Rep Jim McDermott Town Hall Meeting answered one question

September 3, 2009

On September 1, 2009, Representative Jim McDermott of the 7th Congressional District in Seattle, Washington on the Campus of the University of Washington at Meany Hall for the Health Care Town Hall Meeting only took one, yes, 1 question.

How do I know this.

Questions which were gathered were on 3 X 5 inch cards and Mr. McDermott was given questions on 5 X 7 inch cards.  I was in the front row.  He read about four and answered four to the audience. 

Many questions from the audience of about 800+ were asked.  But, and this is the reason why I say but, there was a code to who was supposed to be picked for the questions which Mr. McDermott would answer.  A combination of a Nazi 45 degree raised hand and a communist raised hand was the signal.  A closed fist and a Nazi open hand was the singled.  But instead of being an outstretched open hand the first two fingers were out and the last two fingers were tucked under.  Simplistic yet unsuspecting.  They also had three cards with them instead of only the one 3 X 5 card which were handed out outside to the audience line they the questioners had 5 X 7 inch cards as well and three cards each.  I am assuming this would be just in case the questions had already been asked by someone else. 

The surprising aspect of the brownshirt technique here for occupying time was that after the question was asked the questioner would walk outside to the lobby area and leave.  Normally someone would wait to ask the question and then leave but leave to their seat.  These people left not to their seat but to the outside of the back doors.  There was a set of mikes on both sides of the aisles as well so no excuse here.    

Heckles were plentiful during the initial history comments of where we are in the health care process.  This was obviously set up as a repeat of the Nazi Brownshirts technical to intimidate and disorient other prospective hecklers.  Was most liberals do not realize is that conservatives want to hear both sides of an debate and determine their final decision on all facts and circumstances.  This obviously was and historically has been a technique of the far left and was extremely predominant in the Nazi Party Brownshirters in the 1930’s and 1920’s. 

One lady did get a questions through however.  She did not raise her hand upright with the palm out but had here palm out with a 45 degree angle.  Her question was original, in my opinion, because that was the only question which Mr. McDermott wrote down prior to answering the question.

Next time, Mr. McDermott answer real questions.  If you really do not know the answer just say you do not know the answer.  Do not rely on Brownshirt techniques of deception.  Say the answer to a question will be included on your website. 

Duh!  Do the right thing. 

QuestionOne:  Since the Veterans Administration is collecting and permitted to selling Veterans Medical Files around the world to anyone through the University Medical system what is to stop anyone from finding out what the Minuteman Launch codes are from a Veteran who had access to them through deception medical knowledge trickery.  An example would be someone who might be allergic to peanuts and then getting the veteran drug after inserting peanuts into their food so they are weak and asking them about three or four of the launch code numbers.  This is both a national security issue and a health privacy issue. 

Question Two:  What is to prevent selling of records also in the same fashion of Military personnel to the highest bidder and getting the DNA records of the Military personnel.  A weapon currently could detect the DNA pattern and with a flip of the switch eliminate the entire force facing an enemy.  What is their to prevent this from happening.     

You see Mr. McDermott hardball questions can make a bill stronger and not weaker and at the same time strengthen our national system.  There are reason for the current system besides just money.   

Next time, stop wasting the time of 800+ american citizens or united states citizens and answer real questions. 

Thanks

Advertisements

Vice President Biden should Act as President

August 16, 2009
Vice-President Biden should Act as President
 
According to the wording in the U.S. Constitution, Vice-President Biden should be “Acting as President”. Yes, no kidding. This is his duty and his right. President Obama has not shown his Birth Certificate. All his Certificate of Live Birth is proving is the eligibility of age has been accomplished.
 
It is the duty of the President elect to prove his eligibility and not for the Congress or the Court to have to guess at whether someone is “qualified” to be President or not. The wording in the Constitution is pre-supposing that the questioning of qualification for President and for Vice-President would be tested after the election process. If the testing is met prior then that is great but the Constitution only is addressing the issue of qualification after the election process has been made. The Constitution is addressing the President elect and the Vice-President elect to find out if they are qualified for the position.
Let’s get to the wording of the U.S. Constitution in Amendment 20, # 3 which was ratified on 01/23/1933. Since the first part is addressing if the President or Vice-President die I will not include that portion.
 
…., or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
 
First, let’s look at the possible sequence of events which possibly could be involved.
 
1) Has the Congress, in its infinite wisdom? as of yet established any rules or regulations in the process of defining qualification. By qualifications I am assuming, Article II, Section 1.
 
… No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
 
… Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of My Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
 
The preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States involves removing from Office those who are not qualified to be in Office. The need to proving the qualification is not up to the People to prove but up to the Officials in the various Offices to enforce by the mere heeding to the words which have been sworn to or affirmed.
Thus from the above President Obama should either prove his citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing he is a natural born citizen or remove himself from office.
 
Thus in the same manner Vice President Biden needs to ask the President for proof of citizenship and if not provided he need to produce a letter and notify the leaders of the House and the Senate and as a courtesy present the letter also to the Supreme Court Justices and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Thus after they the above have read the letter. The Constitution does not allow for a debate in this matter. The proof only is in the presentation of a birth certificate. Without a birth certificate President Obama is not a qualified President elect.
 
If I were to go to school and say I have my homework at home in a safe that only I know the combination to and then ask the teacher to give me an A++ for the homework I would be laughed at by the teacher. But if I get a note from my parents that states I did the homework and they saw me put the homework in the safe but would not be handing it in what would the teacher say. In like manner so should the citizens of the United States laugh at President Obama when he says that a note from his doctor who did not deliver him but that he is only acknowledging that after three days he say me. Wherein everyone knows that in three days one could fly half way around the world. A better comment might be that the “dog ate the homework”. In this later case then I believe the teacher would give extra time to redo the homework. Now, let’s put in another scenario. The parents are Principle and the teachers knows how the next years contract talks are going. The economy is slipping and some teachers might need to be laid off. In this scenario the student would be given an A++ with a little bit of after school verbal testing or just eliminating this from the final grade calculations.
 
Show me the Birth Certificate or get out of Office.
 
2nd. President Obama on his first day in Office and his first Executive Order was to literally put his Birth Certificate in a Safe where no one but himself had the combination to open the safe. He has made it illegal for anyone citizen to see his Birth Certificate from Hawaii. Perhaps this is because it does not exist. If I cannot have it in my hand then it does not exist is my conclusion. And if it is not in my hand then President Obama is not qualified to be President according to the Constitution.
 
Now, let’s say Vice President Biden does step up and he does become a Man and live by the Constitution. Mr. Biden does not move up to the permanent position of President. The Constitution does not allow this to happen. If a President elect is not qualified to be President then the Vice President elect moves up and Acts as President. The way I am also reading this is that the Vice President is not removed from the position as Vice President and thus he also is still the President of the Senate. Thus this would be the only time when someone would concurrently be President and Vice President. The selection of a a qualified President should then, in my opinion, go back to the candidates who ran to determine which is the next one that is qualified.
 
The qualified Presidential candidates would then be weighed by Congress and one would be put forward as determined to be qualified. I do not see any allowance here for the Electoral College process to be re-instated or for Electoral College members to be consulted. The Constitution only allows this once after the election process. The Electoral College members flunked their class in essence but no allowance for a second Electoral College group is contemplated in the Constitution.
 
So, if Mr. John McCain was entered as being the qualified President then none of the democrats would be voting for him. The democrats would also contend that Mr. McCain was not a viable qualified candidate because he was not a natural born citizen. The law for determining would be adjusted so this would not be the case. Or is the next one Mr. Ron Paul. None would be voting for him as President either. So then what actually would happen. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
 
If nothing happens, then what could happen. Since Mr. Biden knows the above would be the results and he would in all cases remain the Vice President and the position of President would revert to someone else who would not be in alignment with his perspectives and political agenda, Mr. Biden would not enforce the 20th Amendment to the Constitution.
Let’s go to not next November but the following November after 2010. If the elections put the Democrats in a minority then the Republicans I would be assuming would be in a majority. In this scenario then Congress would force the issue and state that Mr. Obama was not the President and then force Vice President Biden to act as President as well. While the issue is being debated and fought Mr. Obama would be petitioning the Supreme Court for clarity on the situation. The Courts would state that Congress has already stated that Mr. Obama is a “natural born” citizen and the court would rest on Congresses determination. After all, the majority in the Supreme Court now is liberal leaning and this would be in their best interest. Eventually Congress would either determine that Mr. Obama needs to produce a birth certificate or they would elect a President who is qualified to the Office of President. Mr. Biden would remain the Vice President. If the Senate does not have a broad margin but rather a tight margin or a Democratic margin then in the next two years nothing will be going through the Senate to the President or to the House for signatures or for debates.
 
But after two years will this be too late to enforce a Constitutional issue to arise. It just may be. But if the economy is sour this could be the only solution. Perhaps at that point the People may demand this Constitutional question. This question could also be a debating point in the November 2010 election process. “Show me the Birth Certificate”. Could this be the 2010 Cry. Freedom is precious, let’s preserve it.
 
Mr. Biden what are you going to do. If you have not seen the Birth Certificate then enforce the Constitution. After all, you did swear that you would.
 
“So help you God.”

 


Bill of Rights – Guarantees Rights of Individuals only and not the States

July 28, 2009

Concerning the Bill of Rights.

The total essence of the Bill of Rights was established for Individuals and not the State nor for the federal government.

 As an example:

 If with the 1st Amendment I am concerned about the State and the free exercise and the non-establishment thereof, etc. then the argument could be made to believe that the separation of Church and State does need to be in Existence.  But if the argument see below for with the individual.

 Again, with the 2nd Amendment the argument commonly argued is that the State has a Right to form a Militia for its own defenses.

But if the Bill of Rights was for the State then in the U.S. Constitution would not of had to state that all other rights are reserved for the State.  Yes, the U.S. Constitution was addressed first but before the U.S. Constitution could be ratified the guaranteeing of individual rights were ratified.  It would have been completely unnecessary and duplicity of efforts to include as an amendment the 10 Rights because they were already covered.  If not a Right or Duty of the Federal then it is of the States or still reserved for the People.  So then the only logical and I do not know why it has not been addressed before the Supreme Court in this fashion previously reasoned. 

 What I think needs to be done is to get copies of logic in the Post Revolutionary timeframe and specifically of our founders to see if their speech is directed toward the States or to the Individuals.  Logic would then dictate it was directed toward the individual and not toward the State.

 What do you think about this.

 END


Credit Cards and U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.

May 17, 2009

Credit Cards and U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.

In the U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 is says,

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.”

Also in Section 10 it says,

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Now, let’s look to The Declaration of Independence.

Second paragraph.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….

bottom of second paragraph.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good!

Paragraph fifteen

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (For imposing higher interest rates on us without a meeting of minds nor our Consent)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of separate accounts for old debts at the older lower interest rate.)

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms (altering fundamentally the Forms of meeting of the minds concept in Contract Law) of our Governments: (By taking away these rights the Governments has implied Nobility on the rights of Contracts from the perspective of the writer who is a banker/creditor.)

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our governments: (For conspiring with Congress to allow the other creditors information to be included in the calculations for increasing our interest rates and without any prior warning. Also conspiring to allow creditors to arbitrarily increase interest rates at their own discretion and without a new signed contract.)

***********************

From the above in most areas if King were substituted for creditor or lender or credit card and then you the debtor were the citizen then what is happening now is likewise the same scenario which was happening around the formation of our Country.

The Creditors are altering contracts which have a nebulious wording attached to them to allow them to change the credit card interest rate at any time and for whatever reason which may suite the lender. Congress has also gone ahead with this scheme and transposed its legislative rights to the creditors. However, since Congress cannot pass any ex-post facto laws allowing this type of a contract then law is Unconstitutional and thus the Contract is Unconstitutional.

I would therefore say that since we also have laws which if a contract is written up by one party then the party writing up the contract is totally at fault when the wording of a contract cannot be enforced by a judge. When one party changes a contract ex-post facto then you have nullified a contract and it should be voidable by the other party.

I would liken a provision like this as usuary. In some States if you charge usuary then the amount over the normal interest rate is indeed also payable back to the party being charged but the principle of the amount is also reduced. Since this is such a widespread disrespect for the Constitution then the principal amount should also not have to be paid. There should be some type of provision in the Narco Laws which should cover double or triple or quadruple damages also to be paid.

Since I am not an attorney nor do I pretend to be one I am not advocating anyone stop paying their credit cards but rather to address this issue with their attorney. If you have enough money to press the issue stop paying your credit cards and ask the credit card companies to reimburse you if they have previously increased your interest rate for no reason of your fault. That is if you have made regular payments on-time and regularly and they still have increased your interest rate. I think this is where this provision might take affect. Although in my thinking the creditors are collecting a penalty fee to get you back into compliance and the increasing of the interest rate even if your fault is an ex-post facto increase as well.

The other thinking might be that if your creditors increase their interest rates to such a point that you now cannot make your payments then in the old world you were obliged to be an indendtured servant to pay your bill back. In essence, this is what is being created. You contracted at a reasonable interest rate and now that things (macro-economic pressures) are beyond your contract the creditors are increasing your interest rate and then you will have to be extending all of your time and free-time to pay them back. So the old solution was indentured servitude or debtors prison and the new method is a court judgement or bankruptcy.

The ability to instantaneously change contracts is the infering of Nobility on a particular group. This notion of Nobility is expressly prohibited as noted above from the U.S. Constitution and the agregous noting of what happens under the cloud of Nobility.

Please advise as to what your opinion is as to this matter.

Thanks

Keith Ljunghammar

 

 


Sen Dodd credit card bill and Unconstitutional wording

May 15, 2009

This bill is weak.  It needs to punish the credit card companies for putting in ex-post-facto provisions into their contracts.  If all powers come from the U.S. Constitution and all contracts are designed and given power by the constitution then no contract can have an ex-post-facto provision in its wording.  Thus all credit card interest rates which were increased without any notice and for no reason are Unconstitutional and the Courts cannot enforce the provisions of a “Contract” which is illegal and Unconstitutional.  This is truly what the bill should be addressing and not some type of whamby-pamby bill of rights provisions.  The constittution already addresses this.  You need to address the true punishment and state what the constitution addresses and make all credit card debt go away if they have increase the interest rate whatsoever in the past.  Thus the credit card companies would then have to sue to get their money back and since this would be a Supreme Court case they would have to get around the ex-post-facto- provision of the Constitution first and they will not be able to do this.


HB 2377 Family Medical Care and Temporary 0.3% General Sales Tax Increase

April 25, 2009

Consumer Protection Act

March 11, 2009

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf

Consumer Protection Act

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf

Under the Fair Trade Consumer Protection Act I am not seeing anything which punishes the casher of a bad check when the casher knows that the check is indeed bad.

Under different sections of the Protection Act a penalty of $1000 is enforced.

Quite commonly a PayDay Loan institution will get a prepaid check. If you then call the PayDay loan location and state that the check is not good they will then cash the check anyways. This would seem to indicate to me that the consumer could charge a $1000 fee as provided by the Act and since the amount of the loan would probably be less than $1000 have the entire amount of the PayDay Loan eliminated.

In other aspects of law I have seen that paying attention to the small details of how a law is written is paramount. But in practice things can be constructively different.

Being previously caught in this tight-rope I called the PayDay location and notified them that the check which they have did not have enough money on deposited for the check to clear. But in about a three day period of time I should have the funds in the bank account. Not only did I get an insufficient funds penalty from the PayDay loan company but a penalty fee from the bank.

If the Federal Government does not clarify this amount then the State should clarify this by instituting their own law. The federal government law at the bottom of the law only states that the States cannot have a tougher interpretation than the federal law with respect to the consumer. Since this may not have been clarified then the state should interpret this matter.

Notwithstanding the consumer loan business tramples on consumers when it comes to credit collection time. Perhaps now is the time for the consumer to trample on the creditor until they come back into compliance. Many debt collectors do not leave a phone number or if they do leave a phone number they do not leave an address where they can be written to.

What do you say.  What is your opinion.