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.

For Any And All American Conserve-atives (not the British variety ala Fox News):

In light of the upcoming funerals and media coverage of the loss of additional American lives in the wake of the Fort Hood incident in Texas this week, it appears now the media spins are getting wider, deeper and more and more furious by the day.

Since America's presence in the Middle East in some form or another has been a fact since that British "taking" of the land now comprising Israel prior to World War I in an agreement entered into between a British Lord of the Realm and a British banker zionist, America's continued loss of life on behalf of this foreign non-U.S. based accord is becoming greater and greater by the year.

And what has been interesting has been one fundamental question which the media has not in any significant manner raised during the past several days of the "analysis" that are being made on both liberally based and focused mainstream sources - funded by either the Republican Globalists or Democratic Globalists ala FOX and CNN.

Just why would an avowed pacifist and war protestor enlisted or continued serving in the U.S. military during the continuation of this war, which has now gone on for more than eight years after the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

Most enlistees, or even those career military officers - which is more likely since the accused is or was the base psychiatrist apparently - tours of duties come up for renewal in two to four year increments. 

The outrage of the American people, and the clearly questionable now basis for our continued presence in that region has been a well known fact as based upon false intelligence for over five years at this point.  And was, after all, the major focus of most of the liberals in their other extra-Constitutional positions who, however, were the major supporters of Mr. Obama in his run for the roses as the "change" candidate, after all.  Although disagreement with the continuation of this war as not in any way at all based upon Constitutional provision, or the intent of the founders with respect to defensive wars as hoping this country would remain as neutral as possible in such events as the continued Middle East situation, is not a liberal position at all, but actually a conservative one.

Most of these so called "progressives" and "liberals" of course now have continued to be suspiciously silent, although Mr. Obama is clearly following the Bush agendas and agreements which were reached with the "new" Iraqi government in his last 100 days in office calling for the withdrawal of all American troops by 2011, coincidentally just prior to the new U.S. presidential election cycle. 

So it will end just as politically as it began apparenlty - and not legally or Constitutionally brought or now ended in any manner whatsoever.

Now it is being reported the suspect will be tried in a military court, as deemed not an overt act of terrorism.  And, of course, terrorism itself is a practice used by many in our media and also those now serving on the Hill against the American people now more so than even most of these branded extremist Iraqi groups - whose very existence and training were, after all, at the hands of the U.S. military to begin with.

The suspects now behavior prior to the incident is now uncovering some connections to spiritual leaders in this country and the Middle East.

But just how did most of these individuals, after all, be approved for immigration to this country I haven't a clue, although the suspect appears to be an American citizen by birth and not an immigrant or naturalized citizen.

And at last count, over 80% of the American people are dissatisfied with our continued presence in this war now that the focus has shifted from the events surrounding what occurred those many years ago, to building up a U.S force and presence now in that region on behalf of Israel most of all once again.

And, of course, to fatten the bank books of the Wall Street financiers and those invested in the military industrial and manufacturing areas in this country.  All those "science based" technology firms which this Administration and the last were feeding at the cost of American soldiers and families.   Silicon Valley is bursting at the seams at this point, although California's governor whining about a shortfall.

Unbeliveable.

My heart goes out to the families of those affected, but it would appear that the perpetrators and blame that is shifting is being shifted from the true source of the cause of their actual losses.

And that is, once again, a foreign and military policy in this country that is centered not on national security whatsoever, but nation building and agressive and pre-emptive wars.

At the cost of the families of many Americans, not simply those that were and have been lost now in the past eight years - and a domestic security problem that has not been solved at all by the creation of that massive Department of Homeland Security.

Since that Department has decreased, rather than increased, its budgeting and funding for the measures needed to truly secure this country rather than giving monies to Mexico and Israel in the form of foreign aid for the Silcon Valley venture capitalists profits, many of whose investors are foreigners also, after all, with British and Middle Eastern investors.  

Funds were once again cut for the needed border fencing and security, and instead this and the last Administration also expanded its Visa waiver and immigration policies ten fold since 9/11 occurred.

In fact, a better name for this agency at this point is the Department of Homeland Insecurity.  With the running of their paid ads warning Americans to "have a plan" appearing to be the only real attempts to actually address the true defensive measures that would fundamentally secure this country from any such future incidents.

Such as reducing the number of airports and such available for those traveling to this country.  As Ellis Island was in the past maybe having three or four points of entry, rather than affording foreign based and owned airlines, ships and other modes of travel access to the interior airports and such would and could reduce the threat of any further attacks.

British Airways was given a contract for service to Phoenix years ago, and there are many foreign owned airlines with such contracts throughout the nation at the present time. 

It does appear that break downs in communications and also the shear number now of agencies involved in these domestic and foreign surveillance departments are having an adverse affect and not the solution, but part of the problem.

As it appears is becoming now clear in this incident, as it was in the original loss of lives on September 11th - since that also as blamed on a breakdown of communications between the FBI and DoD.  Now we have the FBI, DoD and Homeland Security pointing fingers.

So just where is the change, except more of the same, and around another 50 more dead or wounded Americans?
 

Just to continue to point out now how ludicrous this health care deform continues to be, and how unconstitutional actually instead of regulating those corporate interests rather than getting in bed with them as those on the Hill did all last summer, it was reported in the mainstream media that AARP is now on the bandwagon in order to facilitate passage of this massive bill that was written by AARP, the AMA, corporate labor unions, and financial sector and health care industries.

The spokesman, however, it was reported didn't want to "jump the gun" in the piece published today, since he said it was scheduled to be announced on Thursday by the "corporate" offices of AARP.

AARP ceased to be a senior advocacy group literally years ago, and is now nothing more than a front for the various special interest groups and insurers mainly that those members are marketed to for the supplemental insurance plans under Medicare at the present time.

Policies that in most instance are merely gravy for those insurers, since as the primary care provider Medicare actually calls the shots and approves the levels of treatment.  And many doctors due to all the red tape involved with Medicare actually have posted notices that the are now refusing to accept any new Medicare patients.

And you think things would change in that respect with any 'socialized" Washington plan for health care?

The doctors will simply once again shift the costs for their reduced rates to either those that can afford it, or in upping the ante for their research grants and other already government welfare that these industries at the present time receive.

This story, however, was under the story about the cat in Iowa that was discovered to have swine flu, now politically renamed H1N1 so as not to upset some of the faith that believes pigs are satanic and unclean, as they were a part of pagan worships from the Roman age in Greece and Rome.

And those Iowa farmers do deserve a little kick in the pants apparently for getting all heated up after an Iowa judge "legalized" gay marriage "rights" in the State of Iowa, over the protest of a good deal of the population since it did appear that Iowa already had a civil marriage statute that actually already was in force at the time the case was brought by those gay activist civil rights lawyers who are also getting paid their legal fees courtesy of the American taxpayers for these state and federal actions under another one of those "hush hush" 1,000 page bills that Congress no longer reads.

And if this country has to now pass a formal bill and law stating that all members of Congress must read a bill before it is voted on, this country is in a good deal more trouble than most of us already have concluded watching the past Bush and now Obama Administrations since our government now resembles more Barnum & Bailey than the Stars and Stripes at this point.

While it continues to be the civilians and American people who are being victimized and made homeless and jobless more and more by the day.

You know, the GM workers, and those real Joe the Plumbers, not the Mayor Bloombergs, Arnold Schwartezneggers, and other venture capitalists who are selling off this country's prime real estate, and industrial base now right and left.

Congress, the Supreme Court, and Executive office are now titles that are merely the politically correct terminology for "insider traders" and "corporate lobbyists" themselves at this point. 

As a matter of fact to show that AARP is not at all an elder advocacy group, I got an application from them many years ago actually.

Before I was even 50 hawking their "reduced rate" insurance policies and other trade affiliated vendors.

I guess 45 is the new 65.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although, of course, I beg to differ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And fine them a million per denial of claim.

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

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

And we are now already paying for it.

As a 1960's era Conservative, who has become even more so in my elder years, the hoopla surrounding Ted Kennedy's death this week simply has been too incredible to believe in both its scope, and also the coverage given by the mass media of his life and funeral.

Ted Kennedy was the patriarch of a truly controversial family, after all, in the history of America from any real factual or logical perspective.  The Kennedy myth has been contrived and contributed to much over the years by the liberal leaning press most of all.  And they responded to his death true to form.

Much inaccurate spin has also been done in the media using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" when describing both political beliefs, and those that now serve in all levels of government, both on the Hill and at the state level. 

A liberal to a 1960's era Conservative or by "pure" definition, simply is one who believes the federal government is "sovereign" and above the state government (and people even when acting outsided their "legal" sphere) in powers and duties, and also believes that the Constitution is a "living document" which can be molded and shaped by governmental officials in any of the three branches on public opinion alone, or contrary to public opinion if it so suits them or their special interests, without going through the formal amendment process contained within the Constitution itself.

A true conservative is merely one who believes that the document that was created between both the federalists and the anti-federalists and executed that hot summer day in Philadelphia, created the most unique and free government than which before that time had ever existed, and  which recognized no "class of citizens" above any other - especially not government officials.

 Other than the slavery issue, which was rectified by the 13th and 14th amendments, the rest was pure genius and insured liberty for all - not simply a select few - and protection against governmental overstep at both the state and federal levels.

Since the 9th Amendment even preceded the 10th, it left any and all further changes to its provisions needing the "consent of the governed" not in simply poll results, or unlawfully enacted federal statutes and legislation, but actual voting and "express consent," of the governed, the people in the several states themselves through their state governments during the ratification process which does, after all, take then 3/4's of the states and their citizens to agree.

Mr. Kennedy's family's legacy is that of liberalism, to the point of socialism and that government is sovereign and the rights of the people respected according to their class distinction most of all.  While representing mostly blue collar and minority Americans publicly, much of the liberals agendas have actually harmed, and not helped, those minority groups progressively. 

Since the attack right now is on the middle class working poor actually most of all under both the liberal agendas now in Washington - those of the Republican big business liberals, and the Democratic big business liberals - with simply a change in "corporate" groups of benefactors.

While occasional mentions were made of Chappaquiddick, and that horrible incident in 1969 one year after the untimely end of another Kennedy, the spins continued in that regard also.

As one who does remember it well, at the time members of both political parties were aware that some deals were struck in that incident in order that Mr. Kennedy be afforded to enter a plea to a lesser charge than the charge for which he was clearly guilty - involuntary manslaughter. 

A tragic accident, given also the timing when most individuals that had suffered losses the degree to which he personally had less than a year before, the methods he used to cope y by any standard were not healthy and actually personally more harmful for him and clearly those within his circle of friends and family, but understandable. 

But in an equal society of "justice for all" such a "privileged" action would not have been the case.  His liberalism also served him well in that instance, but not the American people or the victim's family if taking an accurate poll of those who remember when.

His bargain with the devil did ultimately cost him his favor with the American people, by and large, except his most ardent supporters even to this day.  With the exception of his loyal constituency in Massachusetts also, of course, fundamentally one of the most liberal states of all.

The American people got their justice and never quite trusted the Lion in the Senate long before the current status of displeasure a great many of this country now have for the direction it has taken even progressively since that time.

John Kennedy's liberalism took us into Viet Nam, to begin a history now of over 40 years of engaging in more and more non-defensive wars on foreign soil in countries engaged in civil wars. 

I wonder if Lincoln would have appreciated such interference in America's own back in 1865?

I for one who lived through both the highs and lows since the time the Kennedy family burst on the political scene,  feel for the personal loss of Mr. Kennedy's family as one who was, by default, left with an enormous responsibility as the patriarch of a large Irish-Catholic immigrant family while also tragically having to also cope with his own enormous individual losses.

May he now rest in peace. 

But the myth, after all, was just a myth.  And feel we have lost much more than we, as a nation, have gained in those forty years.

And the hope I feel and changes I would like to come can only be done in moving backward, not forward, into more and more liberalism.

 

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silly woman.
 

For Any And All Constitutional Conserve-atives:

Another story beaten to death by the mainstream media and the Obama Administration came to a conclusion Thursday at the White House with Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, Dr. Gates and the Cambridge police officer who "arrested" Dr. Gates purportedly due to a "crime in progress" call he received at the Gates residence having a cold one for all the news cameras.

With all the spin that has been occurring in the mainstream media, much of which since 9/11 has left much to be desired in the way of factual journalism and which act more as media reps for "their" politicians due to Big Business corporate ownership and who merely play off each other with respect to political news on the Hill, even the details of this supposed "crime" have been questionable.

Starting with the fact that it has now been reported it was a "senior citizen" who made the call. I'll let that one go for now, since it appears now the seniors are going to be brought into this political circus perhaps for poor eyesight in not recognizing Dr. Gates in the middle of the afternoon, mind you.

The spins on this "story" have been just too incredible to believe at this point.

And appears at least in my educated opinion watching how this has progressed now for almost a week and a half, this was a staged event being used for political purposes most of all. Especially now that even Colin Powell was on Larry King putting in his two cents with respect to supposedly a dereliction of protocol in that an "adult supervisor" (or SWAT negotiator?) hadn't been called in to mediate.

Mr. Obama has been losing points fast with the American public, especially in light of his "solutions" which have not been solutions at all per his campaign rhetoric but simply continuations of the same agendas and even upping the civil rights violations now on the American people of the Bush Administration.

Other than calling for closing Guantanamo he is really 0-3 on his promises to end the war, look out for Joe the Plumber and the middle class (tell that one to the laid off GM workers in Detroit, I dare you), and solving the mortgage mess and crisis.

There was just something a little strange about the "convenience" of this entire incident, and the amount of press it received for my liking. And it appears a good many other Americans also. Good way to shift the pressure and heat off the Hill for the next tax scam on the American people, the L. Ron Hubbard/George Orwell "Science Based" Universal Health Care Plan.

And also keep the racial thing alive as a diversionary tactic and method to use to facilitate civil unrest since civil unrest means the government can use it also as an excuse for much of its extra-Constitutional now security measures against Americans so long as they can keep the fear factor alive.

Inciting civil unrest actually is how many communist leaders and governments came to be. And just why aren't our own borders secured, or some of these foreign individuals from Middle Eastern countries with active terrorist cells not simply deported at this point?

Or, in fact, since America is still at war (although never called Constitutionally or "legally" declared under Bush or that Congress) then why aren't all non-green card holders deported at this point until we have ended this "conflict" or "engagement" or whatever the heck it is since it appears those on the Hill have about as much clue as the American people why we are STILL now eight years later over there? 

And all foreign entry visas denied until it is? 

After all, I'm sure Mr. Powell is aware of this.  After any attack on any military installation in this country is it not SOP that the "base" is locked down until any additional threats are addressed, and all passes then denied to any and all entering or leaving the base until the crime is solved and perpetrators brought to justice?  The military bases in this country actually have far greater "common defense" provisions than our entire country - especially for those living in the border states most of all due to the criminal activity, theft and violent crimes that can be directly tied to it. 

Many Americans could sure use those jobs.

I know, the finale for "So You Think You Can Dance" is next week and Nigel and that other British MC just might have to miss it and the shows producers and network would then have to get an American replacement that might result in a point or two drop in the ratings.

That health care "solution" in appointing a Health Care "God" using actuarial tables for treatment plans is looking more and more like the "science based" Cap & Trade scam which was propagandized to the hilt, and quite obviously meant to feed the Wall Street bankers for that carbon credit market that will be initiated on the backs of the American public in higher utility bills that wipe out that little crumb of a tax rebate and credit thrown out at election time.

Especially now when those inflationary taxes and utility bills start soaring off the charts, in addition to the continued loss of jobs and homes that is still escalating.

I wonder how many members of Congress are heavily invested in energy development and utility companies. Or for that matter Wall Street itself. Maybe 100%?

And then the "spins" on the Beer Summit being a "teachable moment" for America and America's children.
 Please.

Does Mr. Obama and those serving now in our federal government in all three branches truly think that they are examples that America's children should use for role models? A Commander in Chief that speaks of transparency, while hiring three law firms to prevent disclosure of his birth or academic records in order to even verify that he meets the minimum qualifications of the Office of the Presidency? 

A Supreme Court that has gotten increasing more and more political and sovereign favoring in its rulings with respect to Americans Bill of Rights protection, and has refused over six legal challenges to Obama's citizenship status? 

And A Congress that just engaged in a "sleight of hand" in order to also circumvent all those challeges in using a bogus "Resolution" congratulating Hawaii on its 50th anniversary as a state by including a cute little sentence introducting this Resolution with respect to Mr. Obama's birth again without any clear evidence or documentation, in order to also deny the people their right to review the evidence that Obama meets those absolutely minimal requirements (although clear that his status, from the founders "intent" with respect to that provision would clearly make him a foreigner and not "natural born" or "naturalized" American at all, due to reasons behind that provision itself, and their intent in so providing).

Forget the next Beer Summit. Our taxpayer dollars would be better spent in group therapy for those holding federal office, and would assist in at least minimally reducing that federal deficit and taxpayer bite that already has left more Americans homeless and jobless than at any time since the Depression.

Do I hear "Cheers" out there in the South, West and Midwest?

For Any and All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, the boring stuff of public office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

For Any and All American Constitutional "Conserve"atives:

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

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

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

God.

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

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

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

The federal government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't that the definition of pure communism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did L. Ron Hubbard or Orwell write this script?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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