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.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Madison is spinning right about now.

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

For the last several days on most of the mainstream media outlets, there has been much reported with respect to the shooting and murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas, the middle of the Bible belt in middle America. 

Such instances as have occurred in the few cases of such violence in the past have attracted extensive media coverage due to the division that still remains in this country over the abortion issue, and especially late term or "partial birth" abortions as were reported conducted by Dr. Tiller at his Kansas clinic.

Much rhetoric has been spewed by both sides of this issue, and the media feeding into the frenzy so much so that this instance has again dominated our television news casts and reporting for several days.

Much misinformation has also been a part of the media hype and reporting.  On the one hand, Dr. Tiller is being painted as almost a saint due to his providing a service that few physicians perform in order to help poor, hapless women who have had to undergo abortions late in the pregnancies for various medical reasons, or due to criminal rape or incest.

On the other hand, he is being painted as a murderer of innocent fetuses who would have been viable and alive if not for Dr. Tiller' and his clinic's services.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and there was also a political motivation involved.  No one has questioned in the slightest at this point a great many irregularities that have been reported both in the media, and the details as has been reported of the crime itself.

First, Dr. Tiller has been painted as performing a service that few physicians in this country undertake.  In fact, one news source quoted that his clinic was "only one of three" that provided such services as abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy.  

That is a blatant falsehood, as there are several of such clinics in most states now throughout the country due to the fact that most states have been as hesitant as the federal government in addressing the late term and partial birth issue now almost 30 years post Roe, which only addressed an abortion conducted in the  first trimester of pregnancy.

Second, if the perpetrator was actually a "fundamentalist" Christian and vehement anti-abortion radical, then why would this shooting have occurred, of all places, at the church where Dr. Tiller was serving as an usher reportedly?  If this gentleman truly believed he was "doing God's work," as has also been reported, would he not have chosen another day rather than the Sabbath in middle America, a day of rest and worship?

And if Dr. Tiller was truly limiting his practice to those circumstances in which the fetus was no longer viable, medical emergencies, and cases of rape or incest, wouldn't a hospital rather than a medical "clinic," with better facilities in the event of potential complications be the proper place in order for such medical procedures to be carried out? 

The instances and health risks of such late term abortions have been documented in many medical journals throughout the nation at this point due to the actual manner in which these abortions are carried out.    Post operative hemorrahaging is becoming more and more common the more this risky procedure continues to be performed.

The militants on both sides have drawn their battle lines. Even Mr. Obama made a public statement with respect to the crime and his feelings on the abortion issue.

But still there is the negligence of our federal government and Congress to address this basic duty now thirty years post Roe, and the incidences, public outrage and political fodder has raised the national temperature over this issue, while the politicians continue to use such instances as this and the divisiveness over the abortion issue as just more political rhetoric for votes come election time.

Its a hard job, but that is what our elected officials are for, are they not?  Defining "life" for Constitutional and legal purposes, and drawing a line in the sand between purely "elective" abortions and those necessitated by medical emergency or necessary premature deliveries is something that is long overdue.

Such an action would then leave the states free to then provide the parameters and consent and legal requirements individually and at the more local level that would be needed for these medical emergency, rape, incest, teen pregnancies or other later term medically necessitated abortions, as opposed to those which are truly nothing more than premature deliveries due to the developmental stage involved, and which require also then life saving methods to protect both the life of the mother and infant. 

Thirty years now post Roe we have birth control methods that were unknown at the time that decision was rendered, and also methods to detect pregnancy now within literally days and/or hours of conception. 

The founders based an entire document in order to secure "life" for them and their posterity. 

Isn't it time that our Congress got to the hard work of tackling these issues, and in addition many, many other issues and complications that have arisen due to continued federal negligence such as this, and cut the lobbyists, bankers and federal pork beggers loose for a session or two while it truly gets down to the matter of our government, rather than business and self interests?

Today Sonia Sotomayor had her first "meet and greet" with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over her potential confirmation as the first Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice.

A press conference and condensed version of what occurred during this first meeting was held shortly thereafter, attended by some of the movers and shakers of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Ms. Sotomayor appeared also to be all smiles, and the mainstream liberal media soon after issued their poll results that "over 50% of Americans support" Ms. Sotomayor's nomination.

She was appointed to the federal bench by the first Bush, in which there was very little scrutiny by Congress or the brouhaha that surrounds such matters as the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, due to the fact that they still remain in office for life, and there hasn't been a hearing or impeachment of a Supreme Court justice ever under the "good behavior" provisions in over 200 years due to the unlawful extension in 1805 during the Chase impeachment proceedings of extra-Constitutional provisions of judicial immunity for any and all actions in which a claim of "political bias" can be extended. 

This was the second "political" usurpation along with Marbury vs. Madison by the judiciary,  which then created an "unchecked" branch in this country, and again amended our Constitution without going through that formal amendment process - since "good behavior" clearly was intended to mean ruling by the judicial "seat of the pants," as it were and not the language or provisions as contained within our Constitution

The Jefferson Democrat/Republicans were  then attempting to institute this "check" provision during Chase, and it has never again been used due to "politics" rather than "the Law," holding sway a mere 18 years after its signing.  And now our Supreme Court has also become more and more political, and less and less independent and Constitutional, by the decade.

And that historically has included, it appears, just about any and all Supreme Court rulings, even the increasingly off the wall ones, and has contributed to the judicial activism in their progressively extra-Constitutional renderings to this very day.

For the record and in order to claify Ms. Sotomayor's previous remarks in 2001 with respect to the infamous statement referring to her Latina heritage as qualifying her perhaps better than another justice who hadn't "lived the life she had," Ms. Sotomayor told senators she would follow the law as a judge without letting her life experiences inappropriately influence her decisions.

"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, quoted the nominee as saying in their closed-door session.

My question is, which "law" is she referring to?  Our Constitution as the ultimate authority, or federal or even state statutes or their Constitutional provisions which may or may not be in accordance with it - since it is clear more and more that our Congress is not even reading a great many bills before they are voted on and passed due to various contrived "emergencies" (such as the Patriot Act, stimulus and bank bailouts), and a great many of those former statutes throughout the years are questionably in accordance with it.

Will we continue to desecrate it in the interests of "public policy" (socialism), "public safety" (also socialism), or the nebulous "state interests" (fascism and/or socialism) when it comes to American Bill of Rights issues for lawful American citizens?

Will we refuse to hear hot potato cases or issues within the Court's jurisdiction in order to protect political interests of one or the other mainstream political parties or their "corporate" interests?

Will Ms. Sotomayor consult our Constitution and various LAWFUL peace time treaties or trade agreements entered into and ratified BY CONGRESS when it involves international concerns, or opinions of college professors, law reviews and the ultimate transgression against our Constitution, international law?

Several justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor are on record as stating that they believe that a Supreme Court justice should be afforded the right to consult international laws in rendering some of their opinons, even though "globalized" law was not at all the founders intent for the sovereign United States clearly due to the very reason for that Revolutionary War to begin with.

So I do hope that there is much more information released to the public and press with respect to Ms. Sotomayor's statements, than those that are now coming out of these press conferences, interviews with politicians, and the various  press releases.

But I doubt it.  In the piece Harry Reid, D-NV is quoted as stating that he had not read a single one of her opinions during her 17 years on the federal bench, and if all went as planned "would not have to do so."

I guess we know Harry's criteria is about "politics" and not about "the Law."

The fundamental question is, exactly which "ultimate" authority and law are you referring to, Ms. Sotomayor, since a great many of the sitting and former justices seem at this point with respect to both domestic and foreign issues to have been not simply confused, but truly unaware of the actual document which affords them the right to hold that lofty position.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090602/4a24a3c0_3ca6_15526200906021074699449
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

The liberal lefty loonies have done it again in the U.S., and amazed that the state of our nation has now come to this.

According to Yahoo News and several other news sources, at a recent symposium held in London by 20 pre-eminent Nobel laureates and attended by the Prince of Wales, Barack Obama's new energy czar, Steven Chu, made his contribution to the global warming non-phenomena now sweeping the globe in order to "stimulate" the economies of the science and technology fields:

Mr. Chu recommends that all roofs be painted energy-reflective white.

In the article he further states that making roads and roofs a paler color would have the effect of taking every car off the road for 11 years.

I wonder if he ever worked for DuPont?

As a former Arizona resident, I can unequivocally state that painting roofs white might not be a bad idea given the sweltering summers in that desert climate.  However, due to the desert dust storms and monsoons, those roofs would be brown, gray or even black within a few seasons.  Not to mention the extra-strength prescription Ray-Bans you would need during the summer in order not to suffer the equivalent of snow blindness.

I wonder if these noted laureates took into consideration that with all those white roofs, would it not increase the heat also that would be reflected back toward the sun, potentially burning out that star well before its time and leaving this planet then in total darkness?

Maybe that topic is for the next global summit.

I wonder what the carbon footprints for those attending the meeting, and whether they flew by prop or British Airways non-stop jumbo jet?  With the state of our technology as it is now, you would think twenty scientists could meet via telecom or satellite communications, and spare the rest of the world that excess carbon.

At least the White House and Capitol are in compliance, but it appears socializing exterior roofing is now also not even beyond the reach of these global politicians and world leaders at this point.

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a  "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become.  And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.
 

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.

Now that graduation season is upon us, higher education has been in the news quite a bit in the United States this past month.

Due to the economic conditions now claimed by most states in the United States due to the mortgage meltdown, bank bailouts, continuing conflict in the Middle East, automakers bailouts, health care crisis, and Wall Street's bear market (many of these situations, of course, are due to governmental negligence and precipitated crises) many of the major universities throughout the nation are now announcing increases for tuition rates for most of the public and private college universities.

Interestingly, these increases are now being announced even after there was considerable funding in the form of grants to a great many of these universities for infrastructure needs, and increases in federal grant monies for tuition costs included within that enormous simulus packaged passed by the Obama Administration several months ago.

As an example, the tuition rate increase announced for one of the major universities in my former home state, Arizona, will be the second increase within the past two years, and will place the average in-state resident tuition now at over $6,275 per semester for incoming new freshman for the 2009-2010 academic year at Arizona State University.  Included will be new fees in the form of "surcharges" also tacked on to those tuition rates.

Although there is a provision within Arizona's own Constitution that provides the parameters for university tuition which can be charged state residents:

Admission of students of both sexes to state educational institutions; tuition; common school system

Section 6. The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible. 

The problem there as in most states is priority of expenditures, and using public funds for private and extra-Constitutional contracts in public/private partnerships and functions most of all.

This amount may sound reasonable when compared to the rate charged at most private universities, or even some of the public East or West coast universities; however, most tuition rates are set by Boards of Regents which are unaccountable to the taxpayers for those tuition rate increases, and simply apply to the state legislature through approvals given by these Board of Regents for their requests.  And would dispute with respect to Arizona's clear Constitutional provisions, that $6,250 per semester is "as nearly free as possible."

As someone who grew up in that state, I compared the rates charged when I graduated from high school, to the new rates in comparison factoring in inflation according to the tables provided by an online inflation calculator source. 

Since I also am aware of a recent backdoor tax levied and was subject to in the form of an added property tax prior to moving from that state for the expansion of that university and the construction costs for same at the municipal level (thus triple taxation at the municipal, state and federal levels in support of that university), and also aware of the sums in grant monies provided under the stimulus, I did not factor in any added "construction" costs which might also be included in the university's budgets.

Besides, more than 2/3rds the building within the Arizona State University campus are less than 20 years old.

In 1970 the rate for tuition for in state residents was $320.00 for 16 credit hours each semester.  As referenced above, the rate for the 2009-2010 academic year will be $12,550.

 What cost $320.00 in 1970 would cost $1755.48 in 2008.

Rate charged at ASU 2009-2010:  $12,550 - more than ten  times the amount of inflation.

And the standard of living (not to mention quality of life) was higher in 1970 even during that recessionary period, than it actually is today.

Also interesting and as a side note, the President of the University was also recently granted a salary increase bringing his salary as a public employee to over $750,000 not including state benefits such as health care, expense accounts, dental insurance and pension plan.  That salary of three quarter of a million dollars exceeds the salary of the President of the United States.

His wife is also employed by the university at a salary of over $160,000 per year.

None of the sums received in direct federal grant monies are included in the budgetary requests made at the state level in most states throughout the nation.

And in 1970, free tuition waivers and costs were given to the top 10% of all graduating seniors from Arizona state high schools in recognition of the "public" support of the Arizona citizens to that university.

Now the criteria for any and all tuition fee waivers requires graduating in the top 5%, and exceeding a state mandated AIMS (Arizona Instructional Measurement System) test which a good percentage of the high school faculty themselves had difficulty passing prior to its being given to the high school students.  And which cost the Arizona taxpayers over 10 million to prepare, since the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the SAT's themselves were not sufficient as testing methods for measuring instructional goals for outgoing seniors.

And did I mention that the revenue from the sales of tickets and memorabilia, network contracts, and local radio and television broadcast revenues received by the Arizona State University football program, and private alumni grant monies also go unreported in those budgetary requests?

While the selection committee focuses on primarily out state national merit scholars for name recognition, and illegal immigrant and foreigners for federal grant monies in order to also profit at the Arizona and American citizen's expenses.

If you would like to do a historic comparison for inflationary purposes on your state universities tuition increases throughout the past three decades, you can find the relevant table at:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

As a point of reference in interpreting what the founding fathers wished to avoid with respect to the language in the Constitution on religion as contained within the First Amendment, it might be informative to read the text of Ben Franklin's speech on the day it was ratified.

The failure to provide a "Bill of Rights" for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government actually was what was responsible for holding up the Constitution's ratification, hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments.

And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries and then establishment of the state-wide Church of England, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide. 

The provisions also with respect to the exclusion of "religious tests" for holding office were actually meant to protect religion also since the requirement of the British people to swear allegiance to the sovereign over the Pope or God was the cause of much of the religious strife in their homeland whose entire belief system was based on biblical foundations above man-made or "sovereign" law.

"Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is toward banning religion and religous reference from all public forums and squares.  At least that of the Christian faith, the very faith that was responsible and affords the freedom in practice of other religions in this country.

Below is Franklin's pre-ratification speech:

"Mr. President,

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.

It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.  Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong.

But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right -

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.

For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one throats.

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die.

If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects; great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength; efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors.

I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument."  (Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia)

And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and misconstrued, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the "separation" of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the "interference" of the Christian faith at all.

The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion in this country as an individual right in and of itself as primarily Christian or deists themselves, but who abhorred the positions many were placed in during their lives in England having to swear allegiance to king and country when the sovereigns edicts were against their moral and religious principles and beliefs.

The government of the founder's  acknowledged religion and religious beliefs and provided for it in our national culture, with the specific provision for its inclusion attempting merely to avoid the differences in the scriptural teachings with respect to the Protestant and Catholic sectarian differences having application at a governmental level nationwide, since the federal government actually was intended to have few and limited powers over the states and people over-all. 

Historically in its origins, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim beliefs and their wars were primarily due to intolerance of other faiths, each desiring a "country" of their own where their faith was clearly "nationwide,"  while the Christian wars were fought over sectarian differences between Catholics and Protestants and the various denominations, scriptural interpretations, rituals and practices within them in their former country of England. 

Thus this is what the founders were intending to avoid, and also placing the government as accountable to the people and not above it, so that religious tests and fealty to government over the "supreme" Nature's God's laws in the event of moral conflict when the federal government overstepped itself in any respect would then be lessened or avoided. 

Tolerance of other religions practices and beliefs is actually uniquely Christian in it's origins in its scriptural provisions, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parable of the Good Samaritan in loving one's neighbor or enemy AS oneself, and doing unto another as you would have them do unto you - allowing them their freedom to worship God in the manner that you yourself enjoy, whether affiliated with a specific church or not, so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of other of his children to worship in the manner they see fit.

And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in a language other than English.

Recently Barack Obama presented another one of his speeches to the graduating class of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana - a Catholic University.

Since the announcement of Mr. Obama's handpicked universities for his appearances, there had been much controversy and debate with respect to his choice of Notre Dame due to his clear advocacy and support for unrestricted access to abortions in this country, even going so far as to oppose an Illinois bill attempting to ban the heinous late term "partial birth" abortion practice within that state prior to his election to the Senate, which did come up during the election campaign a few times and which he never convincingly explained. 

This practice has also been known due to its brutal method, to cause trauma and injury to the woman in the process, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld its ban due to both the timing and the method which is then used, and the risks to the mother. 

The Catholic Church, of course, takes exception to this position as in violation of their church teachings on the sanctity of human life. 

There was much build up reported in the mainstream media in this country, with some in the academic community vocalizing their objections, and others apparently more interested in the press that such a visit would entail for the university who attempted to downplay the conflict. 

Its hard to fault some at the school, since they were in a "no win" political situation.  Although if ever there was a time for the head of the university to take a stand for his Church's teachings, you would think this would have been one of them in order to set that example for those graduating seniors.  But it would appear that there was some political politicking within the Church or other force preventing him from doing so. 

Perhaps this was the point all along. 

It truly was interesting in light of Mr. Obama's positions that he would choose Notre Dame to begin with, and sort of makes one wonder what his true agenda actually was all about.

There are literally thousands of college campuses in this country, and it did appear there was a method to his madness in that of the three universities selected - Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona; Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana; and the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland - one was a public university, another a private religious institution, and the third a military academy.

According to the local South Bend newspaper, the final event was pulled off without a hitch.  The reason being, of course, that as soon as some of the more vocal members of the student body decided to use their freedom of speech, they were summarily escorted from the auditorium by the security detail assigned for the event.

Interestingly, the piece from the local paper also summarized the gist of the message Mr. Obama had chosen for those graduating seniors.  The final paragraph of which quoted Mr. Obama's final instruction and message:

"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated," he said. "Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse."

Based upon the treatment of those in the audience who were "unafraid to speak their minds when their values were at stake," and their subsequent ejection from the event, I hope I'm not the only one that caught the hypocricy there.

Although Notre Dame is a private university, it receives much in the way of public funding in grant monies from the American taxpayers, and is not truly privately funded at all.  And most of those private funds also come from members of the Catholic community.

Here is an instance, again, of the over-expansion of the federal government being involved at all in education, since it truly is not one of its enumerated powers in the slightest - these should be state and local issues and funded accordingly either privately or through charitable donations as education was handled and as Jefferson and the founders planned. 

They warned that if the federal government got involved in education, it could use such power inappropriately.  As it appears just may have been the case here with the political subterfuges in selecting that university in the first place that clearly most likely would become controversial given Mr. Obama's position.

I wonder who spoke at Mr. Obama's graduation ceremony from Harvard as one who was schooled and would gather passed his Constitutional law classes?

Mikhail Gorbechev?

Maybe rather than traipsing around the country on one PR tour after another, Mr. Obama should remain in Washington at his desk earning his salary as the final check on the checks and balances for legislation, and reduce his carbon footprints in the process.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090518/News01/905189969/1011/News

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

As has everything lately in the United States become, now has the finale of the latest crowning of the new American Idol.

It appears that the brouhaha surrounding the loss of Adam Lambert to Kris Allen on national television this past week is being blamed on religion, of all things, by many in the liberal mass media press.

Mr. Lambert has been represented as the poor maligned Jewish, questionably gay, loser due to the voting of the Christian religious right. 

At first, this writer was actually too astounded to believe that such a ludicrous claim could be made for the upset.

But search the net and you will find article after article mainly from East and West coast writers laying the blame again on religion or "discrimination."

If any watched the last installment, it was fairly clear who came out on top.  And also which performer had been consistently better able to vocally connect with the audience the past few weeks of the contest.

Also, which performer over-all was more talented and with more likelihood of having a far longer career in the music business.

While Adam Lambert has an incredible stage personae and vocal range, he is at best a novelty act unless and until he decides to mature and dump the theatrics.

Looking back in musical history, it is clear that Kiss, Alice Cooper, Queen and the rest of the shock rockers had their time in rock history, but their longevity was fairly limited insofar as drawing the crowds for performances.

Whereas Billy Joel, Stevie Wonder, Santana and others with broader range and additional song writing and musical talents have remained a force in the music industry today.

So based on that criteria, who do YOU think actually won?

I rest my case.

But fear not liberals.  The controversy that is now surrounding the decision will guarantee Mr. Lambert's career and quite a bit of revenue for at least the next several years.

Where he can then retire to the golf course before 40, as was the case with Alice Cooper, a resident of my former home state of Arizona, and then eventually go on the nostalgia tours.

There is a lesson in there somewhere, Mr. Lambert, and now your career is in your hands.

And congratulations to Kris Allen, since I think we will be seeing you for years to come if your final last four weeks in that competition from all reports were any clue to your potential and future more broad range audience appeal.

Last week Barack Obama called leaders of the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies and labor organizations for a pow-wow regarding one of his fundamental quests as stated during his campaign: health care reform.

Although these three industries are not in any way directly tied to patient care and delivery, it appears Mr. Obama is playing diplomat with this issue and appeaser with these industry leeches in order that they don't lose a piece of their pie under any anticipated governmental program.

Under Obama's plan, it is estimated that approximately 119 million Americans would shift from private insurance to the governmental plan, putting America on the path toward a completely government run socialized health care system. This, of course, would not sit well with the private insurance carriers who would stand to not only lose business, but their very shirts and the jobs of many who are currently hawking those policies to private businesses and individuals.

The pharmaceutical industry, of course, is quite concerned because under any government plan generics and other effective lower cost drugs (think penicillin and cheaper antibiotics) on which there isn't as much profit would most likely be the preferred and "authorized" treatment with Uncle Sam picking up the tab.

Many of those drug company representatives peddling their "new and improved" wares to doctors would also lose their jobs in the process, and a few of those free bonus trips, and the physicans and health care providers a few holiday gifts.

The unions earned their seat at the appeasement table due to the fact that any government plan would impact Big Labor and their own health care plans which have their administrative mark ups also built in which would, most likely, be negotiated away during the next collective bargaining session.

Mr. Obama during his campaigns assured the American people that the governmental plan he was proposing would simply be an "alternate," with Americans then able to make a choice between the government plan or retaining their own private carriers.

What was left unsaid, however, is that most private insurance is not bought by individuals in this country, but by their Big Business employers. Employers who have shareholders to answer to, and are now facing economic woes of their own throughout many major industries due to this Washington precipitated economic meltdown.

Just how long do you think those employers will keep those group plans once the government plan undercuts them?

What also was left unsaid is that the Obama plan also intends to parent America's children and youth, and mandate that parents must insure their children and themselves, and also feed Washington in providing fines and fees for non-compliance.

In other words, another non-consensual tax in the making that, if Medicare and Medicaid are any indication, will be used for other "discretionary" purposes and be an unaccountable bottomless pit of taxation.

I look for this scenario to go one of two ways:

(1) Mr. Obama will continue in his role as appeaser to all with the exception of Joe Citizen, and will attempt to placate the union bosses and fat cat pharmaceutical executives and insurers by cutting back his legislation to be a bare bones "emergency treatment" policy, with the intent not to totally "socialize" health care in this country but afford Americans then to visit their local insurance agent and sign up for supplemental coverage.

Sort of like Plan A or B supplements for the seniors, only privately obtained. And those supplemental plans will be also subject to increasing costs based upon claims as with the plans now offered, with the government plan as "primary," which will not kick in unless and until you have used the government benefits first, with the insurance industry then able to use the government as the scapegoat for denied treatments.

(2) Or Mr. Obama and Congress in the fine print of the bill will enter into public/private partnerships with the major insurance carriers in this country, and Big Labor privileges of adding in their profit and cut into the government contracts to the amounts which will be required to be withheld from employee/union member paychecks as "administration" fees, with the pharmaceutical industry perhaps being afforded longer patent rights for new medications retroactively and sums for promised grants for future research costs, especially since the embryonic stem cell bill now has been accorded them for their future profits also.

(NOTE: the patent for the original outrageously expensive drugs for AIDS which are used by and large still today expire in 2017, since litigation over ownership rights for the drugs began almost immediately after its "discovery" and have extended the patents on them already an additional 10 years since the patents don't begin until ownership is established, with two companies now sharing those profits since the case was subsequently settled in the early 90's).

The lives of Americans, and especially the large baby boomer generation, are now being bargained for between the insurers, pharmaceutical industries, and big labor.

And I wonder just what recourse will be included for citizens if denied treatment, or if there are any delays or negligence in the care received by government employed physicians and hospitals? What kind of shell game then might Americans face in attempting to redress those grievances between the bureaucrats, insurers, big labor and pharmaceutical companies playing "Who's on first?"

Another take:

http://www.getbetterhealth.com/tag/galen-institute

Gee, I wonder if in this instance as in others whether following our Constitution might be a better idea, and break up the "associations" of these large industries in order to facilitate a truly free market once again, and get Big Labor out of the insurance and health care business which they had no right to enter into in the first place.

Maybe simply beginning to perform their Constitutional function in regulating and overseeing both the type of plans sold at either federal or state levels depending on carrier customer base and home office location.

For accountability, then funding a centralized complaint department for the American citizens to utilize which might be a better useage of those stimulus monies instead of what is going to become another Lawyers Employment Act in its violation of citizens privacy rights with that concocted national health care database for citizens medical information for the feeder industries and states nefarious purposes in the interest of "public unsafety."

I foresee such a bureaucratic administrative nightmare in the end will result in eventually putting small business physicians and software providers out of work, and ultimately increase costs due to government fees and costs which will be tacked on to the patients bills in order utilize that huge mistake-in-the-making system to store and transfer patient records, even if the correct records get transferred. Just imagine the potential lawsuits for unauthorized, misused or incorrect information.

Maybe what we need to do here is step back a moment and look at the legal and "long view."

What a novel idea.

World Net Daily has published an article which includes the March 26, 2009 interdepartmental memorandum prepared by DHS for local law enforcement regarding the "extremist" groups of potential domestic terrorists.  The list is so lengthy it took over 10 pages in order to outline them all. 

You most likely are on the list, since it doesn't appear they left anyone out, unless you are a government employee drone or work in the mainstream media.

There was an interesting paragraph regarding who it was that actually identified these potential terrorists groups:

"Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials and
unclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops with
DHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism in
the United States."

I wonder if these "intelligence analysts" got their degrees online?  There is now an online university that is cashing in on this booming surveillance industry offering courses that can be completed in the comfort of your own home for less than it costs for two years at the average technical college.

The memo, Ms. Napoliano claims, was immediately yanked.  And I've got a bridge to sell you in Alaska.

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf