For Any and All American Constitutional "Conserve"atives:

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

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

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

God.

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

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

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

The federal government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't that the definition of pure communism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did L. Ron Hubbard or Orwell write this script?

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

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

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

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

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

NeoCon/Global Socialist Lindsay Graham To Support Sotomayor Appointment

Mainstream news sources reported today that Senator Lindsay Graham, the NeoCon Republican from South Carolina in the vein of John McCain, the pre-eminent liberal global socialist (though formally aligned with the Republican Party in name only), has given his support for the Sonia Sotomayor appointment of Barack Obama to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Between Arlen Specters defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now One Party Global Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.

Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.

I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism.  John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.

It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings.  When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.

Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution.  Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.  Rendered according to the "common useage" language contained within the Constitution itself, as a contract actually.  Which cannot be alterered, amended or changed without the consent of the parties to that contract.  So basically most of those amendments even after the 10th with respect to many extra-Constitutional issues (not the slavery issue, which was contentious at the time) were not "lawfully" ratified since the 9th Amendment itself would have required such amendments be placed by the states before the people prior to their agreement to any amendments to it.  Absent, of course, calling for another Convention in order to come up with a new one.

And especially limited construction of any and all cases brought under the First Ten Amendments.  The words "unalieanble" mean God-given, and not even the Supreme Court can "tamper" with those rights, since to do so would undermine the "natural law" upon which that Bill of Rights is based.   But that has not been the case.  And that is why there are now more and more "political" judicial determinations rendered, and why our jails are so full.  The fact that in the "home of the free" is in the top three with respect to number of inmates just about says it all in how both the states and federal government have abridged their functions and are not protecting freedom and liberty, and those "unalieanble" rights, but actually progressively attempting to remove them through dilluting them beyond recognition at this point. 

Which is why Congress was not intended to be in session year around, and serving was a civil servant position.  Too much time and too big a federal government has resulted due to the fact that we now have "career" politicians rather than statemen and women.  Who are "making work" and "removing" civil rights and expanding government simply to have something to do, it would appear.  Limited sessions means those serving also are truly residents then of the states and constituents of the people they are representing.  Not citizens and residents of Washington, D.C., their primary residences.  At this point it appears they all must represent the North and particularly Washington, D.C. since the only access most citizens have to their representatives is through email contact, while the lobbyists from foreign governments and national commercial interests and their offices are just down the street - their true constituents, that was clear, during that Cap & Trade nightmre of a treason. 

So the question on reliance on "precedence" as fundamental in any Court rendering was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as Mr. Kyl, the lawyer's, understanding of the "Rule of Law."  Which it fundamentally is not.  The facts of the case and merit under the Constitution, and its provision are fundamentally "the law," any and all federal or state statutes to the contrary.

The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it.

Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.

Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering.  None whatsoever.  In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility.  If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.

And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court.  I beg to differ.  The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions.  The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power almost before the ink was dried.

Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.

Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports.  Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.

The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve and U.S. Chamber members (global East India Company) now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.

For Any and All American Constitutional Conservatives:

During the last week there has been a great deal of reporting on internet sources that the mortgage crisis and home foreclosure situation is looking up, and that there has been an increase in sales for the third straight month of homes sold throughout the nation.

And just where are those figures coming from?

No surprise, the National Association of Realtors who just might have an ulterior motive in spinning or inflating the numbers due to the market conditions at the present time, and number of jobless and homeless now which has swept the nation since the manipulated "mortgage" crisis and bank bailouts which just so happened to occur during the last presidential election cycle.

In fact, the June 19-21 headline of USA Today also said it all:  Foreclosures Heading Through The Roof."

More Americans are lining up at the soup kitchen, than at the realtors offices, since the homeless now and jobless stats are really off the charts and not this high since the last great depression, also manipulated by the European owned Federal Reserve, branch bankers and Washington.

As far as my personal knowledge and reports from my former home state of Arizona, one of the states hardest hit due to the boom and bust cycle and the many retirees on fixed incomes that also were hard pressed to come up with increasing property taxes and insurance which contributed to some of what is occurring also left out by the media, and those predatory "interest only" and other "creative" loans sold mostly by regional and national California domiciled banks, this claimed increase in sales and "recovery" appears to be wishful thinking.

In Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada and Florida due to also progressive overbuilding in those states for literally decades, and now thousands unable to qualify for fixed rate low interest loans with black marks on their credit records at this point, it will take literally decades - if ever - for the housing market to stabilize, from this 45 year Arizona resident. 

In those western border states now in particular, due to the open borders situation I'm sure that also has affected the marketability of those houses significantly, since who wants to live in a state in which there is a foreign invasion and civil wars now going on due to federal negligence in "providing for the common defense," its actual primary function.  Instead of now attempting to "reform" the health care industry according to a "business" model ala Soylent Green and Adolph Hitler on cost/benefit actuary "business" modes and standards.

Plus the fact that few now in this country trust the banking industry now in general.  Nor are willing to go into those sliding scale and interest only loans that they are still marketing, some of which are not even based on the U.S. prime interest rate, but the European market.

Nothing essentially has changed which lead to this catastrophe to begin with.  And most in the boomer generation or younger have moral difficulties paying "usurous" sums in order to purchase a home, a home which is now in many areas of the country due to the loan terms nothing more than a foreclosure contract to begin with.

So...nice try, realtors.  Since a great many of you also pushed and marketed to many of those retirees and others more home than they really could afford in order to get higher commissions also in the process, the trust in your "industry" also now is about zilch.

Especially those of us who lost ours, and who have made sure we speak the truth, rather than the spins, on just what lead to this, and the commercial and banking interests that were truly responsible - of course, along with the criminal element now residing on Capitol Hill and in our state legislatures who have been in collusion with the corporate interests and their primary "special interest" campaign backers for literally decades.

And the National Association of Realtors is high up on that list also. 

Along, of course, with the bankers and their minions - the foreclosure lawyers and scam artists and their breathren in federal and state government.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With all the news and cable channels lately struggling to retain viewship and also ratings in order to score ad revenues for Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner and the other media moguls in New York, Hollywood, and beyond due to the "globalization" also of our media industry, it appears that a new drinking game might be in order to replace the "Kevin Bacon" game of the former dorm and college set.....

How many blondes on Fox?

Maybe it is just me, but it does seem to be that Rupert Murdoch has a marketing ploy here that I guess either seems to be working, or he must believe it does in order to promote both his politics, and his station and that is to pair his rather off the wall "political analysts and commentators" such as Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck with a blonde as eye candy for the young, old and middle age male viewers.

I wonder what Fox's stats actually are for female viewers, the major consumers?

I would bet not in the ballpark, and most of those ad agencies and government contracts paid for and billed to Americans for their social welfare and "public service" announcements are not at all reaching their "target" markets.  Kids and women.

But it is also good for increasing the wallets of those U.S. Chamber members, and also our national debt with all those "grants" they are indirectly receiving such as the "association" of Fortune 500 members who just received a 100 million grant to "educate" the public on free markets and globalization at taxpayer expense. 

The same organization and Chamber members getting all that taxpayer revenue for the "Just Say No" to drugs campaign and "Click It Or Ticket" screams about citizen welfare while lobbying for more and more "freebies for their corporate members and while running ads promoting terrorism on the public.  They have even begun using that ploy against each other in the  "terrorism" tactics in order to jack up those ratings and ad revenues.  But their partnership with the governmental taxpayer funded "Ad Council" their benefactors is what is truly incredible.  Not watchdogs, but governmentally funded participants.

So this is conspiracy to terrorize.

The egg frying on the sidewalk was a great one, and now the meth ads.

And did you also noticed how many supposed "lawyers" are "legal analysts," a great many of which is clear have never read our Constitution, or at least have forgotten their high school government classes.  And wonder how many of those have actually ever practiced law at all for any length of time?

Or how many former educators, such as Bill O'Reilly, are used to "educate" the public in matters for which apparently he hasn't a clue and is the ultimate example of the dumbing down in our educational system.  His staff most likely used the word "bloviate" at one point, and Bill, the great educator, had to look it up and was just thrilled with what he learned and is engaging in the primary teaching tool used in our classrooms.

Repetition.

Only it is repetitive propaganda both in America's schools, and on its media that seems to be the method behind the madness on the Hill.

But don't get me wrong, CNN has their formula for terrorism also, and Keith Olbermayer's apoplexic outbursts during the Bush Administration in his terrorism tactics were also quite incredible.  It's amazing how silent he has been on Obama, who is just as much a big government, big business (AND corporate union)  backer as Mr. Bush, if not more so, and those Fortune 500 and Chamber members and their globalizism.  In fact, CNN is one of them also.  Maybe with CNN, however, the game should be "How many Obama worshipers and devotees on CNN?"

So drink up LSU, ASU, UCLA and NYU.  How many blondes are there on Fox?

Last week the House passed one of the most contentious and potentially the most expensive legislation for all Americans in the history of our country.

The "Cap & Trade" or "Energy Stimulus" bill passed at the behest and direction of newly inaugurated president (small "p" until that birth certificate is produced) Barack Obama.  Obama lobbied heavily on the House Democrats to pass this centerpiece legislation for his "green jobs," agenda.  Although if history is any indication, there will be more loss of jobs than gains due to this legislation.

After all, Congress has been handing out corporate welfare to the energy and petro companies for literally decades for their research and development costs in order to promote cleaner forms of fuel and energy.  And where has that gotten us?

Nowhere, but has made a bundle for the banks and financiers on Wall Street and shareholders of those energy companies and concerns.  As most likely will this fiasco of a bill.

You see, part of the "global economy" plan for this "globally planned" agenda is that the certificates for carbon credits can be exchanged or sold so that companies that are not in compliance can "buy their way" out of their violation.

And with the profits these companies are making on their products and services due to their favored status with Congressional members, who truly believes that this will "stimulate" green jobs and searches for alternative fuels?  Not most rational and sane adults, anyway.

Simply addressing the lack of insulation and "chicken wire and stucco" homes that are now being built by the large national and global builders would reduce energy consumption around the world in a matter of months.  And eliminate the need for some of those nuclear power plants that are also quite pricey, and then involve more taxpayer costs in order to protect those generators from both internal and external meltdowns.

The building of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station outside of Phoenix, Arizona in the last several decades certainly did not reduce energy costs to local residents.  Nor did it reduce the pollution in any significant matter, since the fact is the Phoenix area is now populated by refugees mostly from other states, and also those literally missions of non-Americans using the state as either a place of commerce, or secondary income source working for the drug cartels.

It was interesting to note that last Friday as the "Cap and Trade" bill was being voted and amendment up to the final hour and vote Friday evening, the website for the House Energy Committee posted a notice stating that due to the amount of emails that they were receiving, the website was shut down until further notice.

As with the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act," it appears the new modus operandi for the sanctuary on the Hill is to "officially" pass unconstitutional legislation in only one house of Congress, and then either hold it in the hopper or pass it without any media attention during a "diversionary" story in the other.  And then fund some of those "unofficially" passed bills as if they were the force of law through the various regulatory bodies.

To my knowledge, the memos Ms. Napolitano sent out and the Fusion Centers which are being used to train local law enforcement on these crimes of "perception of intent" have been funded by Congress, although the bill under which such authority would be granted has yet to be passed by the Senate.

Maybe this is self-preservation in order to save face and political careers, and also as a protection against any and all charges of treason or "high crimes and misdemeanors" that could or would be applicable under the circumstances.

Another rather open ended bill was introduced also this session having to do with cybersecurity, the "Cybersecurity Act of 2009," in which Congress was going to authorize the executive office to have final say and jurisdiction regarding the shutdown of the internet and governmental service providers in the event of cyber-attack.

The language was so open ended it afforded the president ultimate authority in such an event of by including not only the event of an outside or foreign bug or virus, but "for other reasons."

I wonder if the shutdown of the House Energy Commissions website last Friday was determined by the president to be one of those "other reasons."

After all, Mr. Obama excels at making apologies for this country and its  citizens, and since this was truly a bi-partisan act of treason with presidential support, it would appear that such language was interpreted by those lawyers both within and employed by members of Congress to be within the broad scope of "and for other reasons."

And the most ironic thing about the entire "Cap and Trade" scam further amalgamating the U.S. economy and government with that of the "global community" (global socialism) is that it was passed one week before Independence Day.

A day I predict will live in infamy for our children, and great grandchildren as the greatest act of treason under the existing law of this country, America's Constitution.

A celebration in this country honoring the founders sacrifice in severing their ties and bonds with the global community.  Whether intentional or not, a slap in the face of those founders, and all Americans who value their sacrifice and their intention to form a "more perfect union" apart from any foreign influence.

This, America, is your transparent and accountable government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently Barack Obama continued his "sell the agenda" snow job tours he has been making throughout the country on behalf of his big business, big union agendas and spoke to the members of the American Medical Association with respect to his plan to nationalize health care costs and coverage in this country.

He has been patting himself on the back in various speaking engagements ever since due to his perceived success in selling this agenda to the medical community and doctors, many of which are already affiliated with big business health care networks and professional associations other than the huge American Medical Association. 

Thus, dealing now with Boards of Directors determining care, and also private health care providers due to the negligence of Washington actually performing their jobs in "regulating commerce" and its historic abuses over their practices, which is truly what is needed and would reduce the costs of health care tremendously since maybe some of those huge medical malpractice awards would cease due to their contributory negligence in many of those cases.

Especially since the lid on punitive damages for such awards were removed through the lobbying efforts of the Trial Lawyers Association years ago, which started this mess.  Many doctors can't afford to practice, or their rates went off the chart due to the huge amounts they had to pay for malpractice.

And just who are the citizens going to redress a grievance on a governmentally denied claim, or bureautic morass that results in more citizen loss of life or injury?  You would think the TLA would be screaming foul at the top of their lungs at this point, since it would appear their livelihoods and gravy train just might be adversely affected, along with their own eventual medical needs and care. 

And at least would be happy to rethink their own contributions to this mess of high health care costs in the process, and what the long term effect has been to put this country where it is today. 

And work on busting up some of those health care networks which have compromised the quality of care now across the board also after Nixon's bogus HMO concept was signed into law in the 70's, thus the "industry," rather than "profession" changed forever - and not for the better as our infant survival rates now will attest.  Lower now than Cuba.

Right now, coverage under Medicare and Medicaid leaves much to be desired for the World War II generation.  I can attest to that since after months of high blood pressure registering off the charts, and then even after edema set in, my elderly mother's health care provider never tested her for a blockage and a day after New Year's a little over a year ago, suffered a heart attack which eventually resulted in two different surgeries to correct.

So much for comprehensive coverage.  And she even had a "supplemental" plan, no less.

Mr. Obama went on to assure the doctors that this would be another one of his "partnerships," and that it would not in any manner affect private health care coverage, simply expand and provide coverage for those at the present time that cannot afford it.

And I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

Since the primary purchasers of health care are private industries and businesses, what makes Mr. Obama think that these businesses will continue to pick up the costs for private coverage which eats into their profit margins, after all, for those labor costs when they can simply direct their employees to sign up for the governmental "cut rate" plan? 

And even with "supplemental" insurance then purchased individually by citizens to afford preventive care (since I'm sure those costs will not be picked up by any public plan), if the government is the primary carrier in such instance (as it was in my mother's case) would it not be the government then still that would determine the level of care and not the secondary provider?

Many private practice doctors have simply now posted signs that indicate that they do not or will not accept new Medicare patients, due to the governmental hoops and red tape involved in getting compensation for their services, and/or dealing with the bureaucracy rather than being able to actually treat patients.

And which government contractor/benefactor will be getting this lucrative new contract? 

Mr. Buffett as with his Geico Insurance through another joint venture outside SEC scrutiny? 

I know Mr. Geithner is overseeing that AIG restructuring outside the scrutiny of the public and Congress at the present time.  Not many have the bucks to buy some of that "debt" (if there is any as a "globally" based corporation, other than that London office mess Americans are now stuck for the tab).   I wonder how the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders would fare in such a deal, or whether they would be cut out as the public shareholders were in the GM "joint venture."

Even if that isn't the case and it is funded through taxation and administered by the federal government rather than another "public/private" partnership and governmental contract, exactly how many new employees in Health and Human Services will be needed in order to administer such a hugh undertaking? 

Does Washington simply plan to enlist all the current employees of the separate state funded plans simply changing their civil service codes?  When those employers and businesses drop those plans, how many new taxpayer paid government workers will be needed? 

This sounds like another Chamber of Commerce dream come true, and another unaccountable source of revenue for the Feds bottom line to dip into at will, sort of like Social Security.

And how much time and how many sessions will it take to work the bugs out and tweak that legislation which most likely has enough holes and caveats in it to fill the Grand Canyon so the lawyers can run with it, and how much will it cost in the added courts that will be needed when the lawyers then bleed the families and public dry so the government and federal judiciary can then begin denying claims and coverages in order to set precedents whatever reason? 

How many more trillion is this going to cost the taxpayers?

Maybe these Fortune 500 and global businesses, instead of getting capital gains tax breaks, and favored status with legislators at both the state and federal levels, should be paying taxes based upon ther "worth" as property as was the original taxation method used by the founders.  Property is taxed.  Income is not. 

Then maybe some of those buildings on K Street would clear out.  And our public servants could get back to "governing," rather than "appeasing" their favored subjects for political (and personal) gain one again.

As with the foreclosure "solution," Middle East whirlwind tour, stimulus sales pitch, illegal joint venture with the Big Three and unions firing and laying off thousands of Americans and raping them of their retirement nest eggs, and now the illegal alien amnesty ploys, Mr. Obama's "Ask Not" speeches are getting harder to swallow, and used car salesman persona and slick salesmen gimmicks less and less credible with each passing month and as this country sinks further and further into a full out recession/depression.

It appears he might want to put away his Blackberry, and start speaking with the people and not the campaign backers, moochers and yes men since it appears this Constitutional lawyer hasn't a clue, other than what the fawning media pundits propagandize, and the U.S. Chamber members and foreign aid lobbyists wheelers and dealers spew  - and most of the "news" station ratings are now in the toilet.

That speaks volumes right there on the credibility of the agenda at this point. 

Fancy speeches and throwing money at the big business/big union lobbyists and mandating now health care coverage when many are homeless and jobless at this point truly shows that maybe a mental health check is now what is in order for each and every corporate socialist  "representative" on the Hill. 

No one is listening anymore.  Except the news anchors, and that enclave of delusion, Hollywood.

The "Don King" of race relations strikes again.

Recently there appeared an article indicating that Al Sharpton has now visited Phoenix to take on the "baddest Sheriff in the West" in my former home state of Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Interesting that two press hounds such as Al Sharpton and Sheriff Joe are now being engaged in an "Al and Joe" show for the locals in Arizona, and also now moving it to the federal stage.

Sheriff Joe, of course, is now under investigation by the Senate Judiciary for his alleged "profiling" done in some of his barricades conducted throughout the City of Phoenix, in which I lived for over 45 years on his "immigration sweeps."

The charges, of course, were politically brought by Phil Gordon, Mayor of Phoenix and assisted, of course, by Ms. Napolitano, my former governor who is behind the "right wing extremist" memorandums and Fusion Centers training local law enforcement in jack boot citizen surveillance tactics, and strip searches at the domestic airports. After, of course, making Arizona a "sanctuary state," while attempting to appear to be addressing the situation by calling out the National Guard, and then disempowering them in the process.

Which now, of course, two years later has resulted in the deaths of many Arizonans due to the spillover of the drug cartel wars going on in the border towns, and increases in gang related drug and property thefts in metropolitan Tucson and Phoenix, and is a contributory factor for many now in Arizona which are losing their homes and jobs right and left, of course left out of the media spins on the foreclosure mess. Arizona is second or third, depending on the month, in the amount of home foreclosures.

Property and auto insurance rates, especially in Phoenix and Tucson, are becoming off the charts due to this federal negligence, and affecting the general population living in the border states in increasing numbers by the year in their inability to afford comprehensive coverage anymore. Of course, the Mexican drivers along with the tourists are responsible for a good number of the auto and truly drunk driving deaths also in the metro area, while the police focus on the sports bar crowds primariy for those federal grant monies for their patrols, and the lease payments for jails they sold several years back to private industries without the public's general knowledge.

The hypocricy is actually quite incredible.

Statistically, the majority of the crimes committed against the lawful citizens actually are committed by the border hoppers, who are Mexican nationals and not U.S. citizens. The ACLU, of course, through the courts for their profit also have gained "more than equal" or "privileges and immunity" now for illegal foreigners committing criminal acts above those that were actually intended to protect the citizens from foreign "attacks" and criminal activity under our Constitution, even though it clearly states: "We the People of the United States...for US and our posterity."

Mexico has a policy of shooting on sight many South Americans intent on criminal activity who are within their borders, and deports or incarcerates immediately any that cannot produce adequate identification or docmentation at the local level under their Constitution. In fact, so much as minor traffic violations can be settled with the arresting officers in payment of their "fines," unless it appears more can be gained politically and financially in incarcerating foreigners charged with even misdemeanor violations in that country.

Most of Sheriff Joe's raids actually have been for no more than publicity, sort of like Al Sharpton's agenda. Since the majority of employers which hire those illegals have hardly been Sheriff's Joe's targets - the developers, construction companies, chain car washes, resort and hotel industries and the like. Nor the cartel members or large drug dealers, more the petty criminal "employee" drug users of some of those cartels and the kids who have become addicted due to the target market for their wares. Or trumped up traffic violations and busted tailights for the self-employed gardeners or car wash employees, although they, too, have victimized the community. My identity theft and stolen credit card happened at a locally owned car wash known for hiring them since all of them do.

Instead, he busted a putt putt course using more than nine Sheriff's deputies to arrest five claimed "illegals." For show.

You see, most of those big and small businesses contribute to civic organizations that support the Sheriff's Office and local police departments. A "politically correct" way to insure protection from any and all police action under the employer sanctions laws passed by the lawful citizens in Arizona several years ago. So the major employers are not the targets of Sheriff Joe's possee. Those which have been undertaken have been no more than publicity stunts.

However, both Phil Gordon and Ms. Napolitano actually were just as negligent in their giving protecton to the criminal element through their continued negligence in pressing the state legislature to petition the federal government or file a federal lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona if necessary under the U.S. Constitution "common defense" provisions in getting the monies in order to fund the needed fencing to stop the flow, and the border hopping drug dealers, car thieves and gang members.

They just gave 100 million to the Chamber of Commerce in order to "educate" the public on why their free global markets are much more important than the publics safety and security, and major reason we have a federal government to begin with - to protect this country from foreign attack and invasion. Not the "jobs and economies" of corporate America. The federal government truly has lost its way in what its true function actually is, and priorities for expenditure of public sums or incurring public debt.

So, for that matter, has every single level of government apparently. Cally-for-nia is a prime example, many of whose former residents are now wrecking havoc in Arizona and bringing it to its knees with their developers agendas and demands, not realizing that Arizona is not beach front property but a desert.

Sharpton getting involved and painting this as a "racial" issue truly does take the cake, although Sheriff Joe under the true law has been out of line in his enforcement tactics by targeting and setting up his barricades and patrols within city limits, rather than county boundaries - which would be his lawful jurisdiction for such actions. Preventing any and all foreigners without visas or green cards from crossing county lines is well within his jurisdiction and authority.

And then, instead of incarcerating them in his "cruel and unusual" punishment tent city jail - in which there have been numerous deaths which have cost the state citizens a bundle and for which the prisoners are now actually charged by Joe for their own incarcerations in that hell hole - turning them over to the U.S. Marshall's office for processing and deportation. As "illegals" there is no inherent right to deportation hearings, and this was the process that was done and was effective and reduced the border problem significantly when I was growing up in Arizona during the 60's and 70's.

The criminal and immigration attorneys, however, wanted their cut of the drug monies seized, and so petitioned for "civil rights" now for foreigners under our Constitution, and which the U.S. Surpreme Court again now has inserted another party into it. Non-Americans, when those fundamental protections were the "carrot" in order for foreigners who came to this country to forswear their allegiance to their former home countries, and truly become Americans.

Look forward to the Al and Joe roadshow. Coming to a media outlet near you, while Arizonans and border residents continue to be made the victims of this political and governmental treason.

CNN reported another incidence of corporate/governmental overkill now going on in our nation with respect to the recording industry's pursuit of any and all Americans that download songs or sounds without paying for them from the internet.

Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes. 

And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works. 

Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions. 

That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.

The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court.   It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.

And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.  

There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion.  This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.

Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000.  "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.

There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity.   So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.

Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.

It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution.  Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently. 

I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.

True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment. 

You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.

If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.

And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.

More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything. 

This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.

Unbelievable. 

Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.

We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.

That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders.  And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or   individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

 

Much this past week has been in the U.S. press with respect to the GM "joint venture."  (The only other story being that of the crime at the Holocaust Museum, by the 89 year old American World War II enlistee, then also reported to be a former "Nazi Officer" according to the fiction writers in the U.S. press nowadays, rather than an apparently senile man who, at 89, somehow still had the mental capability and ability to operate his own website, since arthritis must not be plaguing him as much as my elderly post 80 parents, since my 87 year old Dad has a hard time doing so much as a search since he is and was not of the computer generation).

U.S.A., Inc. purchased, of course, a hefty share of General Motors, courtesy of the American taxpayers and shareholders, whereupon Mr. Obama then essentially fired a great many American citizens in Detroit, and sold out the smaller individual American bond holders to the UAW's larger interest. 

Now it appears the company is going to "formally" file bankruptcy and go through the bankruptcy process. 

Of course this bewilders me, since it does seem that perhaps this would have been the first step, so that all the details would be then available to the public as a "public" corporation, but it seems it is only the public's activities that seem to be under scrutiny as of late.

I wonder why the American people might be dissatisfied and distrust their government increasingly more and more each year?  Hmmmm....

Below is a response I made to a claimed citizen journalist poster (since those sites now have also been infiltrated by many on stimulus grant monies as "educational" sites it appears, along with the 100 million that was given to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, now also somehow worthy as also an "educational", rather than "corporate commercial" U.S. corporation, who contributed their "take" on the situation and simply believed that selling off the gas guzzlers in GM, Ford and Chrysler's lines will be the "cure" to what ails GM. 

I doubt, as with the banks, anything at all truly ails GM, who has low wage plants in China and Mexico now since they've moved essentially offshore also, it is just another tool to use to facilitate global government, amass maximum profit due to those countries socialized and communist governments, and continue to merge our economy with that of the "global community," no matter what the sacrifices and costs to the American people. 

Apparently, their homes and jobs are not enough, and we are bringing out the flag more and more and using the American people's love for their country now even as a weapon against them.

I hope any and all Americans left in the border states have been forewarned due to that sale. 

Because as one who watched that situation explode since the Reagan years, and if all goes as it appears planned, come September with another push for the amnesty while still promoting open borders with Mexico, it will be sure to raise the ire of a good many of those living in the border states. 

More than even those who have been their victims.

The response:

No, the Hummers will simply be bought and driven by the drug cartels members after they start being manufactured at the GM plant in Mexico. And eventually then, Arizona, Mexico and California will "officially" become propety again of Mexico through the drug cartel ownerships and profits, and corporate control of the faces sitting on the various state legislations, whose members are and have been indirectly on the receiving end of the drug cartel and open borders gravy train in one way or another.

Of course, it is all the Americans fault due to the "insatiable need" for drugs by the "people" in THIS country which Ms. Clinton trashed and spoke about to the Mexican governent (when a good 2/3's those with addiction problems started while minors due to their target market). 

It couldn't be in order to legalize hard and addictive drugs in order to go in partnership with the Mexican and Chinese governments so that the pharmaceutical industry can cash in on this untapped resource, would it? 

I wonder in such event how many new cases of AIDS there would be, or how much the street crimes would then increase in order for those mostly kids to maintain their habits? 

Of course, at least that would also stimulate the security and "privatized" jail industry booming now in this country, which is one way to get the kids off the streets.  Make a profit off simply the addicted users for their incarcerations to make those high lease payments and private costs, and the legal industry in the pool of clients with all those drug profits to fleece, since the illegal sales to minors then would not cease. 

Those kid consumers are an untapped source of revenue, and simply waste those allowances (from those parents still flush now enough to give it) on CDs and video games. 

This way that hash and smack will then primarily come in tamper-proof packaging, except for those in the inner city who will have to settle for the lesser quality, but lethal, street variety.

If you can't beat 'em, why not join 'em? 

We can't win in a "no win" Middle East war, and with open borders, the "War on Drugs" has simply been a farce.  So lets just cash in the chips on bin Laden AND the Mexican drug cartels since apparently neither war is winnable.  We've been in Iraq now for eight years and counting, and with open borders since the Mexican-American war. 

But our "common defense" high tech security and gadget industry utilized priimarily against the American people since America has dissolved into simply a tourist trap for foreigners is truly booming.  California's pleading poverty, while Silicon Valley must be bursting at the seams at this point.  Another propaganda spin. 

The mid to upper level corporate hotel chains catering to tourists and foreigners haven't been heard from as of yet in the major metropolitan cities seeking their welfare.   Those California resorts too are flush, as the AIG sabbatical proved.

Of course, as one who has experience with this situation up close and personally, this situation continues to be due to the federal and state governments which have done absolutely nothing about our border problem since the 60's except use it as a political weapon and for political advantage by both mainstream parties, and the drugs simply have gotten much more addictive and lethal that continue to be sold in front of the local high schools and middle schools in the border states by the year.

And the Chinese GM plant and one in Mexico are those which will be retained as their most profitable and most likely will be kept as simply a joint venture now among U.S.A., Inc., the GM major shareholders (UAW "corporate" and other union pensions primarily), and the UAW Corporation itself, so in essence Obama and our Congress simply used GM in order to entrench our government (as part owner now) more and more with the Chinese and Mexican governments, who most likey will be replacing those American union members which were fired.  A "buy-out" in essence skirting around SEC disclosure laws and regulations, as it were.   Like the bank "bailouts."

And whose largest imports are not those sold on the stock exchange.

Our government is run now by the bankers and global government "state actor" corporations and "associations" of huge national and multi-national industries, including the legal industry, that once hallowed "profession" who also have truly lost their way in some of the "new industries" due to the voluminous unconstitutional bills they have had a hand in writing for their own future incomes and their protected interests - the ones who funded their campaigns, and then and now are simply turning around and presenting their bill for their contributions during the 2008 election. 

What better way to globally merge auto production, and then skim the American shareholders of their investments and retirements in the process?

We need room for all the foreigner invaders who are going to hit our shores real soon from both those countries, in addition to the ones already here that we are pushing to legalize from all reports come September - despite the objections and outrage of the American people and victims living in the border states for these trade agreements, including apparently actual people now more valued for their commercial worth to the global community and these corporate industries at this point for their profit and gain.

And AIG is a London based insurer - so for the first time in history, the American people are now holding the debts for a global corporation, in order to also merge our country and its economy more and more with that of the world, rather than protect our own.

Unbelieveable at this point the utter unawareness of a great many of the American people of what this foreshadows.

Hey, Congress and the Obama Administration just handed out more than 100 million stimulus monies to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which lobbies against really the Americans public for more laws for their welfare on behalf of their foreign global interests and their outsourced employees in order to fatten their pocketbooks), of course while Americans in the border states continue to face loss of their lives and property for the Chamber's agenda and benefit. 

Now they have been deemed an "educational" institution, rather than a corporate "trade" organization.  We are not only redefining and burning the Constitution, but the English language now in this country in favor of what?  That definition isn't even Spanish.

Mr. Obama is simply the "used car salesman" that was picked to seal the deal, and bury our Constitution and sovereign America it appears forever, and since January clearly has been on a global road trip without stop continuing to sell the agenda to the American people wrapped, of all things, in Lincoln and the American flag.

For any and all Conservative Constitutional Constructionists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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