For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

It was reported in the mainstream media today that the jobless rate had a minor decline the month of July, the first such decline since August of 2008, with the Obama Administration then taking credit and predicting this was a "strong indication" that perhaps the jobless rates and unemployment would begin to correct after the losses which have occured this past few years.

The jobless rate according to the Department of Labor is hovering at about 9%.  I would say those figures would be low, since it doesn't take into consideration those individuals who have lost their small businesses during this economic tsunami (who are not eligible to collect unemployment) nor those whose benefits have expired and are still not working with little likelihood that their situations will change anytime in the near future in their former lines of work.  Also July is a big vacation month for many, and vacation pay can and is lower than workweek pay in many instances and also many are now working as temporary help for any overflow.  Temporary labor needs are higher now in seasonal industries such as retailing and the needed temporary "back to school" workers specifically hired for short term employment needs.

After all, Obama himself laid off literally thousands in Detroit with the prediction that those jobs would not be coming back.  So what is an ex-autoworker really to do that has spent his entire life on a production line what with the outsourcing that has occurred that has eroded our industrial base here at home to less than half it was during the Industrial Revolution which, along with our agricultural base, kept this country a major economic power for well over 150 years?

Mr. Obama and this Administration's focus is on green jobs and science based technology.  In other words, promoting Silicon Valley most of all and the large public utility companies.  But these measures have been tried before, in the late 1960's and 1970's and it actually was the environmentalists and such that actually prevented new energy sources from being developed and utilized during the last gasoline crisis when prices went from less than 30 cents per gallon to well over $1.00.  The largest price increase since the automobile was invented by Henry Ford.

The wind tunnels and turbine energy sources were banned since none of those liberals wanted those ugly towers in their communities.  Nuclear power was developed as an alternative source of energy with promises to local communities that cleaner nuclear energy would result in lower energy costs for all.  What then happened after all those bond elections and federal grant and ratepayer's monies were spent to build those nuclear power plants?

Those public utility companies were then privatized by the local governments for added revenue in sales taxes, and the rate payers utility bills did not go down - they went up in order to provide for the investors dividends and other capital gains on their investment.

Thus, the costs of energy now in Phoenix who has the largest, Palo Verde Generating Station, less than 50 miles from the metro area have exploded due to its privatization and lack of any true regulation anymore by the state in the costs it now passes on to the ratepayers for their investors' profit.

And now has stooped so low as to recently institute a rate increase based upon an "inspection" done by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Agency (instituted after both the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters) supposedly calling for some expensive repairs that were then passed off once again to the rate payers for the fines and costs of bringing the plant now into compliance (although this plant is actually much newer than some on the East Coast which was finished in 1988, and thus was built after those disasters and included upgraded safety precautions and measures during its construction).

After work on Palo Verde was finished, Arizona unemployment also climbed considerably since it had started also on the science and technology bandwagon as the home of Hughes, Honeywell, and other government contractors, and its reliance on its historic sustainable industries - copper, cattle, cotton and citrus - fell by the wayside in furtherance of those objectives, and as a state marketing itself mostly to retirees for their early retirement years.  In the process, the climate which had made the state a haven for those with respiratory diseases and afflictions, ended up driving out more than it brought in insofar as permanent or long term residents, which has contributed to the urban sprawl and transient nature for the majority of those that call Arizona a "temporary," at best home.

Now it is also one of the states facing the largest number of unemployed and homeless due to the mortgage foreclosure mess, since along with many of those new and "transient" residents came also the East Coast, Western and Midwest real estate speculators and land fraud "get rich quick" artists.

The focus now of the state has swung to the Obama agendas in the health care sector specifically, although at this point most of the retirees that do end up retiring in Arizona usually when their health begins to truly fail end up moving back to their homes of origin in order to be closer to extended family members.

But I digress except to make a point.

Since a good portion of the population is not at all gifted in the field of science and technology naturally, no matter how much the focus of our state and private universities and money is poured into them in order to facilitate this agenda, just where is Washington planning to "outsource" our agricultural base for all the land that is going to be needed for these wind towers, nuclear generating plants, and new "green" manufacturing plants anyway?

Are they planning on turning Kansas and Nebraska into one huge wind turbine, or nuclear generating station in order to meet the entire Northern Hemisphere's future energy needs?  And the State of Texas or New Mexico into one huge solar panel for those in the Southern?

We already have the technology, but the people were not at all impressed with the technology that came along with that technology, after all, in the 1970's. 

So what does Mr. Obama and this Administration think has changed since that time, other than the fact that due to those same environmentalists our petroleum reserves and offshore wells have been literally hamstrung by regulatory codes and laws on limits of production, atmospheric or environmental particulates that have been so broad based that Nebraska's farmers are fined during planting seasons for excess particulates, and we are now in wars and buying more and more foreign oil due to a segment of the population that is never satisfied no matter what "alternative" fuels or greener technology is proposed. 

Including, from Mr. Obama's positions during the election campaign, himself as one of those liberal leaning wackos for whatever reason, Wall Street or his base.

So other than placing all Americans health care records on a national database and invading their rights to privacy over their most personal property and information, their very own physical health, and passing a stimulus for Wall Street again at the American public's expense fining now those power plants or setting up galactic bidding wars for Wall Street's benefit without removing the environmental restrictions which have gotten us into this mess to begin with, just where are all those now laid off GM workers and the other now unemployed going to find their own job stimulus for jobs in which they are qualified since it is clear they would also not meet the criteria for the loans now being offered up by those banks and lenders for educational purposes due to either their age, or their financial prospects and ability to repay?

I suppose what I am really saying here is that I'd put the cork back on that champagne if I were you.

 

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

It was reported in the mainstream media that a solution to the California budgetary crisis is expected by Sunday.  Apparently, there has been some concern in the Golden State due to the fact that it has been reported that some of the banks are refusing the IOUs which have been issued in order to fund governmental contractors which have not been paid due to this crisis.

And it is clear this is no more than a P.T. Barnum spectacle in order to gain more and more leverage with the California residents in the mess that has occurred due to that states progressive liberalism over the years.

Since California most of all, due to the continuing war in the Middle East, should be in the black and not the red at all if they were utilizing those public sums primarily for the state government's true Constitutional functions, rather than also funding special interests primarily with grant monies and no-bid contracts as occurs throughout the nation now in the corruption in state and municipal governments.

After all, Silicon Valley is the largest producer of all the now high tech security devices that are being installed throughout the nation, and one of the largest holder of federal contracts for technology needs in this continuing war, and are huge mega holders of U.S. government contracts.

And I wonder if this is actually the case, why the Hollywood elite have not thought of having their own benefit for the State of California instead of the next AIDS or PETA benefit.

Most of them due to their wealth and global holdings could float the state for a number of years if they were taxed at the rate the middle class actually is, or even the lower income workers - rather than having access to their offshore accounts, and tax attorneys who work the "privileges and immunities" on capital gains so well for all of them for their shell corporations, and trust accounts.  Rather than being taxed on the truth "worth" of their holdings or "property."

And California is primarily a liberal Democratic state or "blue" state, yet many of whose individuals are the direct beneficiaries of the claimed Republican favoritism for the wealthy on those capital gains benies.  Go figure.

In fact, while many of the people throughout the country are now facing homelessness and joblessness in increasing numbers, I read an article this week that David Arquette is planning on holding a sit in for the global Food for the Hungry in New York shortly in order to raise a few million in order to feed those living in third world countries.

I wonder if he has visited his local Los Angeles soup kitchen lately, since the class of individuals now is including the former middle class in increasing numbers.

Or why he didn't simply write a check from his own excess wealth instead of using it for a PR stunt and in order to "socialize" the donations for a cause in which he individually supports and believes?  He could donate his own wealth and it would take care of quite a number, I would suspect.  Or maybe the sums he pays to his tax accountant.

It was also interesting to note that California is not a right to work state, so many of the California public employees are outraged since they now feel they are being victimized by this also "budget crisis."  Since they are state employees and public servants, I wonder where in the California or U.S. Constitution it gives public employees the right to "unionize" in order to gain more taxpayer sums for themselves?  The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is also playing politics with the issue (and just what other citizens in other countries does this U.S. "corporate" union claim it represents?)

Municipalities are nothing more than "state actors" for the states themselves, so this is truly confusing that state employees would be allowed to unionize to get more of the taxpayer bite to begin with.

Although the CPI and statistical data published by the U.S. Department of Labor is a joke in and of itself (artificially concocted due to the fact that most union contracts and salary increases are tied in directly to the CPI, so there is some also "creative accounting" on those figures that bear no actual relevance to the true increases in costs for many products and services), teacher's salaries have gone up at three and four times the rates of inflation, as have several other of the public service occupations.

And with California also primarily one in which there is an additional layer of government in most newer suburban  areas in the form of homeowners associations collecting taxes for former municipal services such as street repairs, street lighting and such, just wonder where all that revenue that the state has collected truly has gone?  Since they are collecting more revenue, but providing less each and every year and transferring those costs back onto the public in those "socialized" land ownership communities.

If they are under "balanced budgets" initiatives, just how are they also then entering into multi-year contracts then with developers and other government contractors to begin with?  How is that "legally" possible?

Sounds more like the classic case of fiscal mismanagement and misappropriation of funds is the true root of California's claimed budgetary woes.  And maybe a few too many of those Sacramento pow-wows and state benefits given to the likes of the Donald Trumps & Co. at the state resident's expense for the global tourism industry and U.S. Chambers agendas in turning the U.S. into nothing more than a tourist attraction and investment opportunity for foreigners. 

All at the cost of their fellow countrymen and their jobs and other "property" for their global monopolies and fellow "corporate" brothers and subsidiaries benefit at the ultimate price of the small businessesmen and any and all emerging American entrepreneurs due to their strangleholds now on a great many of the U.S. market due to favoritism and their "greased palms" political connections.

The delusion goes on.  And nowhere more than the home of the "OC," "Desperate Housewives," and "Californication."

That state is a world unto itself, whose delusion and fantasy extend far beyond Disneyland.

For any and all Conservative Constitutional Constructionists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has it worked? Hardly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were the citizens consulted in this new project?

Of course not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a candidate that ran on a platform of balancing budgets by "red-lining" and cutting the fat from government, and other rather fiscally conservative stances (for a Democrat), Barack Obama has really done a 180 since the election - and in less than 100 days in office.

After the horror of the 10 trillion dollar stimulus package he had rushed through Congress in order to "save the American economy," which included a great deal of funding for federal agencies and their expansion, upgrades for high tech improvements in federal office buildings, state and local government expenditures, and for basic infrastructure needs (Budget #1),  Congress then passed earlier this week the 2010 fiscal year end budget again exceeding 3 trillion dollars (Budget #2).  There was a great deal of political posturing involved, and backroom wheeling and dealing, but in the end this enormous budget passed both the House and the Senate.

Prior to it's passage, it was reported in several news sources that included within Budget #2 and in accordance with Mr. Obama's stated "transparency in government" agendas were sums in order to continue funding the War(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan until the planned troop withdrawals in 2010 and 2011 per agreements reached by the Bush Administration with the Iraqi government his last 100 days in office.

However, less than a week after passing this precedent setting budget, Mr. Obama has again asked to have prepared another supplemental appropriations bill for over $83 billion in addition to be earmarked for both the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts.

And then ordered a pizza delivery for his invited guests Friday night from a restaurant in St. Louis.

So, just when IS that red-lining going to start?

 

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.

Due to the confusion and misconceptions surrounding the AIG bonuses and the excuses that are being made now in Congress and the Executive Office regarding contracts legally with respect to our Constitution, there is quite a bit of information that has been left out by both the mainstream media and politicians in the process.

As one who was an early victim of the mortgage and foreclosure crisis in this country after "owning" my Phoenix, Arizona home for over 12 years, at one point during my ordeal was also placed in such a situation.

Although the bankruptcy laws changed several years ago in the U.S. (due to actually the BANKS lobbying for tightening of the laws with respect to upaid debt), there was one portion of it that did not change with respect to restructures during bankruptcy, either personal or corporate.

In such matters, total net worth and assets are up for grabs, and the first to be satisfied in any such proceeding are the creditors with those confiscated assets, during which time a "payment schedule" is also part of the court action for any and all creditors who cannot be satisfied by accumulated assets.

With respect to contracts such as the bonuses received by the AIG executives, the court looks very closely at any and all contracts for their legality and validity, and also any such agreements entered into 18 months prior to the filing of the action which are then closely scrutinized.

This procedure is undertaken, so that those who are contemplating bankruptcy cannot transfer their assets to either other individuals or attempt to protect them through contractual relationships.

Maybe this also was why this "bankruptcy" of AIG and the other banking institutions was removed from the statutory and Constitutional provisions through bankruptcy court to begin with, and in order also to keep a low profile and details out of public view. 

After petition the federal courts n such matters, all bankruptcy records and court filings become then a matter of public record.  The press, I'm sure due to what has occurred thus far, would have an even greater field day with such mandated disclosures and most likely the public even more up in arms about what has transpired.

The fact that many of those executives who are receiving those public funds in the form of these excessive bonuses are the very same top level executives who it is claimed ran the company into ground quite clearly would bear close scrutiny as to just when those "contracts" were executed, and whether or not in their provisions they were "excessive."  Since few lower level executives get million dollar bonuses, it is clear that those bonuses are not going to middle management.

For a company on the verge of potential bankrupcy to the degree where not even a formal bankrupty action in the federal courts was entertained but instead resulted in a direct plea to our Congress as an "emergency", would appear that these  top level executives had plenty of forewarning.

Due to more and more information now becoming public through various press coverage around the globe, it is even questionable that there is or ever was a true bankruptcy at this point of it's U.S. division rather than as reported by the British press the financial troubles instead lying with it's London Mayfair "casino" office and home "corporate" base.

Which makes the fact that the U.S. Treasury and it's citizens are now left holding the bag and bailing out this entity in the first place not only suspect, but unconstitutional on it's face.  Whether the Federal Reserve is an private institution of international banks matters not a whit since this enormous "debt" is now being billed to the United States and it's citizens.

While the British economy also may have indirectly suffered, my basic question is this:  Is Great Britain also involved in helping to payoff off AIG's now 170 billion and counting debt, or just the U.S. citizens and Treasury? 

Or is that another "treaty" which Congress has put on the back burner while they are posing for the cameras with their excuses and "mea culpas," in order to shift blame and thus salvage their careers and continue to plot to minimize the collateral damage such as the "tax" solution passed by Congress this week?

How much interest is racking up daily now while they conduct  their interviews for Fox, CNN and MSNBC?

London Mayfair office UK articles:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/02/mayfair-office-brought-down-aig
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4981316/Mayfair-office-was-ground-zero-of-credit-crunch.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23661603-details/The+man+who+broke+the+banks+from+his+Mayfair+office/article.do

In the continuing saga of the AIG executive bonuses which were extended Sunday by Timothy Geithner and the Department of the Treasury, another player has stepped up to the plate in addition to President Obama's rather weak excuse for an apology to the American people over this "sleight of hand".

Christopher Dodd, that erstwhile senator and former Presidential candidate, has now taken the blame for inserting a sentence into the bank bailout bill that was rushed through Congress last September that afforded the AIG executives to receive these million dollar bonuses.

It appears with Mr. Dodd's "mea culpa" another attempt for those on the Hill to now shift blame from the President and Mr. Geithner, and of course hope on the generosity of the American people to let bygones be bygones. Let's spread the blame around so that we can actually take the focus off what occurred initially that lead to this situation, and blame it on one Congressional member who inserted a sentence in the bill that make the entire bailout itself somehow seem legitimate.

There are two things wrong with this little deception. Many in America are not buying it.

To encapsulate actually what occurred and who is truly to blame, note below:

1. In September under "terrorist warnings" from Secretary Henry Paulson all members of Congress were held over in Washington from their campaign junkets in order to address this "emergency" bank bailout. Otherwise, the American people were informed, Wall Street would crash and their ATM cards would not work.

2. Prior to this catastrophe, two other large financial institutions, Goldman Sachs and Lehrman Brothers, also faced eminent demise. Congress refused to bailout Goldman or Lehman Brothers, although Warren Buffet stepped up to the plate and helped out Goldman Sachs. It just so happens that both Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers are part owners of our own Federal Reserve. How they could be then "bankrupt" is beyond the realm of feasibility for most Americans to comprehend.

3. For the first time in history not only were U.S. based corporate interests involved in this bailout, but a globally based insurer, AIG, was also begging on the steps of the doors of Congress. No matter also that many of these banks and AIG had been heavy contributors to the campaigns of a majority of those in Congress to whom they went begging.

4. The bill was drafted in haste in order to rescue America's economy, and consisted of enough pages to insure that any disinterested Congressional member had no time in order to digest the terms of the bailout. This does not excuse them in any manner, however. In such an instance it was their duty to abstain at the time from voting based on those grounds, and the clearly questionable Constitutional basis for this entire bailout to begin with at the eventual American taxpayer's expense.

5. The measure passed with just a mere two vote margin. Which historically indicates that there was some heavy back room dealing, and also still maybe some who did have enough integrity left (few, I know) to realize the entire bailout itself was a violation of our Constitution by the mere inclusion of a foreign corporate concern at it's outset. AIG's real financial problems, if any, were caused by their London Mayfair office, from all reports.

6. Included within the bailout were other unconstitutional provisions. Namely, a transfer by Congress of their Constitutional powers with respect to foreign agreements, whether public or private, to the Executive office. Such a transfer of power could not legally be accomplished without a Constitutional amendment in and of itself.

7. Rather than this being handled as a corporate restructuring under the provisions of the U.S. bankruptcy code, Mr. Geithner was strictly given unilateral oversight and authority. In other words, Mr. Geithner is now acting as "trustee" for the restructuring, and his "fiduciary duties" are not to the executives or AIG, but to the creditors - the American public and AIG's former stockholders. Thus, when Mr. Geithner and Mr. Obama claim they had no legal power to refuse, they not only had the legal power to do so, they had the legal obligation on behalf of the American people to do so.

And at this point, a good 2/3rds the members of Congress, Mr. Geithner and Mr. Obama should be wearing stripes about now, with all the legal and criminal Constitutional violations that have thus far transpired in this fiasco.

By Betsy Ross

The Federal Government and "Mis"Representation
By Betsy Ross

In September of this year the 110th Congress passed what is now infamously labeled "the bailout bill" during a purported crisis prior to the 2008 presidential election. In a previous article, I had disclosed through research conducted at OpenSecrets.org that the recipients of the majority of those earmarked bailout sums were for banks, financial institutions, and a global London based insurer (AIG) which also just so happened to be the top corporate donors to the campaigns of both parties presidential hopeful and members of Congress, committing what actually is no more than treason upon our Constitution and system of government as watchdogs over the public purse for expenditure of public sums for it's enumerated powers and public duties.

While awaiting the final vote count during this travesty and crime committed against the American people, in retrospect now it is incomprehensible that not a single legislator had the integrity or loyalty to his oath of office to abstain from the vote process as a clear conflict of interest. Outraged as many Americans were and still are, I read the background and our Constitution with respect to the original provisions in the election of true representatives of the people as they had intended. Amazing how brilliant those men truly were.

Just think if we returned to the manner they intended how our economy and all else would change. As originally intended, the state legislators themselves elected the Senators from among their various legislatures to represent the states in Congress (no campaign finance problems here), and the representatives of the people were only allowed to accept campaign donations from individuals and/or small businesses within their district (no campaign finance problems there either) and voting precincts. Net result: Constitutional government, and no political graft or pork benefits. No trillion dollar deficit.

Those banks and AIG did not make those campaign contributions, after that bailout bill was shoved through Congress, the American people did - whether they supported those candidates or not. Those entities simply loaned those candidates sums to fund their campaigns, and quite obviously at an interest rate that would feed a third world nation, such as ours is becoming due to the political corruption running rampant in Washington.

The only "change" which appears occurred this election cycle was a "change" in the manner in which even the ridiculous campaign finance laws that are now in effect are being creatively circumvented, and the continued anarchy upon our Constitution continues unabated and which have hit new lows in corporate fraud against the citizenry. The corporate privileges and immunities now given by Washington includes reimbursing them for their campaign contributions from the public purse. Or taking out interest bearing loans to fund their campaigns while billing it to the American people under a fraudulent bailout bill just prior to an election and stating that it was done in order to protect Joe Citizen's 401(K) painting themselves as the saviors of middle America.

Even Benedict Arnold didn't sink that low in his treason against our nation on behalf of London or compromise our sovereignty and economy to such a degree on behalf of sovereign subjects or corporate welfare. He simply took up arms and joined the other side, but didn't feed the founders or this nation, it citizenry and their posterity's future to the wolves.