Murdered in plain site, in full view of the 300 million+ of its Citizens, the Republic, formerly known as the united States of America breathed its last breath.

Killed off by members of Congress who were sworn to uphold its Constitution, the Congress and their accomplice, Barak Hussein Obama conspired to rid its Citizens of their God given right to manage their private affairs such as medical health care.

As the reputed president of the former Republic, Barak Hussein Obama, in his own words did admit at George Mason University,  “And in just a few days, a century-long struggle will culminate in a historic vote“, the killing off of the former Republic was pre-meditated with a conspiracy lasting a hundred years.

The Democrats championing the health care bill, while the Republicans feigned an attack against it, proved much too strong for weary Republic that had been battling socialist tendencies for many years.

Socialism, like the cancer that it is, was hiding within the body of the Republic masquerading as other maladies, like “liberalism” and “progressive”, slowly tearing apart the very fabric of the American body.

The once proud American Republic, the shining light on the hill, the torch lighting the world to freedom, lives no more.

She is survived by formerly free Citizens who are to be cared for by the social utopia Congress from cradle to grave and all points in between.

No mention of a burial or funeral service.

Lady Liberty shines “freedom” no more to the world.  She will only mark the spot where the ghosts of liberty and justice  one lived.

May God have Mercy on us all!

Publius

And when pressured, this one admits the truth!

Watch and learn!

You are so screwed, America!

See, from the New York Times article below, how Ruth Bader Ginsburg rationalizes why the Supreme Court should throw out the Constitution and consider foreign court decisions.

LET THE SCREWING BEGIN…

By ADAM LIPTAK

COLUMBUS, Ohio — In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges, suggested that torture should not be used even when it might yield important information and reflected on her role as the Supreme Court’s only female justice. The occasion was a symposium at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University honoring her 15 years on the court.

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.

The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.” There is one reason for that, she said: “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”

She also offered a theory about why after World War II nations around the world started to create constitutional courts with the power to strike down legislation as the United States Supreme Court has.

“What happened in Europe was the Holocaust,” she said, “and people came to see that popularly elected representatives could not always be trusted to preserve the system’s most basic values.”

American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” She predicted that “we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts.”

Justice Ginsburg turned 76 last month and underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in February. Here on Friday, she was energetic, enthusiastic and characteristically precise in her answers to questions from two law professors in a 90-minute conversation. She spoke mostly about her career as a litigator specializing in women’s rights and her years on the court.

In a videotaped tribute, Chief Justice Roberts described Justice Ginsburg’s work habits — including her “total disregard for the normal day-night work schedule adhered to by everyone else since the beginning of recorded history” — and congratulated her for reaching what he said was the midpoint of her career on the court.

In her remarks, Justice Ginsburg discussed a decision by the Israeli Supreme Court concerning the use of torture to obtain information from people suspected of terrorism.

“The police think that a suspect they have apprehended knows where and when a bomb is going to go off,” she said, describing the question presented in the case. “Can the police use torture to extract that information? And in an eloquent decision by Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of Israel, the court said: ‘Torture? Never.’ ”

The message of the decision, Justice Ginsburg said, was “that we could hand our enemies no greater victory than to come to look like that enemy in our disregard for human dignity.” Then she asked, “Now why should I not read that opinion and be affected by its tremendous persuasive value?”

Justice Ginsburg also discussed her career as an advocate, one that included six Supreme Court arguments and a role in shaping the language of the law. She helped introduce the term “gender discrimination” as a synonym for “sex discrimination,” she said, explaining that her secretary had proposed the idea while typing a brief to be submitted to male judges.

“ ‘The first association of those men with the word “sex” is not what you’re talking about,’ ” the secretary said, Justice Ginsburg recalled. “ ‘Why don’t you use a grammar-book term? Use gender. It has a neutral sound, and it will ward off distracting associations.’ ”

Justice Ginsburg expressed dismay at being the only woman on the Supreme Court. “There I am all alone,” she said, “and it doesn’t look right.”

In this area, too, the Canadian Supreme Court provides a model, Justice Ginsburg said. That nine-member court has four women, including its chief justice.

Justice Ginsburg concluded her remarks with advice to the students in the audience about one of her great passions.

“For a first opera, I would say, pick ‘Butterfly’ or ‘Bohème,’ ” she said. For her part, she added, she was looking forward a little warily to a six-hour production of Wagner’s “Siegfried.”

“Wagner is a great, great composer,” she said, “but he needed a good editor.”

You are so Screwed America!!

Publius

Was it here in America?  No, our politicians have been completely emasculated.

Listen and watch a minister in England takes the Prime Minister to task about how poorly he is managing the economy.

Are you listening Obama?

The British are Screwed by Uncle George!

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) — Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties.  “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Oh, you wanted “change”, you got change!  You are screwed by Uncle Sam

–Publius

On October 10, 1995, the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army came to attention at 0900 in Schweinfurt, Germany. All but one of the 550 soldiers were wearing a sky-blue baseball-style cap with a United Nations insignia on the front. One was wearing the olive-drab flat cap that is authorized to be worn with the Battle Dress Uniform. With this simple act of disobeying a direct order, Spc. 4 Michael New set the stage for a legal battle that has profound implications for the future of American soldiers into service of the United Nations without the constitutional permission of Congress.

United States v. Michael G. New

Read this amazing story how a United States serviceman, respecting his uniform, decided not to wear United Nations garb and paid for that decision with his career ending discharge.

The American Soldier is up for sale, America!  Worse, they are at the mercy and whims of an un-elected government called the United Nations.

Are you an American Soldier?  If so, you have been Screwed by Uncle Sam!

PREMEDITATED MERGER. Makeover urged for ‘North American Union’ effort. | Britannia Radio

Wake up, people, wake up!

The bail-out was engineered for “foreign debt”!

Monies for domestic US bad loans was forthcoming.  But the bankers needed to protect their foreign buddies too!  Why?  Well, the US Bankers and the International Bankers are all on the same team!  The care about their profits and their protection.  “To hell with the American People!”

Proof?  Just read the actual Senate Bill the House had to pass!

In part:

“11 SEC. 112. COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES
12 AND CENTRAL BANKS.
13 The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with
14 foreign financial authorities and central banks to work to
15 ward the establishment of similar programs by such au
16 thorities and central banks. To the extent that such for
17 eign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as
18 a result of extending financing to financial institutions
19 that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such trou
20 bled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.”

I added the bold emphasis to make sure you caught it.

So, how are you feeling?  A little “screwed?”  You should!  Uncle Sam screwed the American People by allowing borrowed funds from the FED (International & US Bankers) to purchase bad debt from foreign banks and foreign governments!

I bet you didn’t even get a “french” kiss for that one, did you?

Be sure to call and thank your Senator and Representative!

Just thought I’d shed a little light on things! 

Publius