Back Up America

Obama Sends Out The Guard: Far Too Little, Way Too Late

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 28 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

In the wake of the brouhaha over the recent legislation passed by the State of Arizona after the murder of a rancher and decades of increased crime in that state due primarily to the open U.S. southern borders, it was announced by the Obama Administration that an additional 1,200 National Guardsmen will be sent to assist the Border Patrol in securing the U.S. Mexico border.

But is this simply another political ploy in order to quiet the masses and gain some public support from those recent transplants or non-border state residents for another Reagan era amnesty in the interests of commerce rather than national security, or another fine example of the federal government's response of too little, too late after literally thousands upon thousands of border state residents have been adversely impacted by this governmental negligence nine long years post 9-11?

I mean, if those U.S. borders HAD been secured, would an American rancher today still be alive, or those in Arizona particularly losing their homes by the score due to increases in property insurance and added taxation due to this situation, in addition to the federal negligence which resulted in those bogus British LIBOR based loans which were sold by California lenders to so many unsuspecting homeowners during the short housing boom?

Which bears the question: How can banks in this country be loaning out sums based on a foreign currency almost twice that of the U.S., and backed also by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without Congress's knowledge, which negligence also has not been addressed in any meaningful way after that bogus bank "bailout."

The U.S. Mexico border encompasses over 1,900 miles of expanse, a great deal of which is desert terrain and passable only by all terrain vehicles - of which the drug cartel members have in abundance due to their progressive profits at the American public's expense, including our youth. The War on Drugs is as much a commercial venture and falacy, it appears as the War on "Terrorism."

"Terrorism" that never occurred prior to the "Go Globalists" gaining an ever increasing foothold in public offices in this country through the two mainstream political parties, and basically selling off vital U.S. industries and infrastructure to foreigners over the "global" exchange.

The economy they are truly concerned with - global industry and "foreigners" profit once again.

This additional troop surge amounts to a drop in the bucket, from this writer's perspective, since it would literally take agents linked arm in arm to secure those southern borders, and the costs in salaries and benefitis of those additional border agents which this Administration is hiring far exceeds that which would be necessary to construct the border fencing.

I mean esthetically pleasing titanium vehicle spikes about six feet high would definitely preclude those drug cartels from entering in their SUVs, and reduce significantly the hard core drugs and auto theft criminal activity tremendously.

And certainly could be made to look esthetically pleasing for those environmental wackos that believe in protecting nature as a priority, rather than the lives and property of their fellow Americans who have been victimized.

Sending out the Guard, in this writer's opinion, appears again to be another political tool and ploy, since Ms. Napolitano also was sent additional troops during the Bush years and yet the crime continued almost unabated.

I hope this time, at least, they will be able to use their guns - with buckshot if not bullets - to deter the criminal element and secure this nation's borders which should have been done after the Mexican American war, but at the very least immediately after 9-11 while this country remains "at war" due to a foreign massive attack - whether it could be classified at this point military or civilian.

Since those Guard members, due to those U.S. Mexico free trade agreements, were pretty much disempowered from actually securing the border in any meaningful way.

That was also while Ramos and Compean were being prosecuted for shooting a drug peddler in the rear, for which they received jail time while the foreigner got the American lawyers.

The timing of this announcement is suspect, while this Administration and Congress have also delayed funding for that fence under the Secure Fence Act, while providing instead billions to the local and state governments for upgrades for their computers, and spent massive amounts also on extra-Constitutional functions instead.

When providing for the common defense actually is the primary reason that the United States even has a federal government at all. I mean that WAS the reason that the Constitution even came to be, in order to protect and provide for the common defense of the states, and the state citizenry from foreign attack or invasion.

Be it militarily, or through attrition which is actually what is occuring in the lower 48.

Particularly those border states, which are being "assumed" by Mexico progressively in sending their citizens to this country to find work, and hopefully strengthen the Mexican economy at the cost of America's own if not eventually bring it economy down to that of Mexico's in its two class system.

What's to say that as soon as another amnesty style bill passes, as appears is the agenda here, that those troops then are once again removed in the interests of "budgetary reasons," while, again, sums are spent for political reasons most of all rather than Constitutional ones?

This Administration, as the last, has shown its true colors in continuing to play the "race card" on this issue inappropriately by and large.

After the Patriot Act, which is still for the most part on the books and the continued marginalization of the American public who are outraged at this point with their federal and state governments over its progressively unconstitutional focuses, does it not seem hypocritical for the Obama Administration and this Congress to attack Arizona's "new" law "national origin" profiling which also is one of its primary duties and functions, the protection of its lawful and legal citizens from foreign attacks or invasion?

Apparently that connection and out and out hypocricy has been lost by those on the Hill and our mainstream media in the interest of politics and ratings.

I'm sure to most Americans this little ditty will ring true, especially those Americans living in a border state who have lived there since the first Reagan amnesty under "Reaganomics," which primarily created this situation to begin with, along with continued federal and state negligence in carrying out their Constitutional functions regarding this issue:

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

The Obama Limbo: Or How Low Can You Go?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:31:00 +0000

That globally affiliated news organization, ABC, carried a story this morning that seemed to sink to a level that seems to be becoming the modus operandi with those in Washington over controversial and unpopular (and unconstitutional) legislation.

Use the children.

Yesterday apparently there was an "uncomfortable" moment during a visit by Ms. Obama and the wife of the current president of Mexico, Mr. Calderon.

During this highly publicized visit of the Mexican first family which conveniently co-incided with the passage of the Arizona legislature of a law merely codifying the federal laws with respect to illegal immigration meant to be used during lawful stops by local law enforcement authorities in requiring ID or green cards from immigrants (as U.S. citizens are required to provide driver's licenses) during those stops, there was a question posed by a "shy" second grader to Ms. Obama with respect to this requirement.

The second grader related how "Barack Obama was taking everyone away that didn't have papers" and that her mother "didn't have any."

It seems that this Administration, as with the last, will use any method imaginable to further polarize and politicized this issue, when it has been due to federal negligence and a prior Administration's "amnesty" in the interest of commerce before national security pre-9-11 which has led to the fact that there even are over 12 million reported illegal and undocumented foreigners in this country at all.

Of course, the article went on to publicize how fearful this child's mother was, and would not then give her name for fear apparently of deportation.

Which moment appeared more aimed also at slamming those in Arizona once again who have been victimized repeatedly by this situation, and also the fact that this child was in a public school afforded such an opportunity to get politically used as a tool seems utterly contemptible to this writer.

And just goes to show how low those in Washington that are on the illegal immigrant gravy train from both sides of the political aisle will go, again, at the cost of their fellow natural or naturalized American.

In defending and protecting foreigners and foreign interests, rather than abiding by those lawful and legal duties of their office, offices which they wouldn't even hold if not for that "antiquated" document both parties apparently disdain.

Since, of course, it was meant to limit their powers over the American citizenry and masses, and yet protect them from foreign invasion such as what is occurring in Arizona and elsewhere due to the open border situation that continues now nine years after 9-11.

And prevent such occurrences as happened yesterday, and just wonder where those highly paid state and federal social service workers are in using a child in such a manner for political gain.

Since this little incident was simply too scripted to believe.

First after the 2006 attempt with the Pope getting involved during a visit in 2007 to facilitate this "globalism" agenda of the Global Socialists even though the Pope actually has a fortress surrounding his country from his own church members, and now a child.

Just how much further can those on the Hill, and in the Halls of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and those global mostly European bankers sink for their agendas?

At the ultimate cost in their collusion with those whose lust for power knows no end nor recognition of the fight and sacrifices and personal cost those founders made to establish a free and independent America of their fellow Americans?

Who will also wave the flag also to facilitate their ends, but apparently haven't even a shred of knowledge in just what it truly stands for.

Since Arizona is one of those stars on the stars and stripes, after all.

Or is this something the Global Socialists conveniently forget in order to continue their massive march into world socialism and government?

Or that the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution was the entire reason the states united to begin with, and supercedes any "free trade" agreements with our southern neighbors at the cost of the American people?

I wonder just how many poor South Americans or their criminal element Mexico has taken in in the past ten years?

Wait, maybe America is also getting a great many of those South Americans too through those porous southern borders.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/michelle-obama-caught-immigration-debate/story?id=10694734

The Austin Incident: A Desperate American Taking Desperate Measures?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:18:00 +0000

In reading now all the news reports on the recent suicide crash of a man into a Texas office building housing the Internal Revenue Service, this act of desperation as is clear from his written messages prior to the incident is once again being spun by the media for public consumption.

This country is now in the worst recession/depression since the Great Depression prior to World War II. Many, many individuals are losing their homes, while watching a Congress and their state and local government continue to pass bill after bill supporting industry and the financial sector and Wall Street in additional taxation and/or an increasing deficit and its inflation taxes stripping them even more of their hard earned dollars - a dollar which is now at its lowest level ever against the foreign currency of most of the industrialized world with the exception of maybe Mexico.

Even the Southern Poverty Law Institute, that lawyer lead group that has been involved in facilitating actually more and more outsourcing of jobs and U.S. labor in focusing more and more on the "rights" of even non-Americans got into the Act, although claiming this didn't appear to be a "right wing extremist" attack, or an act of terrorism.

A group, by the way, that I wouldn't hesitate to guess is receiving federal funding and grant monies courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers as an "educational" institute, while bringing lawsuit after lawsuit against Americans protecting the "rights" of non-Americans indiscriminantly in a great many instances.

Hello? Has this group which is so left leaning it is off the map ever studied U.S. history and the amount of Americans, in their desperation, either committed suicide after they were left homeless, jobless and after losing all they had after the first banker manipulated depression in this country, or were so adversely impacted they ended up destitute and more than a few of which were institutionalized or incarcerated due to such acts of desperation?

So many are rushing to judgement, and I am not defending this individual or his actions in the slightest, although many are reaching in their judgement as far as asking such questions as:

a) Why didn't this individual file simply for bankruptcy; or

b) Why didn't he simply go to one of those corporate entities that assist Americans with heavy tax bills?

I for one, as one who has also been fundamentally affected due to the progressive policies of both Washington and my former home state's government can tell you that filing a bankruptcy in this country after the heavy lobbying once again of the financial sector is no easy matter, nor is it without cost in most instances.

And a "restructuring" due to its complications now also actually takes the assistance of a lawyer, lawyers who want to be paid in advance for their services, although the very reason such an individual would seek out their assistance is because they are "bankrupt."

Should it take paying a corporate concern to act as an intermediary in this country on tax issues in order to deal with this out of control agency, as has been the case for many an American after the "quick" and "speedy" passage of the 16th Amendment, along with the 17th and Federal Reserve Act which has progressively taken us more and more into global corporate socialism?

Due to the many complaints of the public in the past, Congress's solution was to again expand government and create another agency, the Taxpayer Advocacy office, to assist delinquent taxpayers, however it appears this solution also was no solution at all. Once again, instead of more closely monitoring this agency and their practices itself.

Now in addition to simply seeking payment for any and all delinquent taxes which are due, this agency has so many levels of "punishments" piled on to some of those taxes that the fines, fees and penalties many times exceed the actual tax due.

Did those founding fathers intend that the tax laws in this country were to be favorable to the government as a profit making venture, or simply in order to pay the actual costs of those duties and functions for which the federal (and state) governments were responsible, or the actual "tax" due no matter when it is actually paid - since with death taxes also factored in for most individuals that leave any property to speak of, the government gets its due now even after death?

We all know at this point that there are so many "outside" benefactors due to special interest lobbying and greed in using our government in order to bulk up their profits and reduce their risks and losses at the public's expense after the illegal creation of "corporate person-hood" as another party to the Constitution way back when by a rogue Supreme Court ruling.

Or at least most of those even minimally political aware individuals in this country are. Now instead we have a Congress negligent in its true duties and functions in actually regulating commerce more and more, especially those national and global concerns operating in the United States in order to protect those Bill of Rights provisions of the people over the corporate which were meant to prohibit much of what is occurring today.

Not give "property" a voice in government, or unequal "privileges or immunities" under the common law which existed when this nation was founded.

And especially not extending any Bill of Rights protections.

I don't know what lead this man to react and do what he did, but it appears the tenor of much of his notes and his apparent state of mind at the time, this truly was a desperate American taking a most desperate measure, and also lost his life in the process.

And I fear that as this recessionary depression, unfortunately, continues we just may see more and more of such occurrences happening, until our leaders start honoring their true job functions and public service positions rather than seeking re-election from the very moment that they first run for office.

Mr. Obama is now traveling the nation on behalf of those Democrats now running for office, when there are so many, many Americans still being left homeless and jobless, and while the economy in this country continues to tank.

What a tragedy, and truly appears to me could have been avoided from the rather cryptic reports at this point, and have no idea of truly just what transpired that lead this man to such lengths, but it is clear that in carrying out such a desperate act, there is something rotten in an America that such an event could ever have taken place.

We are paying untold fortunes to protect now most of our governmental officials and buildings, and since a great deal of our legislation now is actually focused more and more in removing Americans "unalienable" or "God given" rights, is it any wonder that such occurrences now are happening more and more, instead of less and less?

Supreme Court, Obama and Congress Pass The Royal Scepter

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:58:00 +0000

The political battle rages on post the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with respect to campaign financing, and its horrendously unconstitutional new "interpretation" of the First Amendment.

In light of all the commentary that has been made with respect to the decision "rolling back" the campaign finance laws in order to afford unlimited corporate spending by special interests groups in national campaigns, quite a bit has been left out in just what an egregious decision this actually was, in my opinion.

Starting off with truly "rolling back" the campaign finance laws by the Supreme Court would have negated "corporate person-hoods" as having any place in Bill of Rights protections in the first place.

Meaning, that in order to have a truly "representative" government, no political candidate vying for public office should be afforded to be able to accept ANY campaign financing outside his own legislative district, whether corporately or otherwise.

The fact is that in the commentary and published opinion, it appears, there was not even any distinction made between grassroots citizens groups funded primarily with individual contributions, corporate commercial concerns, national domestic corporations with their primary home offices in the United States, or foreign global corporations whose domiciled home offices are outside this country, although of course it WAS a U.S. based PAC organization that brought the action, and thus would seem only applicable to PAC organizations gaining most of their revenues from individual contributions, but already the drums are sounding as the corporate lawyers gear up to broaden now this rendering, which I would imagine was the entire reason those Supreme Court justices selected this case to begin with. (Since this action was simply brought against a federal regulatory agency, the FEC, by a "corporate" PAC grass roots purportedly special interest organization, and most likely the states, as history is replete with examples, will now follow suit granting unlimited special interest contributions also at the state level which also was one of the primary purposes in the Court "selecting" this matter to begin with, I'll bet. That and the feeding frenzy the true agenda of this case was meant to insure, as a job stimulus for the corporate lawyers also throughout the land in all the cases that will be brought due to this "precedent" expanding this rather narrow holding into making it applicable for national and even global "commercial" corporations).

So that it may be used as a "precedent" and expanded, and expanded and expanded. Sort of like Roe.

And then if there are any further appeals, just watch those Supremes in the future, for political reasons, "refusing" then to clarify this broad based travesty of an interpretation of the CITIZENS, and definitely not national or global commercial corporate concerns, right to free political SPEECH which corporate money for campaign expense purposes is not "speech" per se but campaign funding, and only public monies should be used to fund any and all candidates for public office in amounts according to the number of voters in any electoral district.

Just wait until AIG (a London based global insurer) selects our next president, or Goldman Sachs by contributing to key legislative districts with committee leadership positions at stake - alone.

It was bad enough what occurred in those bank paybacks for the 2006 candidates for their donations, just watch now what happens in the years ahead.

Maybe new disclosure laws should quickly be enacted making it mandatory that in the future all candidates for public office should be required to wear patches like those Indy 500 drivers do for all contributions over $1,000, say.

That way those corporations can also get free advertising and more bang for their bucks.

Mark my words, this decision opens the door and will become a feeding frenzy for the lawyers to bring case after case stripping away the narrow holding the Court actually made with respect to a purported "grass roots" citizens group (although with a claimed "educational" focus I'm wondering if this group actually also receives federal grant monies and funding, which would really mean that this case was partially funded by the taxpayers in this country - the actual citizens - in order to strip them basically of their Bill of Rights protections and voice in the election process over the "corporate.")

Which seems to be becoming more and more the case with many of these grassroots organizations with an "educational" focus now, many of them actually nothing more than "liberty as commerce" commercial concerns with conventions, T-shirts and book displays the actual reason for their existence - many of which are actually headed by lawyers or educators in order to divert and deflect the American people from what is truly going on here.

None of these groups are bringing the civil suits or filing the charges necessary against some of these Congressmen and judges for "high treason" as is the actual provision within the Constitution for continuing to undermine its provisions and amend its terms outside Article V and the 9th and 10th Amendments due to this progressive political party agenda on the part of both parties who have actually hijacked the entire election process progressively.

I wonder if the nationally based companies now vying and competing against those foreign based domiciled corporations will be as happy with this outcome as they actually appear to be since it is basically only the "global" Fortune 100 companies, and some of those international unions which will ultimately be benefitting, especially in those countries whose currency is higher than the U.S. dollar due to the currency exchange rates, such as the European countries and China.

Thus, the foreign bankers can use foreign governments and countries in order to influence and reap more and more foreign aid redistributing the wealth once again - global socialism does appear to be the goal here and the United States through that Supreme Court decision appears to be the country that is being "taken over" by those foreign bankers through our misrepresentatives in Washington.

Much like the East India Company and their "sovereign status" with King George that lead to the first American Revolution in this country, so have become the foreign bankers.

In other words, the Supreme Court took a step taking this country actually more and more toward British government once again (since the London banks and bankers are the majority shareholders in our Federal Reserve), and global corporate socialism, not simply in violation of the Constitution, but in violation of the sovereign status of this nation and also its people from foreign governmental or corporate interests and control.

It opened the floodgates to a massive "takeover" of our government and political process by China, Great Britain or any other foreign interest or government through currency manipulation, or a wealthy "immigrant" whose loyalties still may remain with his birth country or due to his family's holdings in other countries, even more so now than what already occurs, such as the buying up of much of our media and print newspapers by an Australian, Mr. Murdoch, and his Fox networks (which is, after all, the national animal of Great Britain).

Our entire Federal Reserve Banking System is funded by the British bankers, by and large, the result of that first unconstitutional public/private partnership under Wilson, and has resulted in our continued financial and military support to foreign nations long past World War II has ended up costing this country a bundle in both blood and treasure also "progressively", fighting on behalf of the British, a country which took in the majority of the Jewish refugees from World War II even though the Balfour Doctrine establishing the Nation of Israel pre-World War I was based on a British accord, and not a U.S. one at all.

It appears the goal is that ultimately the United Nations and their dictates will continue to supercede the true Rule of Law in this country and undermining its national sovereignty in a great many of the war resettlements, and in redefining the boundaries with respect to Israel after the '67 war.

Our federal government actually just sold out this country lock, stock and barrel to foreign interests without a shot being fired, simply the stroke of those Supreme Court justices pen, of course since the federal judiciary I predict will "liberally" construe the Court's holding purportedly in order to "guarantee freedom of speech" protections for not simply individually funded grassroots organizations(?) such as in the case before the Supreme Court, but commercial corporations also.

And would bet this finding was made with that entire agenda in mind, since it will be the corporately owned medias (Fox, CNN, etc.) that will gain a bundle for these ads for their corporate profits and bottom lines. In fact, I wonder if any of those justices just might become "political commentators" when they retire from the bench for one of the mainstream media networks, like Mr. Rove, Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Palin have become? When will we have our first former Supreme Court justice as a political analyst and commentator?

I wonder if Mr. Souter has been approached at this point, and wouldn't at all surprise me at this point.

Wonder where all your premium dollars will go, America, for that mandatory health care and your mandatory auto insurance? I'll bet a major portion will be set aside for their new marketing representatives, their local Congressman's next campaign.

Between the "extra" fees and costs levied on those policies in order to pay off dividends to those shareholders, fulfill those executive bonus contracts outside shareholder approvals, and make donations to candidates throughout the nation - I wonder just how much higher those premium costs will soar, or how much reshuffling now there will be of priorities with those premium dollars Americans will be forced now to pay, much of which will go to candidates that many of those insureds have been calling for true "change" in booting the entire Congressional delegation at this point out of office since approval ratings are at an all time low, and the two mainstream political parties losing their members now progressively.

In fact, in my former home state there actually was an initiative in order to "privatize" voting even proposing that a lottery be instituted with a cash prize awarded from the voting pool simply for voting, turnouts have become so low in non-presidential year elections.

Meanwhile Mr. Obama, one who was foremost in his leadership role during the banking bailouts and crisis, and also government takeover of General Motors and pushing the bankers agendas in the housing crisis focusing on "refinances" and "new home buyers," yells the proverbial foul mostly for his corporate political party for this latest Court unlawful amendment.

Even those two political parties that have also overtaken the U.S. political process and who have "progressively" hijacked our Constitution in the process scored a win in this one, since both are "corporately" also funded by most of those special interest groups in one form or another. Great way to also continue to guarantee that party platforms, rather than the U.S. Constitution, will continue to be the order of the day on Capitol Hill.

You know, the two political parties that more and more Americans have left due to their "corporate" agendas also superceding the Constitution now "progressively."

Now even the sham of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has been removed and instead it is now whichever industry or CEO has the most wealth which will be in power, or whichever foreign global special interest - especially those foreign lenders and bankers.

Interestingly, a chastizing by the Service Employees INTERNATIONAL Union has been much publicized in the mainstream media reports.

An international "corporation" that is and will also benefit "corporately" with those excessive union dues it collects, although apparently doing so to save face and present an image that it is, once again, there for their members and not their corporate "global" special interest who spread their members cash from their labors to select candidates whether their dues paying members support some of those candidates generally or their platorms, or not.

The unions, insurers, homebuilders and such really have no chance over any future legislation actually, since the entire wealth of this country is held, when push comes to shove, by those European bankers manipulating and valuing our currency outside Congressional oversight, and which was a major duty and function of our Congress - not a shell corporate entity (the Federal Reserve) for the British banking houses.

It is the bankers since Wilson's Administration that hold our gold, as security for their "debt notes" until, of course, those "debt notes" are eventually called in and our entire currency - and that of the world - will be through interbank transfers using those computer transfers and keystrokes and plastic instead rather than expensive paper, which can then potentially shut down the entire world's economy at the push of a button, or manipulate it really almost at will from country to country in a matter of seconds.

And save the cost of then printing all those dollars, euros and yen.

And while Mr. Obama continues to yell "foul" wasn't he also the candidate that refused to accept public taxpayer monies to fund his campaign, and instead relied on those "corporate" special interests dollars who apparently are now being paid back at the American public's expense in spades.

I'm surprised these guys, in all honesty, can continue to conduct these press conferences, or "townhalls," and look their fellow Americans in the eye. Or read those teleprompters without choking.

Hail, Britainia.

Your "legal" representatives just handed over the scepter. Almost 250 years it took, but just goes to show you that the pen actually is mightier than the sword.

I guess that is why those U.S. Supreme Court justices wear black, and not the red, white and blue. They just don't wear those wigs.

Anyone ready to consider throw throwing their dish satellite into Long Beach Harbor or for those that have cable, at least think about seriously cancelling that subscriptions before the propaganda, ala the Boston Tea Party, because these 2010 elections are going to be chock full of political incorrectness, and promises, promises, promises that none of those unduly elected representatives intends to keep just like the last one and all that redlining, ending the war, flag waving and Joe the Plumber rhetoric.

And just wait until 2012 and the long two years worth of analyzing by those corporate media pundits of the prepared speeches, double speak and propaganda once again for those keys to the White House, and that expense account with the three new presidential jets that have been ordered in this ever downward spiraling depression/recession with more and more becoming jobless and homeless by the day, which began in 2006 as a "stimulus" for the politicians and their political parties platforms and those bankers profits as payback for their "contributions" for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I wonder what terrorism threat or economic crisis will be manipulated by those bankers and politicians for the next one?

It does seem that such arrogance and political tyranny as what has been coming off the Hill post 9-11 appears that either those in Washington are clueless as to the actual pulse of the American people at this time - since it seems they are attempting to facilitate another war from within with such absolute disregard for the rights of the people over the corporate special interests.

Since that was, of course, the entire reason in addition to taxation (such as the new global warming taxes - taxing even the air Americans breathe at this point) those founders fought that original war due to the British monarchial rulings and favoritism granted to "sovereign subjects" such as this one the Supremes have ruled are "corporately" entitled to under the Bill of Rights which was clearly meant to secure the rights of the people against corporate abuse, governmental or otherwise.

The Washington Insanity Continues: Americans Increasingly Jobless, Yet Another Amnesty?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:41:00 +0000

The Washington insanity now continues.

The bank bailout in order to repay campaign contributions for the 2006 elections wasn't enough, passing on those debts to their fellow Americans whether they supported those candidates or not.

The bailout of a British based global insurance provider, totally unregulated in this country, on the backs of Americans wasn't enough.

Taxing Americans now for the very air they breathe in the bogus Cap & Trade new lottery for, once again, the bankers and financial sector wasn't enough, now sticking the tab for these "Climate Change" treaties and meetings in Copenhagen by those scientists that can't predict the next hurricane, much less the future with respect to "carbon emissions" on the public. Most of which are being increased by those jets used for these foreign international vacations and meetings. Since the global warming most likely is caused by the progressive heating of the Earth's core itself, as I learned in grammar school in the 1960's as all planetary masses are prone to do most likely is the true cause for any significant warming these past forty years, I would like to know just how "dumbed down" do they really believe the American people to be at this point?

Then and presently still being spun for the masses, this health care deform bill once again providing for the "stakeholders" at the cost of the American people in not only not "reforming" the system, but mandating that Americans now must, under penalty of law, contribute once again to fattening the bankbooks of those Wall Street wheeler dealers wasn't enough.

Now, with the highest percentage of unemployed and jobless in the United States in the past sixty years, Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano want to again place ex-President Bush's amnesty program for mostly the illegal Mexican workforce holding more and more of the outsourced American jobs in this country back on the table.

While Ms. Napolitano's ex-fellow Arizonans, the second highest state in number of home foreclosures due in part to increases in property taxes and insurance, and automobile insurance due to those same open borders and illegal immigrant increased crime rates from the "hoppers" most of all, and unregulated California banks that were selling loans based on British market rates throughout the west and Southwest, are once again going to be victimized even more so, and who have been most affected by the very same agenda passed by the Reagan administration back in the 1980's, many of which are now homeless longer term residents of that state - not at all those that "borrowed too much" (since there were huge upfront costs also involved in most of those loans, in order to "set up" the public for this meltdown) that the media continues to spin.

Which, without adequate border fencing and security, actually solves nothing whatsoever with respect to the number of illegal immigrants that pour over our southern borders daily. Without adequate fencing, is this not simply another step toward "serial" amnesties until the entire population of Mexico is relocated to the United States, and the United States citizens are all left homeless and bankrupt?

Or are Americans now suppose to actually cut their losses and then move down to Mexico in order that, at least for this generation until the peso actually is brought to the level of the American dollar, which might occur at this rate within the next decade, so that they then can be the next ones that will be eligible for an amnesty in 2030?

Global communism seems to be the agenda of both the political parties now in control of America's political system - each with their own agendas in providing for cheap, untaxed labor for their corporate benefactors, while raising the taxes of American citizens then in the process to make up for those revenue shortfalls.

The jobs Americans don't want have now increased to those not simply in the seasonal agricultural business and farming community, but in resort and tourism, corporate big bucks landscapers and contractors, and home construction industry and developers. Resulting also then in cheaper housing that raises insurance rates in the West and Southwest every time those homes collapse from the wildfires or monsoons - especially those that are not purposely set by the government in order to protect those Canadian "free trade" timber agreements.

How much are the American taxpayers paying now for ballots printed in both Spanish and English, and also those now voice messaging services that the government relies on more and more in order to avoid an increasingly outraged public in most government offices?

Especially the I.R.S. Tried to reach them lately, after listening to the 10 minute or more menu?

Are these people not simply in their own bubble at this point, but now funding increased law enforcement and expanding Homeland Security just might go to show that the domestic threat of terrorism is something that Washington now is deliberately facilitating by its very outrageous legislation and now "global communistic" focus through both political parties at this point.

Most likely inciting civil riot and civil war is the ultimate aim here, once again for the financial sector and health care industry they are now fellow "stakeholders" in.

Obama's Surge In Afghanistan: More War, More Debt, Less Accountability

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:36:00 +0000

It was announced by Barack Obama that in accordance with his campaign statements that he is deploying 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq in order to seek out Osama bin Laden and the members of al Qaeda per the original Resolution passed by Congress in the wake of 9-11 (after, of course, at first promising to end the engagement in the Middle East altogether after so many lives, and so many American dollars have been lost in the over eight years since 9-11).

The question is, with the guarantee of support from the Afghan government with respect to this redress for the deaths and lives lost on that fateful September day, why the need for 30,000 troops rather than a limited deployment of intelligence and career military officers?

Not to second guess the commanders on the ground as a mere citizen, but is it really necessary to risk an additional 30,000 U.S. lives in order to capture one leader and those that were DIRECTLY responsible for giving those that participated "aid and comfort" in the planning of 9-11 which is the exact wording of the original Resolution?

The original pilots, after all, were Saudi citizens. It was only days after the attacks that it was revealed that bin Laden had claimed reponsibility for the attacks - and with the assistance of the Taliban, as I recall, not al Qaeda, although the two have been merged now in this loosely defined "War on Terror" which evolved under the Bush Administration.

So far, the body count in Iraq is minimal compared to prior full scale declared wars but still staggering for the U.S. given that these individuals are actually using rudimentary weapons most of all, including themselves.

And the amount of money now which has been poured into the rebuilding efforts actually has resulted in the U.S. deficit soaring to unprecedented levels even before all the other "funny money" was printed in order to then "salvage" the U.S. economy in the domestic loss of jobs and the foreclosure mess which occurred in large part due to the inflationary costs and those taxes for the war itself, actually.

As funds were appropriated for the war, less funds were appropriated for domestic needs and costs and the budget for an entire new Department (DHS) and its expensive toys burst the "true" inflation (not the published spin) in rising costs for fuel, groceries and local taxes now for eight years - and then even with the stimulus, states are announcing college tuition cost increases, added taxes and a host of other new ways to bankrupt Americans, of course, after Washington then went so far as to tax the air Americans now breathe.

It was interesting and outrageous to note that one of the Congressional members is proposing a new "tax" on Americans labeled the SOS tax (Congress and the media whom it appears they consult more and more for PR purposes love the acronyms for new legislation, unlike days gone by with bills less than 50 pages tops. The size of the average mortgage loan these days, which has also increased from less than five pages to 50 or more, with all the riders and caveats).

I wonder how much destruction we can now wreck in Afghanistan in order to bulk up the revenue, jobs and coffers of the U.S. military contractors once again in order to further plunge this country into a full out depression, since the global economy may be seeing signs of improving, but thus far the U.S. economy continues to tank in order to feed all those other nations and European investors.

By the time this war ends, it appears that what will truly have transpired is that there will eventually have been a leveraged buyout of most of America's infrastructure and assets by foreigner investors.

We will lose our country to foreigners while fighting a foreign enemy and without a shot fired on domestic soil.

One man which has somehow alluded capture now for over eight years by the finest military in the entire world.

Just when are some of those other promises going to be kept, Mr. Obama, such as making Iraq start picking up the tab actually for this rebuilding effort in which it seems the U.S. funds and builds government buildings only to then have them blown up once again?

While Ms. Clinton then attempts to switch hats, as it were, as ambassador for Iraq and urge what is left of corporate America unrelated to those military contractors to invest in Iraq?

It appears maybe that it would be only the global insurance companies that would profit on businesses that wish to now outsource American production to that country post the rebuilding effort, in hiring then cheaper Iraqi labor in order to then pay those stratospheric insurance rates.

Just how, again, can Congress and the President justify risking 30,000 additional U.S. lives in order to supposedly redress the loss of 2,500 - after, of course, having lost at least three times that many to date?

Is this now the mentality of those on the Hill in defending America, while of course leaving our borders open and affording foreign investors in our nuclear reactors throughout the country for those global markets?

Isn't it the U.S. economy, security and safety and not the global one, that is supposed to be the focus of our elected representatives, since it would appear that fighting a foreign enemy on their own home turf gives us a one down no matter what the engagement, and we've got plenty of risk now due to continued negligence and promoting "foreign investment" in American assets on our own shores at this point?

Isn't the risk of attack by foreign terrorists much greater from within at this point, than without with such skewered logic?

Just how many more lives will be risked in order to secure the Middle East as a permanent source of income for War, Inc. in the name of "jobs and the economy" for the telecom, networks, media, and thousands of military contractors?

Are these again some of the "new jobs" created in addition to those which were primarily taxpayer paid additional government jobs under the non-stimulus (rather than the red-lining promised)?

Do you think after these past two administrations particularly, the American public trusts either the Republicans or Democratic Globalists in any manner whatsoever, except to keep the balls spinning and give public appearances that belie the collusion now involved between both parties in continuing this fiasco?

Is this a war in providing for the common defense of America? Or expansion of a global agenda and result of pemanent alliances with differing interests at the cost of America and Americans?

The proposed timeline and ending of this war really says it all. 2011. Coincidentally, just prior to the next presidential campaign election cycle in order to be rehashed for the consumption of America and spun and spun some more by the Global Socialist Party now residing on the Hill. It will, of course, end as "politically" as it appears that it began.

And an enemy for which this country would never, ever have if it had practiced the "defensive war" measures provided in America's founding documents per the "intent" of the founders.

These were trained terrorists, trained by the U.S. government in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, from all reports. So trying these individuals in America's federal courts once again also seems to be a political move in order to again rachet up the temperature in America for the continuing war when the details are rehashed on CNN and FOX of the "evidence" for the accused for all America.

Of course, since it will be a world audience involved the Middle Eastern countries will get the impression that the United States citizens are still out for revenge and blood after eight years since actual combat footage of what truly is occurring in Iraq has been suspiciously absent, unlike Viet Nam, so the blood lust will be reignited for the New York trial and the American people the convictors hearing the "evidence," from foreigners that speak little, if any, English at all.

A military target was involved, and these were "soldiers" trained in covert activities. And the mastermind still remains at large, so once captured what type of "plea bargain" will be available for any of these now to be tried, one of whom at least it is claimed was an active participant, in order to convict Mr. bin Laden?

And since our military did train them initially, would they also not be more familiar with their history and an "open" military trial, per the Nuremburg Trials, more along the lines of what is called for here?

The timing of these trials, and now announcement of the surge in conjunction, seems War, Inc. is not about to end before this country is brought to its knees both economically, and in the theft of thousands more of America's youth.

Association of Realtors, AP, Local Papers Tout Housing Sale Gains

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:27:00 +0000

The National Association of Realtors recently announced that the sales of homes to new buyers reflected gains last month that exceeded all governmental expectations due to the fact that the credit that was legislated under the stimulus for new buyers is scheduled to expire the end of the month with buyers now wishing to get purchases finalized prior to the expiration.

It was also reported by the AP in this article that this was also viewed as a benchmark that Mr. Obama and the 110th and 111th Congress actions in light of the blight of homes now vacated due to the foreclosure tsunami that has swept the nation (mostly in the West and Sun Belt states) was working.

As one so affected in the increasing costs of ownership primarily of my former home in the Southwest due to "privatization" of governmental functions under an HOA owned property (with added and extra then property taxes for street repairs, street lighting and the like, while the state was also collecting full property tax revenue in the process), a refinanced mortage in which I, one who had legal knowledge and experience, missed the provision that the escalating loan rate was based on a British market rate, and not U.S. rate at all from one of those California lenders now under investigation, and also the added costs due to Phoenix now being the kidnapping capital of the world due to the border situation and added costs of property and auto insurance which had occurred, see this "political" announcement for what it is in order to hopefully "stimulate" once again the market.

No provisions of course have ever been provided for those that are now homeless, without really any equity to speak of left or in any position to own a new home. Literally now thousands upon thousands of Americans.

And I wonder really just where these "new home" buyers are coming from, after all.

Since many who were renting have also seen those cost rise consistently and considerably in those border states due to the property owners passing those costs down to those renting those properties.

There is, in Arizona, about a ten year surplus now of homes, and the rates for foreclosure last month surpassed even those that were recording last year at about the same time. Many, many thousands of others are now in foreclosure status due to the continuing piss poor economy, with the only jobs which have been created primarily those in the high tech gadget industry for the War in Iraq and government jobs in added agents now for the strip searches at the airports and those investigations of citizens now under the Bush Administration's National Security Letters since Obama nor Congress had rescinded that legislation.

Since they are too busy now pondering the amounts of the fines they will inflict upon the now homeless and jobless Americans for not carrying health insurance.

As I have consistently stated, I don't think this is the America our founders created, nor freedom and liberty they intended for their posterity.

More like that of the country they left at this point, Great Britain, and in many respects far, far worse.

But I'm sure the state legislators are enjoying those Blackbeerries they received as part of the package to make up for the salary increases the state citizens have denied them due to their also compliance and assistance in the federal government's world globalism and economy agendas.

Such as privatizing the nuclear power plants throughout the country affording foreign investment now in even our nuclear reactors and power plants.

While also leaving our borders unsecured but feeding Silicon Valley for continuing unconstitutuional war effort while California claims poverty in the process. A state that got far, far more than most even under that stimulus.

Again, unbelievable, the spins and smoke and mirrors that is continuing in this country and now even escalating post-Bush by America's federal global corporate Wall Street employees and "misrepresentatives."

It must be the over 26,000 now political refugees from Iraq that have been brought into the country now due to this war or illegal immigrants that are buying up those properties in the border and Sun Belt states, or Louisiana also as "replacement" owners during the reconstruction - mainly the ones Americans are fleeing due to our open borders and the costs associated with it now in American lives and property more and more by the year, is all I can gather, and the outsourcing now also of the government and "private" state incorporated contractors working on the Louisiana rebuilding efforts, since from reports of some of the New Orleans residents the city has passed an ordinance that effectively grants them seizure rights to their homes if they do not rebuild on the land within a certain amount of time - thus, can't even use that land as security to purchase a new one really.

And Washington wonders why the homeless and jobless rate of Americans (not the foreigners) is increasing by the day?

State Department Writer Dishes America's Jury System

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:36:00 +0000

In furtherance in just how far and how fast this agenda of negating the U.S. Constitution and those protections which were written in stone within the U.S. Constitution by our founding fathers in order that true "justice" and the "will" of the people, and not the state, would prevail in both criminal and civil matters in this country as a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," a writer apparently employed by the U.S. State Department on the website www.america.gov in the "International" Department is apparently of the belief that America's trial by jury provisions are not as "good" as those from the "small country" he was from previously.

At least according to an article published on the website in July.

Whether this gentleman is now a naturalized U.S. citizen it is unclear.

Given that each and every naturalized citizen in this country, and federal and state employee is bound by an oath of office to "defend and protect" the Constitution of the United States, if this gentleman is a naturalized citizen and now an employee of our State Department, it would appear that his citizenship classes were somewhat deficient in defining the hierachy and reason that the founders demanded such provisions be included due to the abuses which they had suffered under "sovereign" judgements as "subjects" rather than "owners" of their government.

With federal and Supreme Court justices now schooled primarily in British based judicial determinations which have now "regressively" occurred in this country, such as that heinous Kelo decision which was no more than the sovereign "taking" and according "land and titles" from one private entity and giving it to another "sovereign subject and developer" for no true "public use" whatsoever as the founders intended to protect their lands and homes, and the now bucketload of political decisions that have come down the pike at each and every level within the past five decades giving our government much more authority and power than it was ever intended to have over the "rights" and "freedoms" of Americans, I just wonder where this writer actually grew up, how old he is, and just where he was educated. Britain?

I wonder if he is aware of the term "Res Ipsa Loquitor" and also the basis and the common law upon which our Constitution was actually based, with the exception of the added provisons which the founders included within our Bill of Rights in order that the citizens in this country would not suffer the stripping of their homes, land, property and dignity which had occurred in Britain and from which they fled which just such beliefs - that there are "classes" of citizens, with some with "blood royal," and others not so blessed and thus not as "worthy" of enjoying the fruits of their labor without paying large and ever increasing alms to the sovereign or "king" - be it human or "parlimentary.".

That the government's will is not above that of the "natural" and God given rights of the people collectively or individually. A system based on "innocent until proven guilty" by a unanimous decision - and in which even the "fact" basis and Constitutionality of the law under which an accused is tried is even subject to jury review and determination as to its applicability in each and every INDIVIDUAL case before them.

Not, as judges are bound within the unregulated judicial branch by their own court rules which have placed more than few judges in an untenable position and forced more and more to use "politically" rendered decisions instead of honoring their oath of office, or be canned by the "political organization" of which they are affiliated by Administration, and which are in any event "subjective" judicial opinions, with personal biases due to political party affiliations (never intended by our founders) factored in and not the clear language as written in our Constitution or the founders 'intent' behind much of the rather clear and simple King's English it is written - and with respect to the "lesser" federal courts, not at all the first step (before the Supreme Court as THE appellate court of secondary resort for the people on Bill of Rights issues, not even close to the "tribunals" they were intended to be, except upon Supreme court reviews made "en banc", which have "regressively" been granting themselves and the lower courts "rights of refusal," to not even hear citizen brought complaints outside Constitutional provison.

Especially judges paid by the public taxpayers although appointed by Congress and the President without any real "check and balance" now more and more clearly looking out for their own economic self-interest or political careers, which impartial juries are not so "politically" motivated to do but actually hear the evidence - at least not in prior generations when cases were not "tried" in the media as they are today also due to our sensationalized media seeking ad revenues and dollars, rather than facts with political agendas all their own.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that the U.S. has more lawyers in this country than all of Europe combined, our judicial system has become nothing more than a litigation mill and the idea is to draw cases out and not serve in the interests of justice or more and more recognize the "innocent until proven guilty" rights of those of the accused until a fact trial by a jury of the accused peers given in the jurisdiction in which crime occurred since, the intention was, those living in the immediate community might better well also know the character and afford character witness for any and all criminal actions in this country, with the state courts and public better able to decide such matters than the "distant ruler," with the exception of those proscribed Bill of Rights provisions for the citizenry at large.

If most cases are plea bargained, as this writer also so believes at this point in our history, then it is usually because "the State" doesn't have enough evidence to actually try the case, so many truly innocent Americans have been deprived of their day in court and justice - by America's now truly out of balance legal system based not on discovering truth and based on evidence but even with civil trials, not to mention criminal trials, increasingly going on for years due to delays and legal shenanigans most of all.

You can read the text for yourself. This is what Washington is hiring and yet issuing "right wing extremist" memorandums and instituting "terrorism" task forces against the citizenry, and wonders apparently why the people are not at all happy with the "sovereign" now federal and their state governments?

I wonder if this writer is or was previously a lawyer by profession, and if so, just where he got his legal education?

And just where his former "small country" is actually located.

Because it would appear he was either "schooled" in a British or "government as sovereign" collegiate education whether at this point in this country here or his former homeland makes no real difference. Since it does appear that the Bar Association also must have an "International" mindset in its teaching curriculum at this juncture and also agenda due to the globalists now heading most of this country's major universities, especially those with law schools.

And the American taxpayers are paying this writer's salary, to undermine the very fabric of our government itself?

Written on the publicly and taxpayer funded website of www.america.gov , it appears that the only "legal" requirement now that the State Department has set forth is that publicly paid bloggers and writers set forth a disclosure that "the opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. government."

Excuse me?

I wonder if this gentleman is a U.S. citizen at all actually.

Since that would be another method of "splitting hairs" with such a ludicrous attempt at escaping liability or responsibility for such "unconstitutional" governmental positions promoting what is nothing more than treason on the U.S. Constitution and those founders sacrifice for their unique "republican" with ""super"majority rules, minority rights, ever present while the "Globalists" rather than true American Department Heads and such at the State Department - American citizens - can keep their hands clean using "foreigners" now to do their dirty work and spread their propaganda to those both here and also citizens in foreign countries that are getting fed up also with the globalists and their "world socialism" agendas in some of their home countries, and would like also a government as this once great nation had for over 100 years, and especially after the "slavery" issue, the one area that was and remained contentious even at the time of the signing, was finally made right.

Based on "nationalism" and not "world socialism or the globalism agendas in which now an earthquake in Sri Lanka impacts the entire world's economy.

One "of the people, by the people, for the people" of their respective countries, whose individual interests and whose citizens may be a part of a larger world community, but for which regionally interests many times are as individual as the fingerprints, hearts, minds and talents bestowed on God's creations by him.

Who made humanity, based on biblical references, a coat of many colors with regional national and political interests due primarily to their immediate environments and geographical circumstances which significantly impacted their day to day lives and whose geographic "assets" as individual as his children.

The link:

http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2009/July/20090706173355ebyessedo0.3281475.html

States Announce Tuition Hikes Post Stimulus

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:04:00 +0000

Incredible though it may seem, even after the massive amounts of "stimulus" monies that were supposedly earmarked for higher education at state and public universities throughout the nation, a great many are now announcing that they will be raising the costs of tuition (which was one of those "hooks" designed to manipulate the public pulse once again in order to further devalue our dollar and encourage more and more foreign ownership of American assets at this point).

I don't believe there was any "payback" or "loan" terms attached to those monies, if I am not mistaken. So the colleges which are already receiving funds from the state citizens through both property taxes and sales taxes apparently are going to hit up the state citizens once again for more and more bite of their hard earned cash.

The costs now for most four year public universities rivals that of most privately supported ones at this point in our history. In fact, the costs have almost exceeded those bogus CPI figures compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor by about 10 times their actual reporting figures and the true costs.

Of course, those figures are about as accurate as the bookkeeping and sums that were missing and have been unaccounted for by AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

They bear no true relevance to the cost of living in this country whatsoever, and as one who worked within the corporate law area for many years also know that they are kept artificially low because most union contracts (and divorce decrees also) are based upon those figures for annual "salary" or child support costs.

Which explains also why there are so many single women on welfare when their increases for the costs for the care and education of even one child exceeds those support checks (even at public schools which now surprise parents with the costs for $200 calculators and computers once they reach high school).

Hit a mom with a $200 bill who is receiving $500 per month for child support and over a third is gone to your local Comp USA store.

The quality of our education now is more directed in most areas due to also federal agendas in turning out "science based technology" majors, and it appears even a Harvard education isn't worth the sheepskin it is printed on since it is clear that most of the law schools also are teaching "foreign" and international law as binding in this country.

Such as that which is "regulated" by the American Bar Association, a British carryover actually that only came into power over the legal education in America at the end of the last century. And have "regressively" started reinstituting "global" British and "government as sovereign" law now through the graduates in their curriculum and then issued court decisions ever since.

It would appear those Moms that are now home schooling certainly know what they are doing, and have seen that the best education actually is one in which a child's natural interests are pursued rather than governmental agendas.

And quite unbelievable, actually, the nerve of some of these state legislatures and universities with such announcements.

The President of Arizona State University, for instance, now earns over $700,000 per year - which even though the perks aren't as good, and our President and Congressional members clearly way overpaid for what they are actually worth at this point, is more than the salary of the President of the United States and exceeds that CPI by about 500 percent.

With the recuiting that most of these publicly funded unversities do out of the country actually to foreigners for those extra "out of state" tuition rates, it would seem that the costs for state residents for most of these states would be going down and they would at the very least be getting a break in their child's further education.

Not having to take a second mortgage out on their now depressed homes in order to afford to send their child for his four year bachelor's degree.

And then watch him wait tables because all those "science based" technology jobs are going to the foreigners.

Oh, this little blurb had to do with the University of California and was actually reported by the AP underneath an article about the two year old in Mississippi that helped her mother give birth. Under the REALLY big news.

The AP it appears, is now hiring many of either those foreign British based journalists, or has been bought out by the National Enquirer (I believe which is also owned by the British media consortium now buying up much of the U.S. media and internet based news sources).

The Market Is Speaking But Washington Is Tone Deaf

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:43:00 +0000

To Any And All Conserve-ative Americans (and not the Fox British variety):

With once again all the political posturing by representatives of both the mainstream political global socialist parties in the U.S. who are clearly not at all the voice of their true constituents, the actual John Q. Public and citizens themselves other than select industry members involved, the passage by the House of Misrepresentatives of the lastest "taxation without representation" with respect to the Health Care Deform bill has been too incredible to believe.

The AMA and AARP who were fundamental in writing this massive legislation, along with the large corporate unions who also offer their own "supplemental" health care benefits and plans at retirement as the AARP does were brought in for backup.

AARP, however, although started as a "voice" for retirees and elderly Americans, is now primarily simply a trade association of corporations which market to senior citizens in this country, but specifically, of course, mentioned in order to share the spotlight with the "creators" during which time these representatives were otherwise occupied some additional American lives were lost both in Iraq and the U.S. directly tied to our continued foreign involvement now eight years post 9/11 in Iraq at some government buildings in Iraq, and a Texas U.S. military base here in the U.S.

It apparently didn't register with Congress that the fundamental beef of the American people with respect to health care and health insurance itself was the massive costs now involved for even a routine doctor's visit at this point, while also paying those outrages rates for insurance monthly also with co-pays and even basic catastrophic care costs which have escalated far in excess of the cost of living.

Which figures are fiction to begin with and compiled using funky and creative bookkeeping since most union contracts are tied in, of course, to those cost of living tables and figures kept by the U.S. Department of Labor which due to the costs now of further education now at over ten times that of the CPI just goes to show just how inaccurate those figures actually are.

It is not unheard of that an initial patient visit sometimes involving less than 30 minutes or in many cases even treatments now more and more being provided by support staff and paraprofessionals can exeed over $250 for a brief wellness check or athletic examination for sports involvement by our youth.

Unlike in the past, most lab tests are now done by outside laboratories who also separately bill most of those fees and costs, even routine urine specimens or routine blood tests.

The fact that there are so many in this country now without health insurance and the causes thereof have been well known to most state legislatures, and the federal government for many years. The costs of such plans, and the hassle then many times involving approvals for treatment, have turned the public off to the insurance industry in general.

Not to mention that there is little choice now in coverages due to the fact that so many states now are writing policies actually through legislation, rather than simply regulating the underwriters and these corporations insofar as their marketing and providing adequate redress for failures to provide as the "public" corporations most of these entities now are.

Most are not only publicly funded in grant monies and tax breaks for most of these clinics and larger medical facilities, but also sell shares of "stock" in American's health provision over the global marketplace and thus not private, but public corporations and "state actors" actually at this point for the federal and state governments themselves.

Especially with now all the privileges and immunities that have been given in the "hands off" approaches that have been historically given to these industries as somehow deemed "private contracts." Of course, many times without one of the parties having any real choice in either the terms, or the changes that are attached to these policies under annual "rider" changes.

Now that doctors can also charge for the time it takes to fill out these massive forms, in many cases, those costs too have caused the rise in premium rates and also those great seminars the AMA conducts in order to make sure that staff members are "selling" the practices of most of the medical professionals during their mandated professional continuing education classes.

Although the AMA, like the ABA, is supposedly a "regulatory" agency in and of itself, with now the number of foreign doctors practicing in this country at the present time, there is a large segment of the medical profession that has absolutely no regulation whatsoever through either professional association, or state or federal provision.

The costs were and are the problem, and the medical profession and health insurance special interest groups themselves have actually placed their fees and costs higher than the market can bear, and now Washington has not heard the voice of the people once again but instead is including still the unconstitutional mandatory provisions that all Americans must carry coverage by 2013 or be fined if in violation?

If you can't afford the insurance, just how are most going to afford these fines? Literaly thousands at this point have lost their homes, and with foreclosures and bankruptcies, or other bad credit marks now against them which will remain for five to ten years, I'm sure many Americans are asking the same questions I am.

It appears the only "details" that are yet to be ironed out in the Senate version now have to do with abortions and provision of health care for immigrants. Although due to current federal laws on the books, illegal immigrants are afforded health care costs and provision courtesy of the U.S. citizens in every state in the nation and have been receiving such benefits for well over ten years as this former Arizonan can attest.

As with most of the problems with the U.S. economy at the present time, it does appear that the market is speaking and has been loud and clear about the high cost of health care, as with the price now of U.S. automobiles equipped with expensive and repair prone computers driving them, and all these "gadgets" now that have made the costs of most durable goods, and services, far exceeding the wages of the average Americans - with many Americans caught in a Catch 22.

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, with such loosey goosy legislation, and even automobile inspections now carried on in many states for American citizens forced to hang on to their tried and true gas guzzlers who, even with $4,000 "rebates" and ""cash for junkers" realize that such marketing ploys by Washington don't even cover the sales taxes and registration fees for a new automobile in this country.

Not to mention the increases in insurance for a new car versus an old junker.

The hat tricks and public posturing will not change the fact that Washington has once again created more future "criminals" who will have no choice but to "break the law," and/or eventually also lose their homes or be the source of another "new job creation" of Washington.

More bankruptcy judges and lawyers.

But then again, the private lawyers and staffs of those "misrepresentatives" also wrote this piece of ludicrous legislation.

It seems the largest job stimulus that has occurred for the last four presidencies has been that of the lawyers, politicians, and gadget industries while those not "scientifically" inclined now are waiting at the door of the soup kitchens.

If they aren't picked up for loitering or unlawful assembly by local authorities before the doors open so that the state governments can get their stimulus based on the head counts in the local county and state run facilities - even though more and more now are even "privatizing" the jails which were paid for by the citizeny in order to also shift the burdens of provision of sums meant for governmental purposes in order to gain more and more for discretionary spending for campaign contributors as their industry "stimulus," at the citizen's ultimate expense.

And it does appear that it is only in this generation that the word "homeless," unlike the World War II depression era victims of Wall Street and banker economic manipulation, has taken on a new definition.

"Homeless" means being nothing more than the "new" definition of "commerce" now as defined on the Hill.

The fact that this Administration and Congress now have even defined this "new" program as being one that would be "similar" to Medicare and yet give the private industries competition with the new government plan really said it all.

Federal government now is acting officially as U.S.A., Inc., and views the citizens as nothing more than a "commercial" interest of Uncle Sam himself. And Washington a "competitor" business interest to the private sector, which is no longer private whatsoever but public once those corporations 'go public' and become listed on the global market exchange.

The share holders and owners really at that point are the ratepayers and investors, not the "shell" of the corporation nor the Boards of Directors of these industries at all.

People are now commerce whose lives have just been "brokered" for the added tax revenue, or corporate investors capital gains. Just another new Washington/special interest joint venture ala General Motors.

Since that face saving 5% "surcharge" and tax on the wealthy is really quite a joke.

Since, of course, at now over $200-400 per hour in most parts of the country, it is the wealthy that have the money to hire the lawyers to find those loopholes they included within all the legalese.

Probably the same lawyers that wrote this massive bill with those loopholes built right in and so complex that Clarence Darrow would probably have a great deal of difficulty deciphering.

I wonder how many more federal district and U.S. Supreme Court justices have been budgeted in this new job "stimulus?"

It appears America's economic base is being shifted from manufacturing and agriculture to government, banking, computer and health care with eventually Hal from 2001 sitting in the Oval Office.

Don't laugh.

When was the last time you called your local IRS or government office and actually spoke to a person?

I wonder how they will be sworn in and given the oath of office?

The Terminator won in California based mostly on box office receipts, and didn't even need a screen test for those "Visit Callyfornia" ads which run every spring throughout the nation.

With California the major beneficiary of the "science based technology" contracts for the War in Iraq, I wonder what the budgets are for those tourism ads?

Mr. Obama reportedly has a Blackberry fetish, and the only television it appears anyone in this country is watching are amateur/professionally produced talent shows promoting text messaging votes for the Hals to crunch.

Depending on their programming.

And it appears that "programming" Americans to swallow this bill and negate the market surveys and this now new "taxation without representation" special interest welfare bill was behind most of those klieg lights last week vying for media attention in the wake of again another American victimization with civil unrest undertones due to the continuation of this now eight year ill defined Washington "job stimulus"venture which tragedically occurred at Fort Hood.

Although the market actually has also spoken loud and clear on that.

And from my personal experience since it does appear that AT&T and various other telecommunications companies have been given stimulus contracts and provided most state and federal legislators throughout the country their own Blackberries with text messaging, maybe they could use some of those profits to put in some additional towers outside the Northeast.

After all the coupons for those high tech digital cable boxes come in, of course, the paltry credit now all Americans face with having to now pay for the weather after having built all those towers were given, especially those in Middle America interested more in the farm reports than Entertainment Tonight, so that the HALS can now use them gratis instead.

P.S. Per Mr. Reid's recent comments, watch for this one to stay in the Senate hopper awhile and then be passed during an off election period while the next celebrity catastrophe from LaLa land is getting all the media spins and attention. That Saturday vote just showed that these global socialist "misrepresentatives" are more like those that passed the backdoor and hush hush 16th and 17th Amendment, Federal Reserve Act which started this national decay and decline under Wilson those many years ago, and not the brilliant men who knew the definition of the term "unalienable," and "God given" was something that government interferred with and attempted to regulate which was responsible for the destruction of Rome and some of those other great Republics were destroyed by selfish rulers and men with selfish aims.

A fate that those founders had hoped this country could avoid, and could only do so by keeping this country sovereign, and not "globally" focused at the cost of this country's national and economic security at all.

AARP To Announce Support Of Its Own Bill On Health Care Deform

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:41:00 +0000

Just to continue to point out now how ludicrous this health care deform continues to be, and how unconstitutional actually instead of regulating those corporate interests rather than getting in bed with them as those on the Hill did all last summer, it was reported in the mainstream media that AARP is now on the bandwagon in order to facilitate passage of this massive bill that was written by AARP, the AMA, corporate labor unions, and financial sector and health care industries.

The spokesman, however, it was reported didn't want to "jump the gun" in the piece published today, since he said it was scheduled to be announced on Thursday by the "corporate" offices of AARP.

AARP ceased to be a senior advocacy group literally years ago, and is now nothing more than a front for the various special interest groups and insurers mainly that those members are marketed to for the supplemental insurance plans under Medicare at the present time.

Policies that in most instance are merely gravy for those insurers, since as the primary care provider Medicare actually calls the shots and approves the levels of treatment. And many doctors due to all the red tape involved with Medicare actually have posted notices that the are now refusing to accept any new Medicare patients.

And you think things would change in that respect with any 'socialized" Washington plan for health care?

The doctors will simply once again shift the costs for their reduced rates to either those that can afford it, or in upping the ante for their research grants and other already government welfare that these industries at the present time receive.

This story, however, was under the story about the cat in Iowa that was discovered to have swine flu, now politically renamed H1N1 so as not to upset some of the faith that believes pigs are satanic and unclean, as they were a part of pagan worships from the Roman age in Greece and Rome.

And those Iowa farmers do deserve a little kick in the pants apparently for getting all heated up after an Iowa judge "legalized" gay marriage "rights" in the State of Iowa, over the protest of a good deal of the population since it did appear that Iowa already had a civil marriage statute that actually already was in force at the time the case was brought by those gay activist civil rights lawyers who are also getting paid their legal fees courtesy of the American taxpayers for these state and federal actions under another one of those "hush hush" 1,000 page bills that Congress no longer reads.

And if this country has to now pass a formal bill and law stating that all members of Congress must read a bill before it is voted on, this country is in a good deal more trouble than most of us already have concluded watching the past Bush and now Obama Administrations since our government now resembles more Barnum & Bailey than the Stars and Stripes at this point.

While it continues to be the civilians and American people who are being victimized and made homeless and jobless more and more by the day.

You know, the GM workers, and those real Joe the Plumbers, not the Mayor Bloombergs, Arnold Schwartezneggers, and other venture capitalists who are selling off this country's prime real estate, and industrial base now right and left.

Congress, the Supreme Court, and Executive office are now titles that are merely the politically correct terminology for "insider traders" and "corporate lobbyists" themselves at this point.

As a matter of fact to show that AARP is not at all an elder advocacy group, I got an application from them many years ago actually.

Before I was even 50 hawking their "reduced rate" insurance policies and other trade affiliated vendors.

I guess 45 is the new 65.

Obama Meets With Iraq's Al Maliki: Holds To Bush's Schedule For U.S. Troop Withdrawals

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:33:00 +0000

For Any and All American Conserve-atives:

The AP reported today that in a meeting with Iraq's president, Nouri al-Maliki, Mr. Obama reiterated the terms of the agreement reached in the last 100 days of the Bush Administration for American troop withdrawals beginning in August of next year.

Although this agreement got little press with Americans diverted by the U.S. elections and appointments of cabinet members in the new Obama Administration, this meeting and the AP's report appeared to be nothing more than merely an affirmation of Mr. Obama to the Bush agenda and timetable for troop withdrawals which was quietly executed in his last 100 days in office.

Interestingly, of course, and just to show how truly political this matter also is, it calls for complete withdrawal by the end of 2011, just in time for the next presidential election cycle.

Watch for Mr. Obama and the Democratic wing of the Global Socialist Party to then to use this to take credit for Mr. Obama having "lived up to his campaign promise" to bring our trooops home and end the war.

While actually continuing to engage in it for the entire length of his first term in office, per those Bush agreements and accords.

Recently also, complications have arisen in the closing down of Guantanamo according to Mr. Obama's prior promises also along those lines. His Administration is now stating just how complicated this is going to be.

Although, of course, we have several maximum security prison facilities if need be in the United States in order to house any and all detainees with prima facie connections to the attacks in New York by the claimed responsible individuals, the Taliban, if need be.

One off the coast of California that hasn't been used in decades, but is quite secure and for little cost would provide adequate security for such foreign detainees.

Although, of course, Ms. Feinstein has a problem using a maximum security prison such as Alcatraz for the actual purpose for which it was paid for and provided by the U.S. taxpayers.

For the housing of violent criminals that needed maximum security detention while awaiting their trials if denied bail due to the severeity of their charged crimes, or upon conviction.

Imagine that, a California legislator protesting using a U.S. taxpayer funded facility (and not a part of California) in order to actually house foreign prisoners.

And due to its location also the best and most economical security facility for the American people security-wise also due to its off shore location.

It does appear that the Bush timetables and agendas continue under Mr. Obama, and the "changes" which are becoming more and more clear with each and every new announcement out of Washington and the White House now controlled press seems to simply have been a change in the mouthpiece, but not the overall agendas.

Stimulating Iraq's economy also was a topic for the pow wow between Mr. Obama and Mr. al Maliki due to the fact that Iraq's economy and infrastructure have been totally wiped out due to the "war," although the U.S. is pumping literally billions of our worthless now dollars here into Iraq in order to now rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the invasion and capture of Saddam Hussein now over three years ago.

Mr. al Maliki also mentioned his wish to stimulate international and foreign investment into Iraq in order to pump up its lagging economy.

Maybe he ought to take a history lesson into what is now going on in the U.S. with respect to its economy if his country also is entertaining "going global" in any respect.

Americans now are in the bread lines and homeless due to America's "globalized" economy, and now eating the debts for both this war on Iraq's (and Israel's primarily also) behalf, and also the foreign investors due to the international British bankers manipulation of the U.S. currency during this war that has depressed it to the point where the U.S. dollar is now at almost its lowest point ever.

While, of course, it was Great Britain that entered into that earlier "accord" creating essentially the nation of Israel even prior to World War II, an agreement between the bankers and a British Lord signed prior to World War I, actually. So America truly is under 'sovereign' British rule at this point fundamentally once again due to the U.S. back in 1913 breaching our Constitution and "privatiziing" and affording foreign investment into our most fundamental area and one of Congress's primary duties - regulation and printing of our domestic currency.

We don't even have silver dollars or silver quarters in circulation anymore due to that violation, and have had progressive depressions and recessions thereafter every since due to having a fiat, rather than full faith and credit exchange based currency system now in place.

And the British and foreign investors are now buying up our nuclear power plants and infrastructure, and even the stately homes now in New Orleans, thus under now more foreign control than this country was back in 1776 when the founders fought our first war to break free from a global government, and global control by the British.

In fact, the people in this country by and large are worse off economically and personally, than those founders were in 1776 with respect to "unalienable" rights violations such as have occurred since that fateful day in September over eight years ago.

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. al Maliki.

Diversification and foreign investment is not always postive, but can and many times is regressive and simply a change in dictators. And increase, not decrease, civil unrest due to foreign interests determing national and governmental policies.

Economic dictators, but dictators all the same.

The continuing civil unrest between the various religious factions also was discussed.

And it is unclear if it is and has been the intention of the U.S. to assist the Iraqi government and people why the suggestion that the country not be divided into states and more mirror a "republican" form of government rather than a pure democracy has not been pursued - which is actually more along the lines of the form of government the U.S. formerly had also.

Not a democracy, since our founders felt that democracies were once again nothing more than "gang rule" and ended in successive civil wars in order to change the "ruling" party, and ended up in the end destroying the countries in the process due to the costs of those continuing wars in both blood and treasure.

Nor maintaining foreign alliances past the point of the immediate need in defense of a sovereign nation and securing its country and its borders.

Which appears should at least now, three years later, be attainable without direct U.S. involvement at this point.

Especially with the U.S. economy now continuing to tank in the process, while there again were more U.S. casualties this past year than there have been Iraqi military casualties, meaning that for the skirmishes that still remain, it is clear that the U.S. military is still doing most of the fighting.

But I guess the AP story at least was a good public relations tool in order to once again promise the American people that this war, entered into under false intelligence to begin with which was fully eventually admitted by the prior Administration, "someday" might end.

I just hope that it does end before a good 3/4's the American people are homeless and jobless, rather than it appears the 1/3 that have been so far affected.

Or another mother receives another visit from Pentagon protcol with the sad news that her son has become now the latest victim.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5js_Znl58WrrbnNO-nAMzPmi4QG4AD9BEVBE00

Georgia Judge Places Politics Above The Law: Constitution And Res Ipsa Loquitur Trashed In The Process

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:29:00 +0000

A Georgia federal district court judge, Clay Land, in United States District Court once again turned down a valid challenge by a U.S. citizen with respect to the eligibillity challenges which have been undertaken by several different groups previously calling for production of Barack Obama's birth certificate as confirmation of his lawful natural born citizen status per the express terms of the U.S. Constitution with respect to any individual holding the highest office under it.

It appears that this particular judge no longer holds the common law, and codified law of the United States of "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the thing as it speaks ) with respect to Constitutional interpretation.

And ignoring such a clear legal duty and provision with respect to the judiciary to make a clear and judicious review of such documentation for both legitimacy and legality is clearly in order here. Especially since this nation is still involved in a "global" war on terror, and now domestic spying program post 9/11.

Of course, while our own borders still remain unsecured, and the Bush Administration then also afforded over 43 countries free pass Visa waivers with 48 hour turnaround security checks prior to his leaving office.

I think most individuals would agree, that such a provision was made for obvious reasons by the founders.

So that no other allegiance or loyalty to any other country, or their interests, would precede the president's duties and obligations to this country and its citizens in the carrying out of his official duties and functions. Especially as Commander in Chief of the military.

And this particular case was brought by a soldier who owes allegiance to both this country and its Commander in Chief while on active duty.

And considering Mr. Obama's rather unusual upbringing, much of which was clearly outside the United States which he fully admits, and as a lawyer himself would appear would see the clear need for such provision.

Since political parties themselves were also not at all included as "legal" parties to the Constitution at the outset. Since those federalists and anti-federalists actually settled their differences upon the ratification process, and agreement and later enactment of Patrick Henry's Bill of Rights in order to protect the "people" from abuses of both their federal and state government with respect to the "unalienable" rights stated thereunder.
The judge clearly showed his bias, and actually disdain for the Constitution in his further comments, calling such requests and measures from LEGAL U.S. citizens in this country, "frivolous."

And yet the federal government under the stimulus enacted legislation calls for the creation of a National Health Care Database containing all Americans very private medical records through their now obvious "state actors," the health insurance industry and their associated organizations ala the East India Tea Company and their "favored status" with the British sovereign at the time of the original revolution?

And are continuing on legislation with respect to this health care deform which is and has been clearly disputed as outside their also legal authority, and Constitutional duties and functions other than to regulate those industries more significantly in order to reduce those costs, since it has been the costs, not the availability, that has been the major problem for most of those that still remain uninsured.
Or denials in honoring most of the representations of many of those agents which sold them to the American public now progressively, in even renegotiating and changing the provisions unilaterally in many instances without any notice, or negotiation of the insureds paying those horrendous premiums.

While closed door meetings were held with the industries on these measures, and it appears will also be so convoluted again with hundreds of pages of legalese involved in order to further give the lawyers in this country and the ACLU another stimulus at the public's expense, the federal courts are now denying proof of the clear eligibility of a publicly paid employee that is facilitating now "fining" citizens in order to once again increase Washington's bottom lines and the insurer's and their stockholder's profit margins and capital gains?

The judge also stated that such a matter was not a "duty" of the court, and went so far as to state that if he so ordered proof, that this would open the door in the event a potential candidate lied about his age in order to gain office.

This just goes to show why Washington said that political parties in and of themselves could destroy this nation from within, if foreign interests didn't do so from without. And it appears that both the political parties and their "foreign" interests are doing just that "progressively."

And since this off-the-wall ruling that flies in the face of all manner of law and the hundreds years precedent of res ipsa loquitor that precedes it with respect to Constitutional interpretation (which few judges have followed also in the past which also has lead to where we are today, an "unrepresentative" government on every level), I wonder if the district court judge involved just so happened to go to Harvard also.

Which apparently is also either teaching more and more British based "precedents" in this country as law, or is also even at those six figure per semester tuition rates, another of our failing schools.

I bet this one comes up when or if Arnold Schwartenegger decides to take a run for the roses.

But as with our liberally cluesless media, if that is the case and another such movement should occur, I doubt that those individuals will be called "birthers," as has been the spin placed by the Obama worshippers come hell or high water (and hell is looking pretty good to some of us at this point after these first eight months in the levels of back door taxation and property thefts of the citizenry are concerned for Mr. Obama's global agendas ala Bush).

They will simply be called Americans.

And any judge that would in any such event so rule as Mr. Land has in this case, Benedict Arnold.

My only problem with this entire matter is that insofar as my beliefs, Mr. Obama clearly does not fulfill the "intent" of the founders also with respect to the entire provision, and the background from which it came and reasons therefor. And why this particular case was brought in that federal district is beyond me, when it is not really one of the most Constitution honoring jurisdictions to begin with historically in some of their renderings in the past, along the lines of the 9th Circuit in wacko California, so liberal that it also doesn't recognize the Constitution in any manner whatsoever as of late.

And due to the hijacking of our entire government by two mainstream political parties at this juncture without any also Constitutional basis in fact, not "duly elected" per the judges also stated reasons for his refusal in that the "people had chosen" the president (right, and just what were the choices, your honor, since the two political parties have an inside track on the entire process and accept even campaign donations and/or sponsorship from foreigners at this point, and were illegally elected even to Congress in the first place,
having accepted "foreign" campaign donations and sponsorship and thus not "representatives" of the citizeny of their respective districts in any manner whatsoever and thus in violation and "pretenders" in violation of the entire basis for the election of candidates for the representatives government written within the clear terms of the Constitution itself.

Not at all "representatives" solely of the districts in which the were elected and not national and global lobbying organizations, or even foreign countries lobbyists at this point and their interests).

But just look at what the alternatives are in any event also.

Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi second in line?

Hell doesn't even begin to describe that pairing, and the additional havoc they would pile on top of the already crushing burden on the middle and lower income classes and "average" Americans.

And the other branch doesn't clearly know the meaning of the term "conservative" at this point, but simply another branch of the Global Socialist Party but with different and in some instances in vary degrees, even overlapping global corporate benefactors, that's all.
Hail Britainnia. It appears that Congress and those on the Hill are selecting more and more "British trained" globally focused "global socialist" also judges for high federal office in order to protect also their job security, and power trip moves.

Such as those educated at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and those East Coast "ivy league" schools whose law school programs clearly have been teaching the British style of government with the "government as sovereign" mindset.

And appears clearly are not at all teaching the "intent" of those founders behind much of the provisions of both the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself. Nor clear distinctions between the "limits" of and their obligations with respect to their function and their true powers and duties.

And this one was clearly their function and duty, without any "rights of refusal" whatsoever included within the document which actually provides for Mr. Land's lofty salary, and that of his staff.

Health Care Industry Terrorists And Lobbyists Threatening Americans Through Media

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:11:00 +0000

It was announced in the AP that the insurance industry lobbyists, who were key players in Washington over the summer in closed door meetings with Barack Obama and the Senate Finance Committee with respect to Obama's health care deform measures that have been progressively coming off the Hill, that the new revisions dropping the amount of penalties for Americans not carrying insurance coverage would result in higher costs (in the thousands in some respects) for other Americans for their existing coverage.

It appears that terrorism upon the United States public at this point isn't simply restricted to Middle Eastern sects, but politicans and corporate lobbyists as their standard operating procedures in order to forment more and more unconstitutional legislation and violations.

Such as Cap & Trade.

Now we have the health care insurance industry terrorists flooding the media waves.

I have news for those corporate lawyers who represented those industries (who are not lawyers at all, since if they were they would see the entire unconstitutional focus of this legislation for what it is), fining Americans ANY amount for lack of coverage is unconstitutional and a "taking" of American's property without their consent for a "product," and a privilege and immunity given to their industry at the cost of the citizenry in general.

Especially since most of those citizens have been funding catastrophic care coverage at the state levels already for literally decades.

And also due to the fact that in those figures that the industry uses, they are also factoring in huge profit margins for their corporate shareholders at the public's expense, and also their diversified portfolios which transfer much of those premiums into some of their riskier investments, such as real estate at the present time, invested in much of the West and Southwest and other areas of the country.

Where many of those insurers are also based who have seen some of those profits dwindle due to the home foreclosure and mortage scams of their also financial branches and arms, the banking industy in which they are also heavily invested.

Just where are these "projections" coming from?

And there lies the rub. The health insurace industry can use such maneuvers because there is absolutly no regulation or accountability of those huge mega national and now global concerns to their rate-payers, from which they do get the bulk of their profits. Not their shareholders. Their rate-payers.

To do their jobs, this is where Washington should be placing its focus. Regulation of those industries. Not affording them, with the now government press agency, the AP, to threaten and terrorize Americans through the media in order to continue their spins and propaganda and thus also create these factions of those that are insured at the present time, against those that are and have been unable to afford their high priced policies for literally decades due to the lack of regulation and accountabilty of them.

Or who ended up using their services, but became increasinly dissatisfied with their products.

Since many of those that are not covered prefer to remain self-insured and not have to deal with the bureaucracy and red tape and hassles in making a claim. Not to mention those that object on religious grounds still to invasive medical procedures being fined if they do not meet the criteria and "approved" standards of any Washington based edicts for their coverage. Such as the Christian Scientists have against many medical treatments.

It is not Washington's job to guarantee the insurers bottom lines, but as a corporate financial industry and product, allow also those that are not living up to those policies which have been sold, to be removed from the market place and fail.

Which is not what occurred with AIG, and much of their failure also had to do with spins, since while the American branch of that huge global health insurer may have been struggling, it was struggling due to the bad business practices of their London Mayfair office from all accounts.

Which was heavily invested in high risk ventures with much of those British policy holder premiums, which is rather strange since Great Britian has a socialized health care system.

So just what type of policies was AIG selling in Great Britain to begin with that caused their eventual financial meltdown?

As has been the case from the outset, it appears that the entire focus of Washington with respect to true health care reform could use a 180 turn in rather than listening and seeking the advice and consulting with the "stakeholders" (i.e., predators on the American public), it should be instead holding those unregulated huge national and global sharks to the fire in explaining just why, after all the years of the bull markets in this country, it is now hiking rates for their policyholders, rather than reducing them.

And maybe due to that huge AIG bailout for the British that the American public is now being forced to eat, and in which Timothy Geithner recently stated that it has been difficult to track just where most of those billions have gone over than 60 billion now to other foreign banks and interests, they could pay off that debt by providing free coverage to all Americans for the next twenty years in safisfaction.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20091012/4ad2b7d0_3421_13345200910121659508200

Taxation, Taxation: Bankrupting Americans

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:21:00 +0000

Even in light of all those millions in stimulus monies that have now been distributed to the states and state legislatures in order to fund local and municipal budgets, and with also the ever increasing amounts of fines and penalties that are now leveraged against American citizens nationwide in monies collected for routine traffic violations (and I'm not speaking about the out of control fines and punishments on those low level misdemeanor DUIs that have been a gravy train for the states also), here's a new one.

It appears the greed of our governmental officials and creative ways in which to assess and facilitate homelessness in the taxpaying citizens who are now losing their homes right and left knows no bounds.

Many states are now also inflicting "service charge" fees for the collection of those sums. Benefitting with the fines themselves isn't enough, now in order to "process" that revenue the states are adding another "double jeopardy" to broken headlight and speeding tickets.

Unbelieveable.

And the states also wonder why the state citizens are also getting increasingly dissatisfied with their local governments at this point, who are also behind this new health care reform most of all in order to continue collecting all those local taxes which have now progressively been collected to fund their programs, and thus then illegally transferring such authority to the federal government so they can add another source of unaccountable revenue in the process?

Then plead poverty for the local services and functions for which they are legally responsible, while doling out the freebies to their corporate campaign donors in private state grant monies and no-bid contracts?

Extortion in the name of civic responsibility and public safety is now creating the many who are now on the welfare rolls, has that not yet occurred to these state and local governments?

The ones who complain about those costs also, yet continue in total oblivion as to the impact that charging fines and fees that have no rational basis, or even letting the punishment fit the crime has turned our streets and neighborhoods into no more than police states and our police nothing more than revenue collectors, by and large.

Isn't that what property taxes were intended for, in order to fund the local police and fire departments, and in the past points simply awarded against drivers licenses for moving violations, and proof of compliance with safety requirements? If public safety is the goal, isn't that the proper and legal redress for these low level crimes which are taking our police force now off the streets in order to combat the true threats to the public safety, theft and bodily harm?

What is there to "processing" a check or cash payment, and if they are passing on bank service charge fees to the public, then maybe the state ought to switch to another bank since I am sure that most banks would actively compete for the business and waive those fees and costs for any general fund or municipal accounts.

I mean they still give free checking and waive ATM fees and costs, and even VISA and Mastercard processing fees for retailers that have large enough accounts, and it would appear in most states their accounts would beat even Wal-Mart's. If not, then why not simply pass a law "regulating" the banking industry and make passing off and charging for simple keystrokes with computer banking at legislated levels illegal and "usurous" since the bank is also double collecting with the charging of interest on those credit card transactions, and also now fees in order to simply use their plastic? And rental fees for the machines?

And the banks were bankrupt? Gee, back in the old days they used to give free glasses with every checking account, and primarily loaned sums for new home purchases at guaranteed fixed interest rates, or even afforded assumption of existing loans by new purchasers if the purchaser qualified at the existing interest rate. Now, the junk fees and costs that these banks are charging are not simply usurous, they are outrageous.

Like if at all such ridiculous and illegal sums are levied, fees less than 10% of the cost and price of the ticket, or $2.50 (the average fee for a VISA charge), whichever is less is the going rate. A $10.00 service charge on a busted tailight or the even better one "failure to have an inspection" seems a little over the top and also "double jeopardy" at its core. Not to mention on a cash transaction for the payment of the fine, nothing more than actual theft since just what "service" is there involved? A run to the local bank at the rate of say, $300.00 or more per mile?

If the repair is made, then those fees, costs and fines should be waived in any event and insofar as those inspections, well unless and until they are ordered for foreigners also in this country then it would appear we are giving "privileges and immunities" now to non-Americans over those of the lawful citizens.

And thus, unconstitutional also at its core. If a car is involved in an accident that for some reason was not mechanically sound to be driven, then that should be a matter for a jury to decide in a civil trial, and an accident is an accident and repair of the property of the one so damaged or injured is letting the punishment fit the crime and also making repair and remuneration to that victim. If loss of life is involved, then that person is charged with negligent homicide, after all, and this also a matter for a jury to weigh.

Not for the government to so order, and the punishment then increased accordingly for any damage done as a part of the punitive damage phase.

It appears again to be babysitting the public, and unfortunately measures such is these demonstrate that the level of citizen satisfaction with not simply federal, but the state governments, is increasing in leaps and bounds.

And in this economy, sometimes those repairs also have to wait until after the rent is paid, or the adjustable or interest only usurous mortage is paid, and the grocery bill, electric bill (now increased with those unconstitutional U.N., British world banker and government initiated Cap & Trade taxes), and gasoline bills (with those increased "double" state and federal taxes) are paid.

Since unlike Washington and the states, citizens can't simply print more money, and do understand that those new upgraded "science and technology" computers are important for those police cruisers, courts, and legislators desks, but some of us are driving 14 year old cars that were recently damaged by the hurricanes that the insurance companies refused to cover, or pay the costs of repair since we're over our credit limits due to this banker initiated piss poor economy for the "new and improved" science based technology bells and whistles which have made automobiles insurance rates now so high "progressively" in order to cover all those new gadgets installed in those vehicles in the event of an accident or burglary.

Or live in borders states that due to this also world government agenda and the still open borders now eight long years after 9/11 have placed us in high risk categories for auto thefts and burglaries, and simply cannot afford even basic liability coverage anymore. Or lost our homes because of it, and the lack of banking regulations over those British banks and mortgage loans that were written in the past decade, some of which based on the Euro and not even U.S. dollar that were written in the West and Southwest.

Was there any votes taken on these new "taxes," or the amounts of those fines? Since, after all, it is the "governed" that are providing them - yet were never consulted for these new "property thefts."

Oh, I forgot. They've also got that covered.

A great many states have also instituted not only "service charges" but also charges for "payment agreements" in order to pay those "service charges" and fines and fees.

Which just goes to show those fines and fees are over the top for the average American that such new taxation as payment plans then were also instituted in order to spread out those fines since these are civil, not criminal matters, without any loss of property or injury and thus 'victimless.' Since the state is hardly a victim except that the officer needs something for these officers to do.

Although also progressively violent crimes and property thefts throughout the country have been steadily climbing with officers now so focused on muncipal budgets and low level crimes for revenue purposes, with the felony warrants and time lags for resposes on 'crimes in progress" also increasing more and more. Expecially in metro areas.

What we've truly got going on here is efforts in order to insure job security, and a "job stimulus" so that the state and federal government legislative candidates can brag then about how many "new jobs" were created.

Of course, at taxpayer expense once again. Sort of a governmental pyramid scheme, as it were.

The more laws you make, the more officers you need to enforce them, the more government grows. Not what the founders surely had in mind whatsoever. And wonder if there were inspections of the horses, mules and wagons in those days to make sure they were in tip top shape.

Or if galloping your horse through town was a fineable offense? I saw some horses scooting pretty quickly through Dodge City on Gunsmoke as I recall.

With all those added payment arrangements now, pretty generous of them and judicious...wouldn't you agree?

Globalist Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:16:00 +0000

With all the brouhaha and ballyhoo that has been the buzz on the mainstream and citizen journalism of the recent announcement that Barack Obama has been awarded a Nobel "peace" prize for his work in his less than one year in office to many Americans such as myself such a move comes as absolutely no surprise from this politically focused international group.

After all, global socialism is part and parcel of the entire focus of such awards, and world government control of the masses under U.N. and other internationally funded and facilitated groups outside of the sovereignty of all nations on the planet.

What is truly surprising is the fundamental hypocricy of such a position, in that the U.S. now is engaged in faciliated supposed "peace" through war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel most of all.

But then again, the prize for the award (approximately 1.4 million) is also funded by those same European banking cartel members who were responsible for the creation of Israel prior to World War I under the British Balfour Doctrine. So it appears that the "surprise" of this announcement has to do with just exactly how desperate now those "powers that be" are to now continue facilitating their agendas of world government control by pulling out all the stops.

The list of all the last U.S. presidential recipients of this award reads like a "who's who" of the European banking control and Council on Foreign Relations members which is the U.S. spinoff of their political agendas. Woodrow Wilson (who created the Federal Reserve "shell" of a a national bank which is owned by the London Rothchild banking family primarily - and the 16th Amendment and "income" tax on Americans in order to profit off of this country and its people and reinstitute British rule in the process), Theodore Roosevelt (another globalist) and Jimmy Carter (an also member of the Council on Foreign Relations responsible for the temporary halt of tensions with respect to Israel, burt for which came at a huge cost once again in U.S. involvement now progressively).

Mr. Obama's is facing huge declining ratings at home due to the U.S.'s continued involved in wars now for decades on behalf of Israel and the zionist elements living within this country post World War II, whose agendas are actually diametrically opposed to what this country's roots and founders were all about. Freedom of religion, and freedom from religious prosecution.

A nation's whose primary tenants would not support the continued involvement in a country whose primary focus is in created a purely Zionist state, not one in which religious differences and practices are given a whole lot of weight at all, other than by mere gesture from most of the reports. Christians and Muslims are marginalized within the Israeli government, and their interests are and have been progressively abridged since post World War II.

In fact, there are many of the Jewish faith within Israel itself that have been marginalized due to their positions that zionism is not biblical doctrine with respect to the Jewish faith at all.

And with a war still raging unconstitutionally in this country, which was founded on non-interventionism and freedom of religion, and also nationalism and not globalism in the slightest - since we did fight a war to break free from global foreign interests and controls which were compromising this country's safety and security, and had progressively made those founders homeless and jobless in the process, this award smacks of a "bribe" for the international community's agenda once again.

And it appears other in the international community can also see through the political scope of this award. Since the gasps were heard throughout the room when the award was announced, from all reports.

So it does appear that some unseen force and powers that be behind this "globally focused" organization had a hand in the outcome for political reasons.

Most likely those picking up the tab. Those British bankers, after all, who value Israel more for its real estate potential and tourism, it would appear, than anything else. And tourism is suffering in that region right now from many in the global community.

Who appear desperate now that the United States citizens are waking up more and more to who is truly pulling the strings also of our government officials, and this sacrifice of the American people and their safety, security and livelihoods for the global agendas with respect to Israel and the Middle East in order to facilitate total global economic control for their "welfare," and the privileged few that are the elitists that have been involved in this agenda since that Wilson era.

Liberal Globalist Bob Dole States Unequivocally That Health Care Reform Will Pass

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:39:00 +0000

As published by the liberally focused Huffington Post, fellow liberal globalist Bob Dole, former Senate majority leader during the Clinton Administration, chastized members of Congress publicly, mainly in his own "corporate" party, for fighting the unconstitutionally focused health care reform measures that have been offered up so far for mostly industry profit and "welfare," by stating that all those opposed at this point "should get on with it."

It appears the globalists and socialists within the two mainstream parties are pulling no punches in getting their agenda sold and pressuring those that also realize that the entire nature and manner in which this "deform" is being approached is from an industry standpoint, and not a Bill of Rights or citizen focus at all.

And Mr. Dole is from Kansas also, a state with a huge amount of investment in the health care industry as the Midwest is also the home of many of those big national insurers, and home base for many of the health care corporate networks now spreading throughout the country.

Mr. Dole is also, of course, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations which is focused on world government socialism of both the United States government and economy under U.N. and European Central Bank control.

His voice appears a little tainted by his own partisanship and true political affiliations, and of course is collecting his citizen paid pension plan while encouraging a bill that is focused on mandatory laws for the benefit of the health care and Wall Street financial sector once again, simply another unaccountable tax actually which is no solution at all in reducing the costs of health care so that those that can't get coverage that mostly own small businesses (since the uninsured poor do get benefits at the state level throughout the nation due to taxes levied at the state level for such coverage) can do so.

Or confont those health care providers on their excessive costs and high profit margins at the general public's expense for their Wall Street investors and their high risk divestitures which have progressively occurred. Such as those entered into by AIG with American premium payers dollars for that London based insurer.

And just wonder how much he has invested in health care stocks?

Better watch out "misrepresentatives," and America - Mr. Dole has spoken and is chastizing his children for their disobedience to the global agenda here.

Obama Paints Rosy Picture For AMA Profiteers Of Share Of Health Care Pie

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 04:05:00 +0000

The AP press corp for the White House reported today that Mr. Obama had a meeting in the Rose Garden with 1,000 representatives of the AMA (all wearing their standard issue lab coats) in order to sell the newer versions of ObamaCare once again to the American public.

Although directing his comments to the doctors who were attending, by playing up to their own egos in stating that those present were the ones that "knew the system" the best, and as such, experts on the problems. All wearing their lab coats for this highly produced and staged event.

Rather than the American public that are dependent on that industry and many of whom the victims of these industries, including many of those members of the AMA and their outrageous fees, costs, and overbillings that also have resulted in this progressive "problem."

A profession that also refuses to support legislation at either the state or federal level requiring at least disclosure of fees or costs prior to treatment, or at least ballpark estimates, even on elective procedures in many instances, or various procedures in which more than one course of treatment is available.

The doctors, of course, brought up abusive malpractice suits as their major complaint. But that also has been the fault of the legal profession, Mr. Obama's own, who use "deep pocket" logic and whose advertising now and ambulance chasing has become so routine on prime time television that the practice of law and medicine now have almost a symbiotic and similar reputation with the public. Not to be trusted, by and large, along with those insurers that they both also use as their income streams at the public's expense.

The new plan being now touted as "moderate" and has the backing of one of the doctor members of Congress on the Republican Global Socialist side of the aisle has made one concession, and even the illustrious profiteer of profiteers at the public's expense, New York Mayor Bloomberg put in his two cents in support. Although the only moderation appears to be is in the concession to reduce the mandatory fine amounts to Americans for lack of compliance with Washington's edicts for the health care industry at ther expense once again, but also the amount of Americans that would be covered under any such plan.

Which fines, of course, are then also always subject to modification at any time in the future, or whim of the next senator seeking re-election for future campaign donations from the health care insurance industries. Until they are on par similar to the threats for littering in the "cruel and unusual" then punishment that will be inflicted for an American simply asserting their Constitutional rights which Washington continues to ignore for their own "corporate" gain.

Since there is also still no regulatory control over those insurers, nor any teeth in the provisions with respect to health care providers in their denials of coverage, or practices in then raising rates exceeding the cost of living routinely without explanation, or hiking rates astronomically after any claim is made.

And while the number of Americans then anticipated will be able to then obtain coverage under these new provisions is less than prior measures, those receiving existing Medicare benefits will see those benefits then reduced in the process.

Which also did not make those doctor's happy, since the rest of the public has been actually subsidizing Medicare patients through higher costs and charges.

Which is what the doctors never also state. That those lower benefit patients care costs are subsidized in order to meet their corporate Boards of Directors bottom lines since health care was 'corporatized" under Richard Nixon in the HMO, health care network concept which has affected quality of care tremendously and made hospital visits and health care nothing more now than another assembly line similar to GM, with complex procedures scheduled one right after another.

Which is why those doctors are now facing more of those "abusive" medical malpractice claims. Fast food medicine will tend to lead also to more mistakes, as fatigue sets in on some of those new and older doctors after back to back surgeries. Or drive through mastectomies, which are also becoming more common.

This situation and "deform" is getting more and more laughable as it "progresses."

What's more clear than "unconstitutional," Mr. Obama, and not a federal function in the slightest.

Most of the states have this covered due in various amounts and measures at the discretion of the state citizens, and a little more thus accountable to them than Washington will ever be, that much is more than clear at the elitism running rampant on the Hill with respect to the actual citizens, and not the commercial industries those "misrepresentatives" actually represent. You know, the ones that are supposed to be "regulated" not "catered to" at the expense of the public.

Or did you, due to fatigue yourself, miss Constitution 101 class at Havard?

Obama Facebook Threat: Political Maneuvering To Avoid Dissent Again?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:50:00 +0000

It was reported earlier this week that the Secret Service is investigating a poll that was published by a third party provider on a FaceBook website account that apparently was seeking public opinion with respect to, it appears, Mr. Obama's sinking approval ratings and his health care reform push capitalizing on the public's rather widespread discontent of both the focus, and the provisions.

So far, most of the measures which Washington has come up with consist of either benefiting those insurers once again in either taxing Americans for catastropic coverage with Big Brother in bed with those industries even more so than simply campaign donations, or alternately fining Americans if they do not buy health care coverage according to their income levels through Big Brother IRS once again, which is also industry focused as another merely "corporate welfare" act and nothing more than feeding those national and global mega-financial sector industries at the public's expense.

Using threats and terrorism, and the states once again as their accomplises in what has been now recently released, since there will be federal funding withheld in other areas then if the state's also do not cowtow to Big Daddy in Washington's edicts, such as the withholding of federal funding to coerce the states to pass those low level DUI laws which now include "cruel and unsual punishment" to say the least.

With each new "Act" coming out of Washington victimizing Americans through their wallets, is it no wonder our jails are so full and a drain on the public purse at this point, since 95% of those incarcerated are misdemeanor offenders treated at this point like hardened criminals in many. And with those "right wing extremists" and making political positions not in accordance with the current Administration now criminal matters, at last count Congress only had a 15% approval rating.

Which means obviously under those "extremist" memorandums, 85% of the American public are actually "criminals" that should be on the "watch" list. If that doesn't go to show how out of control and illegal more and more actions in Washington have become, criminalizing 85% of the American people means we are dealing with the clinical definition of sociopaths that don't change course, but simply bulldoze right ahead whether those that are actually paying their salaries have 'consented" to this abuse, or not.

The insurers have really cleaned up on that DUI low level offense "law" also in astronomical insurance rates now for a first time offender throughout the nation, and Washington is more and more handing the banks and insurers the earnings of all Americans which in turn then adds to the welfare roles with these regressive global socialists' legislation.

As it is now abundately clear, to the American people.

Why doing their Constitutional job and function does not occur to Washington, who instead consults with the "stakeholders" (industries) when writing more and more legislation affecting the average Americans on a fundemental level such as health care, immigration, border security, etc., I haven't a clue. Instead of the document that even provides for their lofty positions there on the Hil. Since without it, they would be one of those without blue ribbon policies of their own which is being paid for by those they are now seeking to fine.

Since, of course, they voted themselves that "privilege" and benefit without the public's consent, when Constitutionally all Congressional members and the President and judiciary are entitled to is 'a compensation" for their services. Not fringe benefits. And for what was supposed to be in the beginning merely a part-time job, actually. That's why they did make it extremely difficult to pass further legislation taking super-majority votes. And limited through their enumerated powers just what areas were within federal authority, and with the 9th and 10th, what wasn't.

And this really isn't in any way, shape or form by any "liberal" interpretation even - having a right to life is a little different than having a right to affordable treatment and that is why commerce was to be regulated, after all, especially commerce directly linked as a public service, and was no more than a shared risk pool at its inception, investing those premiums in government bond securities. The federal civil service program and those benefits of those on the Hill need to be pared down to that which is given to the "average" American - as public servants, not lords or ladies of the English court.

Capitalism was meant for products, not necessarily services, at all unless they were freely negotiated and entered into with the input of both parties for their benefit. And all health care policies today are boilerplate with these conglomerates dictating both the terms, and the standardized language. And facing an insurer in court nowadays takes about a six figure income.

The welfare for these insurers has been astounding in recent years. Those now sitting in jail on the low level DUIs are facing now insurance costs off the charts on single offenses. And those in the border states who are now in "high risk" categories for property and auto insurance, so that the tourism and resort industries (and lawyers, morticians, drug counselors, etc.) profits don't suffer.

Truly unbelieveable. While Washington tries to soothe now the American public throwing out crumbs that will legislate that insurers cannot deny pre-existing conditions, or charger higher premiums for them, since there are no controls on just what they charge at the present time and there are no fines or oversight if they should use increasing premiums as a backdoor method of dropping high risk individuals, just what has this new "alternative" announced today now accomplished?

The "teeth" on enforcement is directed once again at the public in those fine provisions, not the insurers or health care networks. These insurers are incorporated at the state level, so just how is this going to change accountability for the providers with this federal legislation in any manner whatsoever?

Corporate socialism and welfare, actually, and now it is not simply American corporate socialism, but as with AIG, global socialism now to boot.

It's the East India Tea Company all over again.

Rather than Congress, of course, protecting the American public from these commercial concerns as the commerce they are, and no longer private shared pools but actually huge now national and global "public" financial sector conglomerates.

Maybe instead using those funds promised to Bill Gates for the National Health Care Database, a fundamental violation of American's privacy rights, to rather set up a national complaint and reporting system on the health care provider networks, doctors, and insurers. Affording then the states to also regain some of their power and strip those abusive commercial interests of their state licenses or corporate charters if found repeatedly grossly negligent might be a start to getting to the root of what has actually occurred. Corporate greed and unlawful diversification.

And no accountability to either their shareholders, or the American public for their practices, salaries, and reinvestitures.

You know, following the Constitution just might make insurance affordable once again. Especially at this point after AIG (a London based company, mind you).

Even after that Constitutional violation in bailing out a global insurer whose domicile is actually not even in the U.S., the root of what lead to it, lack of adequate regulation over these monopolies and megaconglomerates in their practices to those funding those corporations, the shareholders and the premium payers, has even been addressed.

These are public corporations, not private ones at all. And instead, Washington consults THEM on this legislation, rather than doing their "legal" and "lawful" jobs?

Insurance actually is the only product which Americans fund in advance, but are then "fined " already by those insurers if they make a claim, or are blacklisted on the internal industry's database through their underwriter's network. It appears the insurers only want to insure healthy individuals, drivers who never are unlucky enough to have an accident while driving now on congested streets in most metro areas due to our piss poor dollar the the Chamber's "see America" campaigns, and those that don't happen to live within about 500 miles of the southern borders.

Yet Americans are extorted and forced already to buy both homeowners and auto insurance, while Washington gets a share also of those profits for their next campaigns. Which monies aren't from those insurers at all, but the premium payers they are not going to double tax in essence once again. For their campaigns, and for the U.S. Treasury's now debt due to London based AIG.

.The intended focus on public opinion that became the headline though included a choice with a question focused using the choice of the president's death if any of these measures should pass as one of the options.

FaceBook is, of course, primarily used by the under 30 crowd and politicians now who are heavily invested in the telecom industries or supported by them as a social networking site and public personal website.

FaceBook, of course, immediately stopped the practice of allowing such opinion polls from third party providers due to a purported contact from the Secret Service investigating the matter.

With what has "progressively" occurred in this country, something about the timing of this also smells a bit like Limburger cheese to me, and will be interesting to see if there is any further information published on the supposed perpetrator, who may or may not have been a government employee for all the information apparently that was on the site in which the opinion poll was published.

And purposely planted in order to create another media promoted terrorism scare by the Washigton global socialist liberals.

And whether this highly publicized incident (it was carried even on the local news stations as a "coming up" feature) was another terrorism tactic in order to also continue to threaten and silence the masses in this counry, or intimidate other websites from publishing those instant result polls which are used on many politically focused sites at the present time.

Mr. Obama is and was, after all, heavily supported by the telecom industry, and which is also reaping billions for their venture capitalists in California and Silicon Valley during this continuing war, the now domestic spying program, and also in the "free trade" agreements with Mexico at the ports of entry (while, of course, the major portion of the border used by the coyotes, drug cartel members, and auto theft rings still, even eight years after 9/11, remains virtually unsecured).

Or whether it was some actual citizen who was using his freedom of speech at this outrage, without knowledge that threatening the life of the president is not at all the same as threatening the life of your next door neighbor if you find his dog in your yard tearing up your rosebushes, or beating up your spouse, daughter or son.

This type of case the police actually do investigate and prosecute, even if it may have been in jest, or merely a kid who isn't aware that politicians sense of humor is pretty much gone.

As is that of most of the governed, apparently, since this poll actually did have a somewhat legitimate focus as to the degree of discontent over the issue it apparently was intended to address, and by the news reports since there were more than FaceBook polls involved with respect to the prior Administration and the continuing Iraq war in threats such as these by even legitimate news writers in satirical articles taking just such positions.

And at this point it does go without saying that due to the progressive now Constitutional abridgements that have continued to occur, those founding fathers would have been calling for the duel at dawn, and Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine would be hard at work at the presses.

And the spins now are running so wide, deep, and overlapping at this point, one does have to wonder whether this again, is fiction or fact, that it was a citizen without political connections to either political party agendas, or at this point, both's.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009959020_apusobamathreat.html?syndication=rss

Politicos and Media Trumpet Intelligence Reports Of Iranian Threat

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:42:00 +0000

Throughout today and on most of the major cable news sources (and you are paying for this propaganda, America) politicians labeled both "Democrats" and "Republicans" continued to trumpet the horn for sanctions against Iran based on intelligence reports (doesn't this sound suspiciously familiar, i.e., prior to the invasion of Iraq) that Iran has continued to engage in uranium enrichment programs under the radar of both the world community, and U.N. dictates.

John McCain also made an appearance on Fox (owned by Rupert Murdoch, a Brit and also Zionist even with respect to U.S. continued involvement in the Middle East as a former Bush supporter in the Iraqi invasion also and we did fight a war to escape British rule and dictates those many years ago) using again the "threats" such development would have against Israel (who has enough nuclear fire power to nuke the planet at least 20 times over, from all reports), and if not, blocking the seaways and thus restricting the delivery of Middle Eastern oil to the U.S. and other European countries.

It does appear maybe Mr. Murdoch's allegiances still lie elsewhere, or at least hasn't fully assimilated to this country nor the differences in its intended form of government from his own. We actually fought our first war attempting to separate ourselves from British control and their accords and edicts at the cost of this nation and its people, which were impacting the colonials and making them also homeless and penniless as Britain is a country that has been almost continually at war also as has Israel in its short modern day history, either civil or foreign.

Although, admittedly, almost all reputable sources (and there are few at this point) acknowledge that Iran is years away from developing such a weapon, and its military might with respect to any such blockade would be minimal at best, given that Iran's naval forces and missiles are not even in the same league with those of the U.S., thanks to the Stars Wars missile defense systems which all Americans paid for also under the "Reaganomics" years of Ronald Reagan.

Not to mention our space station radar and satellite capabilities due to the NASA programs since the Kennedy era.

This constant policing of the world is clearly having progressively negative impacts on the American people, leaving much of the U.S. population with the exception of Silicon Valley and those military defense contractors increasingly jobless and homeless at this point, not to mention placing future generations of Americans also at added risk due to our interventionism policies in that region going on now for well over sixty years since the end of World War II due to an agreement (the Balfour Doctrine) that the British, not the U.S., made with the Zionist population in England after World War I, promising the European Jewish population their own country. However, even within the Balfour Doctrine was stated that those Palestinians who already were living there were not to be displaced.

Which clearly wasn't the case and which has caused continued strife in the area, and in which now the U.S. is playing a major role both economically and in the cost of the lives of America's youth and men in these continued conflicts on Israel's behalf, although not even a party to that original agreement or "accord," with literally thousands of Americans lives now lost and compromised in the process from the 1940's to date.

For a country which also stands for the right of the people in this nation to bear arms in defense of their lives and property, it does seem rather hypocritical that our leadership and the supporters of Israel no matter what the cost in U.S. lives or its own interests and economy at this point in history, cannot see or understand how the leaders of other nations without such defensive weaponry just might have an ax to grind.

But if the worst should come, and our oil resources are restricted for any reason, that will also be a banker and corporate stimulus for the global oil industry which has also gotten its share of the American taxpayer pie during this now eight year engagement.

And perhaps Mr. McCain's appearance was simply another announcement to the American people that the oil companies will be again using this situation for their own ends as they have so many times before. Or in order that tomorrow the oil prices on Wall Street will skyrocket for the politicos in Washington's stock portfolios most of all.

And if our offshore wells are not in any condition to be functional and producing in such an event, maybe the British could part with some of theirs since Scotland is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves also in the North Atlantic.

Just what would Washington and the bankers have to do if they couldn't manipulate some sort of crisis or another for their economic benefit in this global chess match and scenario facilitated for their personal economic benefit most of all?

Perhaps actually go about the boring business of government and merely banking?

AP Spins Again: G-20 Protestors Without Permits Labeled As Anarchists

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:25:00 +0000

Today another fictional tale was published on the internet news sources by the AP in a story supposedly directed to flesh out the security arrangements that were in place for the G-20 meetings in Pittsburgh which was headlined as a "lockdown."

I wonder how much all that security detail cost the American people for Mr. Obama's hosting this conference of the Global Board of Directors for World, Inc. while this country is suffering its worst economic depression since the Great Depression?

Also, of course, this Board is accountable and manipulated by the European bankers who "fund" through their centralized banks all those member countries of the G20, including the U.S.

The British, primarily.

There was mention of the "peaceful protests" which were "legal" in that the required permits apparently were sought.

But, of course, the founders of this country never intended that the "freedom of assembly" and the "right of petition" for such a meeting that is and was such a fundamental breach of our Constitutional form of government and intended sovereign status with respect to this country's economy to have to be "applied for" at all, yet the AP used this little segway in an attempt to spin the story as one of the "anarchists vs. lawful protestors" a little further down in the telling.

And also there was comment and mention made about the number of arrests when some protestors were asked to "disassemble," and apparently did not do so upon command, and felt that their Constitutional rights were more "lawful" than an "unlawful" order by the federal police protecting the foreigners who called this meeting to begin with.

Given the circumstances in the U.S. due to the actual globalization of our economy with those others "progressively" due to the bankers merging and intermingling, and the primary impetus generally for America's worsening economy, and then tab the Americans were picking up for their "security detail" at this point did it ever occur to them to have the decency to just possibly move the host country for such an "in your face" event?

Those patrols and policemen so generously provided to rate a headline of "lockdown" status during these pow wows were being billed to the Americans, those that were asked to "disassemble" even.

Or I guess it never occurred to Mr. Obama, at this point, to possibly cancel his appearance and participation in it?

There was a quote from a U.S. postal carrier (who were made to use color coded stickers in order to get through the expensive security measures) that "he wasn't sure what they accomplished."

And just why Pittsburgh would be chosen for such a meeting (not one of your rather accessible areas from global destinations to the U.S.) seems that Mr. Obama's political acumen of the tenor of dissatisfaction with his "citizen of the world" concerns might need a little tweeking.

Or maybe reading our Constitution during the downtime on one of those global flights for his public relations appearances for the folks back home might help.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20090926/4abd9fd0_3426_1335020090926-520650235

The Global Corporatization of America: G8 Now Morphed Into G20

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:56:00 +0000

In all the media spins that have occurred also this past week with respect to the recent Pittsburgh meeting of the global movers and shakers of the "global economy" in which Mr. Obama was a willing participant and leader of the host country, little has been said about the actual reasons for much of the protestors disputes with this additional Constitutional violation for what it actually is.

Treason upon the U.S. Constitution in "globalizing" and merging our economy with that of the rest of the world to begin with, facilitated by Washington and its economic alliances outside of purely trade agreements that such meetings as this represent.

And during this economic meltdown of the U.S. economy which is being facilitated in order to pump up the economies of the European and Far Eastern countries, just goes to show how little true leadership we now have in Washington as represenatives of the people of this great nation and our intended form of government.

Since the meeting itself could only be likened to a "global" Board of Directors meeting for World, Inc.

Much spin also occurred with respect to rougue protestors and the damage that was suffered by local area businesses during the protests. Many of which, since they were miles from the actual site of the meeeting itself would be suspect insofar as whether these were G20 protestors at all, or rather "professional" protestors meant to also propagandize the dissatisfaction in this country of the true Americans who are becoming increasing outraged at the impact that such Constittuional violations as this meeting itself represent.

And Mr. Obama clearly demonstrates once again his agendas as one in which the American people are more an afterthought than the foreign and global interests of his corporate backers and Wall Street executives who were responsible for "globalizing" our economy to begin with, using Washington also as a joint venture partner in this arrangement again both our Constitution and the form of government the founders created as a sovereign country whose interests, both economically and politically, were never meant to be merged with that of other nations.

In fact, that was the true root and genesis of that original revolutionary war to begin with. To break free of European and global dominance and control of this country and its people.

Not ingratiate this country and subject its economy to ruination in order to bulk up the economies and assets of foreigners.

And in light of what is occuring in this nation at the present time and the number of Americans who have now been victimized by this agenda, Mr. Obama's ignorance of the plight of the Americans who he has continually pleaded with to sacrifice for the "greater good," of U.S.A., Inc. is getting more and more outrageous with each and every "act of Office," in not even rescheduling this blatantly treasonous meeting to some other host country to begin with.

Not as a self-appointed, apparently, Chairman of the Board for this meeting as the leader of the "host" country. And by no means serving in such capacity, a "representative" of the people of this nation by but more as he has personally stated, his primary focus as a "citizen of the world," which was declared soon after his assumption of office.

And the world's approval, apparently, more fundamentally important than that of those who are both paying his salary, and to whom his true duties and loyalties lie - not the "corporate" interests of the globalists, either individually or "corporately."

ObamaCare: Leading America Further Into Regressive World Government

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:55:00 +0000

For Any And All Conserve-ative Americans:

As so much has been left out of the mainstream media coverage on this abysmal health care deform concocted in Washington and led at this point by Max Baucus (D-MT), it is evident that the ownership of our news sources in this country have also been "globalized" with the British and world government corporate interests, that much has been clear.

Montana does, after all, border Canada.

And the bulk of the state legislatures that are supporting also this legislation have also selfish concerns in mind. Due, of course, to the unlawful passage of the 16th amendment that was also concocted behind closed doors and, contrary to the 9th Amendment itself, never placed before the people with respect to a tax (whether direct or indirect) on the fruits of the labor.

A type of tax, actually, that the founders had warned would leave their posterity homeless. And such has been the case in many instances since that time (1913) and during the Great Depression (manipulated by the Federal Reserve, which is no more than a European central bank branch out of London) now in possession of our true wealth, the gold, as security for all those debt notes in circulation.

Flooding the market with those notes of course, then depresses our currency which then in turn also makes U.S. corporations and even public utility companies (such as Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona servicing Arizona and parts of California) an attractive investment opportunity. Or a natural disaster and hurricane such as Katrina, or wildfires such as are now suspiciously occurring quite regularly in California more so than at any other time.

Many would say that is due to "global warming."

As one whose father was involved with the home builders and the lumber industry, I would say it is to reduce the amount of available timber in this country for, again, British (Canadian) import and trade agreements since lumber and timber is one of Canada's primary exports to this country.

But also during all of this debate, not a word has been spoken about the fact that absent Medicare and Medicaid benefits, which do cover most citizens at least for catastrophic care in their retirement years, every state in the nation now has such coverage. And it is a major expenditure due to the fact that Washington has also passed legislation affording such coverage for emergency treatments to non-U.S. citizens. And not simply foreign tourists or those working here for on-the-job injuries.

But the deliberate hirers also for the outsourced labor from Mexico, and also those here on work and student visas and other temporary arrangements. In fact, this provision instituted around twenty years ago (another backroom measure) is what has been the draw for so many of the poor Mexican citzens in the border towns, since Mexico also is one of those socialized countries where a great deal of its wealth is concentrated in Mexico City and some of the states there with the greatest populations.

Sort of like how California and parts of Texas received border fencing back in the 90's securing areas around San Diego and El Paso, while Arizona which has the largest open border by far received merely vehicle spikes for those areas which were at that time used by many of the coyotes and big time drug smugglers.

Which, of course, has changed as the terrain has in almost twenty years, since the maps printed in Mexico are revised annually.

The state legislatures which are mostly behind this just so happen to be those New England states, and border states.

The locally passed initiatives denying benefits to illegals such as has occurred in Arizona the past several years due to that state's residents contniued victimization on this issue in countless ways, has also caused those legislators grief from the federally funded illegal immigrant groups which have sprung up headed by lawyers mostly who receive their legal fees also paid by the U.S. taxpayers for any and all "civil rights" violations they bring in the U.S. courts now on behalf of illegals, whether defensive actions or now even afforded access to the courts to prosecute Americans on foreigners behalf for any manner of charges, some legitimate but many which are not. Such as the drug dealer reported suing this country in the Ramos and Compean case for the buckshot actually he received for crossing as a known drug trafficker, from all reports.

So the illegal immigrant gravy train runs wide and deep in this country for a great many in the legal profession especially, as it does for those other corporate interests who profit off those annual work and student visas.

In fact, I visited Mt. Ruthmore a few years ago and was quite surprised at the number of students from the Soviet Union that work in the ice cream store there at the park. I happen to speak with one of them who informed me that they pay immigration attorneys and/or their schools a stipend amounting to about $2,000 U.S. dollars per student per year in order to spend the summer in the U.S. working at some of our national parks and tourist attractions, facilitated through U.S. immigration lawyers.

No U.S. high school or college students were employed in the store during the summer as it was in previous generations, strictly foreigners the day I visited. And lived three and four to a room at a local hotel, which costs were subtracted then from their wages.

On the return trip from a visit to the East Coast for personal reasons also a few years back, I traveled through Williamsburg, Virginia and stayed at an inexpensive hotel there overnight since I had some car trouble on the way. The hotel, as with many of the independently owned hotels in the area, was owned by a U.S. limited liability corporation that employed also Russian students during the peak summer holiday season, and also informed me that there were many lawyers who advertised in their countries for such work visas. She also was living with three others at the hotel, and whose accomodations were also deducted from her pay, but indicated that circumstances right now in Russia are not so good, since all power lies with Moscow under their "democracy."

Although the next day as I resumed my travels I had to laugh when recalling our conversation.

Since I'm sure she knows less than most of those in this country at this point it would appear.

All power does not reside with Moscow (or Washington, for that matter, all appearances now to the contrary in our now out of control Congress and successive Administrations).

All power really lies with the bankers, as with our Federal Reserve. They do, after all, fund the campaigns and the wars for all but a very, very few countries. And both sides, since bankers have really no country loyalty other than as an investment for profit.

And they are, for the most part, British.

The Tories In State Government Behind ObamaCare

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:46:00 +0000

Below is a listing of some of the state legislators who are also behind the Obama and the federally mandated health care measures now being concocted in Washington, against all the separation of powers, "consent of the governed 9th Amendment provisions," and public accountability and even fundamental regulation of those national and even global providers that such a law or measure would require, and thus nothing more than what I am referring to as the Torie (Global Socialist British Banker & Financier Sector Ruled "Government As God and Monarch") Party:

ALASKA:
Rep. Robert Buch (AK)
Rep. Mike Doogan (AK)
Sen. Johnny Ellis (AK), Member, AKS Health & Social Services Committee
Sen. Hollis French (AK)
Rep. Berta Gardner (AK)
Rep. David Guttenberg (AK), Minority Whip
Rep. Elizabeth Kerttula (AK)
Rep. Chris Tuck (AK)

ARIZONA (High illegal immigrant state, and also with a high Canadian population as second homes or retirement purchases)
Rep. Ed Ableser (AZ)
Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford (AZ)
Rep. Jack Brown (AZ), Minority Leader Pro Tem
Sen. Meg Burton Cahill (AZ)
Rep. Chad Campbell (AZ), Minority Whip
Rep. Cloves Campbell (AZ)
Rep. Tom Chabin (AZ)
Rep. Steve Farley (AZ)
Rep. Patricia Fleming (AZ)
Sen. Albert Hale (AZ), Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Welfare
Rep. Matt Heinz (AZ)
Rep. Phil Lopes (AZ), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. David Lujan (AZ), Minority Leader
Rep. Barbara McGuire (AZ)
Rep. Ben Miranda (AZ)
Rep. Lynne Pancrazi (AZ)
Rep. Daniel Patterson (AZ)
Sen. Rebecca Rios (AZ), Assistant Minority Leader
Rep. Anna Tovar (AZ)
Rep. Nancy Young Wright (AZ)

ARKANSAS
Sen. Joyce Elliott (AR)
Rep. Steve Harrelson (AR)
Sen. David Johnson (AR)
Rep. Lindsley Smith (AR)
Rep. Kathy Webb (AR)

CALIFORNIA
Asm. Bob Blumenfield (CA)
Asm. Jared Huffman (CA)
Sen. Mark Leno (CA), Member, Health Committee; Chair, Subcommittee on Health, Human Services, Labor and Veterans Affairs

COLORADO
Rep. Dennis Apuan (CO)
Sen. Morgan Carroll (CO), Member, Senate and Joint Houses Health & Human Services Committees
Rep. Lois Court (CO)
Rep. Mark Ferrandino (CO)
Rep. Randy Fischer (CO), Deputy Majority Whip
Sen. Joyce Foster (CO)
Rep. Sara Gagliardi (CO), Vice Chair, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (CO)
Sen. Jim Isgar (CO), Majority Caucus Chair
Rep. John Kefalas (CO), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Jeanne Labuda (CO)
Rep. Claire Levy (CO), Majority Whip
Rep. Beth McCann (CO)
Rep. Michael Merrifield (C0)
Rep. Joe Miklosi (CO)
Sen. Linda Newell (CO), Member, Health & Human Services Committee
Rep. Sal Pace (CO), Assistant Majority Caucus Chair
Rep. Su Ryden (CO)
Rep. Judy Solano (CO)
Rep. Edward Vigil (CO)

CONNECTICUT (Heavy Canadian influence and yet one of the original 13)
Rep. Theresa Conroy (CT), Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Michelle Cook (CT)
Rep. Chris Donovan (CT), Speaker of the House
Rep. Elizabeth Esty (CT), Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Mae Flexer (CT)
Rep. Steve Fontana (CT), Co-Chair, Insurance & Real Estate Committee
Rep. Henry Genga (CT)
Rep. Linda Gentile (CT), Vice-Chair, Public Health Committee
Rep. Bob Godfrey (CT), Deputy Speaker
Rep. Ted Graziani (CT)
Rep. Auden Grogins (CT), Member, Public Health Committee
Sen. Toni Harp (CT), Deputy President Pro Tempore
Rep. John Hennessy (CT)
Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield (CT), Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Ed Jutila (CT)
Rep. Marie Kirkley-Bey (CT)
Rep. Barbara Lambert (CT)
Rep. Matthew Lesser (CT), Member, Public Health Committee
Sen. Andrew Maynard (CT)
Rep. David McCluskey (CT), Deputy Speaker of the House
Rep. Denise Merrill (CT), Majority Leader
Rep. Joseph Mioli (CT)
Rep. Tim O'Brien (CT), Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Chris Perone (CT)
Sen. Edith Prague (CT), Assistant President Pro Tempore
Rep. Peggy Reeves (CT)
Rep. Elizabeth Ritter (CT), Co-Chair, Public Health Committee
Rep. Kevin Ryan (CT), Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Ezequiel Santiago (CT)
Rep. Peggy Sayers (CT), Deputy Majority Leader
Sen. Gayle Slossberg (CT), Vice Chair, Joint Committee on Public Health
Sen. Andrea L. Stillman (CT), Deputy Majority Leader; Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Peter Tercyak (CT), Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Diana Urban (CT)
Rep. Peter Villano (CT)
Rep. Roberta Willis (CT)
Rep. Elissa Wright (CT)
Rep. Bruce "Zeke" Zalaski (CT)

DELAWARE
Rep. Bradford Bennett (DE)

FLORIDA
Rep. Ronald Brise (FL)
Rep. Keith Fitzgerald (FL), Member, Health and Family Services Policy Council
Rep. Mark Pafford (FL), Member, Full Apppropriations on General Governmentt & Health Care
Rep. Elaine Schwartz (FL), Ranking Minority Member, Healthy Seniors Appropriations; Member, Health and Family Services Policy Council Committee

GEORGIA:
Rep. Stacey Abrams (GA)
Rep. Kathy Ashe (GA)
Rep. Stephanie Benfield (GA)
Sen. Robert Brown (GA), Minority Leader
Sen. Gloria Butler (GA), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Gloria Frazier (GA)
Sen. Emanuel Jones (GA)
Rep. Sheila Jones (GA), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Ralph Long (GA)
Rep. Alisha Morgan (GA), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Sen. Nan Orrock (GA), Member Ex-Officio, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Rashad Taylor (GA)
Rep. Brian Thomas (GA)

GUAM
Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr. (GU)
Sen. Matt Rector (GU)

HAWAII
Sen. Rosalyn Baker (HI)
Rep. Bob Herkes (HI)
Rep. Michael Magaoay (HI)
Rep. Roy Takumi (HI)

IDAHO
Rep. Donna Boe (ID)
Rep. Wendy Jaquet (ID), Minority Leader
Rep. Phylis King (ID)
Sen. Nicole LeFavour (ID), Member, Health and Welfare Committee
Rep. Anne Pasley-Stuart (ID)

ILLINOIS
Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (IL)
Sen. William Delgado (IL), Chair, Public Health Committee
Rep. Susana Mendoza (IL)

INDIANA
Sen. Sue Errington (IN), Ranking Minority Member, Health and Provider Services Committee; Member, Subcommittee on Public Health
Rep. Matt Pierce (IN)
Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon (IN)
Sen. Vi Simpson (IN), Member, Health & Provider Services

IOWA (Unbelieveable how many in the Bible belt, no less)
Rep. McKinley Bailey (IA)
Rep. John Beard (IA)
Sen. Joe Bolkcom (IA), Member, Human Services Committee; Assistant Majority Leader
Sen. Thomas Courtney (IA), Majority Whip
Sen. Jeff Danielson (IA), President Pro Tempore
Sen. Robert Dvorsky (IA)
Rep. Gene Ficken (IA)
Sen. Eugene Fraise (IA)
Rep. Marcella Frevert (IA)
Rep. Mary Gaskill (IA)
Rep. Elesha Gayman (IA), Assistant Majority Leader
Sen. Michael Gronstal (IA), Majority Leader
Sen. Tom Hancock (IA)
Sen. Jack Hatch (IA), Co-Chair, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee; Assistant Majority Leader
Sen. William Heckroth (IA), Assistant Majority Leader
Rep. Lisa Heddens (IA), Co-Chair, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee; Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Robert Hogg (IA)
Rep. Bruce Hunter (IA), Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Pam Jochum (IA)
Rep. Jerry Kearns (IA)
Sen. Jack Kibbie (IA), Senate President
Sen. Keith Kreiman (IA)
Rep. Bob Kressig (IA)
Rep. Vicki Lensing (IA)
Rep. Jim Lykam (IA)
Rep. Larry Marek (IA)
Sen. Matt McCoy (IA)
Rep. Pat Murphy (IA), Speaker of the House
Rep. Rick Olson (IA)
Rep. Tyler Olson (IA), Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Eric Palmer (IA)
Sen. Herman Quirmbach (IA), Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Amanda Ragan (IA), Chair, Human Resources Committee; Vice-Chair, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. Nathan Reichert (IA)
Sen. Becky Schmitz (IA), Vice-Chair, Human Resources Committee; Member, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee
Sen. Brian Schoenjahn (IA)
Rep. Thomas Schueller (IA)
Sen. Joe Seng (IA)
Rep. Mark Smith (IA), Chair, Human Resources Committee; Member, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee Sen. Steve Sodders (IA)
Rep. Sharon Steckman (IA), Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Roger Stewart (IA)
Rep. Kurt Swaim (IA)
Rep. Dick Taylor (IA)
Rep. Todd Taylor (IA)
Rep. Phyllis Thede (IA)
Rep. Roger Thomas (IA)
Rep. Roger Wendt (IA), Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. John Whitaker (IA)
Rep. Wesley Whitead (IA)
Rep. Nate Willems (IA)
Rep. Cindy Winckler (IA)
Rep. Ray Zirkelbach (IA)

KANSAS
Rep. Delia Garcia (KS)
Rep. Annie Kuether (KS)
Rep. Connie O'Brien (KS)

KENTUCKY
Rep. Brent Yonts (KY)

LOUISIANA
Rep. Rickey Hardy (LA)

MAINE (Bush country and borders Canada)
Rep. Herbert Adams (ME)
Sen. Justin Alfond (ME)
Sen. Philip Bartlett (ME), Senate Majority Leader
Rep. Henry Beck (ME)
Rep. Seth Berry (ME), Majority Whip
Sen. Lawrence Bliss (ME)
Rep. Anna Blodgett (ME)
Rep. Andrea Boland (ME)
Sen. Peter Bowman (ME)
Rep. Sheryl Briggs (ME)
Rep. Mark Bryant (ME)
Rep. Steven Butterfield (ME)
Rep. Emily Cain (ME)
Rep. James Campbell (ME), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Michael Carey (ME)
Rep. Alan Casavant (ME)
Sen. Margaret Craven (ME)
Rep. Patsy Crockett (ME)
Rep. Timothy Driscoll (ME)
Rep. Robert Eaton (ME)
Rep. Mark Eves (ME)
Rep. Sean Flaherty (ME)
Rep. Elsie Flemings (ME)
Rep. Adam Goode (ME), Member, Joint Standing Committee on Insurance and Financial Services
Rep. Anne Haskell (ME)
Rep. Teresea Hayes (ME)
Rep. Jon Hinck (ME)
Rep. Robert Hunt (ME)
Rep. Melissa Innes (ME)
Rep. Peter Kent (ME)
Rep. Charles Kruger (ME)
Rep. W. Bruce MacDonald (ME)
Rep. James Martin (ME)
Rep. Jeffrey McCabe (ME)
Rep. Elizabeth "Lisa" Miller (ME)
Rep. Wayne Mitchell (ME)
Rep. Mary Nelson (ME)
Rep. Andrew O'Brien (ME)
Rep. Anne Perry (ME), Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services
Rep. Matthew Peterson (ME), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Hannah Pingree (ME), Speaker of the House
Rep. Diane Russell (ME)
Rep. Linda Sanborn (ME)
Rep. Michael Shaw (ME)
Rep. Sara Stevens (ME)
Rep. Peter Stuckey (ME), Member,Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Sharon Treat (ME), Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Insurance and Financial Services
Rep. Richard Wagner (ME)
Rep. Joan Welsh (ME)

MARYLAND
Del. Saqib Ali (MD)
Del. Charles Barkley (MD)
Del. Pamela Beidle (MD)
Del. Elizabeth Bobo (MD)
Del. William Bronrott (MD), Deputy Majority Whip
Del. Alfred Carr (MD)
Del. Virginia Clagett (MD)
Sen. George Della (MD)
Del. Kathleen Dumais (MD)
Del. Brian Feldman (MD), Member, Access to Mental Health Services Committee
Sen. Jennie Forehand (MD), Deputy Majoirty Whip
Del. C. William Frick (MD)
Sen. Brian Frosh (MD)
Del. Barbara Frush (MD)
Del. Jim Gilchrist (MD)
Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (MD), Member, Subcommittee on Health and Human Resources
Sen. David Harrington (MD), Member, Access to Mental Health Services Committee
Del. Sue Hecht (MD)
Del. Anne Healey (MD)
Del. Henry Heller (MD)
Del. Sheila Hixson(MD)
Del. Marvin Holmes (MD), Deputy Majority Whip
Del. Carolyn Howard (MD), Deputy Speaker Pro Tempore
Del. James Hubbard (MD), Member, Health and Government Operations Committee; Chair, Subcommittee on Public Health and Long Term Care
Del. Tom Hucker (MD)
Del. Jolene Ivey (MD)
Del. Anne Kaiser (MD)
Del. Stephen Lafferty (MD)
Del. Susan Lee (MD), Deputy Majority Whip
Sen. Mike Lenett (MD), Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Delivery and Financing; Member, Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee
Del. Gerron Levi (MD)
Sen. Richard Madaleno (MD), Vice Chair, Subcommittee on Health, Education, and Human Resources
Del. Roger Manno (MD)
Sen. Nathaniel McFadden (MD)
Del. Heather Mizeur (MD), Member, Health and Human Resources Appropriations Subcommittee
Del. Peter Murphy (MD)
Sen. C. Anthony Muse (MD)
Del. Shirley Nathan-Pulliam (MD), Member, Health and Government Operations Committee; Chair, Subcommittee on Minority Health Disparities
Del. John Olszewski (MD)
Sen. Paul Pinsky (MD)
Del. Victor Ramirez (MD)
Sen. Jamie Raskin (MD)
Del. Kirill Reznick (MD), Member, Health & Government Operations
Del. Craig Rice (MD)
Del. Barbara Robinson (MD)
Sen. James Robey (MD)
Sen. Jim Rosapepe (MD), Member, Subcommittee on Health; Assistant Deputy Majority Whip
Del. Dana Stein (MD)
Del. Shawn Tarrant (MD), Member, Health and Government Operations Committee
Del. Herman Taylor (MD)
Del. Frank Turner (MD)
Del. Veronica Turner (MD), Member, Health & Government Operations; Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Delivery & Financing
Del. Kris Valderrama (MD)
Del. Jeff Waldstreicher (MD)

MASSACHUSETTS (And this state already has comprehensive catastrophic provision at the state level as it should be, if any, and thus more accountable for disclosure of costs, and in providing for state citizens primarily as also a more governmental purpose than building the next strip mall with taxpayer funds, and also high Canadian influence)
Rep. Willie Mae Allen (MA)
Rep. Steven D'Amico (MA), Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
Rep. Cory Atkins (MA)
Rep. Ruth B. Balser (MA), Vice Chair, Public Health; Member, Mental Health & Substance Abuse
Rep. William Brownsberger (MA)
Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz (MA)
Sen. Kenneth Donnelly (MA)
Sen. James Eldridge (MA)
Rep. Mark Falzone (MA)
Sen. Patricia Jehlen (MA) Member, Joint Committe on Health Care Financing
Rep. Jay Kaufman (MA)
Sen. Thomas Kennedy (MA)
Rep. Peter Kocot (MA)
Rep. Jason Lewis (MA), Member, Joint Committee on Public Health; Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
Rep. David Linsky (MA)
Rep. Matthew Patrick (MA), Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
Rep. Denise Provost (MA)
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg (MA)
Rep. John Scibak (MA)
Rep. Carl Sciortino (MA), Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
Rep. Frank Smizik (MA)
Rep. Marie St. Fleur (MA)
Rep. Ellen Story (MA)
Rep. Benjamin Swan (MA)
Rep. Timothey Toomey (MA), Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Alice Wolf (MA), Chair, Joint Committee on Elder Affairs

MICHIGAN
Rep. Fred Durhal (MI)
Sen. Gilda Jacobs (MI), Vice Chair, Families and Humans Services Committee; Member, Health Policy Committee
Rep. Deb Kennedy (MI)
Rep. Mark Meadows (MI)
Rep. Fred Miller (MI)
Rep. Mike Simpson (MI)
Sen. Samuel "Buzz" Thomas (MI), Minority Floor Leader
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI)
Rep. Mary Valentine (MI), Member, Health Policy
Rep. Rebekah Warren (MI)

MINNESOTA (Home of Mayo Clinic, of course, and high Canadian tourism)
Sen. Ellen Anderson (MN)
Sen. Linda Berglin (MN), Chair, Health and Human Services Budget Division
Rep. Kathy Brynaert (MN)
Rep. Lyndon Carlson (MN)
Rep. Jim Davnie (MN)
Sen. Scott Dibble (MN)
Rep. Al Doty (MN)
Rep. Patti Fritz (MN), Member, Health Care and Human Services Finance Division Committee; Member, Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee
Rep. Paul Garnder (MN), Member, Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee
Rep. Alice Hausman (MN)
Rep. Jeff Hayden (MN)
Rep. Frank Hornstein (MN)
Rep. Melissa Hortman (MN)
Rep. Larry Hosch (MN)
Rep. Sheldon Johnson (MN)
Rep. Phyllis Kahn (MN)
Rep. Kate Knuth (MN)
Sen. Gary Kubly (MN)
Rep. Carolyn Laine (MN), Member, Health Care & Human Services Policy & Oversight Committee
Sen. Ron Latz (MN)
Rep. Tina Liebling (MN), Vice Chair, Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee
Rep. Bernie Lieder (MN)
Rep. Diane Loeffler (MN), Member, Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee; Assistant Majority Leader
Sen. Tony Lourey (MN)
Rep. Carlos Mariani (MN)
Rep. Terry Morrow (MN)
Sen. Mee Moua (MN)
Rep. Joe Mullery (MN)
Rep. Erin Murphy (MN), Member, Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee
Rep. Jerry Newton (MN)
Rep. Michael Paymar (MN)
Sen. Lawrence Pogemiller (MN)
Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon (MN), Member, Health and Human Services Budget Division Committee; Member, Health, Housing and Family Security Committee
Rep. Roger Reinert (MN)
Rep. Brita Sailer (MN)
Rep. Bev Scalze (MN), Member, Health Care and Human Services Finance Division Committee
Rep. Linda Slocum (MN)
Rep. Loren Solberg (MN)
Rep. Paul Thissen (MN), Chair, Health Care & Human Services Policy & Oversight
Rep. Jean Wagenius (MN)
Rep. John Ward (MN)
Sen. Chuck Wiger (MN)

MISSISSIPPI
Rep. Mary Coleman (MS)

MISSOURI
Rep. Don Calloway (MO)
Rep. Chris Carter (MO), Member, Healthcare Transformation Committee
Sen. Rita Days (MO), Assistant Minority Floor Leader
Rep. Michael Frame (MO)
Rep. Tishaura Jones (MO), Member, Appropriations - Health, Mental Health and Social Services Committee; Member, Health Insurance Committee
Sen. Jolie Justus (MO), Member, Health, Mental Health, Seniors and Families Committee
Rep. Jeanne Kirkton (MO), Member, Health Care Transformation; Member, Appropiations - Health
Rep. Sam Komo (MO)
Rep. Margo McNeil (MO), Member, Health Care Policy Committee
Rep. Charlie Norr (MO)
Rep. Jeanette Oxford (MO)
Rep. Paul Quinn (MO)
Rep. Jill Schupp (MO)
Sen. Jeff Smith (MO), Member, Health, Mental Health, Seniors & Families Committee
Rep. Mary Still (MO)
Rep. Rachel Storch (MO), Democratic Caucus Deputy Whip

MONTANA (Biggest suprise of all, that the Big Sky State and those rebels would be in on this, but then again does also border Canada)
Rep. Dick Barrett (MT)
Rep. Forrestina "Frosty" Calf Boss Ribs (MT)
Sen. Gary Branae (MT)
Rep. Mary Caferro (MT), Vice Chair, Human Services Committee
Rep. Jill Cohenour (MT)
Rep. Robyn Driscoll (MT)
Sen. Ron Erickson (MT)
Rep. Julie French (MT), Member, Human Services Committee; Majority Whip
Rep. Betsy Hands (MT)
Rep. Teresa Henry (MT)
Rep. Sue Malek (MT)
Rep. Margaret MacDonald (MT)
Rep. Carolyn Pease-Lopez (MT), Member, Subcommittee on Health and Human Services
Rep. Michele Reinhart (MT)
Sen. Carolyn Squires (MT)
Sen. Carol Williams (MT), Senate Minority Leader
Rep. Franke Wilmer (MT)
Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy (MT)

NEBRASKA
Sen. Tanya Cook (NE)
Sen. Ken Haar (NE)
Sen. Danielle Nantkes (NE)
Sen. Jeremy Nordquist (NE)

NEVADA
Sen. Maggie Carlton (NV)
Asm. Ellen Koivisto (NV)
Sen. David Parks (NV)
Asm. Peggy Pierce (NV), Vice Chair, Health and Human Services Committee

NEW HAMPSHIRE (Another with a high number of Tories of the original 13, and as with most New England states, high numbers of Canadian visitors and work force)
Rep. Susan Almy (NH)
Rep. Catriona Beck (NH)
Rep. William Brennan (NH)
Rep. Robert Bridgham (NH), Member, Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee
Rep. Suzanne Butcher (NH), Member, Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee
Rep. Edward Butler (NH)
Rep. Timothy Butterworth (NH)
Rep. Daniel Carr (NH)
Sen. Jacalyn Cilley (NH)
Rep. John Cloutier (NH)
Rep. Robert Cushing (NH)
Rep. John DeJoie (NH)
Rep. Rich DiPentima (NH), Member, Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee
Rep. Susan Ford (NH)
Sen. Martha Fuller Clark (NH), Senate President Pro Tem
Rep. Jill Shaffer Hammond (NH)
Rep. Valerie Hardy (NH)
Rep. Timothy Horrigan (NH)
Rep. Charlotte Houde-Quimby (NH)
Rep. Pamela Hubbard (NH)
Rep. Naida Kaen (NH)
Sen. Sylvia Larsen (NH), President of the Senate
Rep. Steven Lindsey (NH)
Rep. Patrick Long (NH)
Rep. Jim McClammer (NH)
Rep. Evalyn Merrick (NH), Member, Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee
Rep. Kate Miller (NH)
Rep. Marcia Moody (NH)
Rep. Lori Movsesian (NH)
Rep. Susi Nord (NH)
Rep. Jessie Osborne (NH)
Rep. Phillip Preston (NH)
Rep. Robin Read (NH)
Rep. Michael Rollo (NH)
Rep. Cindy Rosenwald (NH), Chair, Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee
Rep. Trinka Russell (NH)
Rep. Tara Sad (NH)
Rep. Donna Schlachman (NH)
Rep. Dianne Schuett (NH)
Rep. Gilman Shattuck (NH)
Rep. Stephen Shurtleff (NH)
Rep. Suzanne Smith (NH)
Rep. James Splaine (NH)
Rep. Robert Thompson (NH)
Rep. Joy Tilton (NH), Member, Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs Committee
Rep. Frank Tupper (NH)
Rep. Charles Townsend (NH)
Rep. Charles Yeaton (NH)

NEW JERSEY
Asm. Herb Conaway (NJ), Chair, Health and Senior Services Committee
Sen. Shirley Turner (NJ), President Pro Tempore

NEW MEXICO (High numbers of illegals)
Sen. Carlos Cisneros (NM)
Rep. Nathan Cote (NM), Legislative Health & Human Services Committee
Sen. Dede Feldman (NM), Chair, Legislative Health and Human Service Committee
Sen. Stephen Fischmann (NM)
Rep. Miguel Garcia (NM)
Sen. Eric Griego (NM)
Sen. Linda M. Lopez (NM)
Rep. Patricia Lundstrum (NM)
Rep. James Roger Madalena (NM)
Sen. Cisco McSorley (NM)
Rep. William O'Neill (NM)
Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino (NM), Advisor, Legislative Health and Human Service Committee
Rep. Danice Picraux (NM), Legislative Health & Human Services Committee
Rep. Debbie Rodella (NM)
Rep. Nick Salazar (NM)
Rep. Edward C. Sandoval(NM)
Rep. Mimi Stewart (NM), Chair, Health and Government Affairs Committee
Sen. David Ulibarri (NM)

NEW YORK
Asm. James Brennan (NY)
Asm. Adriano Espaillat (NY), Member, Committee on Insurance
Sen. Liz Krueger (NY)
Asm. Joseph Lentol (NY)
Asm. Joan Millman (NY)
Sen. Suzi Oppenheimer (NY)
Sen. Eric Schneiderman (NY)

NORTH CAROLINA
Rep. Alma Adams (NC)
Rep. Alice Bordsen (NC)
Rep. Angela Bryant(NC)
Rep. Tricia Cotham (NC), Member, Health Committee
Sen. Katie Dorsett (NC), Vice Chair, Health Committee
Rep. Beverly Earle (NC), Chair, Mental Health Reform Committee; Vice Chair, Health Committee
Rep. Jean Farmer-Butterfield (NC)
Rep. Susan Fisher (NC)
Rep. Melanie Goodwin (NC)
Rep. Rick Glazier (NC), Member, Health Committee; Member, Mental Health Reform Committee
Rep. Larry Hall (NC)
Rep. Pricey Harrison (NC)
Rep. Sandra Spaulding Hughes (NC), Member, Health Care Committee
Rep. Verla Insko (NC), Chair, Health Committee
Sen. Ellie Kinnaird (NC), Co-Chair, Mental Health & Youth Services Committee; Member, Health Care Committee
Rep. Paul Luebke (NC)
Sen. Floyd McKissick (NC)
Rep. Annie Mobley (NC)
Rep. Earline Parmon (NC) Member, Health Care Committee; Member, Mental Health Reform Committee
Rep. Deborah K. Ross (NC), Minority Whip
Sen. Josh Stein (NC), Member, Health Care Committee Rep. Cullie Tarleton (NC)

NORTH DAKOTA
Sen. Tom Fiebiger (ND)
Rep. Richard Holman (ND), Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Lee Kaldor (ND)
Rep. Jerome Kelsh (ND)
Sen. Aaron Krauter (ND)
Sen. Tim Mathern (ND)
Sen. Carolyn Nelson (ND)
Sen. Ryan Taylor (ND)
Rep. Lonny Winrich (ND)

OHIO
Rep. Edna Brown (OH), Chair, Subcommittee on Human Services
Rep. Ted Celeste (OH)
Rep. Michael Foley (OH)
Rep. Robert Hagan (OH), Member, Health Committee
Sen. Dale Miller (OH)

OKLAHOMA
Rep. Ryan Kiesel (OK), Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Al McAffrey (OK)
Rep. Jeannie McDaniel (OK)
Sen. Jim Wilson (OK), Member, Health & Human Resources Committee

OREGON (Euthanasia is already legal here)
Rep. Phil Barnhart (OR)
Rep. Elizabeth Terry Beyer (OR)
Rep. Peter Buckley (OR)
Rep. Ben Cannon (OR)
Rep. Michael Dembrow (OR), Member, Health Care Committee; Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Jackie Dingfelder (OR)
Rep. Mitch Greenlick (OR), Chair, Health Care Committee
Rep. Chris Harker (OR), Vice Chair, Health Care Committee
Sen. Mark Hass (OR)
Rep. Betty Komp (OR)
Rep. Nancy Nathanson (OR)
Rep. Tobias Read (OR)
Sen. Diane Rosenbaum (OR), Assistant Majority Leader
Rep. Chip Shields (OR)
Rep. Jefferson Smith (OR)
Rep. Carolyn Tomei (OR), Chair, Human Services Committee
Rep. Brad Witt (OR)

PENNSYLVANIA (Another of the 13 and Ben is spinning right about now)
Rep. Mark Cohen (PA)
Rep. Eugene Depasquale (PA)
Rep. Todd Eachus (PA), House Majority Floor Leader
Rep. Richard Grucela (PA)
Rep. Patrick Harkins (PA)
Sen. Vincent Hughes (PA)
Rep. Babette Josephs (PA)
Rep. Keith McCall (PA), Speaker of the House
Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith (PA), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Sen. Robert Mellow (PA)
Rep. Phyllis Mundy (PA)
Sen. Michael O'Brien (PA)
Sen. Michael O'Pake (PA)
Rep. Tony Payton (PA), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Joseph Preston (PA)
Rep. Josh Shapiro (PA)
Rep. Chelsa Wagner (PA)
Rep. Rosita Youngblood (PA)

PUERTO RICO
Sen. Luz Arce (PR)

RHODE ISLAND (Another of the 13 but haven't yet researched the high number yet)
Rep. Edith Ajello (RI)
Rep. Joseph Almeida (RI)
Sen. Elizabeth Crowley (RI)
Rep. Roberto DaSilva (RI)
Rep. Elizabeth Dennigan (RI)
Sen. Frank Devall (RI)
Rep. Grace Diaz (RI), Secretary, Health, Education and Welfare Committee
Sen. Louis DiPalma (RI)
Rep. Frank Ferri (RI), Member, Health, Education and Welfare Committee
Rep. Christopher Fierro (RI)
Sen. Hanna Gallo (RI)
Rep. Alfred Gemma (RI), Member, Health Care Oversight; Member, Joint Committee on Healthcare Oversight
Rep. Joanne Giannini (RI)
Sen. Maryellen Goodwin (RI)
Rep. Scott Guthrie (RI)
Rep. Arthur Handy (RI), Member, Health, Education and Welfare Committee
Rep. Joy Hearn (RI), Member, Health, Education and Welfare Committee
Sen. Paul Jabour (RI)
Sen. Charles Levesque (RI), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Sen. Erin Lynch (RI)
Sen. John McBurney (RI)
Sen. Michael McCaffrey (RI)
Rep. Joseph McNamara (RI), Chair, Health, Education and Welfare Committee; Member, Joint Committee on Healthcare Oversight
Sen. Joshua Miller (RI), Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. J. Patrick O'Neill (RI)
Rep. Edwin Pacheco (RI)
Sen. M. Teresa Paiva Weed (RI), Senate President; Member, Joint Committee on Healthcare Oversight
Sen. Rhoda Perry (RI), Chair, Health and Human Services Committee; Member, Joint Committee on Healthcare Oversight
Sen. Juan Pichardo (RI), Secretary, Health and Human Services Committee; Member, Joint Committee on Healthcare Oversight
Rep. Amy Rice (RI)
Rep. Michael Rice (RI)
Rep. Deborah Ruggiero (RI), Member, Health, Education and Welfare Committee
Rep. David Segal (RI)
Rep. Patricia Serpa (RI)
Rep. Mary Ann Shallcross-Smith (RI)
Rep. Raymond Sullivan (RI)
Sen. John Tassoni (RI), Member, Health Care Oversight Committee
Rep. Donna Walsh (RI)
Rep. Anastasia Williams (RI)

SOUTH CAROLINA (Home of Joe Wilson - Although woefully misled since the Feds have been providing health care reimbursement to emergency rooms for illegals under federal statute for at least 20 years, as this former border resident can attest, although used for the flu more than true medical emergencies, or other medical checkups, when their employers should have to provide this if outsourcing, in my opinion)
Rep. Anton Gunn (SC), Member, Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee
Rep. Jay Lucas (SC)
Rep. Anne Parks (SC)

SOUTH DAKOTA
Rep. Elaine Elliott (SD)
Rep. Bernie Hunhoff (SD), Minority Leader
Sen. Sandy Jerstad (SD)
Rep. Larry Lucas (SD)
Rep. Eldon Nygaard (SD), Member, Health & Human Services Committee; Minority Whip
Rep. Darrell Solberg (SD)
Rep. Martha Vanderlinde (SD)

TENNESSEE
Rep. Joe Armstrong (TN), Chair, Health and Human Services Committee; Chair, Joint Health Equity Committee
Rep. Tommie Brown (TN)
Rep. Kent Coleman (TN)
Sen. Beverly Marrero (TN), Secretary, General Welfare, Health and Human Resources Committee
Rep. Jeanne Richardson (TN), Member, Health and Human Resources Committee; Vice Chair, Subcommittee on Public Health and Family Assistance
Rep. Johnny Shaw (TN)

TEXAS (Another high illegal immigrant state, which also surprises me due to the public's sentiments, by and large, on this issue of health care for illegals provided by the Texans, rather than those outsourcers, although again is New England influenced by the Bush interests)
Rep. Alma Allen (TX)
Rep. Roberto Alonzo (TX)
Rep. Rafael Anchia (TX)
Rep. Valinda Bolton (TX)
Rep. Ellen Cohen (TX), Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services
Rep. Garnet Coleman (TX), Member, Public Health Committee
Rep. Dawnna Dukes (TX), Vice Chair, Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services
Rep. Jim Dunnam (TX)
Rep. Pete Gallego (TX)
Rep. Ana Hernandez (TX), Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Abel Herrero (TX), Vice Chair, Human Services Committee
Rep. Terri Hodge (TX)
Rep. Carol Kent (TX)
Rep. Tracy King (TX)
Rep. Eddie Lucio III (TX)
Rep. Diana Maldonado (TX)
Rep. Marisa Marquez (TX)
Rep. Elliott Naishtat (TX), Vice Chair, Public Health Committee; Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Dora Olivo (TX)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz Jr. (TX)
Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (TX)
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (TX)
Rep. Marc Veasey (TX)
Rep. Armando Walle (TX)

UTAH
Rep. Jackie Biskupski (UT)
Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck (UT), Member, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. Christine Johnson (UT)
Rep. David Litvack (UT), Member, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee

VERMONT (Another of the original 13, and high employer of health care industries)
Rep. Janet Ancel (VT)
Rep. Margaret Andrews (VT), Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Timothy Ashe (VT)
Rep. William Aswad (VT)
Rep. Kenneth Atkins (VT)
Rep. Sonny Audette (VT)
Sen. Claire Ayer (VT), Member, Health Access Oversight Committee
Sen. Susan Bartlett (VT)
Rep. Clem Bissonnette (VT)
Rep. Charles Bohi (VT)
Rep. Bill Botzow (VT)
Rep. Carolyn Branagan (VT)
Rep. Christopher Bray (VT)
Rep. Cynthia Browning (VT)
Rep. Mollie Burke (VT)
Sen. John Campbell (VT)
Rep. Margaret Cheney (VT)
Sen. Matthew Choate (VT), Clerk, Health and Welfare Committee
Rep. Alison Clarkson (VT)
Rep. Jim Condon (VT)
Rep. Chip Conquest (VT)
Rep. Michel Consejo (VT)
Rep. Sarah Copeland-Hanzas (VT), Member, Health Care Committee
Rep. Timothy Corcoran (VT)
Rep. Gale Courcelle (VT), Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Ann Cummings (VT)
Rep. Susan Davis (VT)
Rep. David Deen (VT)
Rep. Dennis Devereux (VT)
Rep. Johannah Donovan (VT)
Sen. William Doyle (VT)
Rep. Sarah Edwards (VT)
Rep. Alice Emmons (VT)
Rep. Debbie Evans (VT)
Rep. Peter Fagan (VT)
Rep. Michael Fisher (VT), Co-Chair, Mental Health Oversight Committee; Vice-Chair, Human Services
Sen. Ed Flanagan (VT), Vice Chair, Health and Welfare Committee
Rep. William Frank (VT), Member, Health Access Oversight Committee; Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Eldred French (VT)
Rep. Patsy French (VT), Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Frank Geier (VT)
Sen. Harold Giard (VT)
Rep. Gary Gilbert (VT)
Rep. Maxine Grad (VT)
Rep. Adam Greshin (VT)
Rep. Sandy Haas (VT), Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Robert Hartwell (VT)
Rep. Helen Head (VT)
Rep. Martha Heath (VT)
Rep. Mary Hooper (VT)
Rep. Steven Howard (VT)
Rep. Richard Howrigan (VT)
Rep. Tim Jerman (VT)
Rep. Willem Jewett (VT)
Rep. Mitzi Johnson (VT), Member, Mental Health Oversight Committee
Rep. Kathleen Keenan (VT)
Sen. M. Jane Kitchel (VT), Member, Health Access Oversight Committee
Sen. Sara Branon Kittell (VT), Member, Health and Welfare Committee
Rep. Warren Kitzmiller (VT)
Rep. Tony Klein (VT)
Rep. Diane Lanpher (VT)
Rep. Mark Larson (VT)
Rep. Joan Lenes (VT)
Rep. Lucy Leriche (VT), Member, Health Access Oversight; Assistant Majority Leader
Rep. Robert Lewis (VT)
Rep. William Lippert (VT)
Rep. Jason Lorber (VT)
Sen. Virginia Lyons (VT), Member, Health and Welfare Committee
Rep. Terry Macaig (VT)
Sen. Mark MacDonald (VT)
Rep. Steven Maier (VT), Chair, Health Care Committee
Rep. John Malcolm (VT)
Rep. Ann Manwaring (VT)
Rep. Michael Marcotte (VT)
Rep. Richard Marek (VT)
Rep. Cynthia Martin (VT)
Rep. Linda Martin (VT)
Sen. Hull Maynard (VT)
Sen. Richard Mazza (VT)
Sen. Richard McCormack (VT)
Rep. Jim McCullough (VT)
Rep. Francis McFaun (VT)
Rep. Virginia Milkey (VT), Vice Chair, Health Care Committee
Rep. Alice Miller (VT)
Sen. Hinda Miller (VT)
Rep. Sue Minter (VT)
Rep. Mark Mitchell (VT)
Rep. Anne Mook (VT)
Rep. John Moran (VT)
Rep. Mike Mrowicki (VT), Member, Human Services Committee
Sen. Kevin Mullin (VT), Clerk, Health and Welfare Committee; Member, Health Access Oversight Committee
Rep. Floyd Nease (VT)
Rep. Betty Nuovo (VT)
Rep. Anne O'Brien (VT), Co-Chair, Health Access Oversight; Chair, Human Services Committee
Rep. Michael Obuchowski (VT)
Rep. Pat O'Donnell (VT), Member, Health Access Oversight Committee; Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Scott Orr (VT), Member, Human Services Committee
Rep. Carolyn Partridge (VT)
Rep. Kathy Pellett (VT)
Rep. Peter Peltz (VT)
Rep. Paul Poirier (VT), Member, Health Care Committee
Rep. Dave Potter (VT)
Rep. Ann Pugh (VT)
Sen. Doug Racine (VT), Chair, Health and Welfare Committee; Co-Chair, Joint Committee on Mental Health Oversight; Member, Health Access Oversight
Rep. Kesha Ram (VT)
Sen. Philip Scott (VT)
Sen. Richard Sears (VT)
Rep. Ernest Shand (VT)
Rep. Dave Sharpe (VT)
Sen. Peter Shumlin (VT)
Rep. Megan Smith (VT)
Rep. Shap Smith (VT)
Rep. Robert South (VT)
Rep. Kristy Spengler (VT)
Rep. Tom Stevens (VT)
Rep. Donna Sweaney (VT)
Rep. Tess Taylor (VT)
Rep. George Till (VT)
Rep. Kitty Toll (VT)
Rep. Larry Townsend (VT)
Rep. Ira Trombley (VT), Member, Health Care Committee
Rep. Donald Turner (VT)
Rep. Linda Waite-Simpson (VT)
Rep. Kate Webb (VT)
Rep. Rachel Weston (VT)
Rep. Scott Wheeler (VT), Member, Health Care Committee
Sen. Jeanette White (VT), Co-Chair, Health Access Oversight; Member, Mental Health Oversight
Rep. Jeff Wilson (VT)
Rep. Suzi Wizowaty (VT), Member, Health Care Committee
Rep. John Zenie (VT)
Rep. David Zuckerman (VT)

VIRGINIA:
Del. Kristen Amundson (VA), Member, Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee
Del. David Englin (VA), Member, Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee
Del. Delores McQuinn (VA)
Del. Jim Scott (VA)
Del. Patricia Ticer (VA)
Del. Jeion Ward (VA)

WASHINGTON (Another Canadian border state and whose coveraged doesn't extend to the U.S., but is much influenced by Canadians either visiting or working there)
Rep. Maralyn Chase (WA), Vice Chair, Environmental Health Committee
Rep. Frank Chopp (WA), Speaker of the House
Rep. Judy Clibborn (WA), Member, Health Care and Wellness Committee
Rep. Eileen Cody (WA), Chair, Health Care and Wellness Committee
Rep. Steve Conway (WA)
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (WA), Chair, Human Services Committee; Member, Environmental Health Committee
Rep. Hans Dunshee (WA)
Sen. Rosa Franklin (WA), Vice Chair, Health and Long-Term Care Committee; Member, Health Disparities Committee; President Pro Tempore
Sen. Karen Fraser (WA)
Rep. Roger Goodman (WA)
Rep. Bob Hasegawa (WA)
Rep. Sam Hunt (WA), Majority Floor Leader
Sen. Ken Jacobsen (WA)
Sen. Fred Jarrett (WA)
Rep. Ruth Kagi (WA)
Sen. Karen Keiser (WA), Chair, Health and Long-Term Care Committee
Sen. Adam Kline (WA)
Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (WA)
Rep. Marko Liias (WA)
Sen. Chris Marr (WA), Member Health & Long-Term Care Committee; Member, Comprehensive School Health Reform
Rep. Marcie Maxwell (WA)
Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe (WA)
Sen. Joe McDermott (WA)
Rep. Mark Miloscia (WA), Member, Health & Human Services Appropriations
Rep. Dawn Morrell (WA), Member, Health Care and Wellness Committee
Sen. Ed Murray (WA), Majority Caucus Chair
Sen. Eric Oemig (WA)
Rep. Timm Ormsby (WA)
Rep. Jamie Pedersen (WA), Member, Health Care and Wellness Committee
Sen. Craig Pridemore (WA)
Sen. Debbie Regala (WA)
Rep. Christine Rolfes (WA), Member, Environmental Health Committee
Rep. Mary Helen Roberts (WA)
Rep. Larry Seaquist (WA) Vice Chair, Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee
Rep. Mike Sells (WA)
Sen. Paull Shin (WA), Vice President Pro Tempore
Rep. Larry Springer (WA)
Rep. Dean Takko (WA)
Rep. Kevin Van de Wege (WA)
Rep. Deb Wallace (WA)
Rep. Scott White (WA), Assistant Majority Whip
Rep. Brendan Williams (WA), Majority External Relations Leader

WEST VIRGINIA
Del. Bonnie Brown (WV)
Del. Michael Ferro (WV)
Del. Barbara Fleischauer (WV), Member, Health and Human Resources Committee
Sen. Dan Foster (WV), Member, Heath & Human Resources Committee
Del. Nancy Guthrie (WV)
Sen. Jeffrey Kessler (WV)
Sen. William Laird (WV)
Del. Michael Manypenny (WV)
Del. Charlene Marshall (WV)
Del. Clif Moore (WV), Assistant Majority Whip
Del. Don Perdue (WV), Chair, Health and Human Resources Committee
Sen. Roman Prezioso (WV)
Sen. Randy White (WV)
Sen. Jack Yost (WV), Member, Health and Human Resources Committee

WISCONSIN (Another Canadian border state)
Rep. Chuck Benedict (WI), Chair, Committee on Public Health
Rep. Terese Berceau (WI)
Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber (WI), Member, Health and Healthcare Reform
Rep. Spencer Black (WI)
Sen. Tim Carpenter (WI), Chair, Public Health, Senior Issues, Long-Term Care and Job Creation Committee
Sen. Spencer Coggs (WI), Member, Public Health, Senior Issues, Long-Term Care and Job Creation Committee
Sen. Jon Erpenbach (WI), Chair, Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue Committee
Sen. Dave Hansen (WI), Assistant Majority Leader
Rep. Gary Hebl (WI)
Rep. Steve Hilgenberg (WI)
Rep. Andy Jorgensen (WI)
Rep. Frederick Kessler (WI)
Sen. Patrick Kreitlow (WI)
Sen. John Lehman (WI), Majority Caucus Chairperson
Rep. Cory Mason (WI)
Sen. Mark Miller (WI)
Sen. Nick Milroy (WI)
Rep. Sandy Pasch (WI), Vice Chair, Public Health Committee; Member, Health and Healthcare Reform Committee
Rep. Sondy Pope-Roberts (WI)
Rep. Jon Richards (WI), Chair, Health and Healthcare Reform Committee
Sen. Fred Risser (WI)
Sen. Judith Robson (WI), Member, Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue Committee
Rep. Kelda Roys (WI), Vice Chair, Health and Healthcare Reform Committee
Rep. Donna Seidel (WI), Member, Health and Healthcare Reform Committee; Assistant Majority Leader
Rep. Christine Sinicki (WI)
Rep. Jim Soletski (WI)
Sen. Jim Sullivan (WI)
Rep. Robert Turner (WI)
Rep. Terry Van Akkeren (WI)
Sen. Kathleen Vinehout (WI), Member, Public Health, Senior Issues, Long-Term Care, and Job Creation Committee
Sen. Robert Wirch (WI)
Rep. Josh Zepnick (WI)
Rep. Ted Zigmunt (WI)

WYOMING
Rep. Peter Jorgensen (WY)

So it appears many legislators at the state level also sponsored by either the health care industries in special interest campaign contributions, southwestern or western border states with either high illegal immigrant numbers facing state residents now job and property losses due to the Mexican and/or Canadian borders and influence, or the original 13 colonies that are also close to the Canadian border are behind this, as this administration and the prior one attempt to spin mimmick our countries government with that of Great Britain more and more.

SOURCE: Progressive State Network

Obama Speak: Baucus Measures Not A Tax?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:11:00 +0000

CNN today carried a report that Mr. Obama has stated that the new proposals for mandated health care coverage as proposed by Max Baucus (D-Mt) is "absolutely not a tax" on the middle class or American people.

I think, Mr. Obama, that Patrick Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and those other great framers and founders would dispute your claims. Since "mandating" a seizure of property (money) from the American people to buy a "product" which is what health care insurance actually is, is not within your powers or duties of office nor of the U.S. Congress.

Not without their express consent. Not simply political party publicity focused townhall meetings, not public opinion polls.

Mr. Obama attempted again to spin the measure likening it to mandatory auto insurance which is mandated by most states throughout the nation. Also which laws and statements were really a falsehood and those laws unconstitutional in and of themselves, since there are provisions also in many states that merely provide that you must show proof of financial responsibility in other forms, not mandatory insurance coverage at all.

And that coverage is, after all, determined correctly at the state level, not by federal mandates.

And is, after all, simply for any and all personal liability you might have which might damage the property or other automobile of another driver. And the laws also provide for alternate provisions than insurance, and without such alternatives also technically in violation of most state and the federal Constitution anyway and have made a great business for those professional auto wrecker criminals and their activities, many of whom are employed in the insurance industry themselves or their "preferred vendors", in the process.

And many Americans already, correctly so, dispute those laws on Constitutional grounds also.

Since the entire reason they were passed in the first place actually was in order to lessen the burden to the taxpayers also in the amount of small claims and fender bender property damage court actions that had progressively occurred as more and more Americans started owning automobiles.

And really was a gold mine for the auto insurance industries, and many state residents have been calling for long overdue reform in those laws also progressively, and regulation and accountability of those insurers whose premiums also have increased over and above the CPI levels for many who have never made even a claim, or have had substandard provision under those policy or contractual provisions "progressively" ever since gaining that access to the public's purse unconstitutionally during the last recession in the 70's.

Especially since many states then even took it one ludicrous step further and mandated that you now must have "uninsured" and "under-insured" coverage, which laws are definitely unconstitutional. Meaning you must carry coverage in order to protect yourselves from the damage or fault of another if they object to those laws or are uninsured for any reason.

And strangely enough, foreigners of course are not required to carry auto insurance in this country at all, which has resulted in the higher rates for citizens now in the borders states especially due to accidents caused by uninsured foreign visitors to those mostly tourism focused states, or the Mexican illegals crossing at will.

Since driving is a risk in and of itself, than what actually is lawful and legal in that respect is also making insurance a choice. If you have an expensive automobile than as a piece of property you can choose whether or not to insure that property for risk of loss. If it is damaged due to willful or deliberate negligence of another driver, than the courts are there for such reasons. The entire passage of mandatory insurance laws and that illegal move is now being used in order to somehow paint this Baucus measure as similiar, when it is fundamentally not.

And any such laws mandating the taking of an Americans property for corporate gain and welfare is actually a tax, so I hate to break it to Mr. Obama, but Harvard's law school curriculum at this point truly is suspect in its Constitutional Law courses. That much also is abundantly clear at this point.

Congress and the President have no such authority, period - all their representations to the citizens and public to the contrary. They work for the people, not the other way around, nor do the people work for the insurance industry in this country and their profits and gains at the public's ultimate expense.

What is within their authority is regulation and oversight of these massive global and national insurers. Not getting into bed with them, nor the also huge supplemental plan organizations such as AARP, which sell those policies that are nothing more than gravy for the insurance industries, since they rarely have to provide any benefits under them, using the primary care provider such as Medicare then as the heavy whenever treatments are denied, or the payment of benefits refused. It's all in that fine print.

So how Mr. Obama can NOT paint this as an additional tax on the middle class I haven't a clue. And his amazing oratory skills really are wearing thin on many in this respect and many others. We know a sales gimmick when we see it. The dumbing down of the populace has not reached those proportions quite yet.

The fact that this "proposal" came from a Senator from the State of Montana, a Western state also historically known for its conservatism in Bill of Rights protections and also less populated due to its expansive Western mountain ranges and areas, bespeaks also politically putting a public face on this unconstitutional legislation for public consumption which is, while not socialism that can be outrightly labeled as such in governmentally mandated and taxed provision, nothing more than "corporate" socialism masked as in the "public interest." Which it is not.

Since it is clear that there is a sizeable majority of Americans that see this for what it is. No reform. Simply feeding the insurers and industries once again at the public's ultimate expense since there is little, if any, regulatory or accountability measures included over those insurers and health care providers, or the financial sector and these Wall Street traders that own a great stake in these industries, and also have progressively divested these industries into high risk financial investments which have also impacted the American public in the costs for health insurance in general.

And the middle class auto workers in Detroit, and homeless in Arizona, truly not those you can fool once again in just how much Washington and those on the Hill actually care for the welfare of its lawful and legal citizens, rather than foreign and industry backers at this point in history.