It seems prudent to illuminate activities that much of the nation is likely engaging in concerning the Health Care debate, and thus I have decided to publish one of the emails I have received on the matter, and my response to it.
This is in furtherance of transparency of the legislative machine affecting the nation, and those who currently propagate its prerogatives.
First is the email from California representative, and Congresswoman, Lynn Woolsey, followed by my response.
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Thank you for contacting me about health reform. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Unfortunately, this is an issue on which we disagree.
We must reform our health care system to provide high quality and affordable health care for everyone. At least 46 million Americans are now uninsured and by the end of the day, 14,000 more Americans will lose their coverage. In addition, health care expenses for the average family of four are projected to jump $1,800 every year. Congress has held hearings and listened to the recommendations of many stakeholders, including doctors, patients, and employers and these viewpoints have been important in shaping a health care reform bill.
While I’m an advocate of a single payer national health insurance system, I supported a robust public option that would compete with private plans to bring down the cost of health insurance and give patients the choice between a public or private plan. I’m pleased H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act contains a public option and eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions and lifetime caps. The bill also closes the Medicare Part D Doughnut Hole over time and allows the government to negotiate drug prices, which will lower prescription drug costs for seniors. In addition, this bill will ensure that any increase in health care premiums will be reviewed before they take place.
These reforms would have far-reaching effects in the 6th Congressional District. They would:
H.R. 3962 passed the House on November 7, 2009 and the Senate passed its own health care reform bill, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24, 2009. The House and Senate are now working together to merge these bills so a single health care reform bill can be considered by both the chambers of Congress.
While we may disagree on this issue, I am sure that there are other values that we share.
Again, it’s good to hear from you. The people of Marin and Sonoma counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress.
Sincerely,
Member of Congress, Lynn Woolsey.
Below is my response to Congresswoman Woolsey:
Dear Lynn Woolsey,
Thank you for your response, but I must disagree with your position on Health Care Reform, and voice my consternation concerning the fact that many in the congress intend to pass this legislation regardless of the people's majority repudiation.
Essentially you are claiming that the ends justifies the means, and that it is only by regulation and force that a cohesive mechanism can be implemented. However, this first and foremost contradicts the intention of “cohesion” or cooperation. Furthermore, the Obama machine claimed many times that his proposals would garner overall voluntary support from the entire nation, and that the current efforts to force this on the public would never be necessary.
There are a bevy of facts and indications to address concerning this matter, and following are just a few of them.
Unfortunately, you appear more convivial and complimentary toward the providers of medical treatment, than you do concerning respect for the recipients of such. You make blanket statements regarding the figures which allegedly show the amount of people not covered under some form of health insurance, or those that have lost their provider.
However, there are always two sides to any story, and there is no data proferred by you which indicates the number of people gaining new coverage every day.
You claim that controlling the market and capping premiums is the only solution to the alleged crisis (that I myself do not find to be as dire as asserted by this administration), which intends to indemnify the providers and consumers, and ignores their overall contribution to the matter.
Unfortunately, many doctors appear to be nothing more than a predatory network of “agree to agree” proponents and promoters of pharmaceutical companies who’s main agenda is the sale of drugs. These pharmaceutical companies want large amounts of money for these drugs, and I see no reason why the government should get involved in the equation, and as typically ensues, exacerbate the situation. The government’s explicit involvement in the process will only seek further subsidies (supported by tax-payers, i.e. consumers) which will allow drug companies to continue ignoring the true concerns which illuminate the fact that most of the food corporations’ daily assault on the American mind creates a mentality of veritable suicide by diet.
Incessantly demanding to medicate people -- who could better benefit from a more educational system which allows them to daily engage more self-reliant behaviors that in turn reduce their dependence on medial treatment for preventable maladies -- is something this legislation seeks to further proliferate. The bill also continues an atmospher which absolves the consumer of responsibility, and in so doing, silences far too many of their possible concerns.
This is a disturbing development from a largely intrusive government which is exhibiting an overtly authoritarian intent in tandem with excessive collusion with the American corporate machine which prey’s on ignorance and seeks to manipulate people with promises of instant gratification. And much of the industry's claims rarely, if ever, warn the consumer of the true consequences of this gratification.
Just one example: Over 90 percent of what is sold as food in over 98% of supermarkets is not fit for human consumption. Argue this point if you must, but I have proven it to be utterly irrefutable with empirical scientific methods and personal alchemy.
To ignore the many indications of misinformation and dietary obfuscation which allow the medical industry to proliferate in an atmosphere of veritable malpractice is a dire crisis that this administration, and as well many others, is obviously loathe to engage.
To purport that you, and those in public service, have perorated the conversation with the most viable solution, when your analysis has not even engaged the equation in an equitable manner, is nothing short of derelict. Regardless of whether this is due to incompetence or tortuous intent, the consequences are the same, and the crisis will reach terminal velocity much sooner in the environment you envision.
The government has handcuffed the free market for decades and prevented healthy competition by exempting health insurance companies from tort reform legislation that prohibits behaviors that seek to subvert or avoid competition.
There are literally thousands of health care insurance providers in this nation. However, in California, employers are only allowed to choose between 6 of them. This is manipulation of the market, and there is no excuse for it. Regardless of the fact that this administration argues that allowing coverage across state lines would create excessive levels of fraud and misfeasance, this assertion is largely unfounded. The claim is that the consumers would be subject to the lowest common denominator because coverage would monopolize in those states or counties which choose to reduce their regulations in an attempt to tailor them to a burgeoning market, and that all other providers would be required to offer the same lax policies. However, once again, the intelligence on this is completely without merit.
For anyone who truly researches the mechanism of free markets, it is entirely obvious that increased quality is a direct result of increased selection, and thus competition across the board and across the nation is one of the first considerations which must be focused upon when seeking to reform the health insurance industry.
A single payer system will not work, as it will eventually evolve into an argument over costs and delivery, rather than that of service and availability. A single payer health care system would often require the medical industry to operate on bare bones, and would typically mandate that the level of care be that which requires the least amount of effort, rather than that which first respects the patient and his or her choice.
(edit:) This is due to the fact that the single-payer system would rely solely on tax dollars and premiums absent any competition.
Furthermore, the areas of contrast and controversy, such as homeopathic medicine, healing foods, disease-as-toxicity and so forth, will be further marginalized in what will be a burgeoning system of mitigation rather than informed prevention.
The Hippocratic oath which states “first do no harm” likely finds no solace in this bill, and furthermore, may very well become more of an obstacle in the ensuing mechanisms which will evolve amid the socialized atmosphere being proposed.
As far as pre-existing conditions, while this is a touchy subject that unfortunately was made worse by insurance providers being allowed to avoid tort reform legislation, and also being able to drop policies of those who did become sick, the governments involvement caused, and incessantly exacerbates, the situation.
Mandates which created COBRA and other allegedly progressive legislation, actually reduced accountability of insurance companies, and further decreased competition by forcing certain employers to buy from only those providers which complied with COBRA mandates.
These intrusions then force suppliers and consumers alike to comply with mandates which eventually hurt the insured individual by reducing coverage, denying those with pre-existing conditions, raising premiums, lowering wages for the individual worker, capping coverage, etc.
Furthermore, the intrinsic ideology that creates the mechanism of insurance is based on probability, and thus is predisposed to gravitate toward healthy consumers, and avoid risky clients who either may have a pre-existing condition or who merely exhibit a propensity to require excessive medical attention.
How can the government now propose to enter this veritable gambling house and demand to be allowed to deal from the bottom of the deck. This legislation is intent on assuming control of risk factors that are part and parcel of the insurance market, and which are necessary parameters which must be taken into account if an insurance company is to survive, let alone thrive.
While it is obvious that there are too many cheaters in the game, the fact is that they are almost all of them created by intrusion of the government.
In a free market, insurers must be savvy providers that literally operate with their finger on the pulse of society. It is not only imperative that they take all things into consideration in an effort to avoid insuring those who present unmanageably risky behaviors, but must also intend to influence a market base in such a way as to decrease overall risk by incorporating high levels of educational information in their proposals to average consumers and investors alike. (Now there's something that would drastically reduce health care premiums, folks.)
The competition that must ensue is necessary to reflect the much needed levels of personal responsibility and accountability this nation is ignoring, and which is causing far too many advents of auspicious creation to languish in defense of excessive and misguided indictments on their behaviors; behaviors which are merely portentous reactions forced upon the markets by near-sighted and abusive legislative mandates.
I could go on for days. However, judging from your excessively pragmatic and less than intuitive response, your eyes are likely already spinning in your head.
Furthermore, that you make the statement “Marin and Sonoma counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress” is rather exculpatory to the cause of the many people who are calling for your resignation, and I sincerely doubt that your agenda is first and foremost one of authenticity. Regardless of where I live, my concerns are not reserved to my geographical location, nor reflective of only the voice of those in close proximity.
The fact that Marin county is one of the richest in the world, does not exempt it from moral, legal or logical obligations, and thus cannot expect any more representation than that of the rest of the state, or nation.
Regards,
Mr. Wilson.
]]>Leaders of the republican party have now openly professed to be an organization which is manipulated by foreign interests. In various articles on the internet they have openly declared that one of the prerequisites for any person who seeks the nomination of the party, is a declaration of allegiance to Israel, and devotion to furthering U.S. and Israeli relations. It makes no mention of the rule of law, or the sober dedication to justice and respect for the rights of the individual in making this assessment of veritable “blind servitude.”
There are many provisions in the United States Constitution which explicitly convey the intent to prevent any foreign country from influencing policies or laws within them, and sets out articles and sections therein with the express purpose of prohibiting those who do, from obtaining, or maintaining, any position of Trust or Profit.
This is why Article 1; Section 9, paragraph 8, states “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Furthermore, it states throughout the various articles that no person shall be appointed as an electorate in any state, for any office, if they are a Senator, Representative, or person holding an office of Trust of Profit under the United States. Thereby, both extricating the governance of the nation from foreign interests harbored by international trade, and preventing circumvention of the democratic process by the same.
Section 6, Paragraph 2, which states “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his continuance in Office,” clearly intends to prevent anyone aspiring to public office from being subject to, or a taking advantage of, a conflict of interest.
No person is eligible to serve in public office but that they are of qualifying age, are of reputable and recognizable citizen status for at least seven years, and has sworn or affirmed to execute such office to the best of their ability and to uphold, protect and defend the United States Constitution.
Unfortunately, these days, much of the indictment of the United States Government for seditious and treasonous acts is not only warranted, the likelihood is that much of it is being perpetrated with little actual complicity by a body of appointed officials who have become blinded by foreign interests.
While it can be said that far too many corrupt, or disingenuous, politicians seek elected office, the fact that the government, in and of itself, is operating under various illegitimate interpretations of its powers -- and thereby intrinsically corrupt -- naturally predisposes any less-than-auspicious public figure to fall prey to its wiles.
Essentially, many times the government is no more guilty than it is blind. And while knowledge of this propensity may be reason for indemnifying political figures for acts performed, or arguments proffered, while in public service, it does not in any way whatever exempt any politician from prosecution. Impeachment may be the final word of a duly elected congress, but in the duly sworn confines of the judiciary, which represents the power of the people, immunity is left naked on the courthouse steps.
Regardless of any sentiment for or against Israel or the Jewish religion, the fact is that Israel is a foreign nation in a foreign country, and engages in acts which are disparaging of the United Sates, and which are the result of laws in said jurisdiction, which in word and deed in no way conform to the United Sates constitution, nor of jurist prudence or due process of said law.
Astonishingly, former Secretary of State George P. Schultz say’s of derided Senate hopeful Tom Campbell -- who is accused of being anti-Semitic -- “He clearly understands the very real threats facing the Israeli people, all the more urgent now as Iran rushes toward nuclear arms.”
However, there are few threats that Israel finds itself facing, of which they have not either been a primary party to causing, or through contempt for the rule of law and human rights, have severely exacerbated
Schultz’s statement was made in response to attacks on Campbell’s character with relation to his support for Israel, which has come under fire lately as the GOP senate race begins to heat up.
There are even allegations that Carly Fiorina, one of Campbell’s two primary rivals including Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, has accused Campbell of being an “anti-Semite.”
The main inquiry is focused on one of Campbell’s campaign contributors, a donor who was later revealed to have ties to a U.S. listed terror organization. However, this listed organization may have been flying under the radar during the time when Campbell received the support.
The man in question -- who donated to Campbell’s 2000 Senate race -- is Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor who pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiring to help a terrorist organization.
The debate over Campbell’s “Israeli credentials” -- as one website puts it -- is heating up the Jewish and conservative websites, because of his reference to a Palestinian Homeland, and his voting record. And is allegedly a rare issue in American politics…
Yeah? Since when?
Supposedly this type of special interest posturing is less frequent in Republican primaries compared with Democratic ones, say’s Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and former GOP political operative. Reiterating “Support for Israel is a pretty universal concept among Republicans. Support for Israel is a pretty broad-based concept in American politics.”
Of course this comes as no surprise to Israel, who published an article in “Maariv,” a major regional newspaper in that area, boasting “Jewish control of U.S. Government.”
Campbell is also being attacked by Israeli proponents who fault him for associating with Alison Wier, a controversial research journalist who is a fierce critic of Israel -- obviously exercising her rights under the first amendment which prevents abridging any individual’s freedom of speech. Which, by the way, almost no organization on the planet, including AIPAC, has ever been supportive of.
Weir has been accusing Israel of harvesting organs from imprisoned Palestinians. Which certainly presents as the type of antigen which typically stimulates the often baseless viral attacks that Israel is known for. One merely needs to seek exposure of the brutalities of Israel to be labeled an “anti-Semite” these days.
]]>In the Miami Herald today they have given their opinion on Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s position concerning relations with Iran and the assertions of Hillary Clinton which she alleges reflects the majority of international sentiment.
The Herald claims that “even before Clinton could appeal for Silva to support sanctions against Iran for breaking the rules of nuclear-proliferation, the Brazilian President offered “this airy dismissal: ‘It is not prudent to push Iran against a wall’”
To which the Herald asks “what wall?” And then claims that “The United States and the world community have made a years-long effort to break down the barriers and engage Iran diplomatically about its nuclear program.” Claiming Iran’s answer was “Talk, talk, defy, defy.”
However, neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has done anything but endeavor to dictate to Iran on various policies and blindly support Israel in almost any action they engage regardless of how monstrous it may be, or appear to their neighbors.
The United States political and financial support of Israel cannot in any way be furthering relations with many of the Middle Eastern countries in that region, which is evidenced by the fact that this nation is now embroiled in various military conflicts in the region, and they are escalating with little sign of abating in the next decade.
Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has almost nothing to bring to the bargaining table and instead is merely a puppet of an AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) bureaucratic machine which typically displays utter disdain toward any entity which even so much as questions their motives. Their coalitions and counterparts routinely accuse skeptics of being bigots, simply for repudiating their many brutalities and racially biased actions.
The international community which the Herald is speaking of has seen fit to ignore Israel’s use of phosphor and mass casualty weapons such as the DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) ordinance which have both been condemned by international human rights organizations, and are being investigated by the U.N. Human Rights Council for their long term biological and carcinogenic effects on entire civilian populations.
Israel is even allowed to bulldoze and murder American activists, such as Rachel Corrie, with impunity, and kill Palestinian protestors -- who are merely throwing small stones -- with tear gas weapons and rubber bullets that are used in a lethal fashion, which is also prohibited by international law when engaging peaceful protestors.
Iran has many times in history felt the sting of CIA covert operations and coups which have destabilized their society and overthrown their duly appointed leaders. However, many of America’s elected officials act as if they take breakfast with Ahmadinejad every morning.
The Untied States memorializes nearly every qualm Israel has, or has ever had, while at the same time ignoring even the most blatant of atrocities against much of the rest of the Middle East. And this incessant posturing by American politicians will only weaken relations with a growing number of countries, and further steel Iran’s resolve to maintain inexplicably autonomous.
The Herald goes on to say that “It (presumably Iran) continued to play for time, engaging ‘negotiations’ even though its secret work to develop nuclear capability constituted an undeniable violation of U.N. rules.” Stating further that “George W. Bush…offered Iran economic and diplomatic incentives (including talks with the United States) in exchange for playing by the international rules of nuclear development.”
However, how can U.S. policymakers expect a country such as Iran to play by rules the United States, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, North Korea and South Africa do not play by? Moreover, the United States shares nuclear weapons with Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey. Allegedly South Africa, who signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1991, has ceased all nuclear weapons construction, but that is largely debated.
Regardless of what reasoning is proffered in justification of this double standard, it likely bears absolutely no significant relevance to Iran’s international prognosis in the mind of Ahmadinejad. Furthermore, the main contention of the U.N., C.F.R. and other intercontinental security councils appears to be that Iran will suddenly launch a nuclear strike as soon as they can get an atomic weapon built.
However, there is no proof whatsoever that Iran would do anything more than what other countries have done, and that is use them as a bargaining tool.
Furthermore, the only countries who are proven to have employed the use of nuclear weapons are the United States and Israel, and the U.S. has been using them since before Desert Storm as Bunker Busters and other medium and large sized ordinance that are routinely coated, or infused, with Depleted Uranium.
To digress…
Much evidence also shows that the CIA has employed the use of Micro Nukes in various areas of the world, including assertions by Oklahoma City police sergeant Terry Yeakey -- later murdered in 1996, but ruled a homicide -- who told close friends of seeing small, un-detonated, nuclear devices in the Murrah building on the day of the Oklahoma City Bombing, where he witnessed federal agents carting them and other explosive devices to waiting vehicles. Dr. Charles Chumley, Yeakey’s close associate in a private investigation into the matter also died the same year of the bombing (1995) in questionable circumstances when his private plane took a nose-dive into a cabbage field shortly after take-off. Investigators could find no mechanical malfunction.
When one discovers that Timothy McVeigh was still in the military just months prior to the bombing, suspecting foul played by the Feds is not much of a stretch. Furthermore, there are many people who question the official reports of that day, and the conclusion that McVeigh acted alone.
But back to Iran and the Miami Herald’s “opinion.”
The Herald also claims that Obama offered Iran an olive branch “in his inaugural speech last year. ‘We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
Wow, Obama really showed some diplomacy there. Certainly was the very least he could do…uh, I mean say. Did the Obama administration ever show any action to back up this half-baked accusation? No, only more of the same quid pro quo that has time and again elicited the same responses from Iran; “Begin to hold Israel accountable for its brutality and blatant disregard for established borders in the region, and stop supporting their war machine…then we can talk.”
The Herald cites the “discovery last September of a secret nuclear enrichment plant inside a mountain near the Iranian city of Qom which underlined that government’s determination to become a nuclear power -- and its perfidy. And given this history, President Lula da Silva’s stance sounds dangerously obtuse and unworthy of a country that aspires to be considered an equal among the world’s leaders.”
So, there is no treachery on the part of Israel -- who, by the way, abstains from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty -- when it claims that it has no nukes?
In the late 80’s Israel claimed that the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona was merely a textile factory. It was not until 1986, after it was exposed by former site technician Mordechai Vanunu to be an enrichment facility for manufacturing nuclear weapons, that Israel admitted it was a nuclear facility, but still stopped short of exposing their “perfidy” when claiming it was merely a “research facility.”
Israel first began secretly researching and building its nuclear weapons capabilities in the late 40’s with covert assistance from France, and has always maintained an “airy” posture of “nuclear ambiguity.” Israel, whenever questioned on the assertion that they possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads -- with the capability to deliver them via ICBM, aircraft and submarines -- simply states “Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region.” Which could mean any number of things, but is typically accepted as either; they will not produce them, or will just stop short of being the first to send them raining down on another country.
Regardless of what they are inferring, the fact is that they are hiding their nuclear activities as well as their intentions. Can they expect any more or less form others?
It appears that Iran is merely following the example set by its mendacious neighbors.
The Miami Herald believes that “diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran offer the best opportunity to end this looming crisis peacefully. A successful effort requires the international community to present a united front to oblige Iran to stand down.”
Sure, more force is going to get a peaceful reaction from them. What planet are these people living on? Inclusion in the process, and vilification of their voice and desires are what is necessary to decompressing the volatility of the “crisis.” And any proposals to the contrary belie a cowardly and inept viewpoint on the matter. Intuition would tell anyone with a 5th grade education that ignoring a proposed threat will not make it go away. Furthermore, neither will exacerbating the threat with pressure cause it to relinquish its position. Especially if it may possess a significant amount of justifiable concerns that are not being addressed, or being overtly ignored.
The Herald even suggests coercing Brazil to act as the liaison of manipulation, and goad Iran into compliance with a dissenting compatriot image, but still voting for a new round of sanctions.
What? is this high school all over again? Or some other Confidential Informant mentality likened to some episode of SCI Miami? It appears these people have been watching way too much television, or drinking too much of their own Kool-Aide. They actually suggest whoring Bazil out to Iran and conscripting their services like some sort of double agent.
When reading the statements by President Silva, illuminating is obvious great deal of integrity -- that likely infuriates Hillary Clinton -- I doubt he would be obliged to play along.
The article actually say’s “Brazil has a seat on the current U.N. Security Council, where its vote on a proposed tightening of sanctions against Iran carries special weight because President Lula da Silva has made it clear he is no U.S. lackey. Support for sanctions by Brazil could go a long way toward persuading Iran that the game is up. Instead, the president’s words give Tehran’s mullahs solace and comfort they don’t deserve and bring the confrontation that no one wants that much closer to reality.”
It truly is astonishing how much sensationalism and doomsday edifice there is in the Miami Herald article. Does not anyone take the time to check the facts and the mountains of data which would alert them to the reality that it is prohibition and exclusionary tactics which reap the most corrupt and destructive effects.
Consider the analogy that if it were to get to the point that only one country had nuclear weapons, the chance that those weapons would be used increases by a factor concordant with the number of proposed targets. This is no reason to go MAD (mutual assured destruction) about the solution. However, it is reason to insist that the leaders of the many nations begin to truly engage the equations, and realize once and for all that pragmatism, and employing a mentality that incessantly expects to legitimize actions which follow an “ends justifies the means” schematic, will result in the entire game becoming a battle of the warheads rather than a battle of the wits.
Quit seeking answers, and begin understanding that they are only a terminal mechanism. For posterity and progress, one must realize that there is only engagement of the question.
]]>As far as the spin-doctors are concerned, breaking news in the nation appears to be that the unemployment rate has held steady at 9.7 percent -- a rather sunny outlook indeed, which almost certainly does not truly reflect the actual figures.
But it certainly does fall in line with promoting the efforts of a failing president who doesn’t appear to be willing to raise so much as a finger to address the real issues which still harangue the nation’s markets and overall public net worth.
It’s so nice to be inundated with messages which praise the fact that the nation is still on a backward slide that has cost another 36,000 jobs this quarter, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, celebrity shenanigans and duplicitous political agendas are splashed across the screens and magazine covers with minute by minute accounts of obese self-indulgence and lavish perversion amid the burgeoning theatre of depravity they abide.
Children have become the media’s new trick-ponies while maturity is denigrated as some form of mental health affliction to be avoided and medicated.
The gap in wealth across the nation is increasing and bureaucratic corporate pandering is at an all time high as the Supreme Court consistently rules against the sovereign individual -- in flagrant contempt for the constitution and the rule of law -- and rewards corporations for misfeasance, mendacity and environmental assault.
The working class can certainly wave goodbye to another round of jobs next quarter as the nation’s leaders push for more authoritarian rule with the assistance of big corporations, who by the way will shed more jobs as the impending grasp of accountability seeks to press them to pony up their share, and attacks the strategy of off-shore tax shelters.
More small businesses will go under because they cannot garner the subsidies awarded to large, often criminally complicit, conglomerates who can afford to buy legislators and pay lobbyists.
In this economic hail storm integrity is the new guillotine buzz-word for assuring one gets a pink slip, and the miscreant observer, shaking down consumers for kicks, is the new pro-talent in a corporate world that will spend more on lawyers and judicial bribes than they will on coming into compliance with the law.
Barack Obama’s Wall Street pandering and defunct foreign policies -- feigning diplomacy with a hidden dagger -- have only succeeded in further destabilizing the real estate market and sent shockwaves around the planet which will take decades to subside.
Countries such as Haiti are getting a full helping of Obama’s slight of hand as he furthers the aims of foreign companies which daily disregard the will of the common citizens who make up that nation. He has conscripted the United States Military for the express purpose of nation building while the Americans daily lose jobs, homes and lives here at home.
Nowadays breaking news in the nation has become an entirely less than genuine helping of pragmatic propaganda dished out by a monopoly of media moguls who have gobbled up much of the nation’s news deliver network as it went bankrupt in the slide to the bottom.
To all of the preposterous purveyors of disproportionate distraction, who obviously are doing everything they can to destroy this country’s auspicious heritage…“Do me favor and hold the applause until we crash…will ya !?”
]]>Now President Barack Obama is personally appealing to the democratic party to “put aside their qualms, seize a historic moment” and vote for his massive health care overhaul.
However, this idealistic approach is rather old news which mainly presents as another disingenuous plea to get behind a less than intuitive agenda merely because it is a hot-button issue or has a nice ring to it.
Obama’s hope and change rhetoric appears to be the only style of argument his obsessively pragmatic mind can create. He stands in front of the cameras with a line of white coats behind him as if he is the spokes person for a Pepto-Bismal commercial.
When in all actuality his new media marketing approach to the legislative process just makes it look as if he has wandered too far from the facility and is about to be ushered soothingly back to his padded cell.
Unfortunately the core issues are being ignored in the health care debate, as the spurs of foreign markets kick the flanks of U.S. inflation, instigating charging spikes in costs which, along with unemployment, are driving up health care premiums.
The insurance industry, which has enjoyed a largely free ride for many years, has been exempt from the antitrust laws which prohibit anti-competitive practices and behaviors, and thus are designed to prevent monopolies.
The legislation may include some provisions which remove this exemption, however, the many changes as of late make it impossible to conclusively determine this. Suffice it to say, the likelihood that such a provision is in the bill is another reason health insurance premiums have risen sharply in the last few months.
While the insurance market could use a healthy dose of true competition, implementing this sweeping change in an international recession (bordering on depression) is not at all wise.
As typically expected, fraud has since increased ten fold over the already burgeoning levels seen at the onset of the economic decline. And the further the economy recedes the less jobs are created in the small business sector which employs over half of the people in the nation, and which also is responsible for creating more than 65 percent of new jobs. Furthermore, Obama’s payroll tax breaks will not create any new jobs because the hiring of employees is contingent on need, not promises by the federal government.
The health care overhaul is being implemented solely as a crisis management opportunity that in a stable growth economy would otherwise never even be considered as an issue, let alone proposed as something which the nation, in the words of Obama, “can wait no longer” to act upon.
Obama not only intends to use mandates and penalties -- which will initially increase premiums -- to force compliance to a system he guaranteed would elicit voluntary cooperation, he is also adamantly forcing the bill on a reluctant congress. This is reminiscent of Al Gore’s push to enact the NAFTA and GAT legislation which has proven to, as Ross Perot warned, suck the wealth out of the nation.
Obama, with his many broken promises has proven to be no more than a smooth talking veracity bending priest of personality, and is likely finding it entirely impossible to garner true support from much of the government, and even less from the public.
Uncertainty and mistrust in the markets driven by excessive government intrusion is sending more investments overseas every day, as foreign capital further weakens the dollar. Moreover, the wars -- escalated under the Obama administration -- that are being waged in countries who’s populations are well aware that Obama promised to end them, is garnering support for the nation’s enemies, and the foreign occupations are becoming more and more unpopular, and thus are costing America much needed international support.
As well, his already languishing foreign relations image was likely irreparably tarnished by his bombastic display of disrespect at the Climate summit in Copenhagen where he completely ignored prudence in opt for an authoritative international position as he clearly expected to dictate unfair and sweeping cap and trade measures, to a host of foreign countries, based on unproven science and discredited figures.
Hillary Clinton, his choice for Secretary of State, has only further exacerbated the tense foreign relations with Iran and Israel, and exposed herself to be unfit for the appointment. As the administration's primary domestic aid She has made little, if any, progress in repairing the currently fractured image of diplomacy Obama backpedaled from.
Clinton was recently embarrassed by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who’s cool-headed and diplomatic approach to the Iran crisis exposed Hillary's lack of intuition and resultant authoritarian bent. Her position is likely nothing more than a mirror image of mandates expected by the U.N. Security Council -- that Obama chaired last year in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution which clearly states that the president cannot simultaneously hold any other office.
Silva rebuffed Clinton -- and the U.S.’s appeal for new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program -- when during her recent visit to his country, Silva vowed not to “bow down” to gathering international pressure.
“It is not prudent to push Iran against a wall,” Silva told reporters just hours before meeting with Clinton. “The prudent thing is to establish negotiations.”
Clinton claims that if there is any possibility of negotiating with Iran, it would happen only after a new round of sanctions. Which appears to be more of a predisposition of her job as the "pitch-man" (woman) of the less than genuine Obama administration.
Her resolve began to crack as she angrily railed against Iran claiming “We see an Iran that runs to Brazil, an Iran that runs to Turkey, and an Iran that runs to China, telling different things to different people.”
As she acts as if no United States federal agency has ever done that.
Foreign Minister Celsio Amorim was not swayed by Clinton’s display of stubborn conviction, and countered her position by stating “We will not simply bow down to an evolving consensus if we do not agree.” Adding “We have to think by ourselves and with our values and principles.”
Now there's Something few politicians in America appear to even understand.
Regardless of how much Clinton may be intending to save face for the United States, her lack of authenticity is a domestic disease caused by excessive media influence and corporate pandering, and she likely does not even realize how transparent her disingenuous, and misguided, claims are to a foreign diplomat.
Truly, how can this nation prosper in an international theatre when its foreign envoys, ambassadors, and executive figures, posses such a paltry amount of insight and integrity?
The Obamasnare is reaching full speed as he claims “the debate is over. All that can be said about health care has been said.”
Then he once again ignores the issues at hand and lays claim that passage of this bill is an “important historic moment.”
Who could possibly trust this legislation when Obama so openly, and with little or no compunction, keeps changing his position with increasingly more sensational and bombastic claims?
]]>When analyzing the American experiment, and piercing its sociological realms, one cannot help but focus, at times, on the events of September 11, 2001.
There is an incredible array of evidentiary occurrences, tangible facts and suppository edifications to be investigated, and few of them truly exfoliate a conclusion that the acts were perpetrated solely by 19 foreign individuals who displayed few proficiencies, including a lack of ability to satisfactorily fly an airplane.
Even if military tribunals or civilian courts presume to prove, or merely contend undisputed, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the extremely complex orchestration of the many 9/11 events, the cold hard facts do not support this peroration.
In assessing the second conspiracy theory that “the United States Government perpetrated 9/11” in the series of debunking Newsweek writer David Graham's contention that it is without merit, this article will mainly address the issue of the alleged collapse of building 7 in the World Trade Center (WTC) group, and the fact that it does not take much of a stretch for one to consider that the evidence points toward the event being the result of a cooperative effort between some rather powerful people in and around the United States Government.
First and foremost is extricating the unknown from the known, and thus indemnifying the process as an investigation rather than an indictment.
This article is not a provocative itinerary of accusations through predisposed assumptions, but rather an exploratory journey of discovery through objective analysis.
WTC 7 was a 47 story building primarily utilized for the purpose of maintaining continuity in leadership in the event of a disaster, and thus was supported by an extremely resilient and well crafted steel skeleton, and fortified inner bunker. This bunker housed the headquarters for the CIA, FBI, NSA and SEC for that region, and thus was the location of thousands of documents and files concerning a great deal of this country’s law enforcement agencies’ ongoing investigations into fraud, insider trading, espionage, foreign and domestic criminal activities, and government corruption.
The structure consisted mainly of huge, steel I-Beams that possess the ability to withstand both fire and shock damage while retaining their tinsel strength (a from of rigid flexibility). Furthermore, much of the load bearing steel was typically encased in no less than 4 inches of concrete.
When the NIST report claims that the I-Beams of the WTC group became flexible to the point of collapse due to fires in the buildings causing thermal breakdown, this highly unlikely event still does not explain the symmetrical destruction of a building. The main gravitational load, with regard to weight distribution of the structure, is not confined to spatial expanse, but rather distributed among focused pressure points which are engineered into the skeleton to naturally reduce downward kinetic energy in the event of structural failure, and thus prevent a complete collapse.
Fire is not, in and of itself, a destructive force. The nature of heat and its relation to the release of inert gases during accelerated decomposition of organic elements, is the critical analysis necessary for determining the destructive effects of thermal radiation. And the study of this phenomena plays the major role in fire science as regards prevention and investigation.
A specific gradient of heat, relative to the atomic composition of the specified element, must be maintained in order to increase acceleration of atomic particles to the point of destabilization or decomposition of that element and its compounds.
All conclusions or assumptions that fire was the main contributor to the collapse of any of the WTC buildings -- One, Two or Seven -- must take into account the nature of the elements, and the physical propensity of any material to release heat. While it is true that wall-board -- containing gypsum and silicon fibers -- is specifically designed to quickly absorb heat, and then slowly release it, the maximum thermal capacity of this material falls well below that of steel, and thus is not a factor.
There is, however, a physical factor known as “wicking” which is a crucial and expositive portion of the investigation concerning the building’s steel structure. Wicking is an activity which occurs in all thermal applications and is significant to the research of thermodynamics and quantum physics. It is controlled by the natural occurrence of expended energy during the production of any radiating effect. Such as a stove’s heating element which must expend (use or release) energy in order to get red hot. The element is specifically designed to release the energy through radiation -- at a predetermined threshold -- before it becomes unstable.
Basically, if a material gets hot it is only because it is experiencing radiating energy, either through convection, contact with the source, or direct induction, at levels which exceed the natural velocity of electrons in the nuclei and valence layers of the atoms which form the various combinative elements in the material.
Valence layers are the cyclonic outer regions of every atom, and are populated by orbiting electrons which allow one atom to bond with another atom if both of the their valence layers possess complimentary numbers of these electrons. Furthermore, it is the number of these electrons -- and resulting vibratory radioactive effects -- which determine the strength of the bond, and thus are the deciding factor which allows the same basic elements of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and sometimes Nitrogen, to create everything from cardboard to carbon steel.
What is significant to this information is the fact that energy always follows the path of least resistance, and thus travels away from a heat source rather than toward it. Therefore, any heat absorbed by the steel I-beams -- increasing atomic activity -- is automatically radiated throughout the entire I-beam toward areas of less activity which attract it, and thus expended at a level relative to the I-beam’s combined atomic weight.
For a structural I-beam, like those used in building WTC 7, to become so hot that it would actually bend along an expanse great enough to pull it from its terminal supports, the heat generated would have to greatly exceed that used by acetylene torches when cutting the same steel beam. Simply because the heat would dissipate along the entire beam from wherever it originated.
It must also be noted that the heat generated when burning average consumer products and common combustibles does not focus its energy as the flame of a torch does. Furthermore the amount of oxygen required to create a level of heat even remotely akin to that of an acetylene torch would not be available inside of the structure, since photographs clearly show that much of the windows, both solid and valence, were still entirely intact.
In analyzing the actual structural collapse of the building itself, the speed at which the building fell (including WTC1 and WTC2) was not in any way indicative of an uncontrolled structural collapse, and certainly not one due to fire.
Simply the time it would take for the entire building to crush itself (yes, I realize that sounds absurd to the educated mind) would require that at least 2 to 3 seconds be allocated for each collapsing floor. This means that WTC1 and WTC2, according to the assertions made in the largely debunked government NIST report, should have come down in no less than 140 seconds, but up to 210 seconds, since the airliner impacts were near the 70th floor, and the “tamper theory” is the method of choice. As is well known, building 1 and 2 completed their downward trajectory in just over 10 seconds.
As for WTC7, the reports posit a simultaneous complete failure of the entire structure (yes, I realize that also sounds absurd, and to just about anyone) and thus the timeline is not so much the significant concern; although the symmetry is. At any rate, the 8 seconds that it took for WTC7 to “implode” into its own footprint is well below the average of 45 seconds a complete collapse would require.
If the buildings had merely collapsed due to fire, then they would have been misshapen and asymmetrical in appearance, and it would have lasted for over a minute rather than mere seconds. For the entire structure to pinch in the middle -- as clearly seen, and commented on by anchorman Peter Jennings, in undisputed videos -- and come down at free-fall speed, thousands of structural “lynch-pins” must be severed simultaneously.
Again, the NIST report, proffered by government officials, claims that once the fire heated the steel to the point of structural failure, the tops of the buildings then broke loose and acted like “tampers” (the tamper theory) and crushed the entire remaining portions of the structurally sound buildings.
However, simply the laws of gravity, and relative physics, conclusively prove this to be an utterly erroneous, if not ridiculous, theory. The laws of physics and quantum mechanics show that essentially “to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” While at times the reaction to an action is anything but equal or opposite, in the area of structural engineering this law is entirely valid and irrefutable.
Regardless of the mass or velocity of the occurring energy (the downward thrust by the tops of the buildings), the at-rest structure below it is not complimentary to the trajectory, and thus causes the mass to expend energy rather than generate it.
Assuming the NIST report’s assertions -- however absurd -- were actually true, then the tops of the buildings -- bound to the laws of physics -- would have lost approximately 23 percent of their kinetic energy when crushing the first floors. This would have been an exponentially occurring phenomena which would have reduced their energy by at least another 48 percent as they pushed through the second floors, and by approximately one fifth of the way through the third floors they would have lost all downward motion, and either slid off the side and to the ground in a previously initiated trajectory relative to its contact with the asymmetrical structure below it, or remained off-kilter at the top.
Unfortunately, the majority of the evidence, if not all of it, indicates conclusively that all three buildings -- WTC 1, 2 and 7 -- were imploded with the assistance of a great deal of explosives. The concrete dust, and spheres of cooled molten steel, contained high levels of sulfur and aluminum which indicates the use of a military explosive charge known as Thermate. And this explosive is common in demolitions operations where they are employed as shape-charges which detonate at an extremely high velocity and thus can be depended on to cut steel beams at a rate of speed which guarantees symmetrical collapses of intentionally imploded buildings. This is a necessary technique utilized for reducing damage to other buildings which may be in close proximity to the projected collapse.
Now comes the point where an official rendition of one of the events which transpired the day of September 11 begins to point toward some possible collusion between powerful domestic entities; namely Larry Silverstein and others with whom he may be affiliated.
Silverstein makes a statement in a nationally televised documentary about the World Trade Center catastrophe where he is seen opining about the decision to “pull” WTC building 7. He is seen saying “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
Regardless of what Silverstein was inferring, the fact is that there is little chance that he could have been speaking of anything other than intentionally demolishing the building, since the “pull it” command bears no similarity whatsoever to the much lauded explanation by officials who claim he was merely speaking of removing rescue personnel. These were trained firefighters who routinely face intense levels of danger. As well, the possible collapse of the building could not have been of significant concern since it had not sustained any structural damage, and thus the mention of “loss of life” does not compute in the equation which implies that Silverstein was consulted on such a pressing matter.
Furthermore, why would Silverstein claim it was “the smartest thing to do”? If one is truly concerned about the lives of the first responders, and assuming the fire was out of control, then what other choice could there be? From nearly any angle, the comment presents almost conclusively as one which was expected to explain why the building was imploded, without first considering the ramifications of exposing such truth.
As a former ROTC “Fire Science and Paramedics” honor graduate this author has never heard the words “pull” or “pull it” used as a term for ordering an emergency extrication of fire fighting personnel from a building. Neither did the term ever surface during the months of Fire Control training, that I excelled in, as preparation for the unique ship-board emergencies which can occur in the United States Navy. Both of these batteries of aptitude are extremely team intensive and require terminology which cannot be misinterpreted. The word “pull” does not possess the necessary parameters of explicit redundancy, and is an ambiguous term which could sound like any number of words.
The reasoning required by emergency situations demands that common sense terminology be employed at every level since catastrophe does not wait for trained professionals to arrive on the scene, nor does it suffer illogical behaviors. If a fire, or other emergency, gets out of control then those who are trained to engage said emergency may find themselves the ones in need of rescue, and thus unproven new recruits or average citizens may be the only available people to rely upon.
Therefore, terminology such as “out now” and “no go” are imperative to the team concept, and critical for proper coordination of emergency response personnel at every level. The term “pull” or even “pull it” (the word “it” is typically avoided) can be misinterpreted to mean “pull the hose”, “pull the line” or even “pull up your pants” assuming the word is first even vocally understood in what is typically a raging inferno of deafening noise that is often compounded by the muffling operation of an SCBA (self contained breathing apparatus). Furthermore, why would a command such as “pull it” be used to facilitate the coordinated efforts of an entire team of emergency personnel? Especially when this form of command is not reserved to only those situations which occur in buildings, and can easily be a necessary command for a team engaging an exterior hazard in an open area. As stated before, phrases such as “fall back” “move out” or even the multi-syllabic word “disengage” are much more implicit and easily comprehended commands.
To employ a single-dimension, non-redundant, veritable expletive like “pull” or “pull it” in such conflagrating situations as are found in the realms of fire fighting is not in any way logical, and would put everyone’s lives at risk.
Thus the contention by Silverstein and various officials, that the words “pull it” -- a widely used term in controlled demolition -- was utilized by fire personnel on the day of September 11, 2001 as a commonly recognizable emergency response command does not satisfy the requirements which must be met in determining something to be an empirical fact, and as such is in no way complimentary to Silverstein, nor exculpatory to any claim of veracity on his part.
Furthermore, to insist that Silverstein’s comment was taken out of context, by alleged conspiracy theorists, is invalid since Silverstein -- who was not acting in any official capacity as an emergency response coordinator -- used the first-person word “we” when explaining his involvement in the hierarchy of the command, and respect to the decision making process which initiated the alleged “pull it” order.
Unfortunately, for Mr. Silverstein, his statement most clearly exhibit’s the more sober collaboration between clients and professionals, and does not bode well for his future prospects in the public eye when the inexorably portentous investigations into the shadowy figures of 9/11 eventually evolve into legal indictments.
Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) actually aired a news cast near the scene of ground zero, in which a well known news personality reports the collapse of WTC 7, but neglects to realize that the building is still standing in the background. When questioned on the matter, the BBC initially denied the allegations and claimed they had lost the tape for the segment in question. However, since it was archived and presented to them, they eventually admitted that they had the tape, but refused to proffer any explicit explanation for the gaffe.
These facts do not conclusively determine that Silverstein is lying, or that he was involved in perpetrating the events of 9/11. However, they do expose the need for a more complete and impartial investigation of every person in close proximity to the various events of that entire day, and the months -- or even years -- leading up to it.
Once again, in stark contrast to Graham’s assertions that those who question the government’s official 9/11 report are merely conspiracy theorists, they are actually a courageous group of concerned people consisting of hundreds of thousands of engineers, architects, physics professors, doctors, lawyers, elected officials, demolitions experts, commercial and military pilots, and average every day citizens -- typically called “truthers” -- who are logically engaging the many overt discrepancies concerning that day, and simply calling attention to the need for a new and impartial investigation.
Conversely, many main stream media conglomerates and officials attempt to contend, or merely take for granted, that the events of September 11, 2001 were the culmination of a major conspiracy between a microscopic 19 member cadre of men who were so profoundly powerful and well connected that they were 1. able to simultaneously command NORAD to stand down; 2. hijack 4 commercial airliners; 3. hit 75% of their targets (including the Pentagon, the most secure area on the planet); 4. for the first time in history collapse three buildings into their own footprint with fire; 5. turn concrete and steel to dust and molten spheres, with kerosene (commercial airline fuel); 6. fly planes into buildings and live to tell about it (12 of the 19 alleged terrorists have been found still living and working in the Middle East); 7. leave their passports at the scene of the crime unscathed; 8. bury an entire commercial airliner (UA flight 93) in an abandoned mine in Shanks Ville, Pennsylvania without a trace of wreckage or blood (now covered by a crescent cement slab which obscures it form exhumation and investigation); 9. make the acting commander in chief -- George W. Bush -- look like a fool and then lie saying he “saw the first plane hit the building on the televised news” (he could not have seen it as he claims because it did not air until later in the day, and nobody could mistake the first collision for the second one, for obvious reasons); 10. fly a 747 fast enough to vaporize it upon impact with the newly bomb proofed area of the Pentagon, leaving no trace of the huge 9 foot high engines or 195 foot wingspan -- need I go on?-- …all after infiltrating Wall Street and placing an inordinate number of “put options” against United Airlines stock (financial bets on a decline in its value) at over 400 times the average for that type of investment in the weeks prior to 9/11, and then not collecting on it. But then how could they…and why would they…if they were truly on a suicide mission?
Once again, Newsweek writer David Graham’s conspiracy theory which he claims will debunk the “conspiracy theorists,” has so many holes in it, it couldn’t hold crude-oil-saturated sand, let alone water.
]]>It is rather astonishing that those who advocate strict gun control, or outright prohibition, reference things such as crime and gang violence as the sole reasoning supporting, or just influencing, their position. And while any logical person with an ounce of intuition generally considers these gun-grabbers to be merely misguided or inept, it is difficult at times to help but wonder if they do not have some ulterior motive; or quite possibly a nefarious alternate agenda.
What person in their right mind could ever come to the conclusion that prohibiting legal gun ownership would reduce the number of guns procured and used by criminals? For Pete’s sake, they are criminals, and certainly have no intention of abiding by such a mandate.
No, the only thing a gun ban accomplishes is to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. Essentially because they are the only ones who will voluntarily comply with the ordinance.
Furthermore, a gun ban will create a lucrative market for the procurement and sale of stolen or undocumented weapons, and will increase rates of crime simply by forcing criminals to steal these guns.
This type of legislation also spreads crime to other counties and states where there may be more guns available to purchase or steal. Then creating a new black market for trafficking them into the prohibited areas.
In 1982 Chicago imposed a strict ordinance banning guns in the home in an effort to combat rampant gangs and firearm violence that plagued the city.
However, as a resident of the north side of Chi Town for several years, I have witnessed plenty of gun play, and have even seen black people pull out a gun on a populated residential street in broad daylight and fire the weapon into the air for nothing more than kicks.
But it was common knowledge that there was little chance one would be arrested for it, or even instigate a phone call to authorities by a concerned neighbor. People know that it is the gang-bangers and crack dealers who have all of the guns, so they are likely too afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal for making a complaint.
Well, it appears that some Chicago residents have had enough. Otis McDonald, a 76 year old man who lives in a crime-saturated area of the city, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn his city’s strict ban on handguns in the home.
“In my home, this is the only time I worry.” say’s McDonald. “There’s more guns coming into this city than police can take away from them. So if I’ve got a gun, and others have guns in their homes to protect themselves, then that’s something the police would have to worry about less.”
Chicago’s nearly 30 year ban on possession of handguns and automatic weapons within city limits is one of the most stringent in the nation.
McDonald’s chances of getting results from the Supreme Court does bode well since its ruling a year and a half ago which declared for the first time that the constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun in his or her home.
One sticking point however, is the fact that the federal government has no authority to dictate to states, and in the current bureaucratic atmosphere which often finds legislators arguing that the various states have the right to enact laws which are confined to their specific area, McDonald may have to push for compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution say’s that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
McDonald is asking the Supreme Court to have the Heller ruling -- which struck down the D.C. gun ban -- applied in cities and states across the country.
Concerning the gun ban which prohibits McDonald from owning a gun in his own home, he say’s “It makes me feel like the city cares more about the thugs than they do me, and I am the one paying taxes,”
Lawyers for the City of Chicago point out that 402 of the 412 firearms homicides occurred with the use of handguns.
Chicago Corporation Counsel, Mara S. Georges, wrote “handguns are used to kill in the United States more than all other weapons, firearms and otherwise, combined.” She argued that the Court should leave it up to the states and cities to regulate handguns.
However, the only reason handguns are used to kill more than all other weapons is because they are the most convenient. If there were no handguns then something else would top the list, because people do not kill other people simply out of convenience. There is always a motive, and if the motive is strong enough, then it matters not what weapon is available. Plenty of murderers have used their bare hands to kill.
Georges also writes “The genius of our federal system ordinarily leaves this type of social problem to be worked out by the state and local governments, without a nationally imposed solution excluding one choice or another.”
But there is most certainly a nationally imposed solution, and it is called the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, the federal government see’s fit to restrict gun ownership with blanket mandates that tend to codify people into specific categories such as felons, or the mentally ill. However, these restrictions should only be applied to specific individuals since one can be convicted of a felony which bears no relevance to the issue, or proves they would be any more likely to use a gun to commit a criminal act.
Furthermore, just because somebody may warrant a distinction as mentally ill, does not predispose them to violent or rash behavior. There are various mental conditions that merely cause people to avoid others, exhibit compulsive behavior, succumb to phobias, etc just like most anyone can be afflicted with in today’s society. This is no reason to claim they then have no right to protect themselves as any other citizen would.
Once again the Supreme Court, and justice Antonin Scalia, get it wrong when claiming that the Court’s ruling on Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Disregarding the rule of law will never be a reasonable strategy for deterring criminal behavior, nor excused by an inability, or refusal, to properly engage the social equations which result in homicide.
]]>Readers may at times feel the amount of corporate indictment and denigration on the factbat.com website is excessive, or governed by some personally vested motive. However, as illuminated in an article in the March 1, 2010 issue of the New York Times, it seldom goes far enough in exposing corporate America’s many indiscretions, or more often than not, out-right criminal behaviors.
According to a piece titled “Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act; Hampering E.P.A.” thousands of America’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) reach because the Supreme Court has once again ruled against the United States Constitution, and the sovereign individual, by leaving uncertain which waterways are protected by the CWA.
Furthermore, congress constantly act outside of its powers and enacts legislation which only intends to regulate the abuses of corporate America rather than complying with the Constitution -- which they vowed to protect and defend -- by prohibiting the corporation from operating without a charter which requires them to serve the good of the people.
But then, this type of adherence to the founding documents of this nation would also prohibit the spurious mechanism of Fractional Reserve Banking which many federal agencies scurrilously profit from, both in capital and cooperation.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s refusal to protect the citizens of this nation, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising in this veritable “cap and trade” scheme which robs people of their health in exchange for fees paid to the government.
This is just one more in a long list of abuses being perpetrated upon the general public the government typically treats as dispensable slave labor necessary only for furthering their bid for dominance.
As the article by Charles Duhigg and Janet Roberts states “Companies that have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters are not being prosecuted, according to Environmental Protection Agency regulators working on those cases, who estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years.
This has become a jurisdiction issue because the law is not being abided. Far too many bureaucratic entities are acting as if they have the right to regulate various infractions at the behest of the ignorant public they typically represent, rather than acting according to the law and informing citizens of the fact that regulation is merely a form of duplicitous misfeasance that should be prohibited across the board.
This form of honest policy would then level the playing field, which is what most corporations loath. Competition was deemed to be a sin by traitors such as John D. Rockefeller who was largely responsible for subverting the charter requirement that all corporations initially were held to if they wanted to operate in the United States.
Charters prohibited corporations from acting with impunity, and also typically expired in 5 or 10 years, or when the project listed in the charter was completed. This guaranteed open competition across the board, thus preserving the integrity of the nations business world.
“We are, in essence, shutting down our Clean Water programs in some states” say’s Douglas F. Mundrick, an E.P.A. lawyer in Atlanta. “This is a huge step backward. When companies figure out that the cops can’t operate, they start remembering how much cheaper it is to just dump stuff in the nearby creek.”
Time is not permitting for expansion of this article at the moment. However, it will be expounded upon by the end of the day…
]]>In the March 1, 2010 issue of The Examiner, a San Francisco area local periodical, there is an article titled “Deported over a 46-cent fracas” which takes an incredible leap into the vacuous realm of sensationalism with a blatant attempt to skirt the real and present dangers concerning the actual crime which was committed.
A local 13-year-old, and member of an illegally immigrated family, was charged with a felony because he allegedly -- albeit undisputed -- punched another child in the face and stole his money during an after-school program. The entire family is being deported Friday, back to Australia, because of the incident, and subsequent charges filed.
However, David Campos, of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, appears completely unfazed by the actions of the teen thug, and instead is attempting to argue against the extradition simply to use it as a platform for legitimizing a local “sanctuary ordinance” passed by the board in November -- sponsored by Campos -- that prohibits probation officers from reporting undocumented youths unless they are convicted of a felony.
The article, by Erin Sherbet -- Examiner staff writer -- exposes the fact that Mayor Gavin Newsom, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, in November, advised Juvenile Department Chief, William Sifferman that he would be violating federal and state law if his department shielded undocumented youths until they were convicted of a felony.
Tony Winnicker, spokesman for Newsom said on Sunday, “We are implementing The City’s sanctuary city policy, which, according to the city attorney, is in compliance with state and federal law.” Reiterating “We don’t want to put at risk, law-abiding San Francisco residents, including the undocumented, by shielding criminal behavior.”
While one must first be convicted of a crime in order to be punished for it, there is no reason to hide the criminal behaviors from federal authorities while the accusations are being investigated.
Campos appears to have pushed for his local ordinance -- favoring the criminal exploits of unauthorized immigrants -- in response to Mayor Newsome’s 2008 policy which states that all illegal immigrant youths arrested on suspicion of a felony, are to be released to federal authorities.
Campos even goes so far as to cite frustration with the “noncompliance” of Sifferman, illuminating Campos’ authoritarian propensities since he appears to believe that simply because he was able to persuade The Board to pass the local ordinance, that it is somehow a legitimate law.
Campos is threatening to pursue a legal challenge and propose withholding city funding form the Juvenile Probation Department as long as it, in his words “ignores the law.” He called for a public hearing to get some answers form Sifferman.
“This is the point we’re trying to make,” Campos stated. “This is yet another example of families being torn apart over something that the great majority of people would say doesn’t warrant deportation.”
However, there are likely a great many people who would ardently disagree with Campos. Furthermore, it is acts such as those perpetrated by the little felonious brat in question, which severely destabilize the learning atmosphere of the nation’s educational system, and it is in grave need of reforms which truly protect students from this kind of peer pressure and abuse. How many more school shootings does the nation need to see before people wake up?
The actions by the violent youth likely in no way exhibited the natural frustration of adolescence now coursing through the society, and instead appears to have been just one more display of oppressive and intentional abuse of another person. He will likely make a great miscreant Wall Street executive or authoritarian politician one day. Is Enron still seeking new talent?
Far too many bureaucrats such as Campos, with their personal agendas and aggrandizing platforms, incessantly seek to gain support for unconstitutional and wrongheaded ordinances or statutes that in no way comply with the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, and thus are not legitimate laws, regardless of the majority vote of the board, or even the will of the people.
This is a nation of people who are part and parcel of a government of laws. And the government is bound by that law first and foremost, and second are bound to exfoliating the desires and needs of the people.
This is not, as so many politicians intend to pretend, a nation run by the will of the people, absent the rule of law. If the people desire any reform, or expect adherence to currently enacted legislation, the legislative body’s primary purpose is to determine whether the proposed actions are compliant with the United States Constitution, aka “the law.”
The will of the people is an intrinsic and critical portion of overall societal progress and proficiency, but it is not, and cannot be, the primary factor in decision making among the elected officials and community leaders.
Those elected to office must be more than sensationalists and lawyerly lackeys who are reliant on the art of persuasion, or as is so often exposed, are simply sociopaths who will do or say anything in a bid for power.
The leaders of this nation’s many municipalities and states must be experts in the art of intuition and inspiration. They must understand the true will of the people within the capacity of the law, and act with indefatigable dedication to the inalienable rights of the individual which respects the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of all citizens, not just those who present as grandiose talking points for political straw-men such as Campos.
The leaders of this free and constitutional republic must be veritable sooth-sayers, with the ability to see into the future. They must be able to pierce the pools of time with a vision that is unaffected by the winds of discourse which often mar their reflective surface.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors appears to be a bureaucratic body which is itself in grave need of reform, as it languishes in defamatory denial and patronization of special interests that do not in any way represent the true will of the nation, and certainly do not conscript compliance with the constitution nor respect for the founding principles which made this the greatest country in the world.
The immigration policy of this nation which brought so many aspiring and hopeful people to its auspicious shores, seeking shelter under a statuesque promise of Liberty, states “bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free…” Not those seeking to exploit, and oppress, the good nature and ingenuity this policy so demonstrably created within its tenaciously diverse citizenry.
]]>Nancy Pelosi, the cackling hag of the Whitehouse -- who at the very least stood idly by while the Bush administration trampled on America’s liberties and rights of privacy, then refused to impeach because she was also involved in the administration’s policy of torture -- is now calling for a “simple up or down vote” on the defunct Obamacare legislation.
Regardless of the fact that the bill Obama is proposing is a monstrosity of market manipulating, selection severing, deficit exploding bureaucratic obesity that is merely attempting to place another veil over the snarling jaws of a national recession, it is expected to be used as a revenue generating tool for the government.
Not to mention the fact that it is unemployment and inflationary increases in health care supplies and costs that is driving rising insurance premiums. The more jobs the nation loses, the higher health insurance premiums will rise. Furthermore, in any recession, incidences of fraud are known to increase five and ten fold.
If the administration were truly interested in improving health care in the nation, they would not be choosing to attempt forcing sweeping mandates -- complete with fines for non-compliance -- on an already distressed citizenry thrown into multiple wars and dealing with national, and international, economic turmoil.
The Obama administration’s primary strategy is obviously that of the opportunist who will take advantage of a crisis situation in order to force unpopular reforms. However, President Obama appears to have severely underestimated the resilience and insight of the American people.
Obama, like Bill Maher and Valerie Jarrett, seems to believe that the American people are feeble-minded “sheeple” who just want a strong leader to make all of their decisions for them.
Michelle Obama had the nerve to claim that it was only during her husband’s presidential campaign bid for the Whitehouse that she found reason to be proud of the nation’s peoples. Conversely, the veritable Obama worship that ensued in 2008 was extremely unsettling for this author, and if one peruses this website (factbat.com) they will find many articles detailing just exactly why.
However, like many times in this nation’s past, there is yet another reason to now be unabashedly proud of the general population in this auspicious nation, as the citizenry has shouted a resounding “NO!” to Obama’s bid for unconstitutional reforms and domineering legislation.
But now Pelosi is even going so far as to appeal to fellow democrats to get behind Obama’s “chief domestic policy priority” even if it threatens their political careers.
Pelosi is essentially demanding that the party just cram Obamacare down the public’s throat and consign themselves to the consequences which will likely quell any of their hopes for a mid-term election victory.
But then, it is likely that in the back rooms and idle halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. she has already reminded many of them that they have little hope of securing their current majority anyway since Obama has turned out to be such a disappointment.
How many democrats may just elect to jump from the burning ship instead of being pushed overboard by the voters? Obviously, if Pelosi has her druthers, all of them.
]]>