As Congress this week ponders the new "global warming" and energy bills, some thoughts and points that have long troubled me with this "scam" on the public might be of interest to some of the more aware Americans clued in on Washington's continued psychotic agendas:

Who manufactures the gadgets that are going to measure these "greenhouse gases?"  Do they come with a warranty, and who is the government contractor who will be awarded the contracts for all the science based theory technology.

So far, science hasn't been able to predict the weather accurately, so again how accurate are these estimates?  And when there is a "normal" cyclical change, is the EPA and the honchos on the Hill going to now take credit for becoming "masters of the universe," in controlling the weather?  Harnessing energy, controlling the weather, find a cure for cancer, populating the moon, developing "new forms" of energy - and a meteor hits the planet long before the Hollywood scenario in all its HDR resonance ever occurs.

It appears either these scientists, who still haven't found the cure for the common cold, after all, for now over 2,000 years might be biting off more than they can chew. Or simply the 21st century versions of P.T. Barnum, with Congress even more clueless than the public has already pretty much determined as of late, and may need those shrinks in order to determine if narcissm and self-delusion are symptomatic of holding public office.

While everyone keeps send money for AIDS research in order to find a cure, don't you find it strange that those expensive miracle drugs to treat the symptoms arrived on the scene about three years after the first diagnosis, and a lawsuit then ensued for over 10 long years in order to extend the patent for those pharmaceutical companies (since patents don't run until any dispute over ownership is settled) with two companies now splitting the proceeds on Inferon and the other spinoffs? 

The patents expire in 2017, and I hope I live long enough to see whether a "cure" then will suddenly be discovered, or whether they will then bleed the generic market dry while getting grants annually still "working" on a cure, since it is viral and we sure came up with that "swine flu mix" vaccine and had some on hand, conveniently, through the WHO "donations" as soon as that new "strain" was announced. Sort of makes you wonders, since AIDS has now become an industry also all its own with all the Hollywood benefits, by those open borders "blue" liberals, and even the "red" state liberals due to their big industry benefactors of the AIDS outbreak.  AIDS became actually the best method of birth control, and stimulus for the latex industry and Dow Chemical ever.

And each "threat level" scare a stimulus for the medical industry.  It does seem that the terrorism that occurs to Americans now is at a level unprecedented in this country, and not as with the border issue, the major threats don't at all seem to be from a small Middle Eastern terrorist sect, that we did, after all, even train in their guerilla tactics.  

So per the 9/11 report and those "facts," it would appear Giulianni's outrage at the blamelessness of Washington for 9/11 does seem rather ludicrous - although Hillary's claim about America's "insatiable" need for drugs is actually also due to both governmental terrorism (at this point who wouldn't want to zone out for some relief) and also negligence.

But instead we'll give Mexico Black Hawk Helicopters (that will eventually be used to America's overall detriment by the cartels or Mexico), and a choice of all terrain vehicles now over the GM Pathfinders, new Hummers.

Hey, we were all just forcefed digital for the industries profits now forcing Americans to literally have to pay for the airwaves, so it mustn't seem such a leap in now taxing our very breath, and with all those towers and sonar equipment now outdated for "sciences" benefit not even given an "offset" credit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently the global socialism agenda is speeding right along here in the United States under the Obama Administration.

Latest news:  Mr. Obama's pick for a high level post, Harold Koh, in the State Department.

Mr. Koh is a self-described "transnationalist" (globalist) who is dean at Yale University, a rather "government" focused "liberal" university of higher learning.

By "government" I mean so "liberally" construing the United States Constitution to actually throw it and its provisions out entirely, relying on the study of "judge made" or "case law," almost entirely, and particularly reading into their function the ability of the judiciary to actually amend it in its interpretation outside Constitutional provision if they can come up with a well founded "political" interest to support their transgression. 

Like the Kelo decision and a great many other of those "progressive" renderings, favoring the state or corporate interests if there is some "general welfare" of the state involved over the citizens.

Similar to Oxford in England - a country which America fought its original revolutionary war in order to escape that country's dominion and control.

And apparently, Mr. Obama is as bent on reversing that war as his predecessor, George Bush, was in favor of using international treaties and laws in order to circumvent the restrictions placed in the U.S. Constitution over the federal government in this country.

In fact, Mr. Bush was so "liberal" he essentially threw it out entirely.  And it appears Mr. Obama, although presented as a Constitutional lawyer to the American people during the campaigns, is also anything but in a great many of his stated positions, and has now described himself as a "citizen of the world" during his recent European tour.

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Koh have believers and fellow transnationalists in our Congress, and even now sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this to say about foreign law, and it's place on judicial interpretation with respect to matters that come before the U.S. Supreme Court:

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law. . . . Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?

How about neither, Justice?  How about simply reading and applying the U.S. Constitution in your determinations?

It appears that it just may be time for Justice Ginsburg to consider retirement, as it appears she may be a little unsure to which "law" her oath of office is to, which even provides for and grants her that lofty position on the bench.

It appears those Tea Parties which were staged recently by the American people who are getting increasingly upset at the selling out of our country to "foreign" interests by many who have abandoned their oaths of office on the Hill, including the former and current presidents, many in Congress and those also holding high office in the judiciary now, just may have had more than justifiable reasons and legitimate concerns after all.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/the-fight-over-the-harold-koh-nomination-a-field-guide/#comment-141501

Recently, in addition to the nomination of self-described "transnationalist" Harold Koh, liberal constructionist and dean of Yale University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been making the rounds of local colleges, universities and law schools with also her transnationalist views.

A "transnationalist" is the politically correct equivalent of a "globalist," and political correctness is a religion the transnationalists subscribe to wholeheartedly.  Except when it isn't in accordance with their upside-down logic and world and global view.

A recent example of this would be Janet Napolitano, a woefully misled and misguided fellow lawyer whose "right wing extremist" memorandum trashes the American Bill of Rights on every level.

Recently, Justice Ginsburg had this to say about the place and reverence the U.S. Supreme Court should have with international courts and decisions in their findings:

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday during a symposium at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law honoring her tenure on the nation’s highest court.

 “There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent,” Mrs. Ginsberg said. “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?”
 

Now, with respect to the law in these United States, if you hold that there is a higher authority than the United States Constitution with respect to the duties of a Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Ginsburg,  then you are not "in good behavior" with respect to your sworn oath of office.  Its really quite simple.  In fact, you hold your current lofty position due to the provision contained within that particular document.  The Justice is further on record as stating:

“The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Mrs. Ginsberg said in a speech four years ago.

“I am not a partisan of that view. U.S. jurists honor the Framers’ intent ‘to create a more perfect Union,’ I believe, if they read our Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings.”
 

Really, Justice?  The framers faced far greater threats and dangers than we can even imagine in this high tech, obtain a warrant within minutes, era.  Far worse than global warming, Middle Eastern terrorists, or stock market variations.  They defended an entire Eastern Seaboard with only canon and musket, as I recall.  Defending it from the "international" community you so aligned yourself with.

And just in case you have forgotten or have not read it lately, there is a process within the Constitution in order to so amend it if need be to include any of those provisions they might have left out for 21st Century America.  And the Justices actually are not a part of that amendment process. 

But since those founders held with "unalienable" rights as God given, I don't think those have change much since the Magna Carta, which preceeded our Constitution by several hundred years. 

And if you abridge them, or alter them, the consequences in the increase of inmates now in our jails, a nation with the highest prison population now in the world, is telling in how far afield both the state and federal government have gone in not recognizing those "natural rights."

Another former Justice and fellow transnationalist, Sandra Day O'Connor, also is on record with a few comments on the place of international law in the highest court in the land at an awards dinner at the end of her career on the bench:

“I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues,” Mrs. O’Connor said, adding by doing so “may not only enrich our own country’s decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression.”
 

I don't think the framers also were believers that making a good impression and impressing the rest of the world held much sway when it came to personal liberty, justice and freedom in this country.  In fact, wasn't that what that first war was all about, severing this country's ties to the laws and practices they found intolerable in Britain under "sovereign" law and nothing more than tyranny?

I won't address in this article Justice Ginsburg dissenting opinion on the upholding by the Supreme Court of the partial birth abortion ban, except to state that she did seem to misunderstand that it is the procedure and timing of these "abortions" that is in dispute, and has nothing to do with a woman's right to privacy, but ban a barbaric practice that has resulted in many women's lives being compromised, or made sterile due to the actual procedure itself.

The majority of those groups which are fighting for the partial ban abortion statutes and laws are actually fighting for society and women's life and their health, not against it.

But you won't convince Justice Ginsburg of that, or the other "transnationalists," who believe abortion at any stage in any manner should be an option and is just another method of birth control.  I wonder if the 19th century hangers will be brought back into vogue by the medical community?

But "transnationalists" have a world view and perception of law, liberty and justice unlike those of the framers and a great many in this country when it comes to our country, its place in the world, the Constitution and Bill of Rights across the lines.

Ms. O'Connor retired shortly after making her statement, before she completely forgot just what her role in government actually was.  Let's hope soon Justice Ginsburg will do likewise.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison