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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This will be historic legislation alright. 

Legislation that is making old Ben spin right about now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In light of the events with the Wilson incident during Mr. Obama's presentation to the American people and Congress for his health care agendas, it appears that the mainstream media, particularly the AP, are now doing the polka for the policians involved in this incident

From a report published today by the AP, it appears that supposedly there WAS a provision within that 1,000 page bill that provided for illegal immigrants health care needs, and that those involved in its drafting are going through it with a fine tooth comb in order that those provisions get redrafted and removed.

At least that is what is being told the public by the AP from its "sources."

 But what is so incredibly unbelieveable is the inordinate now focus that is being directed due to this little media stunt on strictly the provisions for illegals which were the focus of Mr. Wilsons' little performance.

 Since the entire bill in and of itself is so chock full of Bill of Rights violations on the American citizens and public it is quite unbelieveable.

 And especially since also there has been for years emergency health care provided by separate legislation for the illegal immigrants in this country.

 As a former 45 year border state resident, I can testify to that since when my now 21 year old daughter was four we had to rush her to the emergency room at one point for some digestive difficulties she was having.

 And the entire emergency room was filled with illegal immigrants at that time since it was flu season and they were all waiting for their free health care and meds courtesy of Uncle Sam.

 We ended up waiting four hours in order for her to be treated since the illegals had priority as we were self-insured at that time, and the hospital was under federal directives at that time to so provide such care since "emergency" was so ill defined and broad in that federal statute and bill (since the Arizona state initiatives denying such coverage had yet to be passed by the Arizona voters, but which also was and has been since ineffective because those hospitals play the system and simply then treat them and apply for those federal monies still available, legislated and appropriated since that bill's passage years ago instead).

Another of those bills and measures that was passed at least 15-20 years ago without the knowledge or consent of the American taxpayers, since the Constitution does only apply to Americans specifically per the Preamble, and those hospitals and health care networks received even public monies and support for their very exitence at the state and municipal levels, and many also receiving reserach and other grant monies billed to U.S. taxpayers.

So it does appear that the AP as a news source is reacting to the Hill's press releases, rather than digging a little deeper as to just how ludicrous that entire performance actually was in the focus of Mr. Wilson's objections.

 He's about 20 years too late, and if he is a federal legislator or has been even though South Carolina is not a border state, should and must have been well aware of the existence of this other legislation which already existed and has been reappropriated ever since.

And what a spin and joke, actually, and must have been merely a grab for media attention for both Obama and Mr. Wilson, and to shift again the focus of this legislation.

Given the entire real outrageous and  "illegal" provisions contained within it that trump Mr. Wilson's meek and errant staged outrage in their Constitutional violations.

In several media sources today it was announced that a "draft" of some changes on the proposed health care reform legislation was "leaked" to the AP media stating that the liberal and moderate Congressional members in both the Republican and Democratic parties have now scrapped the proposed public health care "option" and instead have now included a new provision that would mandate fines for Americans up to an amount of $3,800 for those that do not carry their own health care coverage.

Since the cost of health care coverage at its now industry set rates are more than most Americans can pay of those that remain uninsured in this country (which this Administration has pegged at over 50 million, without any statistical or factual data supporting this number, many of which are actually covered under state plans due to their lower income levels or inability to get coverage by state laws already at taxpayer costs), this "solution" really is quite laughable at this point the lengths that this Congress is going in order to shove what is not at all a "reform" of health care at all.

Simply another illusion and Act of Congress that is meant more to feed the financial and insurance sector most of all.

Included within the article was a proposal by Max Baucus (D-Mt) that was pegged a compromise measure, which included the fines and legislation that would mandate that health care providers were precluded from turning anyone down for insurance, although could charge higher rates and fees for smokers or older Americans.

Although if history is any indication, I can see that those exceptions in the not so distant future will be the subject of literally decades of "revisions" on just which Americans can be charged higher rates and premiums until it eventually includes all Americans.

In short, nothing more than a corporate welfare scheme as it has always been in order to gain additional taxpayer revenue that Washington can use for discretionary expenditures, while the same time feeding the banking and financial sector once again at the American public's expense.

Nowhere in this legislation is there any accountability, fines or regulation of those health care providers insofar as their honoring those politicies, or for refusing treatments. The fines are directed at the American public and citizens instead.

Mr. Baucus indicated that this provision in the legislation would be similar to mandatory auto insurance which all Americans must carry by state laws throughout the nation at the present time.

Although, of course, I beg to differ.

Not simply because the amount of coverage and also amounts of such fines are determined at the state level, which means that such needs are regionally determined by also a lot more regulation and accountability over some of those insurers in the different states, but also the very reason such also unconstitutional legislation was passed in the first place.

The reason that there were mandatory insurance laws for auto insurance and the focus of those laws are on liability only.

And the stated reasons were due to the fact that such legislation would end up saving taxpayers the costs of providing for the salaries of more judges to hear those property claims and losses through the courts.

And was also fundamentally unconstitutional to begin with in "mandating" the purchase of a product in order to drive a vehicle in this country, since there are no such provisions over foreign drivers in any manner whatsoever.

Especially those that come from Mexico, or even Europe where they drive on the other side of the road, and as this country has had more and more foreigners granted visas and as tourists, have impacted many larger metropolitan areas tremendously in property damages to American citizens.

Some states have realized these unconstitutional laws for what they are and do have provisions for bond coverage, or provision of bank statements to satisfy the minimum liabiity coverages mandated by state laws. 

But still are in no way "lawful" due to the fact that now in this "globalization" that Washington has embarked on progressively, global tourtists are exempted from this law and have created thus higher rates now for U.S. citizen drivers in order to cover also those claims and losses.

And at the present time, every state in the country now has some type of catastrophic health care for those that are either indigent or cannot obtain coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

So this "reform" is nothing more than another move to centralize more and more authority, and more and more power in Washington now over American's future health care needs, and their very lives.

And with many now jobless and homeless due to Washington's now progressive "global socialism" agendas under both Republican and Democratic Administrations within the past twenty years in order to feed big business industries such as the health care and banking sectors, if you don't have a home at this point, and your credit has been ruined in the process, how are you going to afford health care - much less then be fined for not being in compliance with this "law."

Is Mr. Obama aware that the insurance industry also uses their own internal "credit reporting" insofar as rates charged already with respect to both property and auto insurance?

Are Americans lives and health care now going to be "rated" according to their "tables" for the amount of those premiums also without any regulation or oversight insofar as what goes in those reports?

I don't see anywhere in the enumerated poweres of Congress where mandatory taxation with respect to purchasing a product, or any single payer public plan is included within the Constitution.

In fact, the taxation already which is now inflicted is unlawful for those sums at the present time which are withheld and sent to Washington technically, as is the continuation of Social Security in its present form since it was meant merely to provide for those that, upon the inability to work in their chosen field due to medical conditions or afflications, or orphans, widows or children of those who lose a parent or primary wage earner were provided a subsistence for their survival needs.

Now we are contemplating taxation and fining the citizens for not purchasing a product and for which the costs are unaffordable, by merely addressing the symptom without even doing a cursory evaluation and backtracking in order to identify what actually lead to this problem to begin with.

Lack of regulation over these "corporate" commercial interests, that have progressively increased their profit margins and their shareholder dividends at the expense of their premium payers, for the most part.

And doctor fees which are now out of sight due to both the costs of professional liability insurance in high risk fields, and also the costs in getting those educations at state and public universities that are now charging tuitions that are not even close to the CPI nor bear any relevance to the actual costs of that training in any manner whatsoever due to negligence on the part of state governments.

In which some of these universities could subsist on the revenue collected from their football and sports programs alone.

The crackpots in Washington just passed one of the largest taxes ever in that Cap & Trade scam, and now are contemplating fining homeless and jobless Americans for not having health care coverage?

And those homeless and jobless, after all, are providing theirs. In spades.

I have a heads up for Congress and Mr. Obama at this point:

End the War in the Middle East, and maybe we won't have so many future Americans that will also be without health care and needing publicly provided care since last month saw the highest number of casualties in eight years in that war, and pass legislation that the AIG debt that is owed to this country by that London based global insurer can be satisfied in increments.

By providing free catastrophic health care to all Americans for the next twenty years.

And fine them a million per denial of claim.

Since they do, after all, have credit worthy and profitable subsidiaries in over 23 different countries other than that London Mayfair office whose practices impacted the U.S. offices due to Washington's globalism agendas.

They are, after all, in the health care business.

And we are now already paying for it.

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

In listening to Barack Obama's Western "Sell ObamaCare" tour, as a child of the 1950's and 1960's, the only impression that I had listening to a small fraction of his hard sell spiel in the various Western states on this ludicrous legislation in its current form is to that of the old Al Wilson song, "The Snake" ("Take me in, tender woman....take me in for goodness sake").

Since the lyrics are copyrighted but are on the internet for "educational purposes," I'll leave it to the reader to do that research on their own.

The most egregious portion of this legislation actually is one that has not been brought up in any significant manner whatsoever during the public townhalls that Congressional members have been conducting across the nation in order to also propagandize the entire unconstitutional focus of this legislation and Washington power move.

And according to the 9th Amendment, would appear to undertake such an action at all would take a formal amendment of the Constitution, with the "consent of the governed," given voice and vote as not at all within the parameters of Washington's enumerated powers even in light of the abridgements which resulted in both Franklin's New Deal with respect to Social Security, and many other power moves since then in violation of it.

Social Security, after all, was original presented to the public as a "temporary" measure due to World War II, and also was to provide for orphans, widows, children and the affirmed most of all from that war.  And ease this country back also from the stock market crash and depression which preceded it after World War I.

And there were at that time lids on eligibility as understanding that those that had profited then from those wars, should help pay the costs in both blood and treasure that were the result as a Godly nation.  Of course, those wars too were manipulated for bank profits also most of all and debts from World War I actually also lead to World War II.

Right now there does exist in all 50 states already catastrophic coverage for all citizens who are either unable to afford private health care coverage, or are uninsurable for any reason. So in effect all this is really is another method in order to centralize more and more power in Washington, and less and less local accountability to state citizens in the process and gain more revenue for the states for discretionary purposes - along with the corporate entities that will also profit.

Within the stimulus and tied into this legislation is the establishment of a National Health Care Database using Bill Gate's technology and college grant monies to students in order to input all Americans health records into a "Big Brother" database.

If you think straightening out your credit report is next to impossible when it is inaccurate or there has been any "identity theft," just imagine the potential for error or mistaken identity on a national database of your personal medical information. Or that such a database in the future could be used against you for future unrelated reasons.

You think this is Obama's definition of "scare tactics?"

If history serves and never more so than in recent history, the "rights" of the public and citizens under our Bill of Rights is not at all recognized by either the legislative officials at federal or state levels even, nor the judiciary. Rather, the new buzzwords in order to deny or disparage those rights have been "in the interests of public safety" or "state interests."

In other words, the "corporate" not "individual" rights at all.

Just imagine how those corporate lobbyists will eventually gain access to those records under progressive legislation in order to deny employment to those with chronic (although not work related) health conditions such as AIDs, HIV, asthma, heart murmur, previous cancer treatments, addiction counseling, etc.

Just imagine how lawyers special interest groups, one of the most active group of lobbyists bar none for their welfare, can then also eventually gain access to those records without warrants or subpoenas for civil or criminal actions.

Just where is the supposed largest "civil rights" organization, the ACLU right now?  Probably helping the lawyers write this 1,000 for their eventual "corporate" welfare.  I wonder how much the taxpayers costs will increase now also in order to handle all these potential civil rights abridgement cases once that behemoth database and its bugs start to rear their ugly head in denied coverages, loss of life, etc.

Those costs are nowhere in the economic projections that I can determine.

What Mr. Obama is clearly asking is the American people to deny history.

What happened when so many Americans were the victims of the abusive practices of the IRS in their out of control pursuit of Americans for past due taxes, even for sums that were not taxes at all but simply agency determined interest or penalties?

Washington merely created another "agency" called the Taxpayer Advocacy Office that is nothing more than another branch of the federal government and also a benefactor of tax collection. It did not provide adequate oversight or regulation of the IRS in any manner whatsoever, even though there is much debate to this day about the 16th Amendment and how it was ratified "without the consent of the governed" for taxation of the people's income and diametrically opposed to the founder's intent for taxation in this nation.

Skirting around in providing that these extra taxes would be technically indirect taxation through corporate employers doesn't erase the inherent Constitutional violation such legislation entails.  It is not within the original parameters of the Constitution, and is a seizure of wages (property) for governmental purposes most of all at its most basic level transferring the fruits of their labor back to Washington's "sovereign" governmental contractors and "approved" providers.  And violative of the Bill of Rights with respect to even religious provisions for many, not to mention "search and seizure" of personal and private records by federal personnel without any recourse for misuse or access with respect to that federal database.

What did Washington do after all the complaints of citizens on the practices of collection agencies and the credit reporting bureaus in their unregulated practices?

Simply provide legislation that allows citizens to file a two sentence "dispute" of items contained in the report, which are sent to the reporting agency for their "version," which for all intents and purposes was no solution at all. Especially against the agencies which rebundled debts and continued to attempt to collect even on satisfied principal balances attempting to then gain more sums each time those debts were resold for their own profit.

Obama is attempting to actually reassure a younger generation that does not remember that Washington's word with respect to legislation such as ObamaCare and a host of others has been about as trustworthy as The Snake's.

Case in point: the foreclosure "rescue" which already has proved it was more for the banks and lenders, than the defrauded homeowners who are being stalled while collecting all those bogus fees included in those contracts and even more for the services of mortgage advisors and "new" appraisals, prior to carrying out those eventual foreclosures in order for the banks and realtors to get most of those properties on the cheap in order to flip for their profits.

So next time the Snake charmers come to your town, or Mr. Obama makes another of his folksy speeches, our younger generation might remember the addage that was the battle call of their parents generation upon which Mr. Wilson's song actually was based and had political ramifications for many.

The "Don't Trust Anyone Over 35 Mantra" was directly related to politicians and politicos during that era of the first true pre-emptive war.  It might be expanded to now include politicians that use scare and terrorism tactics themselves in order to forment their political agendas.

The history in this country which has brought us to where we are now with respect to health care provision, is like the story of The Snake, proves that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It has been "progressive" power moves and Constitutional violations that have created this "crisis," after all.

Silly woman.
 

Recently I have received several requests to attend TownHall meetings scheduled by Congressional members in order to "sell" their versions of ObamaCare to the public, and actually appear to be addressing citizens concerns with respect to this issue.

These TownHall meetings have now become the vogue for the Congressional members mostly to get some face and free air time before the public, and usually no more than opportunities to confound with their political agendas and excuses as a preface for their next runs for office with respect to contentious legislation - which ObamaCare is a prime example across the board in a great deal of its provisions with respect to America's Constitutional form of government and the huge potential costs to the public both for such an undertaking, and the administrative costs to boot.

Since, after all, there is catastrophic coverage for all citizens under most state plans which already exist in all 50 states.  So this legislation to me and many others seems simply another example of the state and federal government attempting to bypass the citizens, centralize more power in Washington, and have another source of revenue at both levels in order to rape for discretionary expenditures.

I wonder if there will be any reduction in state taxation as a result of this plan, since that also has been left out of much of the discussion, just how high most citizens state taxes are also at this point for the state provided plans already  in existence.  And the states do use the federal government as a heavy for much of their own Constitutional violations for their agendas in discretionary expenditures for their favored industries and backers.

 An unconstitutional taxation of the people, without representation since all consultation with respect to this "reform" has been behind closed doors with the "stakeholders" or industries that are, for the most part, responsible for the high cost of health care in this country today.

Below is my response to one such "invitation" who is a lawyer by profession:

Well, at least one not using the Christian Church as a backdrop for this treasonous legislation.

As previously indicated, the only power Congress has with respect to health care legislation is to do its job, and that is to insure freedom and protect the people from the abusive practices of these mega-conglomerate industries.

Not the "jobs and the economies" of the providers, but their practices and abuses which have lead to this. Corporatization of medicine has lead to 24 hour mastectomies and childbirths which have placed us now below Cuba in the infant survival rate in this country.

And factory line operations where there are more and more medical malpractice claims due to doctors having to do 12 or more operations a day. During my mother's recent heart surgeries, her cardiologist had seven operations scheduled back to back (and he was from South America, not a native born American and one of the "imports" for "science and technology" due to the fact that most medical clinics are also hiring foreign doctors who they can pay less due to the lesser tuition rates they have to pay in their countries for their educations, or further their currency stretches in ours for a U.S. education - such as many from India and South America). Seven heart surgeries back to back!!!

1. Establish a national complaint system as "interstate" commerce on insurers that are incorporated in more than one state in the country, or globally such as Zurich (Farmers) for citizen complaints of denied claims, hike or jack up rates without provocation which aren't based on claims made or ridiculous increases over the cost of living increase, agents who sell a policy but refuse to act as go between with the claims office for those commissions; internet regulation of commercial insurers advertising over the internet (free speech aside, corporations have no such right and consumer fraud is not free speech).

Also this database should be accessible to insurers and citizens for complaints on doctors who abuse the system by double billing or for tests not done acessible to both citizens and insurance companies for consumer fraud prosecution if willful and repeated; procedures and three strike rules for removal of licenses at the state level for doctors found guilty of gross negligence to protect the public, which is the real need, since million dollar awards under those punitive damage awards given since those lids were removed simply means that every five years that doctor is back in business during a 30 year career, or after mulitiple claims within five.

Doctors should also have access if insurers refuse treatments after prior approval, etc. Not inputting the citizens health care records, but protecting the citizenry from the industry abuses which lead to this.

2. Reinstating in codified law the common law on punitive damages that was removed by the TLA due to their greed (and YOUR industry), so more go into obstetrics and public health.

3. The complaint system should also be available for those supplemental carriers such as AARP when they do not pay off, or deny picking up costs which are not covered under any primary or government plan such as Medicare, when it is clearly provided in THEIR policies. They are using technicalities to deny claims after the primary carrier denies them in order to skirt around paying off on those claims.

Every single Congressman and Senator on the Hill is in violation of campaign finance laws at this point, and guilty of treason after the GM bailout, bank bailouts, and stimulus giving privileges and immunities to sovereign subject industries at the public's ultimate expense. You can't have a representative government when representatives are being elected by out of district PAC and commericial organizations, and thus not true representatives of the people at all.

In fact, any such legislation as is being proposed is blatantly unconstitutional in its current form. AND YOU KNOW IT.

During all the townhall meetings and such with respect to this claimed "reform" of health care in America which is being promoted by the Obama Administration, it has truly astounded me and many other Americans that the key issues with respect to this legislation have not at all been addressed.

And that is the "legality" of any such legislation under our current form of government as encompassed by the U.S. Constitution.

Just how many aspects of this plan would not hold muster under the light of Constitutional provision?  Fundamentally, almost all of them.

Starting with the fact that it is not within Congress or the Presidents enumerated powers of office to "mandate" that Americans must buy or "purchase" health care coverage at all.  Their job is to to ensure freedom, not to take freedom away, in determining just what Americans choose to spend the money that is the result of the fruits of their own labors.

The 16th Amendment and income tax itself violated that "intent" and those provisions (since the 9th Amendment superceded the 16th, thus requiring the 'consent of the governed' for any such legislation), and now the Cap & Trade tax that was recently sped through Congress (while even shutting down the Energy Committee website to remove the right of petition) another.

"Globally" taxing Americans now for the "greater good" of the planet was not something the founders would approve of in the slightest.  Especially without the American people's express (rather than implied) consent using simply polls and media propaganda for the basis of this ludicrous legislation.

Within the stimulus bill were sums that were included to hand over to Bill Gates and the telecom industry in order to facilitate also a federally funded database containing all Americans most privileged and personal information - their health care records.  Definitely a violation of the privacy "search and seizure" provisions of our Constitution, and fundamental Bill of Rights violation.

Who wants a federal lackey in Washingto to know whether or not you have ever contracted an STD or had an abortion?  Or are HIV positive?  Or underwent cancer treatment but have been determined to now be cancer free?  Or saw a counselor during a traumatic life event or loss for a mental health tuneup?

Think of what a political tool and weapon this can be, in addition to such a fundamental privacy violation.  Or how those records could then be subpoenaed by lawyers in civil suits without privacy protections unrelated to the case, or eventually by employers in order to deny employment based on physical health even though the position and the health concern would have absolutly nothing to do with your ability to carryout the needed job functions.

Think how many more court actions and judges for those courts at taxpayer expense are going to be needed for all the legal challenges when this information is misued, or there is a security breach by some governmental employee that makes that movie on stolen identity a nightmare come true?

There is no inherent right for the government to overstep its Constitutional authority, but it appears that in the last decade that is all the government has actually done.  Overstep its Constitutional authority time and time again.   And then been negligent in doing its true duties in others.  Such as truly securing our borders.

So much so to the point now where Americans are truly becoming outraged at these townhall meetings, but the socialists and fascists still haven't gotten the message and are now through DHS attempting to marginalize make the American people and victims of this governmental abuse those to "watch."

How dare they.  Isn't it the American people who are paying their salaries, and were to be representatives of them with respect to their duties and those concerned citizens outrage maybe justifialble due to the Constitutional violations and Washington's demonstrated arrogance now time and time again?

The spins continue.  Just today there was an article again on the internet attempting to "explain" the Myths and Facts of Health Care Reform.

Of course, using "myths" again to obscure the true "facts."  That Congress and the President are outside Constitutional authority in even wading in these waters.  Especially during this current economic meltdown that has left many jobless and homeless - and will now be facing increased energy costs due to the last Constitutional abridgement if they can still hang onto their homes.

While they continue to feed the bankers and insurers that are primarily responsible for this economic meltdown, rather than protecting the people and citizens from such abuse.

Rather, the true "reform" would be to back up and reinstitute our Constitution, and instead use those telecom monies in order to set up a national complaint system for abusive insurers that deny coverage, or doctors who are overbilling and abusing the system.  And then stripping those insurers or doctors of their licenses to do business for criminal fraud. 

Reinstituting again the "common law" on punitive damage awards (not compensatory) so that ethical doctors can stay in practice.  Why do you think our infant mortality rate is now less than Cuba's?  All those obstetricians that had to leave practice in the 80's due to the removal of those caps might just hold a clue.

Co-ops are what insurance companies actually were to begin with.  What is also needed is forbidding those commercial corporations that exist on public sums from investing in high risk investments with those premiums, such as what occurred with AIG. 

Not profiting off their criminal activities yet again with this legislation.  And also the terms of the policies which are sold, and coverages which are now standardized and information shared within the industry without citizen recourse also as to what is included in that industry pool.

Obamacare once again shows that Mr. Obama's representations during this last election cycle shows that not only was his campaign rhetoric a bunch of hogwash with respect to the war, protecting the middle class, and Joe the Plumber, but even his actual credentials.

A Constitutional lawyer actually is a little familiar with the Constitution.

Which Mr. Obama clearly is not.

Nor is the 111th Congress that is even giving credence to this legislation in its current form.

 

 

In all the debates and townhall meetings, public forums and the like it has amazed me that what is occuring is simply discussions of what the eventual health care reform legislation should look like and encompass, and not at all the fundamental violations of American's "right to choose or not choose" whether to be insured, or at what level of care.

There are many religions that prohibit invasive medical treatments in their practices. We do have freedom of religion in this country, and would appear any such legislation mandating that Americans must have health care coverage is an abridgement of quite a few of the Bill of Rights freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died in order to secure.

This legislation is being promoted by the left wing for feel good reasons most of all at least at the citizen level. What is being also missed is the parties and industries involved and who is being consulted, and also the inherent benefits to them in any such legislation. Politically and otherwise.

Although the Democratic Party has always held itself out to be the party of the people, rather than industry - Mr. Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi clearly demonstrated that they are just as much big business political lackeys as those in the Republican Party have historically been.

In fact, two of Mr. Obama's most ardent supporters and campaign contributors are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. This legislation stands to profit both enornously, since one is a Wall Street guru heavily invested in the health care industry through his Geico Insurance (which provides and gives discounts to government employees), and the other the founder of Microsoft, who stands to also profit handsomely with the National Health Care Database which was included with the stimulus bills (and hidden for the most part from the public) sums for the software to begin this massive unconstitutional undertaking.

Placing the most personal and private information any American has on a federally accessible database would have the founding fathers storming the White House and shouting for the call to arms.

Both are also believers and support foundations that are dedicated to zero population growth, as are many members of the Democratic Party from the 1960's era that were involved in that movement. And the U.N. and WHO are also believers in population control and promote seminars and initiatives dedicated to it.

And interestingly enough, both Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates have three children (not two, replacement) of their own.

So the hypocrites abound in this legislation, which for all intents in purposes, Hippocrates had nothing to do with. And would end up compromising many ethical doctors Hippocratic oaths also in the process in governmentally determined treatment plans, rathr than physician determined. And it appears neither does the AMA anymore, another announceed supporter for the provisions contained in Mr. Obama's proposed "solution." Using the "corporate" medical community when many within it are vigorously also opposed to any such legislation.

Which is sounding more and more like the "solution" Hitler used in order to determine who was and was not ultimately worth of life, or whose life was worthy for the "greater good" of the Fatherland.

China instituted the "one birth" rule for their population under Communist control long ago. And in the process, infancide rates due to sexual preferences became commonplace.

Lady Liberty had different plans for this nation, and more heart and soul.

It is difficult watching loved ones age and the physical deterioration that goes along with it. It also forces us many times to address our own mortality and untimely end.

In our fast food world now of Twitter and turnaround mastectomies, is life and death now to be determined according to what is more expedient and cost effective for the state (i.e., politicians and their stock portfolios, since all future legislation will be directed toward reducing more and more the "insurers" or health care industries risk and losses if history now serves correctly).

How many elderly people have they spoken to that value each and every day they have left, so long as they are still able to breathe? And while they may be in pain, isn't pain a part of all facets of life be it emotional or physical and simply just makes those painfree moments all the more cherished?

For Any and All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

This week another "politically" generated news story has literally been beaten to death in the mainstream and web media, and that is the story regarding the arrest and detainment of a black Cambridge professor by a white police patrol officer, who just so happened to be a close personal friend of the current resident of the Executive Office on the Hill, Barack Obama.

This story has gotten more media coverage than it would appear the actual facts of the case would engender, as have quite a few in more recent years due to the turn our news sources have taken from being factual and informative watchdogs with respect to reporting real hard hitting news on current political events to more of a National Enquirer on celebrities and politicians personal lives, or on the flip side, PR press agents and media spinners in cahoots with Washington with respect to any and all real political reporting.  Or knowledge either of our Constitution with respect to the criminal fraud and conduct which continues to go on at our nation's capitol and in fact now being intensified under the Obama Administration at a far greater clip and pace than the former Bush Administration.

For heaven sake, Colin Powell now was even given air time on Larry King dissecting this situatuion, of course as ex-military using his military experience to put in his two cents.  Unfortunately, what Mr. Powell fails to realize is that your average neighborhood isn't Iraq, and the police actually work for the U.S. citizens and the police are not our commanding officers and can and do overstep their boundaries more and more so it appears due to the focus now on training police to suspect everyone and anyone of "terrorism" making the police now terrorists themselves, especially young graduates with this "new" training.

He also spoke of an "adult" supervisor being called in.  Weren't these two men both adults?  Or at least over 21?  And this entire incident with all the publicity now surrounding it seems there is an agenda here to either keep the racial thing an ever present "threat" (terrorism) or also to threaten the public that if the police should attempt to arrest you on your own property, then don't simply comply with their requests, but don't dispute their assumptions or work even verbally?

Officers are now pulling guns for traffic violations in some areas of the country.  And it appears the federal government is facilitating now not only this domestic surveillance, but civil unrest due to just such tactics in no longer recognizing that Americans do have "unalienable" and civil rights.  Or maybe these jack boot police methods are simply meant to stimulate the economies of the industry which wrote some of those unconstitutional "Acts" post 9/11 - the lawyers in this country.  After all, we have more than all of Europe combined at this point, most of which are not trained in the true law at all.  Our Constitution.

And at this point with all the brouhaha surrounding it, is begining to sound more and more suspect as another attempt to keep the racial thing alive and in the media.  Stories such as these given so much press, and especially due to the fact that this conveniently was an acquaintance and friend of Obama's, means there is an agenda here, folks, and it is to deflect and distract.

A legal tool those educated in America's law schools or who have worked in that now "industry" are quite familiar with, and whom hold many seats in government and also dominant the staffs of most Congressional members and the Executive office.  It's the old "smoke and mirrors" defensive tactic now being utilized nationwide in conjunction with the corporate news media organizations.

I guess government classes were also skipped by those majoring in journalism in our universities and the "dumbing down" of America progressively which has occurred has actually been facilitated by Washington itself now that the Department of Education is determining local school curriculums now more and more.

No wonder more and more parents are choosing to home school their kids.  And their tyranny now even is beginning to rear its ugly head in this respect.

Several state and some government agencies are now using their regulatory powers to attempt to preclude homeschooled or "alternatively educated" citizens from working within the federal or state government.  We now have "education discrimination" rearing its head in order to socialize education in this country.  State and federal laws also dictate even private school curriculums at this point.  These new requirements which are now being concocted expressly state in some of their published material that a "public school and public university" education is required for the jobs listed.

Good way to also water down and use the regulatory agencies then in order to simply "regulate" away any and all private or charitable religious or faith based schools while not directly attacking the Bill of Rights Constitutional protections in the process.  So far it appears little progress has been made on this due to its blatant Constitutional abridgment.  It appears Big Daddy government wants not only now to socialized medicine and decide who lives and dies ultimately in this country, but socialize education and control, and parent the citizens from birth to death in the process.

Even though with the current tax structures the way they are, whether Americans use the public education system or not, they are paying for it one way or another.

What was interesting about this Gate case was the fact that it not only made the news (and national media attention) at all, but just where did this "scoop" come from anyway? 

And who reported the "crime in progress" since it would appear it would have had to have been one of his own neighbors since it is rare indeed now that officers even patrol neighborhoods anymore, rather are too busy earning that federal grant money parking outside local sports bars and restaurants in order to catch the social drinking crowd as now more and more revenue collectors for the states rather than "common defense" for the communities as in past generations.  There is much suspicious about this entire "story," and story it appears to be.

Thus, neighborhood security is another one of those former governmental functions for which the taxpayer pay local taxes and for which they now do not receive those services, and more and more neighborhoods across the country have been placed in the position of then having to pay for private security.  We are now "privatizing" another governmental function and supporting the science and technology bottoom lines in home security devices through again state and federal negligence in using those public sums for public purposes.  Crime now actually has become a "job stimulus" and Washington's "jobs and the economy" focus seems a little bent at this point insofar as whose jobs and whose economies they are truly interested in stimuluating, and at whose expense.

It appears the foreigners and criminals are actuallly now unofficially the "citizens" Washington truly is now representing.  Or purposely enabling to commit their crimes, shall we say.

Since without their help and support, those campaign donations from their corporate benefactors might dry up.  Truly address crime prevention, or secure our borders and just look at how many industries bottom lines might be compromised.  The home security and gadget companies.  Silicon Valley.  Medical & health profession.  Pharmaceutical industry.  Behavioral health specialists.  Funeral directors.  The greatest industry that has been stimulated post 9/11 is the first in the list, the gadget industry, and in additional now online web schools majoring in "degrees" in Homeland Security now for a few thousand for their "bachelor's" programs.  But the real beneficiaries especially are....

The lawyers most of all, who dominate all three houses of government in some capacity or another.  In fact, they are now writing 1,000 page bills which our Congressional representatives are voting on without reading as a further "job stimulus" for the legal industry.  Of which our Pres claims to be one.  But certainly not a Constitutional lawyer, that much is clear.

How much is one American life worth?  Apparently, to those on the Hill in addition to sacrificing thousands due to the open borders situation which continues post 9/11 and in our state legislatures also, less than their next Washington fundraiser or cocktail party, or seat on the next corporate Board for them or their relatives.   And now with the L. Ron Hubbard Health Care Plan being formulated, will clearly be reduced to dollars and cents now from the federal trough once elected.  U.S.A. Inc. has been operating like General Motors for decades, so that merger and joint venture simply another to add to its massive Wall Street holdings.

I wonder all told how many shares in how many Fortune 500 companies do the members of Congress have in their stock portfolios combined.  How many in the health care industry or sector? 

And isn't legislating for more and more laws favoring private industry and big business the ultimate in conflict of intrerest, and insider trading?  Isn't this type activity on the part of the "government" the very actions which also lead to that Boston Tea Party so long ago?  Isn't AIG (based in London) a prime example of favoritism for a global industry at the ultimate expense of the colonists in this country and contrary to the very foundations and wording contained within the Constitution with respect to foreign "interests" in any respect, and the intent of the founders in its framing?

How much do Bill Gates and Warren Buffett stand to gain from this Orwellesque Health Care Plan, anyway?  How many shares of AIG have been transferred to Mr. Buffett (heavily invested in the insurance industry) by Mr. Geithner at this point due to that "behind closed doors" unconstitutuional bailout at this point?

I wonder why no one, with that National Health Care Database and the Health Care Czar "God" in Washington has even pointed out what a great political tool and weapon this new health care plan could be for any and all future administration for perceived political enemies?

Property theft and other such property crimes in fact are the highest crimes bar none than any other in most metropolitan cities and states, and has increased in leaps and bounds the past twenty years as the local governments collect more, but provide less in public services for those taxes, while paying out more instead to their private grant and no bid contract recipients.    

And if Dr. Gates was a Cambridge professor, upon this officer's investigation of the "crime in progress" with his attempting to break into his own home in which he was locked out, wouldn't the officer have patted him down or requested he empty his pockets before actually arresting him and thus easily able to confirm that it was his own house that he was breaking into?

This entire story seems another simply to "humanize" President Obama as the "good guy" and more a public relations stunt in order to charm the public, a public that is getting increasingly angry over the quite evident lack of any true "hope" or "change," and nothing more than a new Administration focused on feeding Wall Street and their own political careers most of all, rather than performing or restricting themselves to their Constitutionally outlined duties and functions.

Like ending the war.  Taxing the insourcing and outsourcing corporations which have resulted in the loss of literally thousands of American jobs.  Securing America's borders.

You know, the boring stuff of public office.

We are, after all, still in this "no win" war, the middle class in Detroit was just stripped of their jobs, unemployment,  joblessness and homelessness are at their highest levels since the Depression, and Mr. Obama's L. Ron Hubbard Orwellesque Health Care Reform and its increased costs and wayward spending agendas instead of addressing the bad legislation and negligent actions with respect to regulatory functions on many of these industries which occurred under  many prior Congresses and Administrations and which is what lead to this economic disaster,  and the continuing now war I suppose wouldn't increase the rating numbers enough to hike up the rates by those networks for the ad spots for those beer commercials.

But Dr. Gates, the officer and Obama will be having a beer, demonstrating what a "regular guy," and Average Joe the Pres actually is with his domestic diplomatic skills.  Great guy, that Pres.  Remember that when the pink slip arrives, how much he promised to "change" the tax burdens and increasing homelessness of the average middle class guy, after all. 

You know, when all that new taxpayer stimulus money was earmarked fundamentally for "new home buyers" or simply to temporarily renegotiate some of those usurous loans which were sold to the public, without any changes in the practices of the banks and lenders in those predatory loans to simply trap a new generation of middle class buyers or prolong the agony of those currently in danger of losing theirs especially now when the inflationary and those new "Cap and Trade" taxes kick in increasing your utility payments for those Wall Street bankers profit margins yet again.

Interesting also that a great many university professors, especially East Coast Ivy League professors, also belong to the Council on Foreign Relations, that New York "think tank" that also is populated with Fortune 500 Wall Street companies and under Rockefellar grant monies (who also fund the ACLU) directly determine through their members and their members within the Senate and House Foreign Affairs committees, our foreign policies.  Like the war now in the Middle East.  Apparently the Council's legal counsels and members are advising them on the "smoke and mirrors" defense also.

And also new legislation.  Such as the "Cybersecurity Act" that resulted in the House Energy Committees switchboard being shut down during the Cap & Trade debates for Wall Street and the bankers also bottom line due to being "overwhelmed," by faxes and emails from the public, while they then just went ahead and passed the bill anyway.  Illegally, actually, since such a tax is fundamentally illegal under our existing Constitution as not at all a function of the federal government in the slightest, and based upon fabricated and inconclusive "evidence," funded by the banks, utilities and energy companies who will be the beneficiaries.  

And some of those university professor"scientists" conducting a great many of those expensive seminars on global warming are also on the Council on Foreign Relations with those Fortune 500 global trade association members.

At least this one pushed the "First Dog" stories and Michelle's wardrobe choices off the front pages.

Spin, dstract and deflect.  The new political tap dance is getting real, real old - and most of today's journalists do appear to now be receiving their salaries through federal grant monies.   Through either their "corporate" employer, or directly.

 

 

Since Barack Obama assumed the Office of Presidency in January, there has been much activity going on in Washington in attempt to reportedly "fix" the economic and other problems which were facilitated under the former Bush administration and salve the discontent in the United States that the majority of the citizens now have with the goings on in our nation's capitol.

While Obama has been on whirlwind tours of the United States and Europe promoting his economic solutions, and throwing money right and left at whatever fire springs up (such as the GM bailouts, and his "foreclosure" solutions), his policies have left much to be desired and actually have further sunk this country into an economic quagmire without truly addressing any of the problems which lead to this.

Self-serving politicians who have consistently for decades acted for their own political interests and benefactors, rather than the Constitution and citizens of the nation in their proscribed duties and functions.

It is difficult in this day and age to get elected to state of federal offices without a huge campaign war chest.  This was not so in prior generations and it got me to investigating just why, particularly in this last half century, most campaign elections have become more and more costly, and yet less and less effective in bringing about any true change in governmental policies, or even sound and Constitutional government.

And the answers I found were actually quite simple and enlightening.

You cannot have a true Constitutional Republic and "representative" government when those "representatives" are not "representatives" of the districts of citizens they are elected to represent.

And this has been the case now for well over seventy-five years.

How did this distortion of our true intended form of representative government come about?

By veering from the "intended" provisions of the founders of the country in the election of the leaders at both the state and federal levels.  Although not "written in stone" in the Constitution, it was a very simple restriction and gentlemen's agreement that the founders felt didn't even bear inclusion in the Constitution at all, since it was assumed within the framework of the document itself.

Any and all donations to candidates running for elective office for any seat in any public service position throughout the country would necessarily have to be both a resident of the district in which he represented, and also restricted to financing and promotion by only those living within his respective district.

In other words, a candidate could not accept any sponsorship or donations from outside his legislative district, in order that he truly was a representative of his constituency within that district.

And returning to those "legal" yet unstate provisions once again would turn help also dilute the influence of the "corporate" and special interest groups that reside on K Street and hang around the Halls of Congress with their hands out seeking their "corporate" welfare on the backs of the American people rather than working for a living.

Such as those now in the energy and health care field, and Wall Street, who are looking for handouts at the American public's expense, when they have already made a good portion of the population right now literally homeless and jobless.

Congress had no inherent authority to institute "campaign finance" laws at all, other than to restate the obvious:  Any and all candidates for federal or state office must both reside in their districts, and were precluded from accepting ANY outside donations other than from those in their own representative district.  And for any and all "corporate" donations (which were precluded since "corporations" were not people actually at all), then the address of the principal or statutory office would be used as their district.

Wake up, America.  These Congressman and Senators have been accepting unlawful campaign donations and been in violation of the true campaign finance laws for literally decades, in order to pick and choose which industries will benefit them personally the most and ensure their political survival.

And rewinding to the "intent" within the framework of our Constitution, might just bring about true change, rather than the Obama (Bush in drag) version.

For Any and All American Constitutional "Conserve"atives:

Last night I listened to part of Obama's new "road trip" and public relations spiel regarding the health care reform he and the Democratic Congress (and their Republican also Global Socialist members) are hatching in Washington.

At the end of the spiel all I could think of was that his health care "reform" is nothing more than "reforming" medicine and health care along the lines of any corporate enterprise. On a cost/benefit business model with an actuary in Washington then determining what types of treatment will be "approved."

In other words, Obama is now creating a new position within his administration whoever the new "health czar" will be.

God.

Or at least that is what the job description should read with the power which will be given over human life and death in this country.

Listen up, America. Do you really want some federally trained lackey in Washington determining whether or not your spouse, child or other family member "deserves" or is worthy of treatment for their health care needs?

And just who are you going to sue or bring charges against if that treatment is denied, anyway? It is you who are paying for that coverage, yet the only recourse that would be available to you would be to file a claim with the same entity that denied you the treatment to begin with.

The federal government.

And what if you have religious beliefs that preclude invasive medical treatments, or also rely more on homeopathic remedies rather than running to the doctors at the first sign of a cold or flu?

Should you be forced to pay for medical treatments and costs that will continue to escalate beyond your ability to pay at some point, as I do believe there will also be differences in the costs to citizens included within that bill according to their age?

And just how can the government "fine" you for not purchasing a government issued "product," or "service" which is what it is, because it is the government and not the health care provider or doctor who will be in charge of your treatment plan?

Do "business models" work for a vital service that all Americans most likely will need at some time or another in their lives? And what about the state plans, will citizens still be paying taxes for those state social service agencies on top of the expansion of DHHS that will be required in order to administer this massive plan?

Or will those state plans be "merged" with the states ceding more of their duties and functions to federal control, with then more state revenue to spend indiscriminantly in not having to come up with those matching sums? Just when will we phase out state government altogether, because that would be a huge tax savings to all Americans at this point since this does appear to be the plan from all appearances?

How much of those health care taxes will then be going into administrative costs for more federal government workers and THEIR salaries and benefits?

Is this the type of "jobs stimulus" Obama was referring to, expanding government to the degree that pretty soon everyone in this country will be somehow working for the U.S. government with Uncle Sam then doling out the spoils?

Isn't that the definition of pure communism?

The health care industry is licking its lips over this one, because it will be "bare bones" coverage and they will then get the opportunity to market those "supplemental" plans that they most likely will never have to pay off on.

Just why DO you think the AARP is involved in these talks? Who do you think has a huge share of the market with respect to their "supplemental" medicare plans at the present time?

And just why is it that this is being tailored to meet the needs of the industries which are raping the American people for their health care costs now as it is?

Obama and this Congress and Administration are getting scarier by the moment.

This is Soylent Green and Hitler wrapped into one, yet being marketed as a "solution," to a government created situation to begin with in not performing its governmental function in regulating some of those industries sufficiently but rather getting into bed with them for politicians personal political careers.

Warren Buffett must be making plans to buy Africa as a real estate investment in order to shelter some of that windfall profit he will be making, since included within the bill are measures which require the public to use "approved" health care providers for the cut rate plans.

Maybe that is also part of the plan, installing owner/CEOs in the various third world countries funded by their corporate holdings (of course funded also by the public in their public offerings, which market is then manipulated by the European bankster/owners) in the industrialized West and Far East so that the G-20 conferences are in truth of fact nothing more than corporate Board of Directors' meetings for Earth, Inc. of the principal owners with the world's population at that point nothing more than disinterested shareholder/members working for the planet's "corporate" greater good. Robot workers, in other words, at the mercy of the planet/state.

Did L. Ron Hubbard or Orwell write this script?

After all, Obama and this Congress and Administration are big believers in "science" based technology. Even predicting the planet's demise thousands of years down the road is within their grasp (although not tomorrow's ice storm or path of the next hurricane).

Maybe they left a word out. "Science fiction" based technology, perhaps?

And the little workers bees worth in the event of downtime then determined according to actuarial tables configured according to job position and risk/benefit losses at time of injury or their life expectancy.

At this point, all those on the Hill need to have a mental health check and/or check in to the nearest psychiatric ward.

After all, WE'VE paid for their coverage for years.

Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.

These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe.  And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago.  Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

    —Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
   —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."

She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning.  And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand.  Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?

It doesn't appear so.  She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand."  Which all sounds well and good.  But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings.  Which is what is truly scary.  Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.

With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.

In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.

Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution.  Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.

And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law."  "Settled" by whom?  The judiciary in that Roe case?  Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever.  And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder."  That is what is truly required.  But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.

Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.

For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe.  And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.

I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure.  And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.

And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.

As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.

I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction.  And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.

I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.

I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as:  If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.

It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.

She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will."  Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."

And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all.  Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Madison is spinning right about now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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