It was announced in the mainstream media recently that while Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is recovering from the events which occurred in Tucson in early January in which six Americans and Arizonans were attacked during a political forum at an area shopping center,
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) have been hard at work organizing fundraisers and creating a PAC organization in order to raise monies for Ms. Gifford's 2012 re-election campaign.

This tragedy notwithstanding nor Ms. Gifford's amazing recovery from all reports, aren't the priorities in Washington a little off base insofar as just what their jobs truly are once again?

I mean it has been reported that it will take months and months of rehabilitation therapy in order for Ms. Giffords to recover whatever brain functions may have been lost in this attack.

Meanwhile, the citizens in her district are without representation, while members of Congress are hard at work insuring their survival and that of their political parties after this heinous attack?

It is quite unbelieveable that procedures would not be in place in order to temporarily elect another citizen to represent the citizens in District 5 while Ms. Gifford's is recovering, if it is even her intention to continue to serve after what she has been through.  I wonder, has anyone consulted her insofar as her future intentions?  I mean one article even spoke of a Senate race, for heaven's sake.

Politics as usual, and just wonder whose political livelihoods and future best interests these politicians are attempting to secure?

Rather than representation for the benefit of the citizens of District 5?

Tuesday was election day throughout the nation, and appears it was another occasion where "backing up" our election campaign finance laws is long overdue.

At both the state and federal levels.

"Citizens United" was by far one of THE MOST egregious unconstitutional decisions heretofore ever made by the U.S. Supreme Court in its over 200 year history, along of course with that "corporate person-hood" redefinition and blurring in the differences between the free speech rights of the people,  and elected officials and those running for political office through various "commercial" special interest and PAC organizations funded with many times matching federal grant monies due to their "educational" focuses, or "non-profit" status.

Prior to that one, it was the Kelo decision, also giving corporate interests, in bed with the muncipal and state governments, more power, and has resulted in the American public's land and homes being "taken" more and more for tax revenue in then legalized "theft" by the "sovereign" on behalf on one of their "favored subjects" ala Great Britain. 

All in the name of the political benefit and the added revenue "the state" can receive from such takings, and so contrary to the intention of those founders for protection of their land and homes which was also a fundamental gripe of those patriots in the land seizures in Britain at their expense, it is equally astounding in its magnitude.

That Citizens United cases has contributed to our election process becoming nothing more than political blindsiding, with a license to then libel, or spin and spin some more propaganda with the end result being the one who could dodge the bullets faster, or the mud, or has the largest campaign coffer to repeat those message ad infinitum in those prime time spots, wins.

And that was apparent this last "off" election year cycle.

There were so many ads run on the local and cable television networks by various PAC organizations and partisan political groups, it seems almost a constant barrage of election overload began from the onset and in midsummer at that.

With the Constitution itself used in many for their positions, with so many spins that my head was spinning after almost all of those one minute spots the "misrepresentations" were coming so furious and fast.

In one highly produced commercial aimed at one of the candidates from an opposing party by the PAC organization for the "Democrats," slams were taken at a candidate due to his opposition to the 17th Amendment and position that it should be somewhat "rewound" to its original Constitutional intent for state representation.

According to the "man on the street" type blurbs that accompanied the spins, the actors the actors stated he was way "too extreme" a candidate to be given any consideration.

Of course, the 17th Amendment as it is now written erased the election of senators by the various state legislatures, and put those elections also into the hands of the public unconstitutionally - thus eliminated the "representation" of the states by the state legislatures as their "representatives," with the House intended, of course, to be the balance and true voice of the people strictly living in their own legislative districts.

It was in effect done due to the difficulties at segregated times for the state legislatures to get together in order to elect a member when one of the senators either died in office, or was removed or could no longer perform the functions of office due to varying circumstances.

And also, along with the passage of the 16th and creation of the Federal Reserve, to centralize more and more power in Washington by the states, so very contrary to the intended Republican type of government those founders actually created of a "general" and "special" governments and the balance of power, and accountability to the people at primarily the more local level.

Now, local elections are primarily funded and also those ads produced by "out of district" commercial political organizations, many of which themselves owned by "foreign" corporate interests, with their "home" offices in other districts, and other states.

Thus, your local election can be "won" by a New York or Los Angeles "special interest" or media group and thus stimulating their local economies for commercial purposes using your election in Hometown, U.S.A.

And also due to those "matching sums" unconstitutionally also received by the two mainstream political parties "corporate" organizations, who have in essence completely hijacked our election process at the state level in most of the larger states and even the process itself, so much so that at this point we have an unrepresentative government on every level, and campaign election laws that continue to get more "PAC" and special "corporate" interest friendly, and less "legal" along the intent of those founders for a representative government of the states, and their respective district citizenry.

At this point, even "foreign" out of country PAC organizations are gaining more and more a foothold in our election process, through their "national" domiciled offices or those "bundlers" also accepting out of state donations to local election campaigns in order to influence or fix the outcomes.

Note to the voters: Casting your vote has never become more important, but less relevant in just how that election eventually turns out.

And more so by the year.

The next presidential election cycle should be starting anytime now.

I mean, Christmas decorations went up about two weeks ago throughout the country before Halloween, so look for April or May and get out the Dramamine before Super Tuesday high tide washes you away.

It has become abundantly clear to many, our personal "legal" and relevant vote is nothing more than a test of patience, and our election contribution just another donation primarily to the state and federal revenue coffers once again in those gasoline taxes for the fuel it takes to get to those polling places.

And in this "high tech" voting age, I'm wondering really how many of those early mail in written ballots will be counted, or simply tossed in File 13.

It was announced in the mainstream media that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a prior panel ruling (?)which had found the State of Washington's prohibition banning voting by felons unconstitutional.

The case apparently was grounded and brought as a "racial discrimination" case, however, and the basis for the decision appears politics also just may have been a factor in this recent ruling. 

After all, with the exception of two states in the nation all have some provisions barring convicted felons from the election process.  Some more stringent than others, and even a few that actually prohibit felons from voting for life (forget "letting the punishment fit the crime," or after the punishment has been handed down and fulfilled "records" being then wiped clean upon petition for felons, and automatically for misdemeanor offenses).

Seems to me maybe the lawyers for the case might have missed using that other Constitutional provision, the "privileges and immunities clause," that also might have been another legal avenue to travel.  I mean, two states do not remove voting rights for felons, so aren't those prisoners getting a "privilege" that those prisoners in other states do not, since the buzz words also being used by the spin doctors on this one is that voting is a "privilege" in this country, and not a "right?"

Huh?

In a government of the people, by the people, for the people it most certainly is a "right" in this writer's view, but then we have also quite clearly lost any measure of having a representative government due to just such wacko court decisions as these, as of late, all the way to the top branch in that last Citizens United "corporate" case brought by a somewhat "commercial" entity, or perhaps dare I say, federally funded through its "educational" focus?

I mean, foreigners now are exerting their influence in the hallowed halls of Washington more and more, both through their lobbying efforts and also through their campaign donations to those "bundlers."

The court also cited a "precedence" from an 1886 case, and strange that this "progressively liberal" court would hold with a case while bypassing the intent of the founders and their reverence for just what type of government they were creating, and which actually had to do more so with capital offenses in which jury trials actually were given in those days, and cases were not plea bargained, or those jailhouse appeals denied as regularly as they appear to be more and more then thereafter.

Many times, for budgetary reasons.

I wonder if Washington State has privatized its state jails as Arizona has? 

I mean, the fewer inmates, the less those Wall Street penal conglomerates get for their budgets and shareholders, and the less the states also get from the federal government in order to also run some of those state prisons.  This is, after all, another emerging industry creating all those jobs for those homeland security graduates and ex-military primarily. 

Is it any wonder that more and more of those pro se jailhouse appeals are getting either denied, or "lost," as was the case in Louisiana several years ago in a published article which was written after a Clerk of the Court committed suicide presumably due to his guilt over having been a participant in such a court process for at least a decade.

And while Arizona's prisons have been privatized right and left supposedly due to "budgetary" constraints, I just wonder where all those monies also are coming from in order to upgrade and build all those new jails especially with the budget being of such major concerns to a great many states these past five years, while the most monies that went in that stimulus actually did go to the states for such purposes.  I guess this is another "outsourcing" of governmental powers and duties to private industry in these now "commercial" prisons once again that will have their bottom line profits most in mind in running them, and with little state oversight whatsoever as was recently in the headlines.

I mean in this "ends justifies the means" style governing now on every level, the more and more that minor offenses are criminalized which don't involve loss of property or injury, the more "jobs" it creates, and dividends for those shareholders who are invested in those commercial ventures at this point.

This is the mentality that seems to be running rampant at the city, county, state and federal levels more and more. 

Just think how much crime stimulates the economy, and creates jobs.  Construction jobs, security and prison guards for the returning military and homeland security grads, the "tech" industry for all those cameras and surveillance devices, identity theft protection companies and jobs, insurance company profits for expanded coverages then needed on homeowners and auto insurance due to the rising auto theft rates in most state throughout the nation - why it does appear that it is a major stimulus for quite a few sectors of Wall Street.

In fact, if there wasn't crime at all, just think how many more would be lining up at the social service offices right now. 

Maybe that is also a factor in this economic depression. 

The need for more criminals in order to stimulute also the global economy, Wall Street, and the U.S. economy - after a theft, you have to go out and buy something to replace what was taken, after satsifying that deductible, that is.  After your car is stolen or broken into, you need to satsify that deductible when making those repairs, or buying tha new (or used) car to replace it. 

Maybe this is why more and more in local communities there are no neighborhood patrols really much anymore in residential communities, since that would affect and impact the economy and jobs of those private security companies too, although they have no real legal authority to do anything really other than place a call to the local police force if the worst should happen and there should be a property crime in their jurisdiction.

It just might not be the budget at all  If there were regular neighborhood patrols once again there just might be less crime, maybe, and thus less jobs and profits for those on the "crime does pay" gravy train.  Or if the economy actually did improve significantly.

But with lesser offenses, this country IS supposed to be the "land of the free" - so just why has there been such a progressive move to  criminalize more and more petty offenses, offenses in which there is no direct victim such as many of those minor "possession" charges on marijuana use, not sale, and others.  You can spend jail time even for misdemeanor offenses at this point in most states throughout the nation. 

Many of the even public misdemeanor jails are charging inmates for their own meals, or confiscating their wages then from any work they do for the "privatized" jailhouse general stores upon their return.  I mean being in jail itself, deprived of your freedom and separated from society for your crime, was SUPPOSED to be THE punishment for major offenses.

Those incarcerated, especially those felonies not involving harm or injury to another, are or were taxpayers - but it appears when handing down their double, triple and even quadruple penalties for even minor felony offenses, the states are forgetting the common law provisions on civil and criminal crimes in this country.  And most aren't even "convicted" but are plea bargained also for "budgetary" needs by those public defenders.

Letting the punishment fit the crime has been lost in the process.  And even giving those juries the instructions that they also have not only the duty to hand down their verdict on the evidence presented, but also the duty to examine the law and punishments attached by statute also as to legality in their view as representatives of "the people," and not "the state."

Although even obtaining a jury of your peers is almost impossible, since juries are now profiled by the lawyers involved, or are comprised of citizens that truly are not "peers" of the defendant at all - many of whom are themselves city, state, county or federal workers who are paid from some of those fines and fees attached to those crimes - especially the minor offenses.

And yet, there is a concerted move also progressively to continue to attempt to remove trials by jury for more and more offenses even.  With the state acting as both the charging party, and jury in more and more "bench" trials for misdemeanor criminal offenses, and with even traffic fines at all time highs requiring most to enter into "payment plans" at added costs even over and above those fines, which should be a clue right there as to the levels at which they are now set.  The very definition of fascism, actually.

So how is removal of voting privileges in any manner letting the punishment fit the crime, unless it truly is the highest offense within our Constitution.

High treason. 

I mean spies, and those in high political office should not be afforded that "right" when by their actions they have shown that it is not this country or its Constitution which guides their actions, or to whom they owe their fealty.

I wonder, just how many in Washington that are highly publicized casting their votes even while running for office, should have their ballots challenged?

Maybe what we need at this point is a recount ever decade, rather than a census.

I just wonder how many "foreigners" and "party politicians, including those "mavericks" of both mainstream political parties whose political leanings have nothing to do with Constitutional government, votes would then be thrown out.

Another ruling by the Ninth that appears to be following British law at the time of the American Revolution, and not U.S., as this ruling to this writer flies in the fact of the entire intent of America's founders in a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Weighed agains the increasing access to the U.S. Courts by foreign individuals, not even American citizens, speaks volumes in just how far off this recent decision is as opposed to Constitutional intent.

Recently I had another wake-up call and experience that essentially proves that the increased outsourcing and insourcing of American jobs spreads across both political aisles, all campaign promises and representations to the contrary.

An acquaintance of mine on the federal Food Stamp Program, which is merely "administered" through state and local social service offices failed to receive their benefits for the month which were scheduled to be deposited on the 2nd (the program makes the distributions according to the last digit of the recipients social security number).  This individual then attempted to contact the number printed on the plastic food stamp debit card issued through Quest, which apparently has this enormous government contract in a great many states.

Dialing the number printed on the card simply provided a menu of options, none of which addressed the failure to receive the benefits due.  So instead called another number printed on the card for lost or stolen cards, and waited through the "choose your language" option until the "rotary" dial option was given which indicated at that point they would be transferred to a customer service representative.  This took about five minutes to get through all the menu options.

The individual who then answered the phone requested a social security number and birthdate "for identification purposes" and had a heavy East Indian accent.  A request was then made by my acquaintance as to just where this call center was located assisting Americans and the retailers printed on the card.  The Quest representative then declined to provide the location of their offices "for security purposes," however my acquaintance then made a second call to the center, and another individual with an East Indian accent then also answered the phone and requested the same information (social security number and birthdate) from them.

So apparently, our federal food stamp program is now, through Quest, being "administered" through call centers located in New Delhi?

Apparently, this question also was one in which the representative wasn't authorized to answer, and simply then directed my acquaintance to go to the local state social service office to then inquire as to why the hold-up, which was ony discovered after they had gone to the grocery store and found out that the benefits were not available that were due to be deposited on the 2nd.

So outsourcing even those call center jobs for social service benefits, which essentially makes these East Indian call center representatives employees paid with U.S. taxpayer funds is now SOP?

This week it was also announced that Mayor Bloomberg, the enthusiastic supporter of the Islamic Center proposed to be built within a few blocks of Ground Zero in Manhattan, has also joined the Obama Administration's fight on childhood (and adult) obesity apparently.

He has proposed that food stamp benefits be further restricted in at least New York to "healthy" foods (which I guess the state is going to hire a dietician to judge), and further bans placed on just what those food stamp benefits can be spent on over and above the bans on cigarettes, alcohol, and household products. 

Soda (or pop in the West) was listed as his primary beef with the benefits program in eliminating "sugary" drinks from those individuals on the welfare and food stamp rolls.

I wonder how many martinis the Mayor drinks at some of those conventions and fundraisers?

Mr. Bloomberg, doesn't New York City have enough other problems with a little more priority rather than addressing the dietary choices of the homeless and jobless in that state who must go through reams of paperwork in order to simply have food?

Taxation without representation, at this point in America's history, doesn't even begin to describe the level of corruption originating quite clearly on the East Coast, which has now definitely spread to the West.

I'm not real comfortable having an East Indian, or any foreigner, in possession of my social security number.  I mean, I doubt that in a mere seven years when I "officially" will qualify there will be anything left at all given the rate this Administration and the last dipped into  those sums, while denying through this "regulatory" body benefits to many homeless and jobless "over 55" year olds already that have been majorly impacted by this American depression, which social security when initiated was clearly meant to provide during that first depression, but still...

And if I am wrong as to the location of this call center and it is in the U.S. merely preferring to hire either foreigners or new immigrants, just what does that say also about the "corporate" priorities running rampant and increasing in their hiring practices?

I mean, two out of two calls?

When even the U.S. government contractors paid with taxpayer sums are not "hiring American" is it any wonder that the U.S. economy is not rebounding?

Hello, Washington?

What this all actually means also is that all that deregulation in the past of the telecommunications companies that was supposed to break up Ma Bell and result in lower prices for Americans and "choices," has not resulted in the scenario that Washington painted in order to sell that "privatization" of America's airwaves or provide more jobs for AMERICANS.

Instead, it simply created another huge monopoly which is totally unregulated and now "contracting out" those jobs to India, while lining up for state and federal subsidies also for their huge convention centers and ballparks, again at the taxpayer's expense.

In this writer's opinion, there shouldn't be a free Quest day at some of those stadiums,convention centers or ballparks.

There should be a free Quest season.

The AP (American Propaganda) press reported today that due to a perceived reduction in the amount of unemployment claims for the "4th straight month" as reported to them by the U.S. Department of Labor, indicates signs that employers have stopped laying off some of their employees.

And reaffirms the economists prediction that this "recession" ended in July.

Although the amount of "new" jobs reported by and large have been government jobs under this and the previous administration and simply funded through the general public's taxes by the taxpayers instead of those unemployment benefits by those major corporations. 

And I would not hesitate to question whether the true number of jobless has decreased.  During this entire recession/depression there has been no figures published of the amount of new businesses that have gone under, owners of which are not eligible for unemployment benefits nor any other type of social welfare benefits.

And if my experiences have been any indication, most of those government agencies are simply directing the homeless and jobless to the social service government grant civic organizations and churches to assist them, rather than the welfare offices, SSI or the unemployment offices.

So those figures are not at all indicative of just how many remain without a job, or have lost their businesses during this manipulated meltdown.  Nor has the mortgage and foreclosure mess been addressed adequately in that arena, and from all indications it does appear that the housing market is not improving since absolutely nothing has been done in order to address the loans and terms under which most of those homes were sold which also led to the foreclosure tsunami.

Namely, loans that were "creatively" sold and marketed that were not even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR, and upfront fees and costs even in order to get those loans which now make purchasing a home more of a liability, than an asset.

This is, after all, the third banker/Washington market manipulation in housing in my lifetime, as a former resident of one of the states most affected - Arizona.  And those 50+ page loan documents that are now part and parcel of this major purchase have put many a potential homeowner alone off purchasing a home at this point, not to mention any and all that have been affected this last cycle who are now both wiser, and have warned their posterity about the changes in the housing market which make that foreclosure "steal" nothing more than an instrument in which during the next cycle, it will be their home on the auction block.

Seems the distant AP press is as clueless as this Administration, and the last.

I wonder if they have walked into any of those unemployment offices lately, or are simply phoning their articles in on their iPhones?

Desperately attempting to get the teachers unions back into the Democratic fold, Barack Obama held another summit on education, this time directed at bolstering the budgets and enrollment figures of the nation's community colleges.

As one who lived for many, many years in a state that has a first rate community college system, Arizona, this push toward encouraging the "middle class" to focus on the more "affordable" community colleges merely is another sign that America's economy isn't getting better but worse, and using the education card another ploy to looking like we are doing something, when really doing nothing at all to help the middle class or support small business startups or emerging industries outside the tech and public employee fields, but offer them "options" and "alternatives" for their increasingly lowered standards of living.

The article quoted the substantial savings that these colleges offer, with averages of "only" $2,500 annual tuition costs.

When I graduated high school in Arizona, that rate was free or nearly so per credit hour as opposed to the $10.00 per credit hour that was being levied at the three major Arizona universities (1970's tuition was $160.00 per semester for a full course load at ASU or $320 per year).  The junior college option was less than $3.00 per (before political correctness was the order of the day), or - although the cost of living from the 1970's to today has soared in housing, food, gas and other costs, education appears to be at the top of the list.  Even though many of those teachers now at least in Arizona can retire after a mere 20 years, collect benefits, and then resume their teaching careers at other schools. 

Or work at the community job center while collecting their retirement. 

In fact, more and more it does appear that scholarships and grants are being used as sales tools since few grants cover full tuition anymore as the remaining costs most students or their parents must come up with are well above the COLA from the 70's to today.  Although most Americans have been paying for those colleges and their operating costs through their property taxes and a host of other taxes passed on to the public for their costs - including rebuilding and expanding campuses that have been facing decreasing enrollments which is why so many foreigners now are being educated at America's top universities also at the taxpayer's expense.

It appears our four year universities are going to be reserved more and more for the well-heeled, and foreigners for that out of state, out of country tuition higher tuition due to also currency fluctuations, while the American middle class and state residents who have paid for those universities for decades are encouraged to utilize the community colleges for their offspring instead.

Not really such a bad idea as is becoming more clear for other reasons, since the classrooms in those colleges are far smaller for the most part and also since most students commute with no dorms or housing costs involved for the majority of those colleges, less of a chance that their child's roommate just might wish to hone his video skills also and broadcast via worldwide webcam what he or she engages in during his downtime.

It was also announced that there has been created another public-private partnership between government and corporate America. 

This time with McDonald's and the Gap.

And the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 

Obviously, it appears that some of the upcoming high school students just might not be able to work those summer jobs at McDonald's or the Gap since it would appear that those jobs will now take an "associates" degree in order to even get through the application process.  Maybe that is also why there is becoming more and more push toward year around schools so that parents are then shouldered with all those extraneous costs for getting those degrees outside even tuition rather than encouraging Junior to at least earn his own spending money for their splurges on their sports memorabilia, bookstore purchases, or fraternity and sorority dues or costs. 

And don't think of not encouraging your college student to enroll for those technology classes, since the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also contributing for this cause, since they will definitely need that skill so they at least can go through the application process post graduation after obtaining those degrees for any future positions for any position, including the larger retail chains.

Of course, since Microsoft has been the largest also beneficiary of the Obama and previous administrations "Americans Get Educated in Science and Technology" agenda with those massive government contracts at the taxpayer's expense with all those annual upgrades involved in keeping up with "new and improved" software, this demonstration of generosity simply means this Foundation would be then simply returning a great deal of the taxpayer's monies spent privately and through their tax bite back to the schools that have and continue to purchase their product - so really, Mr. Gates is simply utilizing some of his profits from those government contracts to "give back" to the schools those taxes they received that then used a great deal of their annual budgets to purchase those software upgrades.

The competitive edge also was used so that this country can continue to compete in this "global" economy, since we are now "socializing" education with a "science based" focus internationally as the populace becomes more and more "programmers" and data inputers for those mainframes.

While of course outsourcing many of the former industrial jobs and suppliers for those retailers to China, to those jobs provided to those poorer individuals in those countries instead who are working without having to go through the HAL process.

It does seem kids today are being taught and educated primarily to use computers, rather than their brains and critical thinking skills more and more outside the governmental agendas for the 21st century, as when those computers "crash" or are unavailable most major retail corporations and the government itself screeches to a halt.  Or banks.  Or airlines.

Here is an example of just how "tight" this partnership with the high tech gadget industry actually is.  This is from a government website in a city in the western United States for their hiring needs with respect to the application process:

Application Process:

The City of ________________has an online job application system. It uses state-of-the-art technology which gives our candidates greater flexibility in the application process.  (for the advantage of the candidates?)

Applications are only accepted through our online application system.

Human Resources will not accept or consider applications that are mailed, emailed, faxed, or dropped off at our office.  (and just where is the stated "flexibility in the application" process?)

As a boomer, I'm still having trouble relating to the terms "human resources" rather than "personnel" since, while it may seem to be "politically correct in this "science based technology," era, I think a new terminology is needed here.  Instead of "Human Resource" Departments, maybe the term should simply be modified to reflect the true nature of what corporate America and those government offices are actually is looking for.

The "Input Department" and electronic paper pushers for those far off "district" and regional offices, since more and more it is even computers based on software programs with a mathematical formula that are hiring and determining those "humans" it might need as "resources." 

Including even who gets an interview.

Online applications are now the "new age" voicemail of the past.  Human Resources doesn't wish to speak with you, until you go through their computers for screening and are deemed by "Hal" to be worthy.  Or any employment agency, governmentally funded or otherwise.

This now in addition to calling for year around schooling in order to also "compete" in the global community.

I wonder when Uncle Sam will be listed on the "new" birth certificates at America's hospitals, since it appears that after the first five years, your children are not your children at all merely a potential human resource for global corporate interests - with many states are also initiating measures in order to deny public employment positions to those children who are homeschooled (this is not, however, discrimination) and any and all that don't get with the current jobs focus need not apply, but then again try arguing that fact when submitting your welfare or SSI application for your social services "benefits," rather than borrowing money once again to get "re-educated." 

The computer has spoken.  ONLY computer educated and friendly applicants need apply.  Although the actual job itself just may not need much in the way of keyboarding.  Or applicants will need then retraining on individualized software programs anyway.

It is, after all, a science to learning how to flip burgers or assist a customer on a clothing purchase at this point, and the corporate HALs are now hooked up to the banking HALs and government HALs and will be checking on your credit scores and traffic tickets in addition to your skills, job history and education.

I hope McDonald's and the Gap are just as supportive of raising that minimum wage in order to cover the advance degrees now needed for some of those positions that formerly were available to those who either could not afford to pursue degrees, or simply are more creative individuals rather than robotic material, in any event that might have an independent thought on just how to build a better mousetrap (another passé' expression at this point, it would appear).

I mean those business majors and graduates and their parents are now working side by side at McDonald's, so why should that industrious or hardworking free-thinking dropout who needs to go to work to help his formerly middle class parents pay the rent, or earn his own extraneous college expenses get a job without having to become indentured to his state government or the bankers and fill out those mandated computer loan applications, and committing the cardinal sin of not being prescreened by going through HAL and his cousins?

The competitive working environment is no longer a jungle out there in any event, it's now a network.

And "private/private" partnership also.

The other day I was in a local McDonald's and plastered all over the walls were cute drawings by some of the local grammar school students in grades K-4 with the message "Buy a burger Tuesday and help us get technology for our classrooms."

I wonder when teaching penmanship and handwriting will soon become relegated to the educational scrap heap, along with those dictionaries (who are now going out of print), since HAL can even help you avoid those awful phonics lessons, word lists and spelling tests.

What's wrong with U?  Those online urban dictionaries instead now have the HAL and NEA seal of approval.

And wasn't Lincoln homeschooled?

In the aftermath of the tragic death by suicide of a gay freshman student at Rutgers University, there has been much in the mainstream media focusing on the victimization of this young man prior to this tragedy allegedly at the hands of a disgruntled roommate, especially in the ease in which this roommate had to a public forums on the Internet through a webcam to violate and humiliate this young man so thoroughly, even going so far as to advertise in advance his intentions.

What has been left out has been much, it would appear, in just truly led to this disaster as more and more details are coming out.

It appears both had had trouble adjusting to each other and their new circumstances as freshman living away from home most likely for the first time. And clearly seemed ill suited to be "rooming" together to begin with, but obviously felt that school officials or their own parents were not ones in which they felt they truly could confide. It appears the victim had also written on several public forums his discontent with the situation.

Much has been made of the fact that the victim was gay, and that this also must have contributed to his torment. But I wonder how many freshman maybe having their first sexual experience, or even their first with a new partner, would have been just as humiliated if it had been a heterosexual encounter also distributed for their fellow classmates consumption and enjoyment. No doubt, other than those that have narcissistic tendencies to begin with or use sex for self-validation, would have had trouble seeing such an intimate encounter or act broadcast.

Hollywood celebrities or high level politicians, of course, are excluded since narcissism, at least body image and a rich and varied sexual history, seems to be a prerequisite in those lines of work.

I would also question some of the mainstream media's defense of the Internet still in light of what occurred.

There does clearly need to be some regulation of these social networking sites that many younger adults and teens have access to, or at least what is and is not afforded to be published on them insofar especially of imagery and videos of other individuals without their express consent. But that is even a little too broad. Live feed video of your roommate on a world wide web is not the same as sharing your latest vacation shots or science project.

But then again, since the state and federal governments have a rather loosey goosey definition of "civil" rights with respect to its spying and monitoring activities at this point against the American adult population in this country as has been in the press more and more also since 9-11, and its fascination with video surveillance and gadgetry, why should those in the media or in higher office be surprised that such a tragedy might not eventually occur?

Just what are students doing with webcams in college dormitories, I ask? Do they need webcams in order to complete an assignment, or get to class? I mean a snapshot broadcast worldwide would have been bad enough, but a live feed webcam broadcast?

It seems to me that Rutgers just might also need to re-evaluate its fascination with gadgetry, and just what is and what is not allowed in those dorms.

A webcam seems even a little more onerous than a keg of beer, yet I would bet there is more administrative monitoring of alcohol consumption by the students in the underage dormitories than there was of bringing live feed webcams, or cell phones.

I know, I'm sure the reason is so that those students can phone home live and in person, but maybe a university wide net nanny is needed here and on many college campuses also?

At the price of tuition nowadays, even if kids are there on scholarships it does seem that the scholarships more and more do not even near cover the costs of tuition at the rates they have increased, much less books, room and board.

And the social networking that most should be doing should happen in the classroom and at the MU.

And just maybe communications classes should become a prerequisite at the high school or freshman college level, and others such as this young man could be spared from any future anguish, embarrassment, or torture in the name of "free expression."

This was not an example of free speech, or free expression in any political arena.

This wasn't a politician, corporate special interest, public figure, or Hollywood star. His adversary was not a political opponent, corporate competitor, ripped off citizen/consumer, entertainment ragazine, or disenfranchised citizen/voter.

This was an 18 year old American boy.

On "youth marketed" and advertised public forums.

And a live feed camera in a dorm room on an American college campus is not a "free press."

reprint from www.backupamerica.org
(Edited and expanded)

This weekend our mainstream print and television media will be dedicating much of their programming once again to 9-11 and its aftermath, and using it in order to garner ratings and place their subjective spins on this black mark in American history.

One major news magazine has an article devoted to how America "over-reacted" to 9-11, and the threat of al-Qaeda (although originally it was the Taliban and Osama bin Laden which was the focus of those first weeks and months post 9-11, not al Qaeda at all).  Another article in the same magazine written by a former President's daughter lambasts how the liberals are disappointed with the reaction of Mr. Obama to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the weeks and months this Administration stood by while tens of thousands of barrels of oil were spewing into the Gulf, without a mention of the continuing war also whose candidate had pledged to end the war, one of their major concerns at election time.

To this American, it has been nine long years of betrayal and using 9-11 also for their agendas by both political parties which has resulted in the increased discontent of the American people with their leadership.

I would not state that the reactions of the general citizenry were "over-reactions," but that the actions of the Bush/Obama Administration have been "under-reactions."

Our borders, for the most part, and ports of entry are even less secure than they were pre-9-11.  Our infrastructure and many of our vital industries and public utility companies are traded on the global exchange, and for all intents and purposes even our nuclear reactors could be "owned" through stock purchases, by foreigners.

There has also been two other attempts under even stranger circumstances, originating from Great Britain since that time used to justify then increasing security measures domestically, although the Bush Administration during his last 90 days in office expanded the Visa waiver program for foreign citizens wishing entry, requiring simply 48 hour security checks, to citizens from over 45 nations.

Our southern and northern borders still remain relatively unsecured, and there are once again even since 2006 attempts being made to "legalize" individuals who are in this country who had absolutely no security checks at all as having entered illegally, and also who have overstayed their work, student or visitor visas.

While instead, Americans are being asked to submit themselves to full body scanners, and other invasive security measures at domestic airports.

In this same magazine, an article also appeared that harkened back to how "united" the American people were post 9-11, pulling together for a "common good," due to all the donations and volunteers that did what they could in the aftermath of the tragedy.  As a nation, however, I would not say that this country was "united" except for the fact that it was united in its outrage that such an event, in this modern day and era and with all the monies spent for national defense in technology during the Reagan era, especially, could occur.

We were united in our wish to have the perpetrators of this heinous act brought to justice, which has alluded this nation still even nine long years later.

We wanted our leaders to abide by our Constitution, and close our borders and our country to "foreigners" until those individuals responsible for the act were brought to justice, and order any and all here illegally out until such time.

We wanted our president not to direct us to "go shop," or this president to expand the war without having any real hard intelligence indicating that the perpetrators were within our grasp, and not send any more of our young men and women to die on foreign sand to add to the losses.

We simply wanted our leadership to abide by their oaths of office, and their duties to Americans and protect this nation and its borders and legal and lawful citizenry, rather than their commercial interests and those domestic and foreign privateers.

Attempts are now also being made in order to "whitewash" 9-11 and its impact in declaring this day a "National Day of Service," rather than a memorial day as with Pearl Harbor.  And the profiteers who wish to now see a Muslim mosque built in close proximity over the objections of most of the American people, promoting such an act as a demonstration of "tolerance," rather than the real agenda - a multi-million dollar redevelopment project for the city and state coffers of New York.

There is much in this puzzle still missing as those that viewed that attack for over seven full days replayed and replayed can attest.

And attempts to marginalize the Americans who still are not satisfied with the official explanations will not change that, nor cloaking 9-11 in patriotism and the flag, or minimizing the impact this massive attack and its scars have left on this nation and a new generation of Americans who didn't live through Pearl Harbor.

Interesting this mosque and its ramifications has reared its head just a short year before the 10th anniversary, and push toward this "National Day of Service" spin focusing on those that responded (although their acts of bravery are not to be discounted by any means), rather than the victims and tragedy itself?  I wonder what incentives the City of New York, since it has the support of its Mayor, is extending for this massive, expansive project in order to feed the "jobs and the economy" on the memories of that day, and of the 9-11 victims? 

I'm no "conspiracy" nut or theorist, but I still wonder how the mainstream media was able to get full camera crews to the site of the Trade Center within 20 minutes of the first crash since the financial district of New York is quite a distance away from where most of those media centers are located, and this was rush hour at that....even the date selected, an emergency code used throughout the U.S. and not the Middle East, bears scrutiny.  If this was a religious attack as has been claimed of jihadists, just why wasn't a Muslim holy day selected, which would certainly make more sense if extremism within the Muslim faith was the origins of this heinous attack on our civilian population primarily and nation's economy and military headquarters.

And I have seen enough controlled demolitions during my years in Phoenix, Arizona when tearing down old buildings in order to redevelop and put in new was an ongoing annual process, since Phoenix and its metro area has exploded in the last two decades, to its detriment also, as a former longer term "almost native" Arizonan. 

New York, and it's population and traffic are well-known.  Although after the events which occurred, such a decision could be understandable given the extent of the damage and "collateral" damage which also was an eminent threat, but this entire scenario cannot be dismissed by the mere "scientific" theories and explanations which were then subsequently published in an auto mechanics magazine.

To even use such a source by many in our leadershp and print and television media goes to show the utter contempt it does appear that some of those that survived have for their fellow countrymen and victims, in one manner or another all Americans have been progressively impacted, since that horrendous day.

And the ramifications and impact on the American people post 9-11 has been far greater in having their continued rights violated and victimized nine years later, while instead our leadership in the name of "commerce" above true national security, continues to open our doors and shores to all comers.

It was announced in the mainstream media that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (don't you just love that court!) has stayed resumption of the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex individuals in California pending the outcome of appeals with respect to the challenge brought over the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, a referendum and initiative passed by the California voters last year (although brought by an organization by the name of "Protect Marriage," which solicits contributions from individuals in order to continue to defend in this action nation-wide, and on whose website very little information is available in just who and what "Protect Marriage" is).

Except that it does include an "educational" component to their organization, which would lead this writer to believe that it also then just may be getting federal grant monies for its existence in addition to those solicited donations.

What truly has been interesting is the legal shenanigans going on in this case, which was filed apparently as "Perry v. Schwarzenegger," and not "Perry vs. the State of California" since it was, after all, a state initiative passed by the California voters and thus the proper defendants in the case would be the State itself, and not Governor Schwarzenegger as merely the Governor at the present time.

What is also interesting is that both the Governor and State Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend in this case on the grounds that they believe that gay marriages should be afforded in California, their personal opinions which really have no grounding in either California, or the U.S. Constitution at all.

Since, of course, marriage and its definition is grounded in the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based at its signing, and marriage is an "institution" under the common law and has been for literally thousands of years in its definition as between two opposite sex individuals for the purposes of procreation, property ownership and inheritance purposes in a purely legal sense, and in a spiritual sense, a pledge of fidelity and love between the couple and God, who is pretty much on record in both the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran in just what his definition of marriage was and is in a spiritual sense.

The fact that Attorney General Brown has refused to defend in the action speaks volumes in his understanding of his powers and duties of office.

Apparently, his oath meant little as apparently did the Governor's.

There is provision, after all, for domestic and civil unions in California's statutes prior to this movement, and also legal instruments that can be bought at the local bookstores in the form of powers of attorney and the like for any and all other matters. You can, after all, leave your property to your next door neighbor or even your dog as has been the case with some eccentrics, not to mention your spouse, companion, friend, children or domestic partner with a simple will, or disinherit them if that is also your wish.

The standing issue was addressed by the 9th Circuit even in this ruling, although from the wrong angle, it appears, questioning instead of the wrong "parties of interest" to the matter the standing of this group, Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the proposition, to defend.

It appears maybe that may be the reason it was brought incorrectly to begin with - to use the standing issue as one in order to murky the waters, and force also the Governor and Attorney General to show their true colors, and set this case then up for an eventual challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court again inappropriately as not brought by the true parties in interest as the Constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (rather than common law "institution" which did exist in its common law form at its signing).

A court that hasn't recognized the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based for literally decades, and never more so than in the last thirty in many respects, including using foreign jurisdictional law now even for some of its renderings rather than American jurisprudence, and giving more and more "rights" to "corporate" entities, including the government itself, above those of the citizenry with respect to Bill of Rights issues in so many matters it is incredible.

I hope that before it reaches that point it is corrected to Perry vs. State of California, otherwise it would appear that any decision rendered in this matter will be null and void in either case. Since it truly isn't naming the "parties in interest" and in so NOT doing, has made the defense in this matter one in which the government appears to be facilitating this case also in order to set a nation-wide precedent with this legal technicality their scapegoat against really treason in this smoke and mirrors game.

And with the complement of the "progressively" unAmerican Supreme Court with these last several appointments particularly ones in which during those Senate hearings little questioning had to do with those justices understanding of just where their powers end with respect to Constitutional interpretation, and under what "standard" they are to reach their opinions (not judicial "case precedent" but with the intent of the framers ever present in Bill of Rights issues fundamentally, and don't think the mention of extending or expanding the definition of marriage was even entertained in their minds as a Bill of Rights "inalienable" right and outside governmental authority really, to begin with as "personal" relationships were intended to be).

The 16th again and its ramifications again rears its ugly head on this issue also, which would never be the case if the "intent" for taxation in this nation was reinstituted to its Constitutional intent.

Since there were gays back in '76 and there were marriages also, it would appear to this American Constitution believer that in such a Constitutional challenge on the "right" to marry and definition of marriage itself, which is what this case really boils down to, this would be a no-brainer.

But look for an excuse such as "good public policy" or "freedom of association" (assembly) to be their underlying rationale, in order to support that state, and the legal community at large, for another "stimulus" at the true cost of freedom and the expense of the public at large.

Then look for the medical community to get into the act mandating AIDS testing prior to issuing those licenses, so that the state (and feds in this health care reform national database that was hidden in those bills) then has a record of any and all individuals who are HIV positive, at the stroke of a keyboard, or mandate HIV treatment prior to the issuance of those licenses.

I don't believe the activist gay community has any idea how they are being used over a fundamental right to privacy of their personal lives and sexual preferences, until it hits them in about five years down the road, brought by another government funded legal defense or civil rights group, as this massive politically brought case and its defense clearly is using those licenses for more taxation and profit for either the government, or its select global industries.  And "science and technology" seems to be their baby at the present time most of all.

Those domestic relations lawyers looking forward to those fees for the divorces and pre-nups are also licking their chops right about now, and the hotel, tourism and wedding planning industries in that state.

Not to mention the number of "new jobs" for judges and lawyers this will also create, for those domestic relations courts, and the county justices of the peace that will now also be needed to increase those county coffers at "for profit" prices for those licenses, although with California continuing to expand its budgets and cry poverty at the same time it continues to bankrupt its citizenry.

Schwarzenegger is, after all, not simply an avowed "capitalist" for California in for profit governmental public/private partnerships, but a personal one too. 

Wonder how much he has invested in the hotel, resort and medical industries personally that just might profit from his personal, rather than Constitutional, views?  Or Attorney General Brown, who has his eye on heading that state after Mr. Scwarzenegger steps down, from all reports.

If it is mandated that insurers must cover gay individuals and their domestic partners equally with herterosexual individuals without taking "risk" into consideration, or the high cost of those in vitro and other alternative reproductive costs that are "class" distinctive and are instead spread amongst the pool of policy holders, it appears that the global corporatists have found another way to "socialize" the costs of health care for higher risk groups to all - so just watch the costs of those policies skyrocket, instead of getting more affordable as the Obama Administration touted during that farce of a Health Care Reform legislation. 

I guess the costs and profits for all those drug manufacturers for this "new" disease treating the symptoms hasn't been enough, since according to my research the patent on inferon and some of those other expensive drugs is scheduled to expire in 2013, just prior to when the new mandates for health care for all begins.

This is a disease, after all, that has become an industry in and of itself along with breast cancer "awareness" and those recommended tests and races have brought in a bundle to the medical community for "reasearch", although few strides in really preventing or curing those diseases has been in sight.

I would question whether the instances of new cases of breeast cancer, as with AIDS, are going up or if some of these "treatments" themselves are resulting in new cases, such as annual invasive radioactive breast x-rays, and live virus injections and treatments.

Hello, gay community, it just might be that you are being had.

It was announced in the mainstream media that the 9th Circuit Court of appeals has stayed resumption of the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex individuals in the State of California pending the outcome of appeals with respect to the challenge brought over the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, a referendum and initiative passed by the California voters last year but brought by an organization by the name of "Protect Marriage," which solicits contributions from individuals in order to continue to defend in this action nation-wide and on whose website very little information is available in just who and what "Protect Marriage" is.

Except that it does include an "educational" component to their organization, which would lead this writer to believe that it also then just may be getting federal grant monies for its existence in addition to those solicited donations.

What truly has been interesting is the legal shenanigans going on in this case, which was filed apparently as "Perry v. Schwarzenegger," and not "Perry vs. the State of California" since it was, after all, a state initiative passed by the California voters and thus the proper defendants in the case would be the State itself, and not Governor Schwarzenegger as merely the Governor.

What is also interesting is that both the Governor and State Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend in this case on the grounds that they believe that gay marriages should be afforded in California, their personal opinions which really have no grounding in either California, or the U.S. Constitution at all.

Since, of course, marriage and its definition is grounded in the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based at its signing, and marriage is an "institution" under the common law and has been for literally thousands of years in its definition as between two opposite sex individuals for the purposes of procreation, property ownership and inheritance purposes in a purely legal sense, and in a spiritual sense, a pledge of fidelity and love between the couple and God, who is pretty much on record in both the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran in just what his definition of marriage was and is in a spiritual sense.

The fact that Attorney General Brown has refused to defend in the action speaks volumes in his understanding of his powers and duties of office. Apparently, his oath meant little as apparently did the Governor's.

There is provision, after all, for domestic and civil unions in California's statutes prior to this movement, and also legal instruments that can be bought at the local bookstores in the form of powers of attorney and the like for any and all other matters. You can, after all, leave your property to your next door neighbor or even your dog as has been the case with some eccentrics, not to mention your spouse, companion, friend, children or domestic partner with a simple will, or disinherit them if that is also your wish.

The standing issue was addressed by the 9th Circuit even in this ruling, although from the wrong angle, it appears, question the standing of Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the proposition, to defend. It appears maybe that may be the reason it was brought incorrectly to begin with - to use the standing issue as one in order to murky the waters, and force also the Governor and Attorney General to show their true colors, and set this case then up for an eventual challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A court that hasn't recognized the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based for literally decades, and never more so than in the last thirty.

I hope that before it reaches that point it is corrected to Perry vs. State of California, otherwise it would appear that any decision rendered in this matter will be null and void in either case. Since it truly isn't naming the "parties in interest" and in so NOT doing, has made the defense in this matter one in which the government appears to be facilitating this case also in order to set a nation-wide precedent.

And with the complement of the "progressively" unAmerican Supreme Court with these last several appointments particularly ones in which during those Senate hearings little questioning had to do with those justices understanding of just where their powers end with respect to Constitutional interpretation, and under what "standard" they are to reach your opinions (with the intent of the framers ever present).

Since there were gays back in '76 and there were marriages also, it would appear to this American Constitution believer that in such a Constitutional challenge on the "right" to marry and definition of marriage itself, this would be a no-brainer.

But look for an excuse such as "good public policy" or "freedom of association" (assembly) to be their underlying rationale, in order to support that state, and the legal community at large, for another "stimulus" at the true cost of freedom.

Then look for the medical community to get into the act mandating AIDS testing prior to issuing those licenses, so that the state (and feds in this health care reform national database that was hidden in those bills) then has a record of any and all gay individuals who are HIV positive, at the stroke of a keyboard, or mandatory insurance required for HIV treatment prior to the issuance of those licenses.

I don't believe the activist gay community has any idea how they are being used over a fundamental right to privacy of their personal lives and sexual preferences, until it hits them in about five years down the road, brought by another government funded legal defense or civil rights group, as this massive politically brought case and its defense clearly is.

Those domestic relations lawyers looking forward to those fees for the divorces and pre-nups are also licking their chops right about now, and the hotel, tourism and wedding planning industries in that state.

Not to mention the number of "new jobs" for judges and lawyers this will also create, for those domestic relations courts, and the county justices of the peace that will now also be needed to increase those county coffers at "for profit" prices for those licenses.

Schwarzenegger is, after all, not simply an avowed "capitalist" for California for profit governmental public/private partnerships, but a personal one too.  Wonder how much he has invested in the hotel, resort and medical industries personally that just might profit from his personal, rather than Constitutional, views?

If it is mandated that insurers must cover gay individuals and their domestic partners equally with herterosexual individuals without taking "risk" into consideration, or the high cost of those in vitro and other alternative reproductive costs that are "class" distinctive and are instead spread amongst the pool of policy holders, t appears that the global corporatists have found another way to "socialize" the costs of health care for higher risk groups to all - so just watch the costs of those policies skyrocket, instead of getting more affordable as the Obama Administration touted during that farce of a Health Care Reforem legislation.  I guess the costs and profits for all those drug manufacturers for this "new" disease treating the symptoms hasn't been enough, since according to my research the patent on inferon and some of those other expensive drugs is scheduled to expire in 2013, just prior to when the new mandates for health care for all begins.

This is a disease, after all, that has become an industry in and of itself along with breat cancer "awareness" and those recommended tests and races have brought in a bundle to the medical community.  I would question whether the instances of new cases of breeast cancer, as with AIDS, are going up or if some of these "treatments" themselves are resulting in new cases, such as annual invasive radioactive breast x-rays, and live virus injections and treatments.

Hello, gay community, it just might be that you are being had.

There was a mainstream media AP article in the news again with respect to the ruling by a California federal district court judge over the lifting of the ban on gay marriages in the State of California.  It does appear this particular judge has a love for the limelight, due to making this ruling against the will of the California voters (although, of course, in this age of "out of district" funding for state and local matters, and unrepresentative government at every level, and illegally voting foreigners in many state and federal elections at this point it is even hard to ascertain what the true will of the California voters actually is), yet continuing to interject his opinions and authority weeks later.

The latest:  His assertion that he doesn't feel that the groups or individuals who may be involved in challenging or appealing his ruling have any "standing" to do so since they would be unable to prove there would be any adverse "impact" directly to them should California begin granting "permission" and marriage licenses to same sex individuals in that state.

What about the public costs for the eventual divorces of over half of those unions for their dissolutions if the statistics with respect to opposite sex marriages are any indication of the chances that these marriages will last "until death us do part?"

Of course, I won't go into how totally ludicrous it is in this country in which our entire civil legal system is grounded in the common law with respect to our Constitution, and marriage actually is an institution with a history of thousands of years pre-dating even our Constitution wherein even the Roman system of government which had a plethora of gay individuals did not officially recognize same sex unions as in the same league as heterosexual ones insofar as rights of inheritance, etc. (of course adoptions now granted to gay individuals were not then afforded either, nor had "science and technology" advanced to the degree in reproductive medicine that it has today).

But I wonder how the little problem of a gay individual with a biological child, who then has an in vitro child or surrogate will be handled if there is any disputes over rights of inheritance in the future? 

I mean, has this judge actually considered the impact upon future generations and our legal system with this ruling?  Or the absolute arrogance of the judiciary in this country itself in its even attempting to redefine an institution that has a history of thousands of years in the present era to begin with and for which they really have no Constitutional authority over and above the common law definitions?

And don't you think that little matter of "standing" would have been addressed prior to putting that proposition on the ballot to begin with?

If the citizens of California do not have the right to challenge or appeal such a fundamental percept under our civil codes and the common law upon which our Constitution is based, then how is it that federal court judges such as Mr. Walker and the appellate courts are granting "standing" to foreigners such as the illegal Mexican immigrants under those Bill of Rights now PROGRESSIVELY?

Including that out of control 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Just what is occurring in our American law schools today, insofar as teaching the basics in our Constitution, and Constitutional law?

Hello, Mr. Walker, just who do you think those courts were provided for anyway, if not Americans - and if this is a Bill of Rights issue and challenge, and the Supreme Court has not yet reversed its fundamentally flawed decisions with respect to extending PROGRESSIVELY Bill of Rights protections to "corporate" entities (not to mention that it does not appear that the group challenging this measure is a "commercial" corporation, in any event anyway), then upon what errant nutjob prior ruling are you basing your conclusions with respect to the question of standing to begin with?

And its origins really have to do with inheritance and other rights of biological offspring, since the adoption, insemination or surrogacy process itself outside "natural" or biological procreation, and is a legal process in and of itself with respect to such issues?

This entire passion play is beginning to appear rather ludicrous and the ultimate aim for the state again self-serving for all that added tax revenues for the local coffers for those "license" fees taken into account, given that marriages are nothing more than civil contracts, and there already is in force provision for domestic unions in the State of California and many others throughout the nation for same sex domestic unions.  And that there are already legal provisions under powers of attorney, and other legal instruments to secure the fundamental rights of committed individuals for property and inheritance purposes and even taxation with "head of household" provisions.

It appears once again that the major reason for this push is in order for the gay community to somehow gain "legitimacy" or social acceptance for their unions on parity with heterosexual unions, which is something that no matter how many years, and how many court decisions, is not somthing that can be forced upon 100% of the American people or heterosexual community that have any religious beliefs whatsoever in the three major religions, which at last count was at least 70% of Americans.

Moral acknowledgement is what appears to be the ultimate aim and equality of the definition of marriage itself, an institution again which pre-dates our Constitution by thousands of years and is, after all, based entirely on civil common laws which already have been expanded with regard to recordation, at least in California and the majority of other states which have provided licenses or recordation means for "civil" or "domestic" unions.

A "marriage" is nothing more than a public pledge in front of two witnesses announcing a commitment of love, and a shared life and property during the term of the union or "partnership," at its most basic, and a spiritual union between the couple and God for those that choose to have their unions sanctioned instead by their house of worship.

What will be next for the gay activist community, rather than the mainstream gay community who believe their private lives are actually private?  Legislation then aimed at the clergy and churches mandating that pastors or other religious leaders must perform such ceremonies if so requested?  While the aim here may be marketed to the public as one of merely "civil" rights, it does appear that there just could be a fundamentally greater agenda here in using these laws then to assault the religious community eventually whose biblical teachings on marriage would forbid extending religious sanctions to such unions at their most basic precepts.

This is, of course, where the PROGRESSIVES in their also illegally redefining the First Amendment protections of "freedom of" religion to outside its original intent to "freedom from" religion have been focusing their activities as of late due to those great statutes providing for legal fees for lawyers bringing any and all actions that can be broadly defined as "civil rights" have been using for their own stimuluses and corporate gains. 

So in those civil unions before civil justices, just what part of the marriage ceremony itself is missing since there are civil unions conducted by justices of the peace there as there are for heterosexual couples which were in effect before the "activist" gay community still were not satisfied. 

The civil laws have been changed to afford "parity" with respect to the common law rights of marriage, which require no "license" to begin with, save the commercial insurers with respect to health insurance provisions and the like, and the the gay community could save themselves and the other taxpayers of this country from the costs of picking up the legal tabs for this civil rights challenge by focusing more so on where it belongs.

Perhaps addressing the tax structure itself as so many in the heterosexual community are so doing, and removing any privileges or immunities they perceive that are given to heterosexual domestic unions that are not given to other "common" households.  Or removing the unconstitutional tax on labor to begin with, and placing it back on indirect taxes on taxation for property owned, whether corporately or individually as was the intent of those founders.  And especially not double and triple taxation on products, services and "income" which is what occurs now and which is bankruptcing all segments of the population PROGRESSIVELY.

Or the insurers denying them and their posterity coverage under those plans extended to heterosexual couples, although I'm sure that after this ruling those suits will be next on the agenda to keep those lawyers working for decades to come especially in light of this most recent unconstitutional mandate of Washington and tyranny in "fining" Americans who have paid for many of those community hospitals and the like with their property taxes.  It appears that especially for the boomer generation are going to be bled dry even further for the "global economy" and Wall Street bankers and politicos gain at the cost of the public at large, even those not invested in Wall Street or those not affiliated with the Globalist Party in power on the Hill, and apparently also in California's positions of authority.

Just imagine when "parity" in the health care field does eventually gain more ground, the number of civic institutions which are dedicated to finding cures to AIDS will become unable to continue or exist, and then the search for the cure for this deadly disease will not be quite so important as guaranteeing a steady stream of future policy-holders which will need to take out riders for AIDs coverage.  I mean, this disease is a virus and it is amazing the amount of monies those pharmaceutical companies and insurers have already mnade off the victims of this disease or the American public while a "cure" for the disease itself is nowhere in sight.

A disease that never existed until the present day, or is it merely a strain of an already identified viral infection, since it appears treating the symptoms of HIV and the AIDS virus has become an industry in and of itself PROGRESSIVELY.

The judge also commented that it was his opinion that the challengers to his recent ruling would need the "permission" of either Governor Schwartezeneggar or Attorney General Jerry Brown in order to pursue their claims.

Huh?  The opposing citizenry needs "permission" of the Governor for what the gay community has continued to portray as a "civil rights" case?

Mr. Walker should be suing his law school for his tuition costs, it appears to this writer, since it appears he is another of the British trained lawyers holding court from the bench rather than ruling according to his Constitutional oath of office in issuing this latest opinion publicly in furtherance of his original ruling.

Stay tuned.  Since this farce of a civil rights abridgement appears is far from over.

reprint from www.backupamerica.org

It was announced with great fanfare by the mainstream media that the Senate has approved an additional 600 million dollars in order to reportedly secure the U.S. Mexico border on a voice vote.

Just in time for the upcoming November elections.

The funds provided are to be utilized in the hiring of an additional 1,500 government employees (whose salaries and benefits will escalate over time, and is once again expanding the costs of government rather than reducing it, and who also will be disempowered in effectively doing their jobs through internal regulatory backbiting) and more toys for the monitoring of the border with unmanned aircraft and the like for the defense contractors and Silicon Valley.

But where's the sums for the fence, the true security which is needed at least along the Arizona border which encompasses over 300 miles of open desert? 

Iit would literally take agents arm in arm to secure that desert adequately against those new and improved all terrain vehicles those large scale hard drug dealers and auto theft rings have been able to purchase with their massive profits PROGRESSIVELY.

The pickup trucks crossing with the loads of Mexico Gold are a mere drop in the bucket, and don't have the speed or familiarity with those stretches of desert that those repeat large scale drug operations do, or their domestic distributors and suppliers due to the last amnesty plying their wares now to middle school students.

I'll bet the cost for four to five foot titanium spikes would be far less than the costs of this newest "solution" to the open border situation would be. 

And far less likely to potentially add billions more in those fees and costs for that other group of government contractors, the illegal immigrant "civil rights" lawyers and PAC organizations at the U.S. taxpayers expense who are now forced to literally pay for their own abuse in many of these illegal, in more ways than one, civil rights cases.

Mr. Obama heralded the bill and is expected to sign it on Friday, again using this ineffective and costly "solution," which has been tried numerous times before throughout the decades to push his "immigration reform" agenda and that of the globalists serving on the Hill from both the mainstream political parties who dominate our elective and appointed offices across the board both at the federal and state levels.

A "high tech" physical fence is what is needed here, not a virtual fence that can be turned off and on at will at the flip of a few switches and monitored once again by government contractors that just might be tempted to look the other way for a cut of this profitable Mexican commerce.

The sums for this Silicon Valley and taxpayer funded stimulus it was announced is going to be funded by an increase in the taxes levied on personnel agencies that provide foreign labor.

Which, of course, simply means that the profits for the mostly naturalized Mexican coyotes will increase, since those fees and costs for those foreign workers will be passed on to them, making it more than likely that the U.S. will be seeing an increase in European immigrants whose countries have higher currency rates, than those from poorer countries, which just goes to show that the Democrats are not the party of the "common" people they claim to be, but also identical to that other branch of the Globalist Party, the NeoCon Republican wing, in sheep's clothing.

Or will simply give some of those 1,500 jobs for their party members, the ones most likely that will flip the switches on those virtual fences, or create then another agency or panel to investigate and monitor the monitoring of the virtual fencing after the next high profile rancher's death occurs.

So again I and literally tens of thousands of other present and former border state residents, and others throughout the nation ask this Congress and this Administration - WHERE'S THE FENCE?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/12/pol.senate.border.funding/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_politics

In another political move by those in Washington, Elena Kagan's nomination by Barack Obama was confirmed by a majority of the Senate along mostly partisan party lines after much political posturing by many in the "opposing" party for public consumption since the "defectors" were again the same old, same old labeled "Republican moderates" from the Northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, etc.

Although the mainstream media continues to label the court as primarily a "conservative" court, this true American Constitutional Conservative would beg to differ. 

I guess since our press is so far out globalist liberal in their ownership progressively, especially the "Associated" Press which includes foreign press and news agencies, anything right of communism would seem conservative to most of their staff writers.

This is how truly representative our current Supreme Court is at the present time. 

Although no "religious" test is to be given for any public service position or political office our court is now comprised of three Jewish members, and six Catholics.  Seven basically New Yorkers by birth or length of residency.

And six graduates of Harvard Law School, and three of Yale - with quite a few with their undergraduate studies in Britain.

Leave it to the press and politicans to promote to the public the "look" of the Court (six men and three women, two "racial" minority members) without scratching further in just how "liberal" this Court actually is and unrepresentative of the American people really in its composition.

All nine from "liberal" East Coast law schools, the most current member of which threw out mandatory Constitutional law classes in favor of a more "progressive" curriculum.

And with the exception of Justice Thomas, none of which actually are texturalists which, unless and until the Constitution is amended by the will of the people according to the provisions within it for amendment - and not the simply the states as it was the "intent" of those founders that any subsequent amendments would be placed before the people before each and every state ratified further amendments - we have nothing more than an entire "activist" Supreme Court down the line as was quite apparent with the most recent trashing of its provisions with respect to campaign finance laws favoring the "corporate" over the intent of the founders for a representative government at its foundation.

That being that no candidate for political office should be "sponsored" by any entity, either corporately or otherwise, domiciled outside their legislative districts.  Period.

Nor is there any such entity as "corporate person-hood" including "municipal corporate-personhood" with respect to Bill of Rights provisions.

Ms. Kagan has an engaging demeanor, but given her actual stated discounting of the very document upon which her "right" to even hold such a position was given the shaft while she was Dean of Harvard's Law School, does that now demonstrate to both those Senators and the American people that she did not hold the bare minimum qualifications for the position for which she was being "interviewed."

No wonder the West and Western citizens lives and property are being sacrificed for the "great good," outside California and the Hollywood contingent.

The West lacks representation on any level in the highest court in the land, and progressively so.

It was announced by the British and American news sources that Tony Hayward has been "mutually" relieved of his position as BP's CEO by their Board of Directors, although reportedly 18 MILLION richer for his efforts.

Mr. Hayward has been the poster child for BP since the disaster which claimed 11 American lives, and the BP Board in another public relations attempt it appears, has chosen an American for the pilot position of this London based global giant who will be charged with managing all future efforts with respect to the ongoing oil containment (how many new caps will it take?) and cleanup off Louisiana's shores before the spill reaches Greenland by next spring.

Another ploy for the American public, apparently, since although Mr. Hayward definitely was missing a "sensitivity chip" with respect to his scripted appearance before a Congressional Board of Directors over the incident, and also his faux pas in released statements about the ongoing cleanup efforts, his ouster and replacement by an American does appear to be so much of a publicity move mainly for the consumption of the U.S. press most of all and their ongoing spins.

Who have continued and failed to ask the fundamental questions throughout this now three month disaster. 

Just how and why did our Congress give mineral rights to a foreign global corporation to America's offshore oil reserves, when we are and have been fighting wars in the Persian Gulf and now Iraq and Afghanistan also to primarily secure "lease rights" for the British over those oil reserves (and, of course, minimize Israel's perceived threat, a country which has enough nuclear power to wipe out at least that half of the world many times over), much of which was lost when the Shah of Iran was removed from power back in the 1970's and the Ayatollah gained control of that country's government.

Just why is America buying not only foreign crude oil from the Middle East, but also now refined barrels from the British of its own oil, taxed at that, in this ongoing partnership with this global corporation that has now resulted in the loss of 11 American lives due to their negligence and a loosey goosey oversight policy by the U.S. regulatory agencies over this global giant whose is now responsible for two major accidents? 

I mean, U.S. domiciled oil and gas corporations are better watched than apparently this foreign one was or has been.

It seems BOTH Washington and BP executives and managers were asleep at the wheel, and there are so many unanswered questions left which led to this disaster, and the initial containment efforts thereafter with Washington putting BP in charge of the cleanup once again without oversight, it is truly astounding.

Add to that this presidents arrogance then denying Constitutional due process rights to the American victims of this disaster through the establishment of that "reserve" fund and it appears more and more that Washington is more interested in protecting this foreign global corporation's bottom lines and future federal and state gas tax revenues than it is in actually actively getting this spill contained forthwith, and protecting both America's mineral reserves, and American lives and businesses in the Gulf region.

BP has a huge presence in Louisiana and New Orleans, with the Brits primarily owning many of those older homes in the French Quarter and the Garden District, especially post Katrina (over which the actual events surrounding the breaking of those levees flooding the poorer areas of New Orleans while that "release" instead protected the Quarter and those Brits properties, has caused much local buzz in Louisiana with lawsuits flying with now new building standards and ordinances causing even more of those Americans whose homes were affected to lose their properties now five years later who were left high and dry after those waters receded and with the expense then of these "ex post facto" laws which have majorly impacted those who owned those little bayou fishing shanties without central air).

I mean most of those people cannot get loans to rebuild those shanties, but the developers aren't having much trouble getting financing for redevelopment of many of those areas - and high density housing does bring in more revenue to the state and local coffers, after all, rather than those sleepy little fishing villages along the bayou did. 

Just how many barrels of extra oil under those leases has BP sailed out of the Port of New Orleans at this point in order to refine, and then sell back to the American people while Washington and the Southeastern states collect all that extra tax revenue levied on those domestic barrels that have been outsourced for Britain's ultimate gain?

Or is BP also, as a foreign domiciled corporation, exempt from actually paying those gas corporate taxes unlike American based oil and gas corporate entities?

Outsourcing our oil and mineral rights? 

Just where is that power enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, since it would appear that this is one "free trade" agreement that is nothing more than a "gimme" to the British at the cost of the American people, also controlling then the price all Americans pay at the pump under "global" market prices.

For their own oil?

Trade agreements were to be mutually beneficial under the common law upon which this country's government is based at least on a "need" basis, although "free trade" wasn't meant to be "free" at all insofar as duties and import taxes on those trade agreements with foreign entities, and it does appear that the British arrogance has not changed much since '76 with respect to the Colonials.

Or the Tories on the Hill who are letting the Brits continue to call the shots, including apparently the newest CEO tagged by the British to continue their publicity campaigns, and damage control while they scam some more of the Americans wealth and precious resources - both mineral, and wildlife (and businesses, homes and lives in this instance).

Washington appears content with the fines it is collecting over this disaster, while serving up its citizenry once again to the Brits who are, after all, hiring those adjusters in order to settle the claims without also any oversight.

Just why haven't those illegal leases been pulled at this point since from news reports, BP also has a big deal going on in Alaska too.

And I wonder how many of the MSM corporate owners own shares in BP due to continuing to carry the spins, without asking the right questions?

And is it just me, or doesn't Tony Hayward look almost like a twin of that actor who played Tony Blair in the movie, "The Queen?"

I hear his next gig is in Russia, after collecting his "golden parachute" payout approved by the BP Board, a better fit it would appear, so he can get his "life back" with a pension, exit bonus and renegotiable salary to boot.

And I'm waiting to see how American this new American BP CEO really is.

Or whether he, too, is just another wannabe Brit, and royal pain in the a** actor with a Yank accent whose faux pas will get wider media publication as a result, or worse than Hayward so that Hayward's yachting while the oil spread will seem ever so more civilized.

The replacement:  Robert Dudley. 

Now how much more of a Brit by lineage can you be, although expect the Southern drawl to kick in since he did, after all, reside in Mississippi for a time during his tenure with BP which is being played up in the media for all it's worth.  Now it is even being reported by the Christian Science Monitor that he actually was "born in Mississippi." 

I wonder, truth or desperation with this newest detail?  The roots of the surname "Dudley" certainly do run deep in Britain, back to the 14th century, it appears.

It was also reported that BP is a source of national pride in Britain since they hold the wealth of a good percentage of the Brits with investments in their pension plans (the royal family did own it up through the 90's, after all, so may have been by Parliamentary decree and another of their "takings" apparently for Britain's dominion).

I wonder how many Brits write for the AP, another one of those "global" corporations?

It was announced by the MSM that the CEO of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, has been relieved of his position in light of the mishandling of the public relations aspect of the BP disaster in the U.S.  (Although according to various news reports officially he is resigning or "stepping down," whatever that means insofar as the hierarchy of British Petroleum is concerned).

It does appear the smoke and mirrors games continue with respect to this disaster, and the loss of 11 American lives which have been, for all intents and purposes, swept under the carpet while Britain continues to assure the "little people" in the United States that they will be taken care of - so long, as Mr. Hayward warned, their claims are not "excessive."

What's missing?

The reporting and investigation by the U.S. media in just how British Petroleum was afforded the almost monopoly on the U.S. oil reserves in the Gulf off Louisiana's coast, while we are fighting a war in the Middle East which is clear has absolutely nothing to do with redressing the attack on this country almost nine years ago, but more in securing a presence in the Middle East for Great Britain after losing those mineral rights when the Shah of Iran was overthrown back in the 1970's.

How our Congress could give mineral rights to America's offshore reserves to a foreign entity in the first place, and one in which their negligence several years ago also resulted in the loss of American lives in Texas, is beyond this writer.

This "free trade" agreement when our dependence on foreign oil has been the banner of both political parties as to why this country continues to be involved in the Middle East just goes to show that both political parties are more aligned with facilitating a "global" dominance in this region at the continued cost of American lives on behalf fundamentally of two foreign governments.  Britain's and Israel's.

While our borders remain unsecured, and there are now more foreigners in this country than even pre-9-11, and not for tourism but training at our military installations, and as refugees of this British and Israeli war that has resulted in two subsequent attempts both originating in Great Britain and those British banks that also are the major shareholders behind our Federal Reserve.

War means debt, and also profits for the bankers.  And by and large, the London bankers and shareholders are also Zionists, since Israel is, after all, the tourist attraction and most visited country by far for religious pilgrammages, although in the true Christian faith Israel has "historical" significance, but since Christ did teach that God was spirit and was everywhere, and not solely in Israel as demonstrated with his Sermon on the Mount, the positions of the Christian fundamentalist community and some others claiming to be Christian is truly perplexing, again, to this writer.

The British actually are the petrol gluttons of the world, as this global corporation which was formerly a holding of the British royal family clearly demonstrates, and with all the focus on "science and technology," it is truly astounding that this oil spill now could be continuing for over three months without a clear resolution in sight.

And also this Administration's again skirting around the Constitution in bypassing its provisions in affording BP and this global corporation the "sovereign rights" to both contain the spill, and settle the damage claims and awards that are due all those in this country which are now and will be in the future fundamentally affected.

Which is actually every single American, in one way or another.

Maybe Mr. Obama needs to pass on the next G-20 global summit, and he and this Congress need to focus on this country's domestic economy, which is now being sacrificed once again for the British in this allied partnership post World War II that has progressively compromised this country and its national security, and economy far worse than the Blitz on London those many years ago.