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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This will be historic legislation alright. 

Legislation that is making old Ben spin right about now.

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

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

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

Why inconsequential?

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

How so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Why inconsequential?

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

How so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such as Cap & Trade. 

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

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

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

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

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

Just where are these "projections" coming from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

 

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

It was recently announced in several online media sources that the Mexican government, in their "partnership" with the U.S. in securing the nation's southern border with Mexico, has fired all their existing border agents, and hired new university educated border guards now armed with state of the art technology in order to work in concert with the U.S. on security issues.

I guess this public relations announcement was meant also to engender favorable response in the United States for Mexico's efforts to address the historically porous southern borders, which have progressively become worse each and every decade with respect to the security and crime that has occurred in the American border states.

Interesting, it appears the United States is now using foreign governments now in order to "stimulate" the economies of Silicon Valley. This announcement failed to mention that the American government under [George Bush entered into an initiative of literally billions in "foreign aid" to Mexico in order to address the border situation.

In other words, it was the American people and taxpayers that picked up the tab for Mexico's new agents university training and high tech gadgetry. Globally socializing now border security with other nations for Silicon Valley's corporate welfare and profit.  Or using the taxpayers and increasing the inflationary taxes and deficit to feed its now favored industries - the Silicon Valley telecom and security gadget industy.  I guess the contracts on the Iraq War aren't paying enough to get those Wall Street numbers where they would like them to be for those private investors though publicly funded for their next campaigns.

The main use of these new agents, since they will be at their posts primarily at the official ports of entry, appears to be in order to collect Mexico's VAT taxes for purchases being brought back from the U.S. across their borders for their citizens purchases at the local Wal-Marts in the border towns, in order to seize more of those U.S. dollars for Mexico's treasury.

And in order to possibly catch the stoned marijuana dealers that are stupid enough to attempt to cross Mexico's borders with the proceeds from their latest run. Trained dog sniffers came along with this gift from the U.S., it appears.

These measures can hardly be meant to address the true security threats and criminal activity that primarily endangers those Americans living in the border states from the drug cartels and criminal auto theft rings that cross those borders literally at will. Since they hardly wait politely in line for the security checks at the official ports of entry - but instead use the over 500 miles of open desert that is totally unsecured.

Which is also the port of entry for most of the illegal immigrants brought in by the human smuggling rings that also operate cross borders. With maps printed by the local Mexican governments in order to so do.

And although mention is made, as per Ms. Clinton's errant assessments and comments, with respect to also these measures intended to stop the smuggling of guns from the U.S. into Mexico - as any who have lived in a border state for any length of time is well aware, the machine guns and heavy artillery that those cartels obtain don't come primarily from the U.S. at all, but through their own southern borders with South America.

So, it appears in this public relations press release an attempt to silence those that have been calling for true border security at our southern borders now, especially eight years after 9/11 and with the increases annually in that amount of both illegal immigrants, and criminal activity that pours over those borders on a daily basis.  Which has, of course, now contributed (along with the increased property and auto insurance rates, and predatory loan practices of unregulated California lenders who sold most of those "creative" junk feed escalating loans in the West) to the high rate of jobless and homeless now in the border states in being the states with the highest rates of foreclosure during this housing crisis bar none.

With the border state residents in the inflationary taxes which will result in these foreign aid bills for Mexico actually resulting in paying for their continued victimization and abuse.  We are a bankrupted nation for all intents and purposes, but still handing out foreign aid like candy for other countries, while our government officials negligently and beligerantly at this point leave America's own borders vulnerable and unsecured - their primary function and duty.

 Mexico got the gadgets while the Americans living in the border states continue to get the shaft.

I wonder how many more will be stripped of their lives and property until Washington finally gets the message.  Is this part of the "we all must sacrifice" agenda here.  Sacrificing the lives and property of the legal Americans living in the border states for this global socialism agenda and to appease the Mexican government in continuing to provide employment for their citizens at the cost of the livelihoods of Americans?  And no less pick up the tab for it, endure the six hour emergency room waits for lawful citizens treatment, and smile or feel that Americans have somehow done their patriotic duty?

It appears Washington does have a problem with the definition of the type of patriotism the founders were also speaking of, in addition to being able to read the provisions of both their jobs, and legal limits with respect to U.S. citizens.  And that foreigners were not Americans until achieving citizenship status, and going through an application process, medical exam, learning the language toward truly assimilating.  And cutting their ties to their former homes of origin, even if those countries afforded dual citizenship.  This country did not, only allegiance to it.

Or perhaps is it their intent to cut loose the border states eventually, therefore leaving more discretionary tax revenue for those in the East to distribute to their Wall Street banking benefactors in the process?  Mexico's form of government is not at all similar to ours, nor its own Constitution with respect to foreigners found unlawfully in their country.  Nor anyone suspected of criminal activity upon a Mexican citizen.

It appears more and more the border state residents have become strangers in a strange land - their own country.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090816/4a879250_3421_1334520090816108637384

For Any And All American Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

In an interview with CNN published several days ago given by Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner stated that the economy is giving signs that it is headed for an eventual rebound.

But my question is:  for whom?  And just who has he spoken with recently, or what statistics is he using?

The last several months have seen the amount of foreclosures and also those jobless continue to escalate at unprecedented levels.  Recently, the House (yes, America, your misrepresentatives) just passed what is potentially going to be the largest increase in taxation in this country since the 16th Amendment with respect to Americans utility bills, which are already off the charts in most areas of the country:  The Cap & Trade Tax.

Conservative estimates have been that this new scheme for the Wall Street brokers and bankers will most likely increase Americans utility bills the first year alone over $1,400 per PERSON.  Not household.

The most massive layoff ever occurred recently in Detroit, one of the cities hardest hit also with the foreclosure mess.  Those middle class GM workers I'm sure are much appreciative of the anticipated extension of unemployment benefits they will receive.  Most of which are less than half of their former salaries.  And that $600 credit isn't going to go very far paying those utility bills either.

If Mr. Geithner's predictions are based upon the "global" market and Wall Street, then Mr. Geithner, Mr. Obama and those on the Hill have certainly insured its survival with all the legislation since the "bank bailout" fiasco, for an industry that has progressively also escalated their "junk fees" and costs in their "flex loan" offerings for those mortgages they sold to the American public and then resold on the "global" exchange.

While also lobbying for changes in the bankruptcy code precluding Americans from writing off any of their high usury fees and costs should they actually use some of that great credit and have an unexpected large expense arise, such as ballooning property taxes and insurance costs, that makes them unable to pay that double digit interest.

Of course, the Americans lost their homes, while the foreigner investors recouped their investments, enough to even send their highest paid executives to a retreat at one of California's Four Star resorts.  California, of course, being the home of the lenders who underwrote most of those bogus loans.

Which then turned around and pleaded bankruptcy, when Silicon Valley must be making money hands over fist due to the continuing war, and the telecom bill that just resulted in many Americans having to ditch their antennae and pay instead for cable subscriptions to "stimulate" the telecom companies profit margins even more.

Mr. Geithner must be polling the financiers who are profiting with his predictions is the only conclusion I could come to after reading the piece since it was truly difficult to pinpoint just what he is using as his crystal ball, of course at the cost of Joe the Plumber for these progressive Wall Street stimuluses, who I am sure doesn't have a lot invested in the stock market other than maybe a college fund for his kids.

Although that also won't tie him over once those "global warming" taxes also kick in, not to mention the health care he most likely will now have to fork over for his journeymen apprentice helpers under the new L. Ron Hubbard/Orwell Universal Health Care Plan.

Tell me, Mr. Geithner, just whom were your consulting for your predictions?  And since a great many now are on the breadline, or the homeless shelter, just where is the investment capital going to come from with so many Americans now living hand to mouth as it is, or saving for those "global warming" taxes once they hit?

I know, the "global" community will continue to buy up most of America's industrial base, and its infrastructure at an even faster clip than it already has.  I hear the French are now invested in the Grand Canyon and that new platform they just put in, and I'm sure could come up with a down payment on the rest since I do believe they still have some extra cash and some of those dollars of ours which helped during the rebuilding after World War II?

Have you arranged for the realtor and "for sale" sign for the White House yet?

Oh, heads up America.  In the article Mr. Geithner did indicate that in order for this recovery to progress and have the desired result, there most likely would have to be some increases in taxes in the form of a VAT or value added tax on manufactured goods which will, of course, raise prices again for the consumers.

And he also spoke of what "success" the Cash for Clunkers program had been which was funded at 1 billion and provided for $4,500 rebates for people who traded in their older gas guzzlers for newer, fuel efficient models.

But I question whether the success of this program is as was represented, since with the average automobile with all the bells and whistles and computers now involved, well over $20,000 even for the lower end models, in most states that credit wouldn't even pay the license, sales tax and registration fees.

Seems another "stimulus" instead meant for the state and local coffers more than anything.

Certainly not for the auto industry, as stated in the article, since those GM plants in Mexico and China are humming right along and due to the cheap labor and with that Hummer deal thrown in to China to sweeten the deal as our major creditor at this point from the propaganda on the MSM, GM isn't hurting and had one of the fastest bankruptcy restructuring (post bailout) ever for a major U.S. corporation.

And John McCain, of course, was also interviewed.  And gave credit somehow also to the "success" of the stimulus.

I wonder if he's been back to Arizona recently, or spoken with many in the Grand Canyon State, one of the top three consistently in home foreclosures?  Or visited and walked through some of the wash areas in metro Phoenix or Tucson lately? 

Or visited the local soup kitchen because there are quite a few Joe the Plumbers there due to the amount of day laborers who have taken many of their jobs as those small businesses and construction trades do seem to be some of the primary employers in most areas of the country right now.

So cheer up, Middle Class America, Mr. Geithner has things well under control....for the "global market economy," which you are subsidizing for what is nothing more than world "economic" socialism.

As Mr. Obama said:  We all must make sacrifices.

Maybe a start would be that all federal employees must also divest themselves of their taxpayer paid health care plans and benefits, and sign up for the new "government" sponsored program to help cut that deficit and be on parity with their constituents in this government initiated economic crisis.  And their federal pensions contributions sliced and switched to 401(Ks) heavily invested in U.S. industries, rather than their global investment portfolios.

Isn't it time those on the Hill practiced what they preach and layoff a few of those government workers?

After all, the recently published staff budget for the White House alone is over 32 million with over 400 employees.  I think Adams had less than six, and it wasn't even done yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/02/geithner.economy/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievable. 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In America yesterday hundreds of thousands of Americans  banded together in order to stage mass protest "tea parties" throughout the nation in response to the recent bank bail-outs, stimulus, high taxes and lack of regulation over the Federal Reserve, a private banking institution which regulates and controls this nation's currency.

Prior to these organized events, a memo was issued from the Department of Homeland Security which now is targeting dissident Americans who do not hold with the federal government's continuing violations upon America's Constitution, including returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, as "extreme right wing" terrorists.

This memorandum was distributed to state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the nation.

The memorandum in part, had this to say with respect to it's definition of "right wing extremism:"

"Rightwing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks."

Several members of Congress are now confronting the Department's Secretary in an effort to gain an explanation for the broad-based and open ended language contained in the memo, which actually targets any and all who may disagree with governmental policy - although in America such dissident protests and positions are protected under the American Bill of Rights affording the right to "free association and assembly" and "freedom of speech."

In fact, these are fundamental rights and freedoms given to all natural or naturalized Americans, which restrictions in England actually were the basis of America's Revolutionary War in 1776.

Interesting enough, however, mention by these same Congressmen has not been made that in late 2007 over 400 members of Congress passed an Act, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terorist Act of 2007" in which such broad based language was included which actually is responsible for Ms. Napolitano's issuance of such an illegal and unlawful memorandum.

This Bill passed overwhelmingly in the House, although it is unclear whether or not it has yet been addressed or passed by the Senate.

This Act makes not simply acts of violent terrorism by foreigners against the country or American people a crime, but the mere political disagreement or political ideology which differs with elected or appointed governmental officials by Americans a crime in and of itself.

In short, governmental tyranny at it's core, and a fundamental violation of the basis upon which this entire nation was founded.  The founders of this country were "radical" in their beliefs themselves.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, according to a YouTube video, is using this Act in order to now rewrite American history, teaching local and state government officials that the founding fathers of this nation were actually the first terrorists.

Global socialism now is not only destroying this nation's economy, but it's very essence, by those now in Washington who have abandoned the very principles and foundations upon which those founders fought - freedom over governmental tyranny.

Actually, it appears this Act and memo have made the government itself a "hate group" of the majority of a significant number of the American people, by last polls, that do not agreement with the onging War in Iraq, stimulus provisions, Federal Reserves arbitrary monetary policies.  It appears that instead of the government being representative of the people, it is now it's own hate group targeting the people.

You can read the provisions of the Senate version (S-1959) of this bill at:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959

http://www.backupamerica.org

Apparently, when politically things couldn't seem to get more ludicrous than they already are here in the United States, a story comes out that simply is just too incredible to believe.

In a recent news report carried by the Chicago Tribune, it appears that Barack Obama decided that the menu for his 140 invited guests for a Friday night get together was to include pizza. 

But not just any pizza.  Pizza from a St. Louis eatery, Pi Pizza (as in pizza pie).

The White House flew the staff from the restaurant and their dough, sauce, cheese and pizza pans in order to deliver their haute cuisine personally.

In this declining economy and with Mr. Obama's stated concerns about "global warming" and energy conservation, I wonder just exactly how big those carbon footprints were for this take out order?

And to top it all off, the Tribune reported that the owner of one of the largest pizza restaurants in his home state of Illinois was miffed that he had been snubbed in favor of the St. Louis establishment.

The Tribune article:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqW0jeBmxn9ncFJTUwcQ_6duivTAD97FQ5I80

Simply incredible.

Recently, another writer expressed the frustration of many Americans due to the failure of our federal government to perform it's primary function, securing our borders and also addressing the enormous and massive amounts of illegal immigrants in this country, especially now in light of our economic condition.  He set forth his reasons and the article may be seen at:

http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2009/04/americans-fed-up-with-politicians-who-refuse-to-enforce-the-law/

But I have some in addition, that only a border state resident at this point would be fully aware that I would like to contribute, and below is a copy of my Letter to the Editor of the publication which originally ran the opinion article:

Dear Editor:

I read with interest the opinion column of John Lilipop with respect to the illegal immigrant and border situation.  As a former 45 year Arizonan now a political refugee in another state due to this problem, and the costs it had progressively had on me and my family personally, I would like to add a few more items which many in the border states are FED UP with:

FED up that the U.S. is providing billions of dollars now to the government of Mexico in order to purportedly "fight" their own civil war against the drug cartel members;

FED up that Hillary Clinton blamed America for the access to guns and ammunition that these cartel members have been able to obtain, when it is more than likely that  most of those arms are being smuggled into the country either through South America, or are being allowed through Mexican customs by their own government officials (however if the fencing was done, such stockpiles of arms would not then be able to be smuggled as readily through also the over 700 miles of open desert bordering Mexico);

FED up that the American taxpayers are providing three Black Hawk helicopters to basically protect the American corporate interests in Mexico who have outsourced American labor, including those in the auto industry;

FED up that the lives of the American citizens now are viewed as no more than collateral damage for U.S. appeasement policies and corporate interests;

FED up that the historic corruption of the Mexican government as many Americans who have traveled and visited Mexico frequently are aware has also been whitewashed by our media, and the U.S. officials;

FED up that Mexico is being portrayed as a "poor" country, when in fact it is one of the richest countries due to both its oil holdings, and the drug trade which it has backhandedly supported for many, many years for Americanos dollars;

FED up that the media continues to be silent about the fact that in Mexico, non-citizens are not allowed to hold land or any property real property outright, nor are they allowed to participate in the political process of Mexico in any manner and to violate this law results in immediate deportation, WITHOUT hearing;

FED up with the lack of disclosure of the fact that if Americans had ever organized to stage the protests that the Mexican illegals have in this country, all Americans would either have been shot, or arrested and sent to Mexican prisons forthwith;

FED up with the lack of disclosure of the fact that there have been many Americans from the border states who have languished in Mexican prisons for years without trials, with their friends and family then charged sums in order to so much as visit their loved ones, over trumped up charges which instances have also gone unmentioned in the media;

FED up that instead of doing their Constitutional duty and protecting American lives and property, the U.S. government continues to promote "globalism" in order to convince Americans that Mexico's "democracy" and government is similar to ours;

FED up that the lives of children and young women and the number of American lives which have been lost due to the open borders situation continues to be downplayed and/or withheld from the public, while the number of lives lost due to the drug cartel wars, announced now at over 6,000, has been severely inflated in order to gain the foreign aid promised by the U.S. to Mexico in Merida;

FED up that our children are being actively marketed to in front of local high school and middle schools within yards of the "Drug Free" zones by those same cartel member distributors during lunch and before and after school;

FED up that in the border states at many times during the year the hospital emergency rooms are full of illegals with case of the flu resulting sometimes in 4-5 hour waits for Americans in order for they or their families to receive treatment, and are given preference over Americans for such care due to the federal statute that reimburses these hospitals at the American citizens expense, while many Americans can now no longer afford themselves to get insurance or visit a doctor due to crushing tax burdens;

FED up that the U.S. now is becoming more and more like Mexico's two class system;

FED up that the jobs that these illegal immigrants are taking in many sectors are not simply "jobs Americans don't want," but were and are jobs that our youth, military, construction workers and those  the lawful Mexican-Americans of the past formerly held;

FED up that this is being portrayed as a "racial" issue, when it is an American vs. non-American issue at it's core;

FED up that the illegal immigrant community has gained a voice in our Congress through taxpayer paid organizations that now lobby on the American citizens' dime for "foreigner" rights equal to and even over those of the lawful citizens at both the federal and state levels for grant monies and their legal fees, which is progressively bankrupting the lawful citizens in the process, and adding to our national debt on behalf of those who do not wish in any manner to truly make America their home;

FED up that while many in the illegal population may be gainfully employed in this country, in addition there are a great number who supplement their incomes with either drug trafficking, or theft of American citizen's property, including their identities, cars and other personal property;

FED up with the Catholic communities support for the "rights" also of illegal immigrants enmass in this country, while neglecting to mention that the Pope himself has a fortress wall around his own country in order to secure it, and which neither has made or given any indication of it's degree of support in whether or not the Church and/or members personally would be willing to "sponsor" many of these illegals until achieving citizenship as a demonstration of their commitment to their religious, political and personal agendas;

FED up that Janet Napolitano, Mr. Obama's chosen Secretary of Homeland Security and former Governor of Arizona, is now using the bulk of the stimulus monies in order to buy full body scanners at U.S. airports in order to further invade the rights and privacy of American citizens, while continuing to support open borders - which support actually has lead to further increasing the danger to her fellow countrymen in Arizona's lives and property, and which end result is now this escalating situation and border war due to her failure to truly address the severity of the border situation during her term as Arizona's Governor;

FED up that unless and until something is done relatively soon in order to effectively secure and fence our borders, more Americans lives will be taken, made homeless, and we quite clearly could lose the American Southwest in the not so distant future if the drug cartels profits continue, and they gain more and more strength in number and support;

And finally,

FED up with fellow Americans who continue to support open borders and massive immigration to the detriment of the lives and property of their fellow countrymen in the border states, which negative impact is and has been spreading throughout the country.

A former Arizonan