countries, and truly become Americans.

Look forward to the Al and Joe roadshow. Coming to a media outlet near you, while Arizonans and border residents continue to be made the victims of this political and governmental treason.

CNN reported another incidence of corporate/governmental overkill now going on in our nation with respect to the recording industry's pursuit of any and all Americans that download songs or sounds without paying for them from the internet.

Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes. 

And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works. 

Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions. 

That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.

The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court.   It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.

And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.  

There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion.  This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.

Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000.  "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.

There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity.   So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.

Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.

It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution.  Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently. 

I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.

True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment. 

You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.

If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.

And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.

More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything. 

This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.

Unbelievable. 

Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.

We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.

That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders.  And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or   individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Much this past week has been in the U.S. press with respect to the GM "joint venture."  (The only other story being that of the crime at the Holocaust Museum, by the 89 year old American World War II enlistee, then also reported to be a former "Nazi Officer" according to the fiction writers in the U.S. press nowadays, rather than an apparently senile man who, at 89, somehow still had the mental capability and ability to operate his own website, since arthritis must not be plaguing him as much as my elderly post 80 parents, since my 87 year old Dad has a hard time doing so much as a search since he is and was not of the computer generation).

U.S.A., Inc. purchased, of course, a hefty share of General Motors, courtesy of the American taxpayers and shareholders, whereupon Mr. Obama then essentially fired a great many American citizens in Detroit, and sold out the smaller individual American bond holders to the UAW's larger interest. 

Now it appears the company is going to "formally" file bankruptcy and go through the bankruptcy process. 

Of course this bewilders me, since it does seem that perhaps this would have been the first step, so that all the details would be then available to the public as a "public" corporation, but it seems it is only the public's activities that seem to be under scrutiny as of late.

I wonder why the American people might be dissatisfied and distrust their government increasingly more and more each year?  Hmmmm....

Below is a response I made to a claimed citizen journalist poster (since those sites now have also been infiltrated by many on stimulus grant monies as "educational" sites it appears, along with the 100 million that was given to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, now also somehow worthy as also an "educational", rather than "corporate commercial" U.S. corporation, who contributed their "take" on the situation and simply believed that selling off the gas guzzlers in GM, Ford and Chrysler's lines will be the "cure" to what ails GM. 

I doubt, as with the banks, anything at all truly ails GM, who has low wage plants in China and Mexico now since they've moved essentially offshore also, it is just another tool to use to facilitate global government, amass maximum profit due to those countries socialized and communist governments, and continue to merge our economy with that of the "global community," no matter what the sacrifices and costs to the American people. 

Apparently, their homes and jobs are not enough, and we are bringing out the flag more and more and using the American people's love for their country now even as a weapon against them.

I hope any and all Americans left in the border states have been forewarned due to that sale. 

Because as one who watched that situation explode since the Reagan years, and if all goes as it appears planned, come September with another push for the amnesty while still promoting open borders with Mexico, it will be sure to raise the ire of a good many of those living in the border states. 

More than even those who have been their victims.

The response:

No, the Hummers will simply be bought and driven by the drug cartels members after they start being manufactured at the GM plant in Mexico. And eventually then, Arizona, Mexico and California will "officially" become propety again of Mexico through the drug cartel ownerships and profits, and corporate control of the faces sitting on the various state legislations, whose members are and have been indirectly on the receiving end of the drug cartel and open borders gravy train in one way or another.

Of course, it is all the Americans fault due to the "insatiable need" for drugs by the "people" in THIS country which Ms. Clinton trashed and spoke about to the Mexican governent (when a good 2/3's those with addiction problems started while minors due to their target market). 

It couldn't be in order to legalize hard and addictive drugs in order to go in partnership with the Mexican and Chinese governments so that the pharmaceutical industry can cash in on this untapped resource, would it? 

I wonder in such event how many new cases of AIDS there would be, or how much the street crimes would then increase in order for those mostly kids to maintain their habits? 

Of course, at least that would also stimulate the security and "privatized" jail industry booming now in this country, which is one way to get the kids off the streets.  Make a profit off simply the addicted users for their incarcerations to make those high lease payments and private costs, and the legal industry in the pool of clients with all those drug profits to fleece, since the illegal sales to minors then would not cease. 

Those kid consumers are an untapped source of revenue, and simply waste those allowances (from those parents still flush now enough to give it) on CDs and video games. 

This way that hash and smack will then primarily come in tamper-proof packaging, except for those in the inner city who will have to settle for the lesser quality, but lethal, street variety.

If you can't beat 'em, why not join 'em? 

We can't win in a "no win" Middle East war, and with open borders, the "War on Drugs" has simply been a farce.  So lets just cash in the chips on bin Laden AND the Mexican drug cartels since apparently neither war is winnable.  We've been in Iraq now for eight years and counting, and with open borders since the Mexican-American war. 

But our "common defense" high tech security and gadget industry utilized priimarily against the American people since America has dissolved into simply a tourist trap for foreigners is truly booming.  California's pleading poverty, while Silicon Valley must be bursting at the seams at this point.  Another propaganda spin. 

The mid to upper level corporate hotel chains catering to tourists and foreigners haven't been heard from as of yet in the major metropolitan cities seeking their welfare.   Those California resorts too are flush, as the AIG sabbatical proved.

Of course, as one who has experience with this situation up close and personally, this situation continues to be due to the federal and state governments which have done absolutely nothing about our border problem since the 60's except use it as a political weapon and for political advantage by both mainstream parties, and the drugs simply have gotten much more addictive and lethal that continue to be sold in front of the local high schools and middle schools in the border states by the year.

And the Chinese GM plant and one in Mexico are those which will be retained as their most profitable and most likely will be kept as simply a joint venture now among U.S.A., Inc., the GM major shareholders (UAW "corporate" and other union pensions primarily), and the UAW Corporation itself, so in essence Obama and our Congress simply used GM in order to entrench our government (as part owner now) more and more with the Chinese and Mexican governments, who most likey will be replacing those American union members which were fired.  A "buy-out" in essence skirting around SEC disclosure laws and regulations, as it were.   Like the bank "bailouts."

And whose largest imports are not those sold on the stock exchange.

Our government is run now by the bankers and global government "state actor" corporations and "associations" of huge national and multi-national industries, including the legal industry, that once hallowed "profession" who also have truly lost their way in some of the "new industries" due to the voluminous unconstitutional bills they have had a hand in writing for their own future incomes and their protected interests - the ones who funded their campaigns, and then and now are simply turning around and presenting their bill for their contributions during the 2008 election. 

What better way to globally merge auto production, and then skim the American shareholders of their investments and retirements in the process?

We need room for all the foreigner invaders who are going to hit our shores real soon from both those countries, in addition to the ones already here that we are pushing to legalize from all reports come September - despite the objections and outrage of the American people and victims living in the border states for these trade agreements, including apparently actual people now more valued for their commercial worth to the global community and these corporate industries at this point for their profit and gain.

And AIG is a London based insurer - so for the first time in history, the American people are now holding the debts for a global corporation, in order to also merge our country and its economy more and more with that of the world, rather than protect our own.

Unbelieveable at this point the utter unawareness of a great many of the American people of what this foreshadows.

Hey, Congress and the Obama Administration just handed out more than 100 million stimulus monies to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which lobbies against really the Americans public for more laws for their welfare on behalf of their foreign global interests and their outsourced employees in order to fatten their pocketbooks), of course while Americans in the border states continue to face loss of their lives and property for the Chamber's agenda and benefit. 

Now they have been deemed an "educational" institution, rather than a corporate "trade" organization.  We are not only redefining and burning the Constitution, but the English language now in this country in favor of what?  That definition isn't even Spanish.

Mr. Obama is simply the "used car salesman" that was picked to seal the deal, and bury our Constitution and sovereign America it appears forever, and since January clearly has been on a global road trip without stop continuing to sell the agenda to the American people wrapped, of all things, in Lincoln and the American flag.

For any and all Conservative Constitutional Constructionists:

Buried in the news due to the brouhaha and continuing sensationalism in reporting which has occurred due to the shooting earlier this week at the Holocaust Museum and the liberal spins on the story now being expanded and repeated without much "hard" evidence and proof on the motivations and actions of this 89 year old apparently demented man and World War II enlistee (who knew enough about computers to have and maintain his own website at 89?), there have been several other stories not as widely covered.

One of which is the recent announcement by the United States Chamber of Commerce that they have decided to undertake a mission at the tune of over 10 million dollars in order to "educate" the public on the economic benefits of  "capitalism and free markets," over what many are labeling Mr. Obama's socialistic moves this past several months in taking over and bailing out several of our major private industries.  Such as the banks and auto manufacturers, and redistributing the wealth according to Congress and the Executive Office's priorities for global policy reasons most of all.  Global socialism, in other words.

The problem that I have with that is first the question of just where, in this struggling economy with industries across the spectrum pleading poverty, the Chamber is getting this 10 million in order to undertake their "education focus and program.  Since this declaration of intent falls within the parameters of "education" and a major focus of the stimulus sums were earmarked for "educational purposes," could the U.S. Chamber now be one of those recipients of stimulus monies, another payback by both the Democrats and Republicans to their big business supporters for their 2008 election coffers?

Doesn't this simply mean that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a social welfare recipient itself now of the U.S. taxpayers?  And their agenda merely is more propaganda for their member corporate interests, i.e., convincing the public their their lobbying efforts have the American citizens and consumers in mind with their "free market" theories.

Since the U.S. Chamber does not support any "buy American" clauses in most of the Congressional legislation that has come out of the Hill for literally decades, and is a big supporter of "free trade" global agreements, open borders and global tourism is one of their primary focuses especially between the United States, Canada and Mexico, is not their idea of "free market" and "capitalism," simply "global corporate socialism," under the much rumored North American Union banner of one world government under U.N. dictates, rather than America's own Constitution.

"Corporatism" is entirely different than "free market" capitalism, an economic theory that the founders found actually compromised U.S. industry and labor.  The United States Chamber of Commerce is similar in agenda to the East India Tea Company which existed prior to America's Revolutionary War in its public/private partnership with the sovereign, and dominating and monopolizing European imports and exports and the marketplace. 

A "monopoly," as it were, squeezing out the independent, small business entrepreneurs, and compromising U.S. domestic production and labor in the process.  While getting "tax breaks" and "privileges and immunities" at the colonists expense for inferior products and unfair trade practices.

The U.S. Chamber may be "U.S. owned," but its agenda is clearly globally, not domestically, focused for its member corporations in supporting and promoting many U.S. interests which have moved offshore, or employment of foreigners at the cost of American labor in order to increase profits and production and skirt around U.S. minimum wage and labor laws for these multi-national corporations, while promoting and supporting a "hands off" policy with respect to regulation of executive level pay.  Although corporations, by their very nature, are the "property" of the disinterested shareholders once those corporations go public. 

In my opinion the entire argument with respect to executive pay levels and government involvement could be cured by recognizing these U.S. corporations for what they are.  Property.  And as "public" corporations, owned by the shareholders who should have final and absolute authority with respect to compensation levels for their top level management with the caveat that all such matters as public corporations be determined by "one vote per ownership" no matter how many shares are held by an individual or corporate investor, or based on a 2/3rds majority vote in order to protect those minority shareholders from majority "block" voting.

This isn't baseball cards we are dealing with here, it is multi-billion dollar corporations, and yet our Congress and government have now even given "corporate person-hoods" privileges and immunities far greater than the American people and citizens individually. 

Governmental protection, and now the American people are enforced shareholders in these major corporations, again without any voice in the huge "socialization" of these debts, which are now being sold piecemeal to foreign and global interests primarily, and giving foreign governments and industries more and more influence in the American political process, again, over and above the lawful American citizens in addition to their jobs and homes.

But with this announcement of the new nationwide "Campaign for Free Enterprise," and its education branch funded with over 10 million in stimulus monies, is it not the epitome of hypocrisy to fund a purported "free market and free enterprise" campaign with sums gained through public welfare and "socialism" at its core?

It seems that returning to our Constitution and intended form of government, if Congress was actually performing the functions for which it was lawfully charged to do, would guarantee that the larger would not snuff out the weaker in this "global corporatism" the American people are now subjected to on each and every level. 

It appears the "Campaign for Free Enterprise," is simply another "job creation," and stimulus of the Bush/Obama administrations and our treasonous federal legislators for big business and global corporate interests which is now being funded by the American taxpayers - with "freedom" and "liberty" which formerly were "principles," and Constitutional directives now only to have morphed into an industry all its own and simply another government funded new job stimulus and "industry" for the Fortune 500's additional financial gain most of all, and it appears selected "freedom and liberty" focused citizens organizations and groups.  Since those also have sprung up in abundance since the Bush years, and now "freedom" and "liberty" are being used as industries all their own in trinkets, ad revenues for websites, and fees and costs for traveling to and from freedom and liberty based paid speaker "seminars."

The "free market" capitalist corporatists version of the opposing social corporatists "global warming" scam.

Timothy Geithner, the magician and "jack of all trades, master of none," now acting as trustee for the American people on the bank bailouts, AIG foreign corporate bailout, and automakers bailouts (with California whining in the wings) recently met with Chinese officials and predicted that the global recession "seemed to be losing force." 

Of course, this has come at the cost of selling off shares of U.S. major businesses and industries to the global market, in order to "stabilize" the global economy, in effect further continuing to destroy our own.  

That's the downside of corporate globalization and Washington's "hands off" approaches and collusion in socializing the U.S. economy, rather than protecting American interests and effectively regulating corporate mergers, acquisitions and any "outsourced" offshore expansions.

Saving a British based insurer, AIG, and selling off parts of the automobile manufacturer which until not too recently was responsible for 3% of the United States GNP apparently is not too steep a price to pay for Mr. Geithner to continue to equalize the global scales, while those in Detroit are eating pork and beans, yet the AIG executives were entitled to stress breaks at one of California's four star resorts.

The Chinese, of course, got their bite of the apple in the reported sale of the GM Hummer Division to a Chinese concern.  Apparently so did the Canadians with protection of their union Teacher's Pension and Mexico, from all reports.

This, of course, is in addition to all that labor and the export imbalance due to the Chinese providing a great deal of the manufactured goods here in the United States for one of the major retail chains, Wal-Mart, whose wealth if it were one of the countries in the now "global community" would place it fifth in GNP.

He also apparently reassured the Chinese that the debt that has been amassed during this trade in assets is fundamentally secured due to the United State's "liquid" financial markets. 

It appears the liquid Mr. Geithner might be referring to would be that of mercury - "now you see it, now you don't."

So, although we may owe the Chinese government a great deal of debt on paper, exactly how DID they accumulate all that wealth to begin with?

I hope Mr. Geithner gets around to answering that question,  when he has time and a break from shuffling all these  country's assets around, before he eventually ends up selling off some of our prime real estate, such as  the Grand Canyon or Redwood National Forest.

By the way, did I mention according to the article, Mr. Geithner's father worked in China, and is a former employee of the Ford Foundation? 

 http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090531/4a235240_3421_1334520090601-1322814282

This week there have been numerous headlines with respect to the budget crises now facing most of the states throughout the United States, again with the downward spiraling U.S. economy to blame.

Mr. Obama, of course, recently participated in one of the most massive layoffs and firings of the current employees for General Motors, of course consoling them with how their "sacrifices" now would reap benefits down the road. The question is, of course, for whom?

Apparently U.S.A., Inc. and the United Auto Workers, who were given an ownership share in the deal brokered by the Obama Administration in order to add this major U.S. corporation to Washington's budgeoning stock portfolio.

I'm sure that acquisition has set Detroit and Michigan's economy back a bit insofar as sales tax revenues.  Most of those autoworkers most likely will be eating pork and beans for a while, "sacrificing" for Mr. Obama's now Government Motors.  And those bond holder owners just lost a little of that retirement money for those planned road trips in their golden years.

But China picked up a steal, or should I say, steal for its steel.

Now, even after receiving "kickbacks" in the form of federal funding through the stimulus packages of billions of dollars which are to be transferred to the states and billed to the state citizens and taxpayers as a whole, the states are now still whining about their shortfalls.

And the biggest whinner, of course, is that liberally run Golden State, defined by its excess over the course of years and the high taxes and destruction which has resulted due to their own liberalism.

It doesn't appear those in state office have been able to read the California Constitution for at least fifty years if not longer, since the early 60's.

I guess the costs of their open borders, pro-illegal immigrant positions, and past "save the trees" environmentalism that has since resulted in the destruction of thousands of homes and forested acres is finally coming home to roost.   Costs for which the entire nation also has paid for during those self-created disasters in their misguided environmental radicalism during a ten year drought with overgrown forests which can now be set off by static electricity in more than a few areas and almost non-existent groundwater tables.  Of course the fountains and jacuzzis are still humming along nicely.

And both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger's freewheeling ways.

The OC set have never heard the word "fiscal conservatism," a term they associate with "right wing extremists," and Kansas farmers (who they would like to bail them out) when it comes to their creature comforts, limos, jacuzzis and their private jets which they cannot do without so that they can attend their next global warming lecture.

My former home state, Arizona, is also facing a crisis, or so it has been reported, even though many years ago the citizens in that state actually passed a "balanced budget" initiative.

Has it worked? Hardly.

You see, the government is the worst when it comes to following the laws and directives of "we the people." Our taxes fund literally hundreds of lawyers to advise legislators on just how they can skirt around some of those initiatives in order to continue doing business as usual.

When those budgets are released to the public, you need a magnifying glass and organizational chart to follow the money trail to find where all the funding is actually going. And even with those tools, you would only get half the picture.

Nowhere in those budgets are reported the sums that are received also from the federal government in order to fund some of these state programs. Thus, citizens in most states face dual taxation in numerous areas at both the state and federal levels.

It has gotten so bad in Arizona that they have sold former state funded prisons and/or are now contracting for local prisons and guards privatizing them, and are now charging the prisoners for their accomodations in order to make those lease payments, and giving incentives to officers on those federally funded DUI sports bar patrols in order to meet the federal grant guidelines to make those payments, which sums now are far more than the prior costs of upkeep and maintenance of some of those facilities for state taxpayers.

Most state and local impound lots also throughout the country have been privatized, many of which are owned by police officers as a further incentive in the new social drinking taxes.

Apparently, the state needed the money from the prison sale in order to assist in funding one of the state's new pet projects and new foundation under Janet Napolitano, the high tech gadget junkie, The Arizona Science Foundation.

Were the citizens consulted in this new project?

Of course not.

The state then subsequently entered into multi-year contracts with this organization (contracts with itself), which foundation is now suing the State of Arizona (again themselves or the state citizens ultimately) in order to get the funding through the backdoor, since in order to "balance" this years budget funding had to be reduced to this extra-Constitutional foundation for the press release of a "balanced" budget.

A new legal trick has now been the modus operandi in order to satisfy the state budget requirements, in now simply using the courts in order to fund some of these state created foundations and then hide all the extra revenue they are doling out for state agenda driven projects outside Constitutional authority or citizen accountability.

Then, of course, the state can appear to be "balancing" the budget while the courts and taxpayer paid "foundation" and private corporate attorneys negotiate and "seal the deals" factoring in, of course, their cut also in acting as the go-betweens of the state now in these NGO and extra-Constitutional funding matters.

Look hard, Californians, at that budget, and the court actions which have occurred in your state throughout the years.

I'm sure you'll find that there is plenty of money and there is no "budget" crisis, its just a matter of the state's priorities and legislators extra-Constitutional commitments that are the real problem.

And committing taxpayer sums and entering into contracts with either private or state created "foundation" contractors for multi-year terms in the first place, when state budgets in many states are required to be balanced annually.

To put it simply, deciding to fully fund and fulfill that multi-year contract for the newest "foundation" or multi-plex for the global visitors to Sacramento means the sums needed for vital services for which those tax monies are "legally" required such as the street repairs and garbage collection might just need to be cut, or reduced in order to "balance the budget."

Or in order to quell the masses, provide those sums in order to comply with the law, and then instruct extra-Constitutional "contractees" and developer instead to sue the State of California for their money, so that after the funds are provided and the lawsuit "settled," there is then a carry-over budget crisis and deficit again next year.

Balanced budget requirements are sort of like a shell game, with simply more and more "shells" (or shills) added each year.

That's what "liberalism" and legislating according to "living"  Constitution beliefs actually does, encourages "corporate" socialism ultimately in taking from the poor (citizens) and give to the rich (foundations, corporations, developers), while the garbage piles up.
 

It appears now the sixth state in the nation has "gone green," in passing legislation with respect to gay marriage in the United States with New Hampshire now joining the pack in the "liberal" and blue New England states.

New Hampshire's Governor has cowtowed apparently to the lawyers and Bar Association lobby (largest lobbying group by far at both the federal and state levels in some capacity or another), Chamber of Comerce, gay rights activists and New Hampshire, Inc.'s desire for more state revenue by passing into "law" several bills now affording gay couples the supposed "rights" that are guaranteed under the New Hampshire Constitution to traditional two sex couples with respect to "marriage", rather than prior laws with regard to domestic civil unions.

No matter that the institution of marriage is actual governed under the common civil law as set forth in the Magna Carta and under the "natural" law in which the founders created this great nation over 200 years ago.  It appears the U.S. Constitution also is not one in which the New Hampshire state government gives any credence, in addition to the federal government at this point in any manner whatsoever.

An article written by a writer with the the Baptist Press announcing the new legislation indicated that the citizens of New Hampshire have really no recourse to this action other than voting those members of the legislature and the governor out of office next election, rather than as the citizens of California had in initiating a state constitutional amendment after an off the wall California Supreme Court ruling also affording such "rights" in California.

The writer stated that the New Hampshire Constitution has no such provisions.

This writer would disagree.  In a government of the people, and since this really is a federal matter and "institution" that is involved here there are several courses the citizens of New Hampshire can take with respect to this legislation - either filing a lawsuit in the federal courts with respect to the common law upon which marriage is based and the founders intent with respect to those "natural law" provisions, or initiate their own Constitutional amendment as California did, since there is no need to provide in codified law a "right" for such an undertaking within any states constitution. 

It is an "assumed right," and also common law right in any government specifically declared "of the people, by the people, for the people," as the U.S. Constitution and founding documents so state, and also clearly "codified" in the provisions contained within the 9th Amendment.   And also volumes of writings of the founders on just what "unalienable" rights were (as contained in the Bill of Rights), as "endowed by the Creator." 

I think the Creator's views are also pretty well documented on such an issue.

And those new "laws" have yet to also be placed before a jury for evaluation as to also their applicability, since juries also in this nation have the right to not only review the facts in any case before them, but also whether or not the "law" is Constitutional, or applicable in the matter placed before them.  This is what is known as "jury nullification."

So don't lose hope, citizens of New Hampshire that support traditional marriage and "natural law."

It appears this was more of a "job stimulus" for the legal profession and Chamber of Commerce members in the wedding industries and resorts  in New Hampshire as has been the "jobs and the economy" excuse for literally thousands of unconstitutional statutes throughut the nation for this legislation and these judicial "opinions" as with most of the other states.  Think of all that tax revenue the states will also gain now in violating the Constitution and the sums for all those "license" fees.

And the hefty sums that will be paid to those New Hampshire domestic relations attorneys for some of those divorces.

And how much more taxes the state citizens will be required to pay to give even more jobs to the legal industry in the form of the judges that will be needed for some of those "divorces."

At a time when the economy in most states throughout the nation is now in the toilet, the state legislators and governors  really are getting on the "gay marriage bandwagon" in order to help pay their future salaries and their future campaign coffers most of all, it appears, and in times such as these apparently the true Rule of Law can be suspended at will in the interests of "state benefits and interests."

Look for that excuse to be brought up if this ever gets to the Supreme Court, along with the "equal protection under the law" garbage - since there is absolutely no "protection" in marriage for either party anymore in traditional marriage due to community property laws, and no fault divorce, and prior to state involvement on any level, simply recording such "contracts" in the country recorder's office or courthouse records was the "common law" procedure, especially since now there are even laws that have to do with people who die intestate.

And in Louisiana and quite a few other states, it isn't the spouse who automatically inherits all separately owned property at all due to the availability of  "joint ownership" designations now within most contracts for home, auto and other purchases,  it is actually the "legal" children of the decedent.  And adoption papers secure those rights for gay domestic unions involving children since they cannot "procreate" naturally without medical intervention in some form or another, outside adoption.

Most other civil "rights" in marriage now can be satisfied with simple powers of attorneys, wills and joint ownership contracts which cost nothing to prepare and the forms for which can be obtained at your local bookstore.

"Natural law" is one which is not recognized now in New Hampshire, one of those thirteen original colonies.

And Madison is spinning right about now.

http://townhall.com/news/religion/2009/06/03/nh_6th_state_to_legalize_gay_marriage
 

For the last several days on most of the mainstream media outlets, there has been much reported with respect to the shooting and murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas, the middle of the Bible belt in middle America. 

Such instances as have occurred in the few cases of such violence in the past have attracted extensive media coverage due to the division that still remains in this country over the abortion issue, and especially late term or "partial birth" abortions as were reported conducted by Dr. Tiller at his Kansas clinic.

Much rhetoric has been spewed by both sides of this issue, and the media feeding into the frenzy so much so that this instance has again dominated our television news casts and reporting for several days.

Much misinformation has also been a part of the media hype and reporting.  On the one hand, Dr. Tiller is being painted as almost a saint due to his providing a service that few physicians perform in order to help poor, hapless women who have had to undergo abortions late in the pregnancies for various medical reasons, or due to criminal rape or incest.

On the other hand, he is being painted as a murderer of innocent fetuses who would have been viable and alive if not for Dr. Tiller' and his clinic's services.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and there was also a political motivation involved.  No one has questioned in the slightest at this point a great many irregularities that have been reported both in the media, and the details as has been reported of the crime itself.

First, Dr. Tiller has been painted as performing a service that few physicians in this country undertake.  In fact, one news source quoted that his clinic was "only one of three" that provided such services as abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy.  

That is a blatant falsehood, as there are several of such clinics in most states now throughout the country due to the fact that most states have been as hesitant as the federal government in addressing the late term and partial birth issue now almost 30 years post Roe, which only addressed an abortion conducted in the  first trimester of pregnancy.

Second, if the perpetrator was actually a "fundamentalist" Christian and vehement anti-abortion radical, then why would this shooting have occurred, of all places, at the church where Dr. Tiller was serving as an usher reportedly?  If this gentleman truly believed he was "doing God's work," as has also been reported, would he not have chosen another day rather than the Sabbath in middle America, a day of rest and worship?

And if Dr. Tiller was truly limiting his practice to those circumstances in which the fetus was no longer viable, medical emergencies, and cases of rape or incest, wouldn't a hospital rather than a medical "clinic," with better facilities in the event of potential complications be the proper place in order for such medical procedures to be carried out? 

The instances and health risks of such late term abortions have been documented in many medical journals throughout the nation at this point due to the actual manner in which these abortions are carried out.    Post operative hemorrahaging is becoming more and more common the more this risky procedure continues to be performed.

The militants on both sides have drawn their battle lines. Even Mr. Obama made a public statement with respect to the crime and his feelings on the abortion issue.

But still there is the negligence of our federal government and Congress to address this basic duty now thirty years post Roe, and the incidences, public outrage and political fodder has raised the national temperature over this issue, while the politicians continue to use such instances as this and the divisiveness over the abortion issue as just more political rhetoric for votes come election time.

Its a hard job, but that is what our elected officials are for, are they not?  Defining "life" for Constitutional and legal purposes, and drawing a line in the sand between purely "elective" abortions and those necessitated by medical emergency or necessary premature deliveries is something that is long overdue.

Such an action would then leave the states free to then provide the parameters and consent and legal requirements individually and at the more local level that would be needed for these medical emergency, rape, incest, teen pregnancies or other later term medically necessitated abortions, as opposed to those which are truly nothing more than premature deliveries due to the developmental stage involved, and which require also then life saving methods to protect both the life of the mother and infant. 

Thirty years now post Roe we have birth control methods that were unknown at the time that decision was rendered, and also methods to detect pregnancy now within literally days and/or hours of conception. 

The founders based an entire document in order to secure "life" for them and their posterity. 

Isn't it time that our Congress got to the hard work of tackling these issues, and in addition many, many other issues and complications that have arisen due to continued federal negligence such as this, and cut the lobbyists, bankers and federal pork beggers loose for a session or two while it truly gets down to the matter of our government, rather than business and self interests?

Today Sonia Sotomayor had her first "meet and greet" with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over her potential confirmation as the first Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice.

A press conference and condensed version of what occurred during this first meeting was held shortly thereafter, attended by some of the movers and shakers of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Ms. Sotomayor appeared also to be all smiles, and the mainstream liberal media soon after issued their poll results that "over 50% of Americans support" Ms. Sotomayor's nomination.

She was appointed to the federal bench by the first Bush, in which there was very little scrutiny by Congress or the brouhaha that surrounds such matters as the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, due to the fact that they still remain in office for life, and there hasn't been a hearing or impeachment of a Supreme Court justice ever under the "good behavior" provisions in over 200 years due to the unlawful extension in 1805 during the Chase impeachment proceedings of extra-Constitutional provisions of judicial immunity for any and all actions in which a claim of "political bias" can be extended. 

This was the second "political" usurpation along with Marbury vs. Madison by the judiciary,  which then created an "unchecked" branch in this country, and again amended our Constitution without going through that formal amendment process - since "good behavior" clearly was intended to mean ruling by the judicial "seat of the pants," as it were and not the language or provisions as contained within our Constitution

The Jefferson Democrat/Republicans were  then attempting to institute this "check" provision during Chase, and it has never again been used due to "politics" rather than "the Law," holding sway a mere 18 years after its signing.  And now our Supreme Court has also become more and more political, and less and less independent and Constitutional, by the decade.

And that historically has included, it appears, just about any and all Supreme Court rulings, even the increasingly off the wall ones, and has contributed to the judicial activism in their progressively extra-Constitutional renderings to this very day.

For the record and in order to claify Ms. Sotomayor's previous remarks in 2001 with respect to the infamous statement referring to her Latina heritage as qualifying her perhaps better than another justice who hadn't "lived the life she had," Ms. Sotomayor told senators she would follow the law as a judge without letting her life experiences inappropriately influence her decisions.

"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, quoted the nominee as saying in their closed-door session.

My question is, which "law" is she referring to?  Our Constitution as the ultimate authority, or federal or even state statutes or their Constitutional provisions which may or may not be in accordance with it - since it is clear more and more that our Congress is not even reading a great many bills before they are voted on and passed due to various contrived "emergencies" (such as the Patriot Act, stimulus and bank bailouts), and a great many of those former statutes throughout the years are questionably in accordance with it.

Will we continue to desecrate it in the interests of "public policy" (socialism), "public safety" (also socialism), or the nebulous "state interests" (fascism and/or socialism) when it comes to American Bill of Rights issues for lawful American citizens?

Will we refuse to hear hot potato cases or issues within the Court's jurisdiction in order to protect political interests of one or the other mainstream political parties or their "corporate" interests?

Will Ms. Sotomayor consult our Constitution and various LAWFUL peace time treaties or trade agreements entered into and ratified BY CONGRESS when it involves international concerns, or opinions of college professors, law reviews and the ultimate transgression against our Constitution, international law?

Several justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor are on record as stating that they believe that a Supreme Court justice should be afforded the right to consult international laws in rendering some of their opinons, even though "globalized" law was not at all the founders intent for the sovereign United States clearly due to the very reason for that Revolutionary War to begin with.

So I do hope that there is much more information released to the public and press with respect to Ms. Sotomayor's statements, than those that are now coming out of these press conferences, interviews with politicians, and the various  press releases.

But I doubt it.  In the piece Harry Reid, D-NV is quoted as stating that he had not read a single one of her opinions during her 17 years on the federal bench, and if all went as planned "would not have to do so."

I guess we know Harry's criteria is about "politics" and not about "the Law."

The fundamental question is, exactly which "ultimate" authority and law are you referring to, Ms. Sotomayor, since a great many of the sitting and former justices seem at this point with respect to both domestic and foreign issues to have been not simply confused, but truly unaware of the actual document which affords them the right to hold that lofty position.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090602/4a24a3c0_3ca6_15526200906021074699449
 

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation.  All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions.  And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parent dependents to also provided for.

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which all our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted?  It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it? 

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense?  Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

The liberal lefty loonies have done it again in the U.S., and amazed that the state of our nation has now come to this.

According to Yahoo News and several other news sources, at a recent symposium held in London by 20 pre-eminent Nobel laureates and attended by the Prince of Wales, Barack Obama's new energy czar, Steven Chu, made his contribution to the global warming non-phenomena now sweeping the globe in order to "stimulate" the economies of the science and technology fields:

Mr. Chu recommends that all roofs be painted energy-reflective white.

In the article he further states that making roads and roofs a paler color would have the effect of taking every car off the road for 11 years.

I wonder if he ever worked for DuPont?

As a former Arizona resident, I can unequivocally state that painting roofs white might not be a bad idea given the sweltering summers in that desert climate.  However, due to the desert dust storms and monsoons, those roofs would be brown, gray or even black within a few seasons.  Not to mention the extra-strength prescription Ray-Bans you would need during the summer in order not to suffer the equivalent of snow blindness.

I wonder if these noted laureates took into consideration that with all those white roofs, would it not increase the heat also that would be reflected back toward the sun, potentially burning out that star well before its time and leaving this planet then in total darkness?

Maybe that topic is for the next global summit.

I wonder what the carbon footprints for those attending the meeting, and whether they flew by prop or British Airways non-stop jumbo jet?  With the state of our technology as it is now, you would think twenty scientists could meet via telecom or satellite communications, and spare the rest of the world that excess carbon.

At least the White House and Capitol are in compliance, but it appears socializing exterior roofing is now also not even beyond the reach of these global politicians and world leaders at this point.

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a  "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become.  And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.
 

Recently on one of the major networks it was reported that the State of California is facing a massive budget deficit, with the citizens of California screaming.

It appears Governor Schwartzenegger's solution to the catastrophy, one which again has a great deal to do with the past and current administration's governmental excesses from all reports, is now to request that the citizens of the United States bail out California much like the AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts (and it appears, the Big Three auto manufacturers).

California, the home of such programs as "Californication," "Beverly Hills 90210," "The OC" and the like, is hardly an innocent victim in their predicament, but a state who has built it's own reputation on fantasy and excess.

Apparently, it is those hard working Midwesterners and farmers that those in the Golden State now wish to come to their rescue, in addition to the out of work steel and auto workers, and those now homeless due to many of the practices of a number of banks who make their home also in the Golden State.

My former home state, Arizona, is now full of the refugees from California who essentially have destroyed that state with their excesses, and are working on destroying my former home in leaps and bounds with their liberal agendas.

Governor Schwartenegger, here are some suggestions for restoring economic viability in California:

1. Reduce all governmental salaries by at least 25%, in recognition that you, and all public employees of that state, also have blue ribbon health, dental, and pension plans that a good 2/3's of the private sector employees in California do not have (with the exception of Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and Nobb Hill).

Place freezes on additonal new hires until the size of government in the state can actually bear relevance to need, i.e., since the cities and local governments are state actors of the State of California, both legally and by judicial interpretation, just maybe your bicameral legislature could be parred down to a unicameral one such as Nebraska has, which is actually more in accordance with the federal Constitution, since there are only three "legal" entities within it - the federal government, the states, and the people.

And Senators rarely represent the municipalites solely in state government, but usually also large corporate interests just as the House members now do although elected through supposedly "democratic" local elections. Although those candidates merely are representatives of political party and corporate interests, by and large, and many of which funded by out of district slush money.

The U.S. Senators were actually provided to represent "the states" with the U.S. House then representing the people. The 17th Amendment somehow changled all that and is why we now have Senators courted by foreign governments and corporate lobbyists, since if elected by the state legislatures as originally provided, they were accountable to the states themselves.

>Such a change in California government would result in shorter legislative sessions, less bureaucracy, and less costs to the taxpayers with greater accessibility, and would also be a great idea for the other 48 states which have yet to recognize this "double whammy, double bureaucracy" excess. What a concept!

2. Institute gaming and gambling just like the State of Arizona and so many other states across the nation have rather recently done, and then in conjunction with the new social drinking taxes, have officers wait outside the casinos to pick up the low level DUIs after the casinos have plied them with alcohol. Either they lose the money in the casinos to the state, or just in the event they win or truly do not excessively imbibe, they lose it in the DUI fines and fees after leaving.

Then put them in the privatized county court system, so that the state, counties and cities can at least get their share of the federal pork pie for those expenses and incarcerations by the head factored according to arrests and convictions made by juries now which are becoming increasing comprised of many state or municipal employees to insure those conviction rates stay high and those dollars continue to flow in, or been removed entirely so that the city or county judge can act as the state revenue agent instead.

Oh, and also install statewide those speeding cameras so that you can gain another several billions on those progressive fines and fees for speeding violations based upon those fallible machines. That should bring in billions!!!

Alas, though I see that the State Supreme Court is going to "review" the legality this week of Proposition 8, which passed recently under a citizen's initiative restricting marriages to two sex couples.

Overturn that "people determined" decision due to budgetary needs, and of course you can look forward to all those licenses fees, and the "for profit" court costs and fees for all those divorces sometime in the future. Not to mention all those added taxes that will be necessary in order to provide those courts for at least some of those divorces if only 1/3 of them end up in the courts eventually.

And also those future campaign contributions from the California Bar Association Domestic Relations Division due to the gold mine such an action would engender for their corporate interests in state permission and licensures of personal relationships, rather than simple recordations of these oral or written personal contracts.

Nor does this take into consideration the effect and costs of those wildfires of yours due to the aging 60's hippie environmentalists and their offspring, nor the "global warming" scam supported by Hollywood in order to now tax the air we breathe.

I don't think Californians should be screaming, but the rest of the nation.