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.

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 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.

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has it worked? Hardly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were the citizens consulted in this new project?

Of course not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently on one of the major networks it was reported that the State of California is facing a massive budget deficit, with the citizens of California screaming.

It appears Governor Schwartzenegger's solution to the catastrophy, one which again has a great deal to do with the past and current administration's governmental excesses from all reports, is now to request that the citizens of the United States bail out California much like the AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts (and it appears, the Big Three auto manufacturers).

California, the home of such programs as "Californication," "Beverly Hills 90210," "The OC" and the like, is hardly an innocent victim in their predicament, but a state who has built it's own reputation on fantasy and excess.

Apparently, it is those hard working Midwesterners and farmers that those in the Golden State now wish to come to their rescue, in addition to the out of work steel and auto workers, and those now homeless due to many of the practices of a number of banks who make their home also in the Golden State.

My former home state, Arizona, is now full of the refugees from California who essentially have destroyed that state with their excesses, and are working on destroying my former home in leaps and bounds with their liberal agendas.

Governor Schwartenegger, here are some suggestions for restoring economic viability in California:

1. Reduce all governmental salaries by at least 25%, in recognition that you, and all public employees of that state, also have blue ribbon health, dental, and pension plans that a good 2/3's of the private sector employees in California do not have (with the exception of Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and Nobb Hill).

Place freezes on additonal new hires until the size of government in the state can actually bear relevance to need, i.e., since the cities and local governments are state actors of the State of California, both legally and by judicial interpretation, just maybe your bicameral legislature could be parred down to a unicameral one such as Nebraska has, which is actually more in accordance with the federal Constitution, since there are only three "legal" entities within it - the federal government, the states, and the people.

And Senators rarely represent the municipalites solely in state government, but usually also large corporate interests just as the House members now do although elected through supposedly "democratic" local elections. Although those candidates merely are representatives of political party and corporate interests, by and large, and many of which funded by out of district slush money.

The U.S. Senators were actually provided to represent "the states" with the U.S. House then representing the people. The 17th Amendment somehow changled all that and is why we now have Senators courted by foreign governments and corporate lobbyists, since if elected by the state legislatures as originally provided, they were accountable to the states themselves.

>Such a change in California government would result in shorter legislative sessions, less bureaucracy, and less costs to the taxpayers with greater accessibility, and would also be a great idea for the other 48 states which have yet to recognize this "double whammy, double bureaucracy" excess. What a concept!

2. Institute gaming and gambling just like the State of Arizona and so many other states across the nation have rather recently done, and then in conjunction with the new social drinking taxes, have officers wait outside the casinos to pick up the low level DUIs after the casinos have plied them with alcohol. Either they lose the money in the casinos to the state, or just in the event they win or truly do not excessively imbibe, they lose it in the DUI fines and fees after leaving.

Then put them in the privatized county court system, so that the state, counties and cities can at least get their share of the federal pork pie for those expenses and incarcerations by the head factored according to arrests and convictions made by juries now which are becoming increasing comprised of many state or municipal employees to insure those conviction rates stay high and those dollars continue to flow in, or been removed entirely so that the city or county judge can act as the state revenue agent instead.

Oh, and also install statewide those speeding cameras so that you can gain another several billions on those progressive fines and fees for speeding violations based upon those fallible machines. That should bring in billions!!!

Alas, though I see that the State Supreme Court is going to "review" the legality this week of Proposition 8, which passed recently under a citizen's initiative restricting marriages to two sex couples.

Overturn that "people determined" decision due to budgetary needs, and of course you can look forward to all those licenses fees, and the "for profit" court costs and fees for all those divorces sometime in the future. Not to mention all those added taxes that will be necessary in order to provide those courts for at least some of those divorces if only 1/3 of them end up in the courts eventually.

And also those future campaign contributions from the California Bar Association Domestic Relations Division due to the gold mine such an action would engender for their corporate interests in state permission and licensures of personal relationships, rather than simple recordations of these oral or written personal contracts.

Nor does this take into consideration the effect and costs of those wildfires of yours due to the aging 60's hippie environmentalists and their offspring, nor the "global warming" scam supported by Hollywood in order to now tax the air we breathe.

I don't think Californians should be screaming, but the rest of the nation.