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.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Madison is spinning right about now.

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

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation.  All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions.  And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parent dependents to also provided for.

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which all our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted?  It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it? 

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense?  Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

 

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