Swine Flu and Universal Health Care Agenda

It’s an enormous blessing that Obama’s health care plan has not been put into play here as of yet. In Mexico, where the majority of the Swine flu cases in the world have been located, (over 2,400 at last count) the woman who may have been one of the key first cases to contract the deadly virus was unable to obtain appropriate health care. She saw several doctors, prior to getting any treatment and being properly diagnosed.

If you aren’t aware, Mexico has what they call a “universal healthcare” program for those who are employed full time. Mexico has a shortage of doctors for their plan, and yet it was put into play in 2003 with full knowledge of such a shortage and no plans to resolve the shortage. Hmmm. The U.S. does not have a sufficient number of doctors to handle a “universal” plan either, yet Obama and his puppeteers push for it nonetheless. In fact, Obama has gone so far as to use this potential epidemic as a propelling force to move his universal health plan through Congress at lightening speed. Of course! That fits this administrations motto of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Good grief!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/world/americas/29mexico.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Aliens Attack the U.S.

By Kellene Bishop

In view of Obama’s pick for U.S. Regulatory Czar, I have truly been converted today to the reality of aliens from outer space. I say this because I have no earthly idea where a person would come up with such alien statements and beliefs as this person does. Because the Sunstein Doctrine is so completely foreign to the substance and culture of this nation, it clearly demonstrates proof that Obama is pursuing his own agenda and not that of the American people. I am 100% certain that this guy’s beliefs are indeed foreign.

Introducing Cass Sunstein, the nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This name accompanied by his bloodcurdling doctrine should cause you to shudder. The fact that he would rape and pillage the first five Constitutional Amendments is only the tip of the iceberg. Read on to see this freak of nature at his best.

In 2007, during a speech given at Harvard, Sunstein proposed that hunting be banned throughout the United States. Ok, I can try to give him credit for wanting to save the lives of the hunting partners of Dick Cheney, but unfortunately his mutant beliefs only get more far fetched from here.

He believes that the internet is “anti-Democratic” because users can filter out any objectionable material. As such he believes that the required use of technology by all citizens is necessary to ensure that a site contains “fair and balanced” information and that such a requirement should be put into play as soon as possible. Does this mean that every site that communicates sound Christian values should also be required to communicate the thoughts and opinions of Satanic cults? Does this mean if a site displays a picture of a virtuous woman that that same site must give the viewer access to porn as well? And yes, Sunstein has gone so far as to declare that non-profit groups should be required to publish counter positions to theirs on their own websites. That’s right. If Mother Teresa had a web site, she would be required to provide information on Hitler as well.

He also believes that we should be required to use software which would prevent anyone from sending an e-mail in which the SOFTWARE determines holds “uncivil” comments. Awww. Ain’t that cute? These poor little defenseless politicians must have had their feelings hurt by all that was said during the Tea Parties. They need a software program to protect them from hearing any dissenting opinions. He proposes that this software double-ask the sender if they really want to send an “uncivil” e-mail message. And if they do, then the e-mail must be filed away for 24 hours for a mandatory cooling off period. Oh I get it. The First Amendment gives free speech, but only if it’s not offensive to anyone. Right.

In his book “Radical to Robes” Sunstein writes that he believes that all gun control legislation is constitutionally congruent. He believes that the U.S. Supreme court “got it wrong” in determining that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals.

Ok, here’s a real loony one. In his 2004 book entitled “Animal Rights” he wrote that he believed that “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …" Holy cow! (pun intended) I’m all about protecting animals, but providing them with a public defender at the expense of tax dollars is laughable! If you hurt my dogs, I will indeed defend them, but where will it stop? We already have an over burgeoning court system. Criminals get off for murder of a human being? What additional justice are we to expect when a person sends an uncivil e-mail to Mickey Mouse? Are the lawyers not making enough money? Do they need to start chasing Fido rather than ambulances? Where does the U.S. Constitution stand on giving animals the same rights as humans? Oh yeah. It doesn’t. And besides, how can we expect to preserve and protect the Constitutional rights of animals when we are proving ourselves incapable or unwilling to preserve and protect the rights of legal, law-abiding American citizens? If you give animals constitutional rights, then you must give them consequences as well. Will we expect law enforcement to release Shack, the vicious Pit Bull because he wasn’t read his Miranda Rights?

To me, here is the most horrific aspect of all of this. Read what Obama thinks of this individual, specifically in relation to his ability to uphold the Constitutional rights and freedoms of our citizens: “As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team." I have no doubt that he is a dear friend of Obama’s based on this information. However, it’s clear that Sunstein knows about as much about the constitution as Anderson Cooper and Janeane Garofalo know about civility.

To completely prove my case of this alien-born, anti-Christ, Sunstein states “limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.” Yup. We’re just dumb human beings incapable of making the “right” choice if we are presented with so many choices. You’re right Sunstein. Americans simply have too many choices, and as such we’re certainly making the wrong decisions. But I ask you, why stop at the internet, Sunstein? Why not reel in those villainous makers of feminine products as well? Slim, mini, super, extra super, pink, blue, white, mega, etc. How is a sane person to choose? I find the vast amount of tampons for women completely overwhelming and sending my poor husband out to retrieve the proper box could result in a 3rd World War. I’m sure limiting our choices between good, bad, evil, and truly in our best interests was exactly what the Founding Father feared in declaring ultimate freedom from an oppressed government. Too bad they didn’t declare freedom from beings from Mars as well. I’d feel a lot safer now.

I think the best science fiction writers of our time will find merit in the Sunstein Doctrine. After all, it will provide great fodder for their story lines. What’s the saying? “Truth is stranger than fiction.” We might as well prepare ourselves for the same kind of alien invasion represented in the Will Smith movie, “Independence Day”, if we are to tolerate a man in such a controlling a position as this.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Baptist Pastor vs. Border Patrol

By Kellene Bishop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

This video of Steve Anderson is just over 8 minutes long. The contents of it are disturbing to me from a standpoint of freedom, but even more disturbing to me are the comments of ignorant fools in response to this video. Lest any more of you should grossly err in your judgment of this situation, allow me to enlighten you.

The time to stand up for your rights is ANY and EVERY time they are being violated.

One person on YouTube commented that this person should not have “taken the law into his own hands.” Sorry folks. The law is FOR the people, not issued in hopes that power-drunken agents such as these will honor it. It is for ALL of the people. It is your DUTY to know what the laws are and push back. For too long the overwhelming majority has been apathetic to their rights under the laws, and this is exactly why such atrocities of law have occurred in this situation. Do you naively believe that only the military is empowered to support and sustain our Constitutional rights? How is that fair that our soldiers have to lose their lives to defend our freedoms, but every citizen in this country doesn’t have to do their part as well? As insignificant as this act may seem to others in the nation, in my opinion there is virtue and righteousness in affirming our rights under all circumstances.

Another ignoramus commented that “from what he was able to find out, this guy isn’t a very good person.” Others accused him of being a “know-it-all” and a pompous @$$, etc. Guess what, folks? The rights of the U.S. Constitution are ensured for all people, including someone who may come across to some as a jerk. That’s why some personalities are permitted to grace your television sets and radio stations. There is no U.S. law which states you must comply nicely when your rights are or are not being violated. There is no requirement that you speak softly, etc. So whether you support the personality traits of this person is completely unimportant. As an American, his rights are his rights regardless.

As the result of his FIRST Amendment right (which is not a coincidence that such a right is in the first position of all outlined rights in our Constitution) this individual has the right to free speech. Thus anything he may have said which would make a person angry is unacceptable grounds for the actions of these so-called agents.

Several foolish posters commented that “all this guy had to do was answer the questions.” Again. They are wrong. If a police officer comes to your door and begins asking you questions, you are under NO obligation to answer such questions. Answering questions by law enforcement is not a requirement. In fact, in accordance to the Fifth Amendment, we have the right to not say ANYTHING which may incriminate us. Even the Miranda Rights reaffirm such. Not answering questions does not negate any of your other rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Another fool posted a supposition that Congress has granted the Border Patrol broad authority of search and seizures. Guess what. I don’t care if the President himself gave the Border Patrol agents permission to behave this way, it’s illegal! Pure and simple. No law can be passed in this country which is at odds with the U.S. Constitution. The only way that this act could be made “legal” is if there was a Constitutional Amendment fully ratified. Congress also recently passed an enormous bill without even reading it. Does that make it right or legal? No. It’s malpractice. And such a foolish comment flies in the face of all of those who have died so that we may now possess those rights. Until I see a Congressman who will pay the “uttermost farthing” to protect my rights as did our Founding Fathers, then such a Congressman does not receive any honorable attentions from me. Too many of our Americans today are sheep. They feel that simply because the President declares something, or the Congressmen say it and then sign it, that it’s law. Sorry folks. All laws MUST be in alignment with the U.S. Constitution. New laws can specify, clarify, and even give consequences for violating the laws and rights of the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot circumvent or violate them.

Then there are the masses of individuals who would judge this person because he’s a Baptist Pastor. He’s accused of being difficult by being non-compliant. Boy howdy am I ever GRATEFUL for my non-compliant Founding Fathers, as well as my non-compliant Savior who did NOT “save” the Jews based on their short-sighted expectations and demands. Too many individuals wrongly presume that as a Baptist pastor, he should be a mouse and comply. Sorry, you’d be wrong again to presume such. This guy did not spew foul language at these agents. He did not “get in the way” of their tazers and metal batons. These “agents” made a choice to act in the manner in which they did. As such, Jesus would condemn them, not the person upon whom they acted. It’s alarming to me just how many folks believe that standing up for your Constitutional rights is an act of deviance in the Christian world—especially in light of the fact that God inspired the men who served as our Founding Fathers of this nation. God is fully invested in our rights being upheld in this nation.

The fact that the dog was brought into this as grounds for the search is laughable as well, since the Fourth Amendment requires that probable cause be established by “oath or affirmation.” Clearly Fido didn’t say anything. He was merely used as a pawn for their designs. Isn’t it ironic that law ENFORCEMENT officials don’t care much for a person who actually helps them understand the laws of which they are to enforce? Case in point, if a 31-year-old man has sex with a 14-year-old girl, even if it’s consensual, it’s illegal. Coinciding with that, even if the American people are willing to have their rights raped and pillaged “consensually” it’s still illegal and in direct violation of our Bill of Rights. Even honest citizens with nothing to hide are violated whenever we consent to the erosion of our rights and liberty.

Another aspect of this incident is the excessive force. Hmmm… how many drug traffickers have made it across the border without their windows bashed in, or having been cut, tazed, and battered? Even if this guy WAS a drug dealer, they are NOT permitted to treat him as such. That’s right. Even if he was verbally belligerent, had a couple of kids and some drugs in the back of the car, the Border Patrol are not permitted to handle the situation the way they did. This constitutes “unreasonable search.” But hey, it’s not unreasonable seizure because they found NOTHING. (Although, due to the damage they inflicted on the vehicle, they did in fact illegally “seize” this man’s car.)

This person is rumored to have had a “run-in” with Border Patrol previously in which he also refused to answer their questions. However, posting a video on YouTube complaining about your previous treatment with Border Patrol does not give an “agent” free reign to violate your Constitutional rights. Plain and simple, Folks.

While it may take a while to get this all sorted out, anytime a person legally defends their rights of this nation, they have my wholehearted support. I may not agree with their personality traits, their religion, or their other beliefs, but they are indeed correct in asserting those rights.

Bottom line, if you will not stand up for the Constitution, who will?

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

NY Times Reports More Consequences of Illegal Immigrants

If the threat of being deported or incarcerated does not stem the tide of illegal immigration, perhaps the threat of completely losing one’s children will do the trick. While this may sound harsh, it is the consequences of illegal acts perpetrated by the illegal immigrant parents. The enormous problem I have with this article is that it is titled “After Losing Freedom Some Immigrants Face Loss of Custody of Their Children” These parents never had freedom. Freedom is only given to the just and the law-abiding citizens in this country. It is not, and should never, be granted to individuals who were merely able to prolong the consequences of their illegal acts long enough to give birth to children in this nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/23children.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

The Heartstrings That Will Bankrupt “U.S.”

Women. Suppose you’re single and met a man who just pulled at your heart strings. He was tall, dark, handsome, well off and said everything you had ever hoped to hear. Remember, he’s pulling on your heart strings big time. If after you start dating, he informs you that he has every intention of never being faithful to you. Would you continue dating him? Come on. The guy actually told you upfront what he was apt to do. He was honest with you, right?

Ok, let’s try another angle.

“If I can just successfully commit this crime, then my kids will have a better life.” Do you think that such an illogical statement has ever come to the mind of a bank robber, or an extortionist, or a blackmailer? What about another kind of criminal: One that doesn’t have children yet, but knows that if they can bear children within the border of the United States of America, they not only have a better chance of getting away with their crime by preying on the hearts of American citizens, and also survive on the welfare programs of our nation. Meet this nation’s most expensive criminal—the illegal immigrant. In fact, bearing children in the U.S. is such a better life for “profitable” illegal immigrants than where they came from, that the majority of illegal immigrant parents live in circumstances of poverty and thus reap extensive benefits of our welfare programs.

Heartstrings will bankrupt us all, folks.

Let’s be perfectly blunt here. Do you really think it’s fair for law-abiding citizens to wait, dot their “I’s”, cross their “T’s” and pay the proper price to become citizens of the U.S. while others simply circumvent “the system,” sneaking in like a thief in the night, only to be rewarded? Yes, REWARDED. And we reward them in a big way here in the U.S. due to the faulty interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside (bold and italics added). Our government officials have interpreted this Amendment to mean that if a child is born in the U.S. then he/she is automatically adopted as a citizen of the U.S. But are they truly subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. under such circumstances? Now, let’s look at this for a moment. The consequences of this politically motivated interpretation are dire for our nation.

More bluntness here. Please don’t feel sorry for the illegal immigrants who live in poverty. They do so because their illegal status makes it difficult to obtain jobs in which they can be gainfully employed. Statistically speaking, many are very gainfully employed--with a house that’s fully paid for, a car that’s paid for, and tens of thousands of dollars in cash on hand at any given moment. It’s called drug trafficking work, and apparently it pays very well. Unfortunately, such “workers” regularly show that they have no income. (Come on, really. Would you report your illegal income when you see political leaders who don’t even have to report their legal income?) As such, these individuals still qualify for much federal and state assistance including medical benefits.

I spoke at length with a senior DEA agent this past weekend. He gave me a very interesting view on the consequences of this situation.

As a DEA agent he is repeatedly arresting illegal immigrants for drug trafficking (and who are usually guilty of many other crimes as a part of this trafficking). Unfortunately, he stated that the majority of these traffickers have their wives and their U.S. citizen children as a part of the game. When the parents get arrested, the children inevitably get placed in our foster care system. Note that since the income of these drug traffickers is illegal, although quite abundant, many of them make use of our welfare programs such as W.I.C, food stamps and other programs in addition to their ill-gotten gains. Needless to say, the I.R.S. has no record of a drug trafficker paying taxes on their income either.

When a U.S. child is disabled in our nation, they are given disability and social security benefits, but such benefits are paid to their legal guardians, legal or not.

In addition, a study released Tuesday, April 14, 2009 by Pew Hispanic Center reported that children of immigrants are twice as likely to live in poverty, which means that they are also living off of our nation’s welfare programs, education and healthcare. While many illegal immigrants were not permitted to receive welfare previously, many states have passed laws allowing them to receive benefits which were originally intended for our nation’s citizens. Nearly one-third of their children live in poverty which is double the rate of legal U.S. citizen children.

Seven percent of the children enrolling in your child’s school are children of an illegal immigrant according to this same study. And yet illegal immigrants are typically not property owners (due to lending regulations), thus they do not pay taxes to support their children in school.

There are approximately 5.5 million children of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. presently who are recognized as legal citizens. As such, the parents of such children are able to literally live on your dime without contributing to society in the form of taxes, community activism, or contributing to the law-abiding culture of our society.

In America, education is the largest public cost of caring for these children due in part to the language barriers necessitating special teachers, paid lunch programs, and larger class sizes. This price tag is estimated today to be above 13 billion dollars, not counting any special education programs according to Donald Huddle of Rice University. An additional $2 billion goes towards special care programs in our schools. This number is expected to actually be quite conservative given that the cost for education of these children in California alone was posted at $3 billion in 1993. The illegal immigration population has nearly doubled since then. Health care is at least triple that cost for the nation both public and private costs combined. (For more information, click here)

Think of the impression that such parents may have on their children. They begin their relationship with our nation by defying our laws and are financially rewarded for it. Hmmmm. I wonder what message this sends to their children? Go ahead. You take a guess. Are they naturally inclined to obey the laws of our nation or defy them?

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security reported that over 100,000 parents of “legal” U.S. children were deported in 2007, thus prompting them to make alternative considerations prior to deportments. In other words, the fact that they got away with a crime, but were able to procreate may be reason enough to reward them with amnesty in our nation. I truly believe that by our government even entertaining the proposal to allow such parents to stay here, they are simply reinforcing criminal acts. Once you get away with one crime, why not another, and another?

How do these children grow up and vote? Do they vote for the best candidate who promotes honor and virtue? Or do they vote for the person who’s most likely to keep their parents in the country?

Did you know you’ll now have to work until May 29 of each year JUST to pay your taxes? You presently pay more in taxes than you spend in housing, food and clothing for your family! While I’m not one to believe in scarcity, the fact of the matter is our nation is in serious peril. Contrary to what the Federal Reserve and Congress believe, there is a FINITE amount of money that this nation has at present and that finite amount is in the largest negative balance than ever before. Millions of legitimate Americans are suffering financially with no “bail out” in the form of food stamps, health benefits, W.I.C. in-state tuition prices, preferential and even mandatory admittance into colleges or FREE education. Heart strings or not, the crimes of these parents must not be rewarded socially, emotionally, or financially.

Even if we accept the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, let’s ask ourselves this question. Was such a law intended to affect the U.S.-born children of a few thousand, or even tens or hundreds of thousands of immigrants who made the difficult journey and entered our country through Ellis Island or other authorized ports of entry? If our forefathers had known that 1 million to 3 million illegal immigrants (solely from one country) would attempt to illegally enter our country every year, would they have desired to generously grant birthright citizenship to the children of these same immigrants who flagrantly violate our laws? Will you be as generous at the cost of the well being of your own family? It becomes even more painful when we realize that countless illegal immigrants intentionally give birth to “anchor babies” for the specific intent of later legalizing their immigration status.

Not that I give merit to the legal actions of other countries as a basis for our behavior, but it’s interesting to note that in November 2004, Denmark rescinded automatic citizenship due to the unforeseen financial crisis it placed upon their country. Ireland did so a year prior to that. Most of Europe was being overrun with immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East and thus are considering the same measures at present.

Bottom line, we literally cannot afford to grant legality in the midst of illegality. It makes for a horrible relationship.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Delta Insults Humanity Again

Common Courtesy is No Longer Common

I’ll admit it. When I fly, I usually fly first-class due to the fact that I’m a bit claustrophobic. Sitting in the small seats towards the back gives me a great deal of anxiety, to the point that when I fly, I’m willing to choke up the first class fare. First class round trip with Delta Airlines is usually around $1500. I have come to enjoy the perks of actually getting smiles from the flight attendants, complimentary entertainment, padding in the roomy seat from top to bottom, a little beverage prior to leaving, a hot towel to clean my hands with, and access to a restroom close by. Having endometriosis and problems arising from such a case, sometimes makes that restroom a lifesaver.

By contrast, regular fare is about $500 nowadays. The seats are crowded both side to side and front to back which is even further emphasized when you are 20 to 30 pounds overweight. I can feel the metal through the seat “cushions” grating on my back and buttocks for the entire flight. The flight attendants are noticeably less attentive—sorry, but I’ve found that to be the case on countless occasions. There are almost always loud and rowdy children in the regular fare seats (Yes, I DO love children, just not ornery ones who are seemingly ignored by their parents throughout an entire 4 hour flight). And there are 2 bathrooms being shared by hundreds rather than a small handful in first class.

So today when I read on the news that a man on a Delta flight was arrested, put into handcuffs and spent 2 days in jail for his anxious response to a bathroom emergency on an international flight, I was absolutely disgusted.

Apparently, Mr. Correa of Concord, OH really had to go. But when his pathway was blocked by a beverage cart, he requested to use the business class restroom. He was refused. I find this completely ridiculous on so many counts.

1) I have seen regular fare customers frequently use the first-class restrooms without so much as a cross look from a flight attendant. Delta does not practice any semblance of consistency in enforcing this ludicrous FAA regulation.

2) It seems apparent that the flight attendant would rather the man degrade himself and put passengers at risk by having a urination accident in his pants, than move the blasted beverage cart or allow him to use the business class restroom. I mean really, just how clean and safe would YOU feel knowing that a man just peed uncontrollably (or worse) on the floor near you on the airplane? Talk about a bio-hazard! The man was clearly desperate to use the bathroom for Pete’s sake! Do they teach these flight attendants to be inhumane before allowing them to work an international flight?

3) With so many individuals out of work at present, you would think that any company would have the pick of the litter in selecting conscientious and courteous individuals. This flight attendant represents Delta and the business culture perpetuated by Delta.

4) Apparently the man’s request to use the business class restroom on an international flight was against FAA regulations. For one, I firmly believe that most flight attendants are just as ignorant of real FAA regulations as most of the local police departments are of U.S. Constitution law. So having a flight attendant taking a stand based on a supposed FAA regulation is hard to swallow. (See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94191 and http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56544 for more evidence that police just don’t know the law.) And besides, are you kidding me? The government now gets to tell people where they can pee??? And hey, we even get to pay for such ridiculous rules! I suppose they’re going to try and tell us it’s for our safety. That’s right. Keeping bad guys from the business class section of the plane will certainly save lives. Or perhaps they were trying to provide some in-flight entertainment for the rest of the passengers as they watched a 43 year-old man be degraded by having to ask to use the potty like a 1st grader.

Personally, when I spend so much money to ride in a more expensive class, I’d like to presume that such a premium price gives me access to a bathroom when I need one. Then again, I’d like to think that the toilet seat would actually be bigger than a Frisbee as well (One can dream, can’t they?). However, I would NEVER deny someone else from using that same bathroom in an emergency simply because I spent more for my ticket than he did. After all, while I may be a “first class passenger” that doesn’t negate me from being a human being.

To see the complete article go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30108454/

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

The Truth About Guns in Mexico

After hearing enough of the inflated and downright false statistics of the guns in Mexico being provided by the U.S., I’ve decided to get right down to the facts. First of all, when you hear these statistics, consider the source. I personally believe that anything that comes out of the mouth of Hilary Clinton or Dianne Fienstein—especially when it has to do with guns or self-defense--to be dramatically skewed.

Of all the guns in Mexico, simply because there are some U.S. guns, does not mean they have all come from legal channels in the U.S. Gun smuggling goes both ways. In the event that the U.S. government issues guns to the Mexican Military in an effort to fight whatever wars rage in their land, it’s important to note that such guns would come with a caveat to be used for such purpose. The fact that they are still ending up in the hands of drug-runners and immigrant criminals is not a reflection on the U.S. government, rather an expose on the corruption of government officials in the U.S. In addition, according to Mexican Congressman, Robert Badilla, over 150,000 Mexican military members have abandoned their military duty and have taken their guns with them.

The saying has been spread about by truly ignorant politicians and their loyal subjects (a.k.a. the mainstream media) that 90% of the guns in Mexico came from the U.S. This is yet one more example of a lazy, knee-jerk media we have reporting our news to us today. In fact, 83% of the guns in Mexico do not even have serial numbers or can even be traced via U.S. technology as they come from Asia, Israel, South Korea, China, Spain and Columbia. However, of the guns that have been found WITH serial numbers, 90% OF THOSE GUNS have come from the U.S. This fact means that only 17% of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico have come from the U.S.! And that my friends, is how such a ridiculous rumor has been perpetuated.

For more information on this topic go to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

The Name Game

by Kellene Bishop

“A rose by any other name is still a rose.” Isn’t it interesting how our government has camouflaged its selected names of programs and legislation in order to falsely influence the American people as to what these issues really are? You’ve heard of oxy-morons such as “military intelligence” in jest, I’m sure. But when it comes to many of the name games our government plays, there’s nothing funny about it.

1) National Security Letters: The name implies that these are letters which provide or promote security to our nation, when in fact they are used abusively by the FBI, CIA, DOD, and NSA to as a weapon against law-abiding citizens. Additionally there is no limit to the amount or type of information which can be seized via an NSL. And they are now to be complied with without exception. Today, in order for any federal agent (FBI, DOD, or CIA) to write an NSL, they must only comply with the requirement that they claim—not provide any evidence thereof—that the desired records may be related to an ongoing terrorism investigation or intelligence activities. These warrants require the production of “any tangible things” such as books, records, documents, lists, etc, without any consideration given to any reasonable time frames or costs to produce such information. Oh, and by the way, there is NO judicial oversight on the use of these, not even from Congress. As if that’s not enough, whoever receives such a “letter” is legally gagged from telling anyone about them, even if it’s your own attorney who receives it. The attorney can’t even tell YOU that he’s about to turn over all of your files to the FBI. Now how’s that for national security?

2) Federal Reserve: Contrary to what their own website states, as well as that of other government agencies, there is nothing “federal” about the Federal Reserve. They are not a part of the US Government. In fact, in an interview with Alan Greenspan, when asked, “What should be the proper relationship between the chairman of the Federal and the President of the United States?” Greenspan responded, “Well, first of all the Federal Reserve is an independent agency. And that means basically there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take, so long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t frankly matter.” While the Federal Reserve behaves as a 4th branch of our government, there is no governing authority over them other than for Congress to rule that we will no longer do business with them. Good luck with that, right? In addition, there is no longer any “reserves” backing the currency issued by the Federal Reserve. We don’t even require them to issue a report that tells us how much currency is in circulation so that we can be sure our money still holds its value. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve name is just as contrived to deceive as was a local computer company in my neck of the woods called “Totally Awesome Computers” (It went bankrupt).

3) Carbon Credits: Wow. This name sounds like the U.S. taxpayers might actually get a credit for something, right? Wrong. These two words combine to become the most threatening level of taxation that our nation has ever seen. As a result of the passage of a “Carbon Credits” program, countless energy companies will be required to pay for the air they use. As a result, they will of course pass these fees on to their consumers. Electricity, gasoline, natural gas, kerosene, coal, and even solar energy just became significantly more expensive. As the result of this “credit” every American household can expect an average of a $3,000 INCREASE to their electric bill every year. That’s just ONE source of energy you use. If I continue to tell you about all of the other ramifications, I’m afraid that there will be a run on the pharmacies for anti-depressants nationwide.

4) The G.I.V.E. Act: Once again, a very deceptive name. The only thing this act gives is unconstitutional orders. While admittedly it’s been scaled down a bit from its first version as HR 1388, (and changed HR and Senate numbers multiple times) it’s still ridiculously named. The original proposal under HR 1388 would REQUIRE citizens of America in a wide range of ages to provide a mandatory period of “service” to their communities in whatever fashion the government deemed necessary. In addition to that, the House of Representatives even added an amendment that stated that while individuals were in the process of providing this “voluntary” service, they were prohibited from engaging in numerous acts of free speech. Yup. That’s a GIVE act, alright. Giving American citizens the ole heave ho, at least.

5) The Patriot Act: This is the mother of all misnamed issues. I’m convinced that our Founding Fathers and all those who sided with them during the Revolutionary War feel that their true title of “Patriot” has been mercilessly molested. There is nothing Patriot or patriotic about this act. It consistently tramples on countless constitutional amendments in the name of protecting our nation from terrorism. Now we are instructed to not even use the word “terrorist” or “enemy combatants” but we’re still stuck with this offensive violation of our rights to free speech. The not-so-Patriot Act has Congress giving his agents permission to listen to our phone calls, read our e-mails, and obtain unlimited amount of personal information about us. The “war on terror,” which gave birth to this heinous beast, has quickly disguised itself as an enemy intrusion on American’s privacy, freedom of movement and thought, individuality and civil liberties. Does that mean that the terrorists have essentially won now?

Ultimately the lesson we all need to learn here is that we cannot afford to be mindless sheep armed with good hearts. We must be more proactive in discovering and educating ourselves with the abundance of truthful information that is available to us. Getting our misinformation from the mass media will be no excuse when we appear before our Creator and attempt to explain to Him how we let something so valuable as freedom disintegrate from our nation. Each and every one of us is endowed with the freedom to choose, thus God’s perfect law will require that each and every one of us be held responsible for what we did with those choices. I believe that an understanding of this responsibility is why our Founding Fathers sacrificed all that they had to give us the rights to freely choose freedom. Indeed, when we’re before the Creator of Truth, we surely won’t be able to play the politicking finger pointing game. The blame will be ours regardless of how the program was masqueraded.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

The Shell Game: AIG and the USA

I understand that when I write this it will be evident that I’m clearly not an ordinary American. And I’m completely OK with that. Here goes… I don’t believe that the AIG CEO should have been drawn in front of the cameras and skewered by Congressmen. I don’t believe that AIG honoring contracts to pay $165 million in bonuses is a heinous act. In fact, I feel that this whole parade of finger pointing at AIG is simply an effort to take the focus off of who is truly at fault in the first place. This whole debacle is merely the result of a government gone bad—publicly—making even more horrible mistakes as they try to fix their egregious errors, and getting caught with the consequences.

AIG is completely responsible for the debacle they created in the first place. Clearly they got carried away with their own sense of power and influence and wrote too many checks they could not cover. And they talked a good talk to many other key financial institutions worldwide to get them to play in their power game as well. So what did that get us? Financial ruin. Now let’s look at this for a moment… These people are supposedly uber-giants of expertise in financial management and yet they could not manage their own house! They got completely drunk with their power and just like an inebriated lug of a giant they lost their reasoning and functionality abilities and stumbled—hard! OK. So we’ve got a giant who’s in a drunken stupor about to self-destruct and take down questionably innocent bystanders in his wake. What do we do? Well, yeah, we give the alcoholic lush MORE power. No, we don’t take his license or privilege away. No, we don’t put him into any kind of treatment. Instead, we find him an even better “dealer” to work with (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury) who can simply bail them out. We give him an even more audacious privilege of using the tax payer dollars and that of several generations to come to “get him back on his feet.” And then when he functions the same way he did previously, and even has the audacity to honor contracts, we react to publicly condemn him? Condemn the giant so that nobody is wise to the “dealer” who feeds and encourages his misbehavior. Now that’s quite the deception isn’t it? (Side bar: It’s interesting to note that Congress doesn’t really care about the legality of contracts. They don’t even enforce the most significant contract we Americans have to protect us, that of the U.S. Constitution.)

Here’s the perfect part of this deception, folks. If (and I’m SOOO inclined to say “when”) AIG can’t pay us all back, what happens to them? If they go bankrupt, what recourse do we, the tax payers who’ve been yoked with indentured servitude in order to lift this giant’s sorry caboose back up, get back? What’s our collateral on this loan we’ve been forced to issue at the risk of death, jail time, or social and emotional ruin? Not one blasted thing! Nothing. We probably won’t even get a sincere apology from a public official when it does go belly up. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the primary people making these decisions are themselves so completely disconnected from the real picture due to their own wanton consumption habits. They are endowed with their salary for the rest of their life, benefit from a royal health plan, and yet some even fail to pay their own taxes.

AIG clearly has their own problems. But just as I shake my head in disbelief when women refuse to leave their abusive husbands, I just can’t figure out what kind of maniacal plan the Secretary of Treasury and the Federal Reserve had in mind on this one. Who gave them the authority to determine that one business gets bailed out above another? That one business is any more important to our social fabric than another? That the consequences called Real Life don’t apply to these companies? Even worse, IF you’re going to perform such an unprecedented act, aren’t you at least willing to go through the homework of everything that act entails, i.e. reading all of the contracts that are presently in place, properly appraising just how much their other assets really are worth, etc?! Gentlemen, don’t approve the act of an AIG bailout 100% and then get mad when something happens that you didn’t know about – i.e.: the AIG bonuses. You had every opportunity to know everything there was to know. It’s called a test. A real life test. You know, the kind of real life testing that all of your schooling and life experiences are supposed to prepare you for so that you’re actually competent enough to take the job that the American people pay you to do! And clearly you screwed up! It’s your own freaking fault that you didn’t know about it! Just as it’s your own freaking fault that you overpaid for assets in the tens of billions of dollars! So let’s be perfectly clear about this… whoever closed the bail out deal with AIG in the first place is 100% responsible and should be FIRED and perhaps even have charges filed for willful negligence at best, or treasonous acts at worst.

How dare our government condemn Madoff when they are doing the EXACT same thing with all of our money? And lest anyone forget, yes – it’s OUR money, not the government’s. We earn it while we work on the frontlines while we simultaneously are shown how little responsibility and accountability means to those who are in power. And yet we still provide our tax dollars for the purposes of paying for a government to protect our freedoms.

The U.S. Government is mismanaging funds.

They are playing a shell game.

The Federal Reserve just keeps printing money and yet REFUSES to provide our country with an accounting of just how much money (via the M3 report) they are printing, thus we are unable to define for ourselves what our currency is really worth. How in the world is that any different than Madoff having his CPA send out false solubility reports to his investors?!

Oh, and one last point I’d like to make here. So, you have a government who has totally screwed up publicly enough that even the mainstream media can’t ignore it, and so what do the do to truly fix the problem? They paint every recipient of that $165 million bonus share as some kind of a criminal—even a terrorist if you will—against the sovereignty of this American people. And to show you just how big and powerful they are, they actually draft a bill which would directly tax all of these financial terrorists with a 90% tax! Using taxes as a weapon, you say? How can they do that? They can’t. It’s called a direct unapportioned tax, and it’s 100% illegal and completely unconstitutional, for the very same reasons why your present federal income tax is illegal. You don’t believe that our wonderful U.S. government would commit such an illegal act? Really? You just watched them try to do it right in front of your eyes against the AIG bonus recipients!

Of course the government did nothing to preemptively thwart the payment of the bonuses to AIG executives. That’s because, very much like the ridiculous stimulus bill, they didn’t even bother to comprehend the entire picture of their actions. This is the same government who overpaid by over $70 billion dollars for the assets it purchased from the companies it bailed out! Whether or not there was a senator who acknowledged and attempted to keep the bonuses in the contract is beside the point.

I say kudos to the AIG Executive who resigned in the New York Times today! And I don’t care whether or not he does donate any of his money to charity. Legally, contractually, it’s his money. The U.S. Government simply bought into a Lion’s Zoo and is now whining when they got bit! And now they are claiming foul because many of the vital AIG personnel refuse to work under such circumstances. Can you blame them? Sure you can’t relate to such a huge bonus in your own life. I get that. But it’s what the guy signed on for. It was part of the reason why he left his previous job to take a position with AIG 11 years ago. And now he’s being asked to work for free for an undetermined period of time while AIG fixes all of their screw ups and be persecuted by nearly an entire country in the meantime. Does that sound like a job you’d want to keep? Heck, when I heard during the live Congressional questioning that the CEO was working for $1 and taking all of the crap from Congress, I would have quit on the spot and told Congress that they can fix their own mess and not use me as a whipping boy.

Here’s some wisdom my mother taught me. “Be very aware of what people say about other people, because they are likely to be saying the same thing about you when you’re not around.” You’ve seen what the U.S. Government is willing to do when we are looking. Now, get a clue as to what they are doing when we’re not watching!

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

The Profit of Not Curing Cancer

This is an article which I wrote that was published in Monetary Intelligence Magazine in March 2009. It’s clear that the hype we receive on a great many “studies and statistics” from our government agencies is misleading at best. As someone who has gone through her own cancer scare, this information makes me feel so abandoned by a country I love.

History of Errors
In the December 1959 issue of American Medical Association Journal, an editorial was published that boldly stated there was insufficient evidence “to warrant the assumption” that cigarette smoking was the principal factor in the increase of lung cancer. Who were the medical experts who authored such blatant falsehoods? Dr. Ian MacDonald, a prominent cancer surgeon, and Dr. Henry Garland, an internationally recognized specialist in radiology. These two individuals made national headlines with their claims. In fact, Dr. Garland specifically stated that cigarette smoking was actually beneficial as a tranquilizer. MacDonald even went on to note that smoking was a “harmless pastime”— even up to 24 cigarettes per day without consequence. He even went so far as to suggest “a pack a day keeps the cancer away.”

Fast forward to the mid 1960s and 1970s. Doctors Garland and MacDonald were used by government and health agencies to again submit an “expert” opinion regarding the use of laetrile, aka Vitamin B-17, aka nitrilocides on cancer patients. In spite of countless studies by renowned doctors, clinics, universities and specialists worldwide that showed the contrary, Garland and MacDonald claimed that no direct benefits were viable. Neither Garland nor MacDonald ever tested or used laetrile themselves. They merely compiled a mountain of other fraudulent or derelict research data and presented it as factual. What’s interesting is how these two doctors, and countless other trusted professionals in the medical and research industry, have been used to sacrifice medical integrity and cover up information for the sole purpose of the monetary well-being and profit of the medical industry. Unfortunately, that criminal practice continues today . . . particularly with cancer.

Who’s Hiding What?
Evidence is mounting that the FDA, the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society are deliberately hindering American citizens from having access to laetrile, a natural substance which has a proven record to prevent, cure and minimize the effects of cancer. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of cancer fatalities each year, it’s no wonder that expert author G. Edward Griffin calls this “an act of genocide” by the FDA and its other cohorts.
Which begs the question: If there was an easily accessible nutrient that could aid the cure and prevention of cancer, why would such entities fight against its release to the general public? Who would want to hide a cure for cancer and what motivation would they have for perpetrating such an act of horror? My answer to such questions usually starts with “Follow the money.” It always comes down to money.

A study conducted by USA Today shows that over 50 percent of all of the cowardly experts which have been hired to advise the government on the merits of laetrile and any other proposed medicines have heavily-involved financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, their paychecks are affected by their research. If their research were to uncover a non-patentable substance to cure a widespread disease, they would have to pound the pavement for a new job.

In 1971, the FDA reported to an Ad Hoc Committee of Consultants for Review and Evaluation of Laetrile that laetrile could no longer be promoted, sold or even tested in the United States. Why would the FDA treat a natural occurring substance of everyday fruits and vegetables with more alarm and restrictions than it would illegal drugs, poisons and unconventional medicines? Simple: there is no financial or political benefit to endorsing it.

A patent for laetrile is unobtainable since it is a naturally occurring substance. Real money can only be made if you’ve got a medical patent. So, instead of losing millions of dollars in lobbying monies, hundreds of thousands of jobs in research and medicine, our nation would rather force its citizens to flee to foreign shores to access the freedom of choice in treating their cancer without poisons, cutting or burning, and more importantly, by accessing a method that has a higher rate of success than any medical practice put forth now in the U.S. for the treatment of cancer.

In some studies, cancer patients have had an 82 percent improvement rate. There aren’t any other current “anti-cancer” methods that can boast such results, especially without doing harm elsewhere to the body of a cancer victim. 1972, Dr. Dean Burk, director of cytochemistry section of the federal governments National Cancer Institute, reported, “When we add Laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can see the cancer cells dying off like flies.” The combination of glucosidase and laetrile would occur in human beings 100 percent of the time, as glucosidase is found prevalently in the small intestines. During his participation in the Seventh International Congress of Chemotherapy held in Prague in 1971, Dr. Burk also stated “Laetrile appears to work against many forms of cancer including lung cancer. And it is absolutely non-toxic.”

Laetrile is widely used in Mexico, Australia, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Philippines, Costa Rica, England, Germany, Greece, Japan, Spain and Switzerland in treating cancer, just to name a few. Are all of the medical and research teams of all of these countries wrong on their views of laetrile? Each year, Mexico and Germany receive thousands of U.S. visitors for laetrile treatment. Some patients are not only able to lead longer lives but are able to fully recover and lead healthy lives.

Apricots are considered sacred and a show of wealth by the famous Hunza tribe in the Himalayan mountains. The more apricot trees they own, the wealthier they are considered to be. The most prized food in this tribe is the apricot seed. This tribe has never had any known instance of cancer among them. Their traditional diet contains over 200% more nitriloside than the American diet.

The Abkhazians which reside deep in the Caucasus Mountains also experience the same health profile as the Hunza. Additionally the Hopi, Modoc and Navajo Indians have had a very low rate of cancer among them. In fact, it’s believed by many medical experts who support the use of a diet rich in nitrilosides that such incidences of cancer are brought about as a result of the “civilization” of these tribes as they replace their diet with that more like the rest of America. The Hopi and Navajo tribes were found to regularly ingest as much as 800 milligrams of nitriloside a day. This phenomenon has continued to be observed in both tropic and arctic regions of the world.

Follow the Money
The average patient will spend between $5,000 and $25,000 for laetrile treatment and rarely need recurring treatment. Compare this to the average cost for U.S. cancer treatment at $55,000 a year—without complications. This does not include the costs for making the patient more comfortable at home. These costs can run as much as an additional 35 percent with complications. For some, cancer treatment costs are so high they can actually prevent any treatment. Last year alone, over $219 billion was spent by patients just on medical costs of cancer treatment. This does not include the nearly $300 billion that was raised and contributed for cancer research. Yes, not curing cancer is a very profitable business for those involved in research and supposed preventative pharmaceuticals.

The money is so attractive that many researchers and doctors actually counterfeit studies and research in order to get some of the money. Between 1977 and 1980 it was determined that 62 doctors had manipulated the research data which they had provided and pocketed the fees. In 1973, a study created by the FDA itself showed that 1 out of 5 doctors would invent research data on the effect of new drugs and submit it for publication.

American drug companies pay doctors as much as $1,000 per patient to test and use their drugs on patients. This compromises the medical integrity of a doctor treating a patient if they know there’s a big check waiting in their bank account when a certain drug is used. This is in addition to the surgery and office fees charged by the doctors to treat patients. What monetary incentives do doctors, scientists, cancer organizations and politicians have to promote the effective use of a naturally occurring substance such as laetrile? None. Not one penny.

Cause and Effect
Even without big cash rewards on the line for not promoting a natural substance for the cure of cancer, is it any wonder there are misperceptions on laetrile among the medical and lay professionals? With so much misinformation being invented by so-called experts, it’s no wonder that the majority of doctors think laetrile is downright quackery. How could anyone relying strictly on hearsay and politically motivated grapevines think differently?

Research shows that none of the experts who oppose the use of laetrile ever actually used it, researched it, or did more than read information which was dispensed by others who were also inexperienced in developing their professional conclusions. Now there are generations of medical professionals misinformed on the use of laetrile—professionals viewing fiction as fact because the proper research was never performed by the FDA in the first place.

In the 1970’s, when a highly regarded scientist was actually used by the FDA to test laetrile, he came to the same conclusion as so many experts worldwide that laetrile was effective in the treatment of cancer. However, this did not bode well with the financial motive of the FDA. Instead they elected to make use of the high percentage of errors which can occur in the study and research of a medical treatment and chose to repeat laetrile testing again and again until their desired results could be founded. Evidence of research error abounds as noted by Dr. Trelford of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University Hospital notes. Dr. Trelford states that “chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not appear to have increased life expectancy except in sporadic cases.”

Additionally, a report by the Southern Research Institute based on research conducted for the National Cancer Institute stated that “most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society’s ‘proven cure’ category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy!” Ultimately the scientist’s whose studies supported the use of laetrile was labeled as a quack, and the tests were ordered to be repeated again and again while making unscientific changes in the doses administered, and convoluting the tracking of the subjects. Additionally the FDA chose to use exercise an unprecedented high and unrealistic standards of success on the laetrile studies in order that it may be deemed ineffective. Ultimately, the FDA got their studies to “show” that laetrile was “quackery”.

So, the question remains. What are we to do? Frankly, until the Laetrilegate Scandal is fully exposed, the FDA will continue to perpetuate their politically and economically charged agenda—an agenda that now comes with legal results for anyone trying to sell or promote laetrile. National arm wrestling champion Jason Vale, who claimed that his kidney and pancreas were cured by eating apricot seeds—an organic of laetrile—was convicted in 2003 for, among other things, marketing laetrile. The US Food and Drug Administration continues to seek jail sentences for vendors selling laetrile for cancer treatment, calling it a “highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer.” Yet laetrile can be found in common foods like almonds, apple seeds and black cherries.

Hundreds of thousands of cancer patients who undergo surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy die every year, yet these treatments continue to be touted as “safe and effective” by the FDA and the medical and pharmaceutical industry at large. Not a single death of a cancer patient has ever been attributed to the supervised use of laetrile. In fact, there are numerous studies which have shown even the most advance forms of cancer have been able to enjoy more time even though they did not begin a laetrile treatment until they were on death’s door.

Ultimately, the answer to the question “What are we to do” is up to you.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Obama Lacks Class and Dignity—There I’ve finally said it!

By Kellene Bishop

I have been biting my tongue on this topic for a long time now, not wanting to appear like I’m not giving him a chance. But today was the last straw.

Barack Obama has absolutely no Presidential class or dignity.

I was shocked when he was making his “presidential” speech, after he’d already won the election, and saw fit to take pot shots at President Bush. I know I was raised by good parents, but I would think that any parent who’s raising a future president of the United States would raise them with an awareness of dignity and civility. I expect to hear that kind of anti-Bush rhetoric during the politicking leading up to the election, but not afterwards, and frankly I don’t think it’s been done in recent history either. Why? Because it lacks class! It’s petty. This was supposed to be his first day of presidential regality and he sees fit to use it to promote his “nanny nanny noo noo” nonsense against President Bush.

Adding insult to injury, he crippled Washington D.C. financially by bankrupting them with the most lavish inaugural address in history, outspending Bush by over 4 to 1!

Our country is in MOURNING. Millions have lost their retirement, their jobs, their hope for a future, and he decides that elaborate excess is in the country’s best interest? During such an economic crisis, there are several U.S. Presidents that certainly would have firmly believed this to be undignified (Wilson, Roosevelt, Washington, Adams, etc.)

Since Obama has taken the reins of the Presidency, he continues to shift blame to what is going on in our nation to the previous President and the Republican party. Mr. President, be a man, not a martyr! Own up and fix it if you think it’s so bad! Don’t misunderstand. I’m not happy with how Bush performed his duties. And I feel that my convictions and beliefs have been betrayed in many aspects by the Republicans. However, Obama cannot continue to be believable in any way shape or form if he intends to put the blame of our country’s woes on the backs of any particular party or president. After all, Obama has stains on his hands for the mortgage mess we’re in as he was a part of insisting that government made economically questionable home loans. Obama screws up while taking the Oath of Office and sees fit to blame it on a Supreme Court justice? This is not behavior fitting of the president of our nation. Surely his mother raised him better than that! (How about the simple rule of “respect your elders?”)

How in the world does Obama think he’s promoting bi-partisanship when every time he speaks he sees fit to remind the American people that either a) They made a mistake in electing Bush in the first place (ouch…salt in the wound) or b) Our votes didn’t matter over the last 8 years because Obama is going to undo everything Bush ever did, or c) those who still do promote and believe in the Republican way of life are conquered human beings.

He continues to forget that the voters of this nation, to whom he is addressing, put Bush in office for two consecutive terms! And yet he sees fit to degrade that administration at every turn and to nullify ANYTHING that that administration did previously that Obama and the Democratic Party disagrees with. What good is the right to vote if your votes can merely be negated the next time someone comes along who doesn’t agree with them? To me that’s not a republic, that’s a monarchy. That kind of behavior is not indicative of a president of a free country, it’s indicative of a tyrant. And how does this behavior reinforce in any way his so-called goals of bipartisan cooperation. I’m starting to wonder seriously if we haven’t just been taken over by a King and his “King’s men.” In light of Obama’s complete disregard for the will of this nation’s people, he’s allowed for federal monies to be spent on stem cell research. Many people supported President Bush’s actions on stem-cell research. I, for one, certainly did, out of my devotion to the freedoms of the Constitution and my firmly held religious beliefs. It is immoral to take of the wealth from one people to give to another. And that’s exactly what he’s doing with this allocation. It is in violation of the religious beliefs of millions of Americans in our country as well. This isn’t even HIS money to allocate to such a cause. It is for the function of the government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights and freedoms of the people of this nation! Perhaps if we weren’t taxed so high, then private enterprise would still have money to fund such research themselves and not burden the American taxpayer with a process so repugnant to the senses of many.

I wonder how many other presidential policies he will attempt to reverse? Perhaps he’d like to teach George Washington a thing or two and decide to reverse his policy on the right to keep and bear arms… oh wait, Obama’s already trying to do that.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Or perhaps he’d like to reinstitute the Sedition Act which Thomas Jefferson specifically abolished. Perhaps he’d like to reinstate the errors of other presidents while he’s at it such as the internment camps which violated the rights of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Perhaps he’d like to get rid of the Declaration of Independence altogether so as not to be inconvenience with any conflict of conscience.

I don’t believe that the majority of our government-elected officials are serving the people any longer. They are serving themselves to get power and gain, and we apathetic sheep are allowing it. While Obama’s not even able to keep his campaign promises for an entire week, he’s sabotaging more of our country’s freedoms. Why doesn’t he show some dignity and put to rest the accusations of his heritage, to prove once and for all that he is legally able to be elected President of our nation instead of sending his dogs to the courthouse to use every convoluted and perverted law of privacy to protect that information from ever being released? If he has nothing to hide then why won’t he show this information instead of bullying his citizens in court, now at the cost to American taxpayers?

Here’s a warning “Mr. President.” If you are not able to even create a façade of class and decorum when you are in front of the cameras for all the world to see, then I suspect you are doing much worse behind our backs. Remember, the Declaration of Independence reads “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” I, for one, will not consent or stand idly by while you insult this great nation with your representation of us, nor will I allow you to strip us of any more of our liberties. You are truly the last straw—of the indignity of liberties lost. I will use all of my influence to right the real wrongs of our past leaders.

I suppose that if nothing else, I appreciate you for waking me up from my nap of stupor. Had it not been for your blatant and bold uncivilized behavior, I might still be sleeping.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Is Swiss Banking in Cahoots with the IRS?

Here’s food for thought for you. Is the Swiss Banking system actually cahoots in with the IRS and our government? I believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate that their recent buckling to legal maneuvering on the part of the U.S. and their supposed outrage at having to do so, is merely a ruse. I believe that there is reason to believe that there’s more to these actions of divulging names of their U.S. depositors than simply complying with the premise of a lawsuit. You decide.

So here’s the problem with the U.S. suing the Swiss Banking system to reveal the names of its account holders who may be guilty of tax fraud or tax evasion. You’ve got at least 2 wrongs that definitely aren’t making up any rights.

First of all, it’s a fishing expedition. None of these individuals have been proven in the U.S. to have committed tax fraud or tax evasion. And yet without formal indictments the U.S. feels that it has cause to subpoena every American-held account in Switzerland? No, instead the U.S. is making suppositions that if someone has an overseas account in the Swiss Banking system then they must be committing a crime. That kind of supposition is AGAINST our legal system and our due process of law.

Additionally, IF the government’s idea of tax fraud or evasion has ANYTHING to do with paying federal income taxes, then that too is illegal on our country’s part as federal income taxes are indeed illegal. We merely pay them out of fear, submission, and ignorance. No wonder we see IRS agents training with guns! I’m sorry. Someone tell me again why IRS tax collectors need to train with guns? Hey if it’s for their own self-defense, I’m all for it. But it’s the IRS who sanctions and REQUIRES such training. (Man, I’m sure many of you would love to work for a company that requires you to use a firearm instead of penalizing you from even storing one in your car on company property!) A repo man is not allowed to use a gun to get property back. Are we supposed to believe that the IRS is a government entity? Um…it is NOT. These are U.S. citizens who have been deceived into believing they work for an official government entity and are enforcing some kind of federal law by collecting taxes on our labor—at gun point if necessary! So why do the IRS have so much authority to spread fear into American citizens? Oh, yeah…now I get it – because the IRS cannot commit their actions with the strength of truth and the law behind them. They can only get away with what they do via force, fear, and brutal compulsion. If you don’t believe a word I’ve said in this regard, check on the testimony of countless former IRS Agents who have been fired and socially skewered for questioning the IRS tax system, unable to find any justification for the federal income tax, who they themselves do NOT pay a federal income tax as a result of their belief that the law is on their side — and join a million of other Americans who do not pay their federal income tax, and who have boldly attempted to get their findings out to the rest of the citizens in the U.S. One last note on the IRS — after decades of protestors taking this matter to courts of every level, to their IRS supervisors, and to legal mediation, there has yet to be ONE person who can show the LAW which enables the IRS to collect personal income tax. Even the Supreme Court found that the 16th Amendment did NOT provide any new power or authority to tax than the government had prior to the 16th Amendment.



Second fly in the ointment. Tax evasion is not illegal in Switzerland. And tax fraud has to be proven. The fact that the Swiss Banking system has collapsed to a law suit by the U.S. government has suspicion written all over it. The Swiss Banking system generated 36 percent of their income in the U.S. last year. They contribute to about 20 percent of their economic growth in their own nation every year. The fact that they would crumble like a sick dog due to a suit filed in a U.S. federal court is very suspicious to me. Either their nation is crumbling, or ours made a sweet deal with them. After acquiescing to providing 300 names to the U.S. (not evidence of any wrong-doing, mind you, just names, hence the “fishing expedition theory”) the U.S. turned around and sued for over 52,000 more names!! Now how much do you want to bet that the U.S. doesn’t even have cases filed for over 52,000 wealthy individuals they suspect of tax fraud or evasion? Switzerland has no legal justification to accommodate such a request other than bullying and fear or other reprisals. Peter V. Kunz, head of the business law department at the University of Bern stated, “Switzerland is afraid of fishing expeditions from abroad,” Kunz said. “It cannot be that just out of curiosity, without any hint of illegality, foreign authorities come to Switzerland and ask for information.” The ridiculous nature of what is happening is that Switzerland IS allowing individuals to get information simply out of curiosity!
Bank secrecy is literally a cash cow in the Swiss Banking systems. They could lose at least 50 percent of their depositors if they do not recover from this scandal immediately.

Michigan Senator Carl Levin who oversees the U.S. Senate subcommittee which is investigating United Bank of Switzerland proposed new laws this week to STOP Americans from acting freely with their own money and to prevent them from using offshore financial centers altogether. (This legislation was previously sponsored by Barack Obama!) That’s right. Our own currency and economy is going to hell in a hand basket, and this uppity senator wants to ensure that we all go down with it! At the very least they want to be able to put stiffer taxes on those with offshore accounts and give the Treasury Department the authority to take action against foreign jurisdictions that impede their efforts.

Our government claims that “conduct that actively facilitates tax evasion amounts to a declaration of war by offshore secrecy jurisdictions against honest, hardworking taxpayers. We’re determined to fight back and end the abuses inflicted on us by those tax havens.” In my opinion those who have placed some of their assets overseas are merely fighting the war that already exists within our own borders of illegal tax burdens and an economy that is unstable and out of control BECAUSE OF CHOICES WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT HAS MADE…not some act of God. To me, our government bullying one of our allies in this manner and attempting to eliminate this venue for the income earners of our nation is no different than them attempting to take our firearms away. I truly believe that they are indeed attempting to give us nothing to fight back with, including our own money.

Now how is this kind of reach of power even possible across country borders? Because of the Federal Reserve and its relationship with the World Bank, that’s how. And here we thought we lived in a republic, when in fact we are being governed by an international banking entity.

This problem will not fix itself folks. We don’t get to live in a republic if we do not act like free citizens and use our freedom to right wrongs. Take action. Start writing and start calling your government “leaders.”


Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.