Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Like Obama, Eric Holder will violate the Constitutional separation of powers. He will extend same-sex marriage rights to States with traditional marriage laws or State constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman—(Feb.10, 2014)—In what amounts to the Department of Justice testing the legal waters to see how far Barack Obama & Company can stretch the US Supreme Court's granting of spousal privileges to same sex couples lawfully married in States whose legislators enacted same-sex marriage legislation, and whose governor signed that bill into law. In other words, where the Supreme Court struck down several provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] (as a union between a man and a woman), the high court did not leave the back door open for Attorney General Eric Holder and White House occupant Barack Obama.to expand same sex marriage into States which have either denied that right or simply chose not to bring the issue to the ballot.

Instead, the high court said: "...when the Constitution was adopted, the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parents and child were matters reserved to the States. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State. DOMA rejects this long established precept. The State's decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of great import. But the Federal government used the State-defined class for an opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities, the question is whether the resulting injury and indignation is a deprivation of an essential part of liberty...since what New York treats as 'alike' the federal laws deems 'unlike' by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."

When Obama & Company attempt to impose same sex marriage through the "telephone and the pen" or by ignoring laws—or by Justice Dept. fiat—when the Obama government ignores the fact that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parents and child are matters reserved to the State and not the federal government which was created subservient to the States who created it; and that the federal government cannot impose on the States a law or an executive order designed to injure the same class the States, by action or inaction, seeks to protect. In other words, in ruling that DOMA was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court also ruled it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to impose same sex marriage, or any semblance of it, on the States which, by action or inaction, oppose it.

Did Obama gag order kill Investors.com
story about FBI preventing the NSA from
datamining mosques—as they datamine you?
—(Aug. 26,.2013)—Investor.com broke the story on June 12, 2013 that, since October, 2011 FBI surveillance and undercover sting operations of Muslim groups and mosques without senior level approval from a special oversight body in the Justice Department is forbidden. The special oversight body is called the Sensitive Operations Review Committee [SORC]. Who heads this committee? No one seems to know. Who sits on this committee? No one seems to know. What happened to the Investor.com editorial shedding light on the Obama-approved Sensitive Operations Review Committee? Who asked? Who cared? No one except the Obamaites on that invisible committee, and whomever is heading it. These are just a couple of items in a myriad of things Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have decided the American people don't need to know about what their "transparent" government is doing.

What does this special "sensitive" committee do? How is its authority derived? Voters would like to know these things. And, voters would like to know how Obama can't keep the NSA from "accidentally" dataming millions of US citizens, but it can selectively exclude handfuls of Muslims? These are questions that need to be answered—in a publicly televised Select Committee hearing, or in a publicly televised presidential impeachment hearing. Most Americans would prefer the impeachment hearing.

The covert, invisible "foundation" for the Sensitive Operations Review Committee was dug on Sunday, March 6, 2011 during a protest rally in New York's Times Square. While the rally appeared to have been financed by the Committee on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR], it was "fronted" by Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf (one of the 9-11 World Trade Center Mosque promoters) and Hip-Hopster Russell Simmons. What were they protesting? With CAIR slamming Congressman Peter King [R-NY] Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee,he appeared on Fox News where he said: "The media constantly quotes CAIR as though they were the Knights of Columbus, B'Nai Brith, or the Masons,' but the fact is CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist funding case."

You might say the first shovel full of dirt from the ground-breaking of the SORC was tossed by then-Obama Deputy National Security Director Denis Richard McDonough (now White House Chief of Staff). McDonough was a senior fellow at the social progressive Center for American Progress until he joined Obama's campaign in 2008. On March 6, 2011, Obama sent McDonough to speak on his behalf at a mosque in Virginia—to counter King's political rhetoric. On March 18 Senate Minority Leader Dick Durbin [D-IL] announced the Senate was going to hold hearings on religious intolerance in order to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity.

On the 22nd, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] initiated the hearing in the Senate's new Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil and Human Rights which, of course demonized King. The Senate hearing did not result in the passage of legislation creating special rights for Muslims. The left in the Senate, and the media, argued that the majority of religious hate crimes were committed against Muslims. The Washington Times, using 2009 data (the last whole year for which statistics were available at the time) which said, in the United States, 9.3% of the 1,376 religious hate crimes in the United States were committed against Muslims—far less than the 70.1% that were committed against Jews.

Sometime between March 22, 2011 (when Durbin and Reid spoke about creating special rights for Muslims) and June 12, 2013 when Investor.com reported that the Obama Administration had ordered the NSA and the FBI to exclude mosques—the jihadist factories where domestic terrorists are radicalized —and the Islamic organizations like CAIR that finance unrest, Obama and his Muslim "outreach" staffers in the West Wing, formed what would be revealed by Investor.com as the Sensitive Operations Review Committee which would be exempt from the universal datamining of emails, telephone calls and other forms of surreptitious electronic surveillance.

Conversely, it's interesting that, according to the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper [Lt. Gen, USAF-Ret.], the NSA (tongue-in-cheek) inadvertently, and completely accidentally, trapped millions of electronic communiquÈ between working class Americans, implying that with PRISM you get a server-wide data vac rather than a precision instrument that allows PRISM to selectively datamine one home or office and leapfrog what's on either side of it.

Clapper told Congress, under oath, that the NSA does not wittingly collect data on American citizens, implying if would be difficult to collect the specific data the government needed without a strong likelihood of also capturing thousands, if not millions, of names not covered in a FISA warrant. Clapper's explanation to 4th term Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR] when asked if the NSA had datamined millions of American citizens, Clapper replied, "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps— but not wittingly." Clapper very clearly told Wyden that PRISM doesn't allow the NSA to selectively datamine one home or office and leapfrog that "target's" neighbors. But, we now learn from Investor.com—and "unwittingly" from James Clapper—that the broad-reaching datamining of millions of Americans was not "unwittingly" after all. So, now we know the Obama Administration is deliberately datamining US citizens as they deliberately avoid datamining potential terrorists. The question the media—right and left—in the United States needs to answer, right now, is WHY? on both counts. And we need to do that before the Obama White House has a political database that separates the sheep from the lions—by phone number, email and street address.


Supreme Court rules on behalf of an
Obama donor; overturns a $21.6 million
judgment. Their generic drug for
Clinoril™ caused a woman's skin to
peel off, permanently disfiguring her.
—(June 10, 2013)—In December, 2004, after receiving a prescription for Sulindac®, the generic version of Merck's Clinoril™, Karen Bartlett showed up at a local New Hampshire emergency room complaining of "pimple-like bumps and blisters on her face." Bartlett's doctor prescribed Sulindac®, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceuticals for shoulder pain. When she arrived at the emergency room, Karen Bartlett not only had spots and blisters on her face, she also had an eye irritation and a fever. Blood tests revealed Bartlett was suffering from Stevens-Johnson Syndrome that was rapidly evolving into a potentially fatal condition toxic epidermal necrolysis characterized by large lesions. Bartlett spend three months in the hospital—two of them in a medically-induced comma. When she woke up, she was suffering from permanent injuries.

Sulindac®, the generic form of Clinoril™, was approved by the FDA in 1991. Clinoril™ was approved in 1979. The Bartletts contended in their lawsuit that, following its approval by the Food and Drug Administration, Mutual Pharmaceuticals had an obligation to conduct post-approval safety surveillance for reports of adverse reactions to the drug that suggest the quality control of Sulindac® might not be what it should be, or that nasty side-affects simply pop up like a blister or lesion after extended use. In addition, the Bartletts alleged that Mutual Pharmaceuticals had a moral responsibility to advise the end user of any potential serious side-affects including anything negative buried in the medical literature. And, was there anything in that literature that would have warned the physician thinking about prescribing it of the potential dangers Karen Bartlett actually experienced?

The Bartlett lawsuit alleged seven counts. One—failure to warn the market place of potential health hazards. Two—Asserting product liability in a product defective in design. Three—fraud by omitting or concealing material facts about potential risks from using Sulindac®. Four—breach of an implied warranty. Five—breach of express warranty that Sulindac® was safe. Six—negligence in failing to use reasonable care in marketing Sulindac®. And, seven—gross negligence based on all of the above.

On July 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled on behalf of Mutual Pharmaceutical in a 5 to 4 vote, striking down a lower court's decision to award Karen Bartlett $21 million to compensate her for damages causes by adverse reactions from the generic drug. The SCOTUS ruling was a reiteration of a 2011 decision in which the high court held that "...[i]n prior decisions, the Court has recognized that it may sometimes be impossible for a drug company to comply with FDA design and labeling requirements on the one hand and State laws on the other—typically because State law authorizes liability for drugs that meet FDA standards. The conflict is especially acute for for generic versions of name-brand drugs." In other words, name brand drugs can still be singled out for mislabeling, fraud and adverse drug side effects, but generic versions of the same drug, made from the same formulation and the same warnings, can not be. Dissenting Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayer argued that "...the Court has left a seriously injured customer without any remedy despite Congress' explicit efforts to preserve State common-law liability."

But Mutual Pharmaceutical, whose donations to Obama and to several Democratic SuperPacs in the 2012 election totaled $2,332,500.00 was happy about the high court's decision. Take off their total donations to the social progressives, and Mutual was still ahead by $18,667,500.00.


John Kerry thinks prosperity is evil—(May 29,.2013)—When the widow of Sen. H. John Heinz III [R-PA] (the H. J. Heinz Company fortune) married Massachusetts junior Senator John Kerry, the nuptials were conditioned on a prenuptial agreement that shielded Teresa Heinz's inherited $1.2 billion fortune from her new husband should they ever divorce. Sen. John Heinz III died in a plane-helicopter collision on April 4, 1991 On May 26, 1995 Kerry and Heinz married. Choosing to keep her name and also choosing to remain a Republican until Kerry's presidential bid in 2004 was a slap in the face to Kerry, but his station in life had just improved exponentially , so he said nothing. Teresa Heinz told the media that her "...legal name is still Teresa Heinz. Teresa Heinz Kerry is my name—for politics. Teresa Heinz is what I've been all my...adult life...And, it's the name of my boys, you know?"

Teresa Heinz chairs The Heinz Endowments and the Heinz Family Philanthropies. An active social progressive who is pretty much disliked by the Howard John Heinz family, Teresa Heinz is a major donor to the Tides Foundation and the Tides Center, the Environmental Defense Fund, Earth Action Network, Global Exchange, National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Media, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Feminist Majority Foundation, ACORN and scores of other social progressive and outwardly vocal anti-American communist organizations.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who enjoys a lifestyle only imagined by 99% of the American people, apparently believes that those who enjoy prosperity obstruct peaceful coexistence. The "haves" bully the "have-nots." Kerry's view is the view of the world's liberal elites—the top 5% of that 1% which the socialist "99%ers" protested against in 2012. Of course, the wealth the ".005%ers" want redistributed isn't the wealth of the "1%ERs," its the working class "wealth" of the middle class.

Prior to Secretary Kerry addressing the World Economic Forum on the Middle East on May 25, 2013, he made the following statement to the media through a transcript of his speech, in which he said: "I think there's an opportunity for peace, but for many reasons it's not on the tips of everyone's tongue. People in Israel aren't waking up every day ad wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity." Kerry's remarks were delivered to the media three days before the World Forum on the Middle East took place in Jordan.

The Israeli media responded quickly, with the Jewish Press saying: "So, Secretary Kerry thinks it would be better for Israel to approach negotiations from a position of precarious poverty? Does he think Israel's quest for legitimacy and security in an unstable, overarmed and hostile region would be better received if Israel were a needy, insecure supplicant to Palestinian and Arab interests? Or that the Palestinians would have pity on an unnerved and anxious Israel struggling with a bankrupt, aid-dependent economy?" (I wonder why the Israeli press did not add "...like the United States." on the end of that last sentence?

The Palestinians saw Kerry's remark as a sign that they could leverage Israel not only for land, but the industrial and/or commercial asset, as spoils of war, on that land. Interestingly, the day after Kerry met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the prosperity dialogue made its way into Kerry's meeting with reporters when he said that "...Palestinians have a priority concern with respect to knowing that they can secure an independent, sovereign and prosperous state with clear lines as defined previously by them along the 1967 lines." Kerry, of course, is talking about the pre-Six Day War "lines" when Egypt, Syria and Jordan tried to obliterate Israel and, overwhelming lost their bid to secure, by force of arms, a Palestinians homeland (which they had never possessed in the history of the world) primarily because the Arabs, who did not trust the Palestinians, did not want them living in their lands.

As for prosperity, the Israeli economy is strong and the unemployment rate in Israel is currently around 6.5% (and they don't have to pretend that unemployed people who give up looking for work because there are no jobs are no longer unemployed). The unemployment rate in Israel has been lower than that in the United States for as long as Barack Obama has been the "practicing occupier" in the White House.

The left loves National Security Letters and credits
them to Bush-43, whom they claim created the NSL
in Title 19 USC Sec. 2510(8) of the Patriot Act. Only
Bush-43 didn't created them
—(May 12,.2013)—On March 15, 2013 US District Court Judge Susan Yvonne Illuston of the Northern District of California
(who was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton on May 25, 1995) ruled that it's unconstitutional for the Obama Administration's FBI to use National Security Letters [NSLs] to demand information—and cooperation beyond the subpoena level—from telephone carriers about their subscribers. A provision in the USA Patriot Act makes revealing that you're been served with a NSL letter is a criminal act. Under the law, you can't even tell your lawyer you were served with Uncle Sam's top secret warrantless search warrant.

Generally, at least since the World Trade Center collapse and the USA Patriot Act, the only time National Security Letters are supposed to be used are on national security grounds when the government feels a need exists to temporarily revoke the civil liberties of a specific American citizen or business entity in order to compel them to reveal information they might otherwise be protected by the Bill of Rights from revealing.

When Barack Obama purportedly served NSLs on 14 State governors on May 26, 2010 to prevent the Governors from creating what Obama theoretically referred to as "State Defense Forces" (a State defense force separate from the National Guard which cannot be federalized is actually lawful under 37 USC §109). Obama purportedly advised the governors to cease and desist in their efforts, or face the charge of treason. In point of fact, creating a secondary State guard to handle State emergencies like hurricane, tornadoes or other natural calamities without recalling federalized National Guard units which might be serving in a war zone, is completely legal. Logic suggests the examiner.com story, purportedly written by Ken Larive of the Lafayette Political Buzz and reported in the examiner.com by Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki.

The examiner.com, which reported a story that was not printed by anyone of credible consequence, added the caveat that the story might be bogus since no governor has admitted they had received a NSL, or were threatened with jail if they spoke out about receiving one. The patriot right was convinced, with absolutely no evidence, that the story was true only because according to reports, the law prevented the governors from telling anyone they had been served. The examiner.com also said that the National Security Letter was created by George W. Bush under the Patriot Act. The examiner.com was as wrong about that comment as they were in their decision to print Larive's Lafayette Political Buzz story. The National Security Letter was not created by Bush-43 nor the GOP-controlled 107th Congress. It was created in 1978 by Jimmy Carter to circumvent, in part, the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 USC § 3401 which provided customers of financial institutions a degree of privacy from government searches. Special surveillance rights were buried in Executive Order 12036 (an Executive Order theoretically written to restrict the intelligence community from conducting intelligence operations against US citizens). But like most government documents, you have to look closely see the sleight-of-hand. EO 12036 restricts the intelligence crowd unless the President and/or Attorney General has authorized the surveillance and/or investigation because probable cause exists that the person to be investigated is, or could be, an agent of a foreign power.

Before the law, the government didn't have to tell people when they were accessing their financial records. Nor did citizens have the power to prevent them from taking such actions. However, it should be noted that Section 505 of the Patriot Act expanded the use of NSLs as Bush-43 used them to investigate Muslim organizations in the United States who were either raising funds for al Qaeda or were communicating with radical Muslim front groups around the world when links to terrorist groups were suspected.

Social progressive Jimmy Carter didn't like the Right to Financial Privacy Act. In his book, Nation of Sheep, Judge Andrew Napolitano noted that almost from the moment of the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, those elected to preserve the Constitution began to dismantle it. "In virtually every Administration," Napolitano said, "...the government has sought ingenious ways to evade and avoid its obligation under our Founding charter."

When Judge Illston's ruling stopped the Obama Administration from issuing NSLs in a case brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation which defends online freedom. Judge Illson's decision was based on the argument that the NSL gag rule violated the 1st Amendment—if not the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments since 97% of all NSLs issued included gag orders which imposed nondisclosure requirements that made it very difficult for the recipient of a NSL to adequately defend him-(or her)-self. Obama's FCC and Justice Dept. are largely targeting the Internet which has become the news portal of America. At the Circuit Court level, the federal judiciary has ruled that not only does the blogsphere enjoy all free speech rights, it also enjoys the same freedom of the press rights enjoyed by newspapers and magazines. That's why groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation are working so hard to protect the cyberights of the American citizen.

From 2003 to 2006 the FBI issued 192,399 NSLs (or 48,100 per year). A Washington Post investigation in 2006 showed that the FBI misused NSLs in fully 60% of the cases—or an average of 28,860 wrongful and abusive investigations per year. The Washington Post exposé brought down the use of NSLs. In 2007 the FBI issued 24,287 NSLs. In 2008 the number dropped to 15,511 NSLs issued..

But since Obama likes anything that shrouds transparency, expect the numbers to spiral upward again. The Washington Post reminded the nation that US citizens, by right, enjoy constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure and because they do, judicial warrants, issued by regular judges are needed before a government agency can spy on an American citizen.

Everytime the question of NSLs have ended up in federal court, the courts have ruled that National Security Letters are unconstitutional. The FBI continues to use them because in 2008, the FBI's general counsel Valerie Caproni told investigators that simply because she disagreed with the court's decisions it was appropriate to continue issuing the NSLs.

Judge Andrew Napolitano was right. The federal government believes they had the right to dismantle the Constitution if it gets in their way of collecting the evidence they need to put people away. A President who abuses what is wrongly construed to be his Executive Order prerogative (since legislating from the Oval Office is a separation of powers violation), by using them, he is willfully violating the rule of law. Since the Executive Branch also does not Constitutionally possess Judicial authority (nor does Congress—which means Congress cannot transfer to the President power that is constitutionally not theirs to grant), the federal courts have repeatedly, since Obama took office, reiterated time and again, that NSLs are unconstitutional and their use violates the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Yet, knowing this, Obama continues to use them. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense.

US Senate came five votes away from surrendering the 2nd Amendment to the UN—(April 15,.2013)—But, that's just "round one." Barack Obama and antigun moguls Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-NY] and Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ] first proposed the best way to neuter the 2nd Amendment was by taxing ammunition out of the market place. Make it too expensive to buy. That way it wouldn't matter if you killed the US Senate proposal to ratify the UN Small Arms Treaty or not. That way, it wouldn't matter if the effort to save the 2nd Amendment passed or failed on April 13. As it was, in a 53 to 46 vote the United States Senate voted to uphold the 2nd Amendment and prevent the Senate from voting to affirm the intention of the US Senate to "...uphold the Second Amendment rights [of the American people]. and prevent the United States from entering the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."

Keep in mind, the Senate did not reject the ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty, they simply did what the US Senate did in December, 1997 after Vice President Al Gore "ceremonially" signed the UN Global Warming Treaty—they voted 97-0 to reject the Kyoto Protocol, making it clear to the world that the United States emphatically would not ratify that treaty—it would be dead on arrival at the doorstep to the US Senate.

In 2010, Hillary Clinton ceremoniously signed the UN Small Arms Treaty in what was purported to be nothing more than a symbolic photo-op that didn't really mean anything since the American people knew that it required three-fourths of the States to ratify a treaty before it becomes law in the United States. The votes were, you might say, shots fired over the bow of the USS Social Progressive—telling Al Gore and Bill Clinton not to sign the Kyoto Protocol because the Senate had no intention of ever ratifying it; and telling Barack Obama who was chomping at the bit to ratify the UN Small Arms Treaty that he knows he does not have the votes to ratify it although Bill Clinton also symbolically signed what was still referred to as the Kyoto Protocol rather than the UN Global Warming Treaty because the resolution was never ratified by the United Stales Senate. So, why did the Senate, in 1997, hold a special vote to advise the Clinton Administration that it would categorically reject the Kyoto Treaty? And why did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sign the UN Small Arms Treaty in 2010?

US law stipulates that all treaties must be ratified by 3/4th of the Senate before the President of the United States (the only person allowed by US law to do so) signs it. No other official in the United States government is allowed to sign a treaty—even ceremoniously—since, based on Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, the foundation of international law and the basis of global common law, while the signature of a lesser government official is only indicative that the nation intends to ratify the treaty, the lesser dignitary's signature does not legally bind that nation to the contract, but it does obligate that nation to act in accordance with the terms of the covenant until that nation's leader and/or parliament accepts or rejects it. If that nation's Senate or Parliament fails to act on the treaty—by either ratifying or rejecting it—the signature of the Secretary of State will perpetually bind that nation to the terms of the treaty.

The UN Small Arms Treaty, which has been rushed fast and furiously by Obama, and role-played like a movie script by US Attorney General Eric Holder's illegal gun trafficking scheme called "Fast & Furious" after the 2012 Vin Diesel movie of the same name. Logic suggests the gunrunning scheme was dreamed up by Obama's social progressive Justice Department which desperately wanted a gun-free (or at least ammo-depleted) America by the Election of 2012. Obama, like the rest of the social progressive world, saw themselves as close to creating a wholly communist world within their lifetime. To achieve their objective they needed only to strip from those Free People their right to own firearms, or if they could not achieve that goal, to make securing the ammunition those weapons required as difficult to get as is humanly possible. And, to make the task of confiscating weapons feasible, the taskmasters needed to achieve one other thing the left has wanted since 1934—a national gun registry that will make it easy for the left to seize all lawful weapons when the time is right.

You might think that even if the UN outlaws the private ownership of guns everywhere else in the world, that the 2nd Amendment will protect the right of US citizens to own firearms since the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land. Or, is it? Most Americans thought so until 1937, when a challenge by Mexico over a 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty raised a question about Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution which said "treaties" are the "supreme law" of the land. In the view of every American, the Constitution and particularly, the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land—until 1937 when Mexico won against a Missouri State law which said that game birds native to the State of Missouri could be hunted in Missouri, and eaten for dinner. Mexico disagreed and sued. Missouri argued that under the 10th Amendment they had the right to shoot Missouri game birds in Missouri. Former Sen. Elijah Root, who not only wrote the law the Missourians cited, but also argued in court that Article Vi trumped the 10th Amendment. Missouri lost. Obama and the lefties of his ilk all believe when the UN Small Arms Treaty ends up in the US Supreme Court that the conservatives will lose their right to own firearms.

Astonishingly, defeating the measure to protect the status of the 2nd Amendment should have been an easy vote for Harry Reid [D-NV] since the social progressives control the Senate with 63 Democrats and 2 independents who always vote with the left. Adding to the woes of the GOP, the Republicans have only 45 members, making it hard for them to reach the threshold they needed to stop the stop the Democrats. . In a battle where you'd think the left, which controls the Senate should have easily found the ten moderate votes to shift a purple State Blue. But the Red State cowboys and and red, white and blue purple State moderates stubbornly refused to let the unarmed UN members around the world —who don't want Americans to have any rights they don't have, even if that means everyone in the world becomes the human chattel of princes of industry and barons of banking and business—keep their guns. Be forewarned. When the final round of counting takes place—the vote that really matters since the vote that determines whether or not the world States (except for the really bad people who don't obey those laws, treaty or not) allow themselves to be disarmed not out of respect for the laws, but out of fear of the dictators who rule. Even though, in the United States, its a simple vote of 100 Senators, the people controlling the US Senate cheat. In 2008 Obama got 35 plus million more votes than voters. In 2012, he got 36 million more votes than voters. So, if you see more than 100 votes tallied in the Senate favoring the ratification of converting liberty into the unarmed bondage to a dictator, you'll know that vote was as honest as the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012.



ACLU files lawsuit to kill law to stop insider trading by Congressmen and federal workers
—(Aug. 4, 2012)—American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] plaintiff lawyer Jack McCay filed a lawsuit citing the Privacy Law to prevent a new law designed to stop insider trading by members of Congress, staffers and nearly 30 thousand Executive Branch employees
from taking effect. The ACLU filed the lawsuit Thursday, Aug. 2 in Greenbelt, MD. The lawsuit argues that the law's requirement that federal workers—including legislators —disclose financial transactions greater than $1,000 is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy that will subject those workers to a real fear of identity theft.

While the ACLU attempts to make it appear their concern, and the purpose of the lawsuit, was to protect the rights of the rank-and-file Jane and John Doe federal employees, the reality is the ACLU lawsuit wasn't filed to protect rank and federal federal employees. It was initiated solely to prevent the veil of secrecy from being penetrated, revealing which members of Congress were using nonpublic information to buy or sell stocks and profiting from their privileged status. For example, former House Speaker Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi and her husband Paul Frank Pelosi (who owns Financial Leasing Services, Inc., a San Francisco-based venture capital investment, real estate and consulting firm), have been financially enriched by at least eight IPOs since Nancy Pelosi became Minority Leader in the House of Representatives.

One of those IPOs was singled out by CBS reporter Steve Croft who questioned Pelosi in a 60-Minutes segment Croft questioned Pelosi about her buying five thousand shares of Visa stock at $44 per share in 2008 at the moment a crucial piece of legislation that was viewed as troublesome for credit card companies was making its way through the House. Two days after she bought the credit card stock, it was trading at $64 a share. The troublesome credit card legislation never made it through the House to a vote. Then-House Speaker Pelosi made $100 thousand profit in two days when she made the legislation the credit card industry did not want, go away. In her interview with Croft, the CBS reporter asked Pelosi about what appeared to him to be a "shaky" stock transaction. Stuttering and struggling to find the right words to disarm Croft after being waylaid by a "friendly network," Pelosi tried to brush aside Croft's allegation by noting that the tough credit card legislation did eventually pass. What she failed to volunteer was that two years would pass before it did—and then, only because the bill that initiated credit card reforms was introduced in the Senate.

As Obamacare was making its way though the House and Senate in 2009, a health insurance public option was inserted in the bill. While then GOP Minority leader John Boehner [R-OH] opposed the public option, Boehner's trust which manages the Congressman's personal investments, bought some health insurance company stocks. Croft raised that question with Boehner although Croft was quick to add that Boehner did not have an inside track on killing of the public option, nor the ability to do it in the super majority Democratic House of Representatives. Killing the public option was done by retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman [I-CT] who threatened to join the GOP filibuster if the public option wasn't removed from the bill.

When Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke held their infamous closed door, hush-hush meeting with senior congressional leaders in 2008, Bernanke and Paulson convinced all of them if they did not enact a massive stimulus program to artificially boost the economy, it was very likely America was going to experience its second Great Depression. Bernanke and Paulson said pretty much the same thing to President George W. Bush. Congressman Spencer Bachus [R-AL], who became the chairman of the House Finance Committee in Jan. 2011, believed the witches' brew that was served up by Paulson and Bernanke in that meeting, that when the meeting was over, Bachus used that insider information to protect his investment portfolio by buying stock options that would yield a high return if the stock market tanked and the economy went belly-up as surmised by the nation's top money men who were honestly worried there was a good possibility that the world was facing the start of a global monetary meltdown. In their mind, the financial rape of the American people was justified by the alternative.

While the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) HR 1148, was signed by Barack Obama on April 4, 2012, it would be Aug. 1 before a subsequent piece of legislation closed a loophole left in the law that would allow family members of lawmakers to continue to profit from inside information. In his Jan. 24, 2012 State of the Union address Obama called on Congress to increase its own transparency through a law that outlawed members of Congress and their staffs from profiting from insider information. Disgruntled Congressmen decided what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL] attached Section 11 (which he originally proposed as an amendment to the STOCK Act which bound all members of the Executive Branch to the transparency clause, requiring all Executive Branch agency heads to disclose, by postings on their agency websites, all of their financial holdings not later than 30 days after the required forms were filed.

On July 19, 2012, 14 former high-ranking Executive Branch officials signed a letter to Congress advocating the seriousness of requiring presidential appointees to disclose, online, all of their assets—including real estate holdings, retirement funds, bank accounts and scores of other personal data that Internet scavengers use to steal identities. The Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579, 88 Stat 1896 USC § 552a) that the ACLU cited as the legal basis for killing Section 11 does not apply to Congress. It applies only to the Executive Branch.. So, if the ACLU prevails, Obama's personal "transparency" will still be protected.


Meet the creator of RomneycareSalvatore F. "Sal" DiMasi —(July 2, 2012)—On April 2, 2012 I posted an article in which I noted that then Presidential candidate Rick Santorum knew that the originator of Massachusetts healthcare system was not Gov. Mitt Romney but Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore F. "Sal" DiMasi. Santorum excused his lie by using quotes from former turncoat Republican-turned-Democrat Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's political autobiography, Life Among the Cannibals, in which he minimized his role as the 60th-and-deciding-vote for Obamacare by saying he did not think Obamacare would be any worse than Romneycare—suggesting by what he did not say (nor has anyone in the liberal media) that Romney authored the socialized medicine law in Massachusetts when, in point of fact, the healthcare system in Massachusetts was created by, and rammed through both Houses of the Massachusetts legislature by the State's most powerful politician—House Speaker Sal DiMasi.

Ironically, the man who crafted what was supposed to clone Hillarycare—the Clinton's 1993 Health Security Act—(from which Obamcare was crafted) found, in the end, it didn't work for him. You might even say that, in the end, DiMasi—who became federal Inmate #27317038 for trading political quid pro quos for Massachusetts healthcare and education system IT services for campaign contributions—did himself in. Prison inmate DiMasi became a victim of the federal Medicare system—long waits for a doctor, longer waits for a diagnosis and even longer waits for treatment that many times come only after it's too late to save the patient's life.

DiMasi (like every other politician in the country who very clearly understood that government healthcare systems are a portal that will be used to euthanize the elderly when they become a drain on the system), did not subscribe to what should have been called DiMasicare. On June 21, 2012, DiMasi's lawyer, Thomas Kiley, told Fox 25 News that DiMasi has stage 4 cancer in his throat and tongue which spread very quickly because the State repeatedly ignored his requests for medical tests for the lumps he detected in his own neck.

In January, 2012 DiMasi was diagnosed with a possible cancer. Additional tests in May verified he had a squamous cell cancer that had spread to his tongue. While the Massachusetts healthcare system is a voluntary program and, as long as the Massachusetts resident purchases private insurance through their work (or an individual plan on their own), they are exempt from having to be covered by the public health system. Until he was incarcerated for taking quid pro quos (bribes) from donors, DiMasi had "good insurance." As Inmate #27317038, he's stuck with Medicaid or Medicare. And now, it appears, DiMasi will be stuck with the Independent Payment Advisory Board which is charged with rationing healthcare services to the elderly—and those whose quality-of-life isn't worth the investment to treat them.

So, the unanswered question is—if you were the Left, would you name Massachusetts' healthcare system after a jailbird or a governor with integrity? And, would you want a very unpopular socialized healthcare system compared to a plan developed by Hillary Clinton (Hillarycare) (National Archive, Box #1748) or one claimed to have been created by a respected GOP governor? Romney only tinkered with DiMasi's plan, changing the individual mandate into a public or private option that actually worked. Hillarycare is pretty much identical to Obamacare (with both plans utilizing an euthanasia mandate to save Social Security by dramatically reducing the number of people receiving old age income benefits). What is now called Romneycare actually works—which is why the left likes to compare Obamcare with "Romneycare." If you were the leftwing media, what would you compare to Obama's plan? DiMasicare? Who'd want it? Hillarycare? Who would trust it? Romneycare works best for the left. It doesn't matter if it's not true. It only matters if the Useful Idiots believe it's true. The only parts of DiMasicare that Romney owns is that [a] he made it work with the public-private option, and [b] he signed it into law.

Obamacare, on the other hand (as we are already seeing in its applications to Medicare), is all about denying benefits to the double dippers if the bureaucracy believes the cost to society is too great based solely on the life expectancy of the elderly patient who needs either a medical procedure or an expensive pharmaceutical to stay alive, and whether or not that citizen will contribute enough back to society to offset the cost of the lifesaving treatment combined with the drain that person makes on the system each month in the form of Social Security payments. That is, after all, the real reason for Obamacare. Socialized medicine, in every country that uses it, is the devise used by government to "correct" the life expectancy actuarial tables.

When retirement income benefits were created by governments (beginning with Germany) "retirement age" was set at age 65 in a world where the combined lifespan of men and women averaged 59.7 years. The average lifespan of men (of all races) was 58.1 years, and for women it was 61.6 years. Workers were not supposed to life long enough to draw benefits. Which meant, the bureaucrats who created the program expected the tax levied on all incomes was "free money" for the politicians to spend.

Here's the rub. In 2010, the average lifespan of both sexes was 78.7 years—20 years longer than the lifespan of people when Social Security was created. Men, who lived 58 years when FDR's grand scheme was initiated now live 76.2 years—almost two decades longer. Women, whose average lifespan was 61 years in 1930 also live two decades longer.

Since the government's retirement ponzi scheme was originally designed to pay only a minimal amount to its "benefits recipients," Uncle Sam has been in trouble since 1950 when medicine began keeping people alive until age 68. Governent needed a devise since 1944 to correct the actuarial tables. Five presidents from 1933 on tried to fix the problem by enacting an euthanasia devise called national healthcare. They are: Franklin D. Roosevelt who tried three times in his four terms to correct the problem; Harry S. Truman; Lyndon B. Johnson, even Republican "I'm not a Crook" Richard Nixon tried. And, before Obama, the co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton tried. In Hillary's plan was the establishment of an AIDS gulag that resembled the Public Heath TB Sanatoriums where those diagnosed with tuberculosis would be sent until their TB was cured. Once someone with HIV was diagnosed as AIDS-active, they would be rounded up by the Public Health Service and sent to a "treatment center." Once committed, the patient would spend the rest of their lives—which a Clinton White House protocol suggested as the Health Security Act was dying in Congress—would not be long. That provision in the failed Clinton Health Security Act appears to have been the precursor to Obama's Death Board.

Who's Islamophobic? Only governments need apply—(Mar. 1, 2012)—I've never met an American, Canadian, Brit or Aussie citizen who was "afraid" of the burka-clad women whose faces are concealed with a hijab when they are in public. (A "phobia" is a fear. The purveyors of political correctness love using that word—phobia—because it implies there is something wrong with those so labeled.) Finding a particular lifestyle or behavior personally offensive or sinful simply doesn't translate to fear. Unfortunately, only social progressives are allowed to officially coin "phobia"phrases since in the world of political correctness PC afflictions affect only those those who are politically or socially conservative.

Who is actually afraid are the burqa-clad women whose faces are concealed with a hijab when they are in public. If you're looking for a true Islamophobe, look at the woman behind the hijab. Out of fear, she would likely defend her father's right, or her brothers or uncles prerogative to punish her if she was not properly covered when she steps outside her home. You may see her walking down any street in America where religious freedom is an inherent right*, or in an airport, but the laws she is forced to obey in the prison she wears as a garment, are 1,280 years old—and they are rigidly enforced on those in bondage to Islam. (*Dearborn, Michigan is now an American city where the 1st Amendment right to religious liberty no longer exists if you are a practicing Christian or Jew.)

On Feb. 29, 2012 a retired fireman and British celebrity, David Jones (the creator of a popular children's character in England, Fireman Sam) was forcibly detained when he arrived at the British Airways security area in Gatwick Airport for making what British airport officials called a "racist remark."

Jones, age 67, who was expecting to meet his two daughters who had already passed through security and were in the Departure Lounge waiting to have coffee with him before his flight to Portugal (where he now lives) left. It would be a lunch date not kept.

As he went through security, Jones placed his belongings, including a scarf, into a tray to pass through the X-ray scanner. At that moment he spotted a Muslim woman in a burqa, her face covered with a hijab, being waved through the security area without being obligated to uncover her face to, say, prove the face behind the mask was a woman and not a bearded terrorist wearing a bomb belt under the burqa. Jones, at that moment, was picking up his own scarf from the plastic tray and bantered: "I wonder what would happen if I was wearing this scarf over my face?"

His remark proved to be a monumental error in judgment. The security official who was clearing him to board the plane said , "I know what you mean, but we have our rules, and you aren't allowed to say that." When Jones walked through the metal detector, his artificial hip set off the alarm and triggered an intrusive full body search that later (when the whole ordeal was over) prompted Jones to tell the London Telegraph that the experience was "...something like George Orwell's 1984...I feel that my rights as an individual have been violated. What I underwent amounts to intimidation and detention. I was humiliated and degraded in full public view. I am a 67-year old pensioner and have lived my life within the law. I do not have even one point on my drivers' license." David Jones, who apparently has been living life as a British celebrity, had just been introduced to the world of Big Brother.

When Jones completed his first bad experience with one of Gatwick Airport's Brother Bartholomews, he had a second encounter a few moments later with another Gatwick Airport official, this time a female Big Brother. This would be the bizarre ordeal Jones would later recount to the London Telegraph. She told Jones he was being detained because he made an offensive remark.

Jones repeated what he had previously spoken, adding that he had said nothing racist. Since she had taken his passport and boarding pass he had little recourse except to follow her back through the security zone to the outer area when she then questioned him, inferring many racial and ethnic insults he had not spoken—nor thought. In his interview with the Telegraph, Jones said "...it was impossible to get her to listen to reason. We were then joined by a second female security guard who stated that she was Muslim—and was deeply distressed by my comment."

There's the fly in the ointment. Jones, whose original comment to what it turns out was made to a "wired" security guard: "I wonder what would happen if I was wearing this scarf over my face?" did not offend the hijab-covered Muslim woman who, of course, did not hear his comment—it offended a Muslim airport official who took personal umbrage to the remark. So, when the airport officials demanded that Jones apologize for offending the woman, she was actually demanding that he apologize to the Muslim British Airway woman who was eavesdropping on his remark the security officer processing him for boarding. She needs to get a life. (Hopefully that life is back in the prehistoric Muslim world from which she came.)

Jones once again reiterated that he had not made a racist remark but merely observed that they were in a maximum security area in the check-in process where people are searched, and where a woman wearing what amounted to a mask passed through without anyone giving her a second glance. "I made no reference to race or religion," Jones told the second woman. "I did not swear or raise my voice." The Airport Duty Manager was them called to settle the dispute. He sided with the female employees.

Jones told the Telegraph that at that point he said: "I had now been detained for some time, and my daughters were worried, calling me on my phone, asking what was happening. We were going around in circles. I maintained that I had said nothing offensive and the security guard was continuing to accuse me. This had taken about 15-20 minutes, and it looked as though it was not going to be resolved. I asked the security guard if she was going to charge me, to which she said no. But I was told I could not leave until I had apologized to the Muslim guard. At this point, I asked for ...a police officer. After some time, he arrived. But it was also plainly evident that he was keeping to the politically correct code. I told him that if there was a case, then he should arrest me.

"He said that we now live in a different time, and some things are not to be said. They decided again that I would only be allowed to continue on my journey if I were to apologize to the Muslim guard..." to whom Jones said nothing, but whom overheard Jones ask a pointed question with no ethnic references attached "...My reply was that since I had not made a racist remark it would be impossible for me to apologize." Jones once again insisted he had made a logical comment based on the fact that everyone in the maximum security area was receiving an invasive search—and no one even thought to ask the woman to momentarily raise her hijab to make sure there was a woman and not a man, under it.

Finally, the British Airways official sought a compromise, asking Jones if he would agree that what he said "could be" construed by the female Muslim security official as offensive. With his flight departure now moments away, and with there being no chance to visit with his daughters, Jones agreed that what he said could have been misconstrued by the Muslim employee as something it was not. Now escorted by the police to get to his flight on time, Jones' artificial hip once again triggered the metal detector and, once again, he had to endure the same invasive search. Only this time, he did not make any comments about scarves or hijabs.

Did Clyburn give Obama a 14th Amendment "right?"—(July 28, 2011)—Did former C.A. Brown High School teacher and sitting Congressman James Clyburn [D-SC} provide White House occupant Barack Obama with a constitutional loophole that will allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling without the need to get Congress' approval? Not only does Clyburn and Obama think so, which suggests that neither of them nor the liberal media has apparently ever read the 14th Amendment. It was, after all, only that "slave amendment" that came about at the end of the Civil War. It point of fact, it was not the "slave amendment." The slave amendment was one of the three 13th Amendments. The one that begins: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States..."

The 14th Amendment applies to the States the same rules which apply to the federal government. It is the longest Amendment. It has 5 sections. Section 1 deals with citizenship and the creation of the House of Representatives. Nothing about the President taking control of debt from the House of Representatives. Section 2 deals with the apportionment of representatives in the House, eliminating the 3/5th apportionment found in Article I, Section 2. Nothing about the President taking control of debt from the House of Representatives. Section 3 deals with the creation of the Senate and the role of the Vice President. Nothing here about the President taking control of debt from the House of Representatives, either. Section 4 deals with the validity of the public debt. Ah-hah! Here it is. Or is it? The purpose of Section 4, while discussing the validity of properly authorized public debt—including pensions that Obama is now threatening not to pay—actually deals with debt the Jacobin Republicans were renouncing, That debt financed the South's war against the North.

Clyburn left a big chunk of Section 4 out when he "found" Obama's authority to bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling. Clyburn's "discovery" was a few words with "..." deleting the balance of Section 4. Clyburn's authority stems from what we all recognize as liberal foreplay before the social progressives rape the rest of us. "The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned," when in fact what it says is: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law..." (this means Congress) "...including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrections or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce the Amendment through legislation.

So why have so many people—particularly network media types with adequate research staffs to open up their own pocket copies of the Constitution—accepted this rubbish as fact? Because the leftwing media is in bed with Obama's goal of destroying this nation. Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle who want the debt ceiling crisis to pass without staining them either as someone who voted for raising the debt ceiling, or voting against the debt ceiling being raised want a scapegoat to blame. Clyburn's illusionary debt ceiling right solves the problems of both of them—someone else is to blame. That's why Congressmen and Senators let presidents issue Executive Orders and treat them as though they are binding on Congress and on the American people when constitutionally they are interoffice memos from the boss of the Executive Branch to his employees.

Boehner says NO to Obama debt deal—(July 10, 2011)—House Speaker John Boehner rejected the smoke and mirrors debt ceiling sleight-of-hand chicanery proposed in a White House meeting on July 7. Boehner telephoned Barack Obama on Saturday, a day before a scheduled major White House meeting with the joint Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate.

Obama proposed a cornucopia of ideas that will rub against the grain of conservatives and, if enacted, would likely end the careers of several of the 2010 freshmen members of Congress—and perhaps even Speaker Boehner. The White House believes that while some of the grand gratuities they're asking for to jumpstart the economy again—in particular raising the debt ceiling by a trillion dollars and adding $100 billion per year in new taxes—might be unpopular with the GOP, but thrown in with several concessions demanded by the Republicans (like putting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare cuts on the table) the package might pass the House. If it passes the House, Republicans in the Senate who are traditionally more liberal than House conservatives, will pass it.

The major part of the Obama "concession" to the GOP (who demanded spending cuts equal to three times any new spending) was to put three trillion in spending cuts over the next decade on the table. The only problem with Obama's spending cuts is that much of them aren't spending cuts. Some of the "cuts" are from spending bills that have been proposed by the Left but have not yet been enacted. Some of them are spending measures in bills that were so radical that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] couldn't enact in the 111th Congress when they had a super majority. While they are still considered fresh veggies on the plate of the vegan left, their only value is as a negotiating chit.

While the left insists their deal is the Republicans best chance to roll back spending on social programs, the Republicans expected the Democratic spending cuts were supposed to come from existing programs that are already funded. Instead, it appears that much of the $2.4 trillion in spending cuts are coming from proposed spending measures and not enacted spending measures.

When word leaked from the Obama-Boehner meeting that Obama was putting entitlements on the table, House Minority Leader Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid kicked their opposition to Obama's decision into high gear. Pelosi made it clear that if Obama put Social Security or healthcare on the table, the left would vote against any measure that came up for a vote. Democrats always insist on having their cake and eating it, too—especially when the mainstream media can be counted on to blame their duplicity on the Republicans. After the Pelosi challenge, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor [R-VA] made it clear that "...[i]t just doesn't make sense for Americans to suffer under higher taxes in an economy like this. There is no way the House of Representatives will support a tax increase."

As he rejected the Obama compromise, Boehner said: "Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase."

The far left jumped on Boehner's statement as their best chance to blame the GOP for killing Obama's deal. Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-NY], obfuscated the truth as only a social progressive can, when he said that Obama "...called the Republican's bluff by offering them exactly the type of grand bargain they said they wanted, only to have it rejected...Some on the Republican side would like to confuse the issue by pretending it was tax hikes on the middle class that they were trying to prevent, but none were ever on the table."

Schumer, of course, was lying—something most social progressives do with panache. Schumer suggested the GOP was simply "...defending tax breaks for millionaires and other special interest tax loopholes." However, among the new taxes in Obama's proposed trillion dollar tax hike will be the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction on everyone who owns a home and is paying a mortgage. It is, of course, primarily a middle class tax. If Obama manages to get the home mortgage interest deduction eliminated, every middle-income taxpayer will see a bigger tax bite. How much? Let's say you paid $6,554 in mortgage interest in 2008. Without that deduction, your taxes that year would have increased by $983. In 2008, had I not had the mortgage interest deduction, my federal taxes would have increased by $2,964. And, believe me when I say that my annual income is no where near Obama's $250,000 per tax payer threshold. This is the "rich man's" loophole that Obama is determined to close. Closing that "loophole" will generate about $170 billion in new tax revenue without the need to add new tax brackets or lower the income thresholds to increase the taxpayer's tax load.


In an honest 2012 vote, Obama loses—(May 25, 2011)—Since the Election of 2008 was the most corrupt, dishonest election in the history of the United States, it's already obvious there will be nothing different about the election of 2012 except Barack Hussein Obama's need to steal even more than 35 million votes to win this one. And, since there was not so much as a whimper of of outrage from the American people in 2008, I suspect there won't be a whole lot more protest to the theft this time around.

Since Ronald Reagan poised the question: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" that query has become the yardstick by which the success of all presidents' first terms are measured. So let me ask you—Are you better off today than you were four years ago? Let me answer that question. Unless you work for the government—or you are an Obama major donor—you are not.

The conservative pundits who understand, in honest elections, the answer to the "are you better off" question frames the vote, also understand that for Obama to honestly win reelection in 2012, he has to perform several herculean miracles before Labor Day, Sept.3, 2012. First, he needs to [1] undo about 5 million home foreclosures and keep any more from happening between today and Election Day, Tues., Nov. 6, 2012 because if you have lost your home in the last four years, you definitely are not better off today than you were on Jan. 20, 2009. Second, Obama needs to create about 15 million private sector jobs between now and Labor Day, 2012 and get the unemployment rate under 8%; and [3] Obama needs to cut our $14.3 trillion debt to less than $7 trillion since those are the promises he campaigned on in 2007 and 2008 when the Islamo-fascist community activist promised the masses he would change America. That he did. That is the one promise he kept. Obama has radically changed the face of the United States. We are no longer the most powerful economic force in the world. The value of the US dollar is about half of what it was two years ago. And, the nations of the world that used to view the United States with respect now view us with contempt. Obama has become Jimmy Carter.

Carter did not win reelection. He did, however, constitutionally win the White House from Gerald Ford in 1976, Which is more than we can say about Obama's "win" against 2008's designated loser, Sen. John McCain.

In early 2009 attorney Orly Taitz brought a Quo Warranto lawsuit against Barack Obama to force him to produce his long form birth certificate. A Quo Warranto lawsuit is used to force the defendent of an action to explain by what right, or what authority, they act. Taitz was asking by authority Obama assumed the power of the presidency, expecting to force Obama to produce his birth certificate as proof. Instead, Obama arrogantly posted the FEC election results on the White House website. Only, there was a glaring mistake on the FEC report which they would "correct" once I pointed it out on Nov. 28, 2009. The report displayed on the White House website, and the companion report on the Federal Election Commission website reported that there were 169 million registered voters in the Election of 2008. The percentage of registered voters who voted: 56.8%. The actual number of registered voters who voted: 96,992,000. Then came the interesting statistic: Total number of ballots counted: 132,618,580. The problem? 35,626,580 too many votes. When you deduct the excess votes (which appear to be from the get-out-the-vote activism of groups like MoveOn.org and A.CO.R.N.) we find that Obama lost the Election of 2008 by some 22 million votes. Yet, he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.

The National Voters' Registration Act of 1993 (more commonly known as the Motor Voter Law), which was spearheaded without success by Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward in the 1980s, was rammed through the Democratically-Congress by then House Speaker Tom Foley [D-WA] and Senate majority Leader George Mitchell [D-ME] and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 20, 1993.

The legislation should have been called the National Vote Fraud Act because it virtually eliminated the check and balance system that required identity verification and voter eligibility. Over the last 15 years, as the left needed increasingly more votes to win, they erased the ability of voting precincts to verify voter eligibility by registering voters and allowing them to cast absentee ballots at the same time. The problem with that procedure was, when the voter was found to be ineligible (their name was wrong, or the voter was found to have a criminal tecord, or the address was nonexistent, etc.), the registration was nullified, and removed from the sytem. But the private, sealed vote which was already cast and deposited in a sealed ballot box, couldn't be withdrawn since it was now impossible to tell which vote the ineligible registrant had cast.

The only way to absolutely prevent Obama and his handlers from the pyramid of power from prevailing in the Election of 2012 is to repeal the National Voters' Registration Act of 1993 before the Election of 2012. Since Obama needs that legislation to be the law of the land to keep the keys to the White House, it's not likely he would sign any legislation to repeal it. Nor, for that matter, would such a bill ever make it through the US Senate.

The only way to keep rampant fraud from controlling the outcome of the Election of 2012 if for every State in the Union to enact two laws before February 1, 2012. First, enact laws that require scrupulous verification of the eligibility of candidates for federal office—House and Senate as well as the presidency. Had such a law existed in 2004, Obama would likely have never been elected to the US Senate, and thus he would not have had a springboard to launch his campaign for the White House. Second, requiring all voters to produce a photo identity to verify they are who they claim to be when they come to cast their vote. And third, mandate that all States confirm voter eligibility before newly registred voters are given absentee ballots. If it's too close to election day, the new voter will have to do what the rest of us do—stand in line at the polling place with photo ID and valid voter registration card in hand.

If the States don't act to protect the most sacred act its citizens perform, LaRaza, ACORN (under whatever name they are using then), and MoveOn.org will supply the 40 million non-citizen voters Obama will need in November, 2012 to keep the keys to the White House.


Gold hits new high...silver breaks $40—(April 12, 2011)—You don't need the gold and silver barometers to know the economy of the United States and Europe are in trouble when you see socialist financier George Soros holding his own Bretton Woods Conference and his own attempt to convince the world powers to dump "Obamabucks" as the world's reserve currency and replace it with a basket of currencies of his choosing. Those who watch the financial markets—both domestic and transnationally—are reaching the same conclusion. Its time to cut spending. It's time to cut government. And most of all, it's time to get government out of the private sector and, more important, it's time the private sector out of government. (What that means is making political campaign contributions illegal by criminalizing the practice.)

Those who earn their living in the financial markets have long looked at the bellwether factors which have long predicted the market moves that precipitated the financial tsunamis which sweep away the stock portfolios and IRAs of those who live in "la-la-land" and believe the good times rhetoric of the script readers of TV News. The uncertainty in the financial markets is not about whether the news is good or bad, but only "how bad is it?" We don't seem to know anymore only because we are no longer watching the precious metals bellwether as a bellwether. Instead, we are looking at it as an investment commodity like grain, oil, beef-on-the-hoof, or textiles and the warning signs that tell us the economy is going belly-up are seen only as "buy" and "sell' signals because the money barons on Wall & Broad Street in New York have convinced us there cannot be another "1929 Stock Market Crash" because we have weathered several market "corrections" in the last few years that dwarfed 1929, and the Market recovered in a few days and continued to flourish.

If we were watching the sudden downward spirals of the market and comparing them with the bellwether spikes in precious metals that are being blamed on geopolitical tension and not the inherent weaknesses of the financial markets themselves, we would be doing what the rich guys are doing—diverting a large portion of our personal investment portfolios (our 401Ks and Retirement IRAs into gold and silver. If you recall when the junk bond industry crashed, the biggest victims were working class investors who were still buying as the big money investors were quietly trading their stock portfolios into gold and silver. And, when the subprime and traditional mortgage investment business collapsed, it was working class stiffs who discovered they could not retire when their 401Ks were decimated.

If you are watching the bellwethers, they are talking to you right now. They are telling you to buy gold and silver. On Friday, April 8, gold reached a new high—$1,474.19 an ounce. Today it is at $1,463.00, but it is expected to break the gold sound barrier before the end of this month—the magic, elusive $1,500.00 per ounce rate. Silver broke the elusive $40.00 per troy ounce marker and, today, is sitting at $40.65 an ounce. What makes this most interesting is that, with past flurries, there was a limited inventory of gold and silver for consumers to buy. Which means consumers were buying at the same time as the professional investors. Now both the gold and silver markets have a surplus supply. The demand for silver is strong, fueled by investors rather than industrial use, which suggests the mom and pop investors who are apprehensively preparing for a currency collapse are buying with a degree of trepidation because of the cost as they hesitatingly invest with retiremenet nest egg money, worried that the price of gold and silver will buckle after they buy, leaving them with a negative investment and no money in their pocket and none in their 401Ks. And once again, the rich guy walks off with the working class stiff's money, widening the gap between the haves and the have nots.

I personally suspect those days are probably now gone. Fed watchers recognize that the latest round of quantitative easing in the money markets is about to end. The stagnating American economy will continue to flounder due to the overbuilt housing market and persistent unemployment (due to the exportation of America's industrial strength to the third world where tomorrow's consumers live), the dollar will continue to weaken and, with a lack of employed people in the work force, higher taxes are more likely than tax cuts to stimulate what economy we have left. That will be followed by the next round of socialist Rooseveltian missteps as dangerously-improverished taxpayers demand relief and a new round of Monopoly money stimulus programs are quickly debated and swiftly enacted by Congress. Regardless who ends up with the money, hyperinflation will no longer be a theoretical discussion. It will be the world's worst nightmare and $500 thousand per troy ounce silver and million dollar per ounce gold will be the reality. So, by the way, will gold and, very likely, silver, seizures. (To understand how seizures happen, and how much the government is required to pay for seized gold and silver coins, please refer to Survival Savings Plan and the planned redistribution of wealth. It is worth the read.)


US Senate holds hearing on Muslim rights—(March 24, 2011)—The House Committee on Homeland Security, chaired by Rep. Peter King [R-NY] held the first of what he said would be several hearings on the radicalization of Muslim Americans on Thursday, March 10. On March 7, King was criticized by the Left and accused of being Islamophobic, and unfairly targeting an entire religious community. King responded on Fox & Friends that his goal in holding the hearings was to "...show the extent of radicalization within the Muslim community; how dangerous that is, how serious that is, and also how it happens and whether or not the Muslim community responds to that. And whether or not the cooperate with law enforcement ." King went to say the witnesses he planned to call would show that this is a real threat, a growing threat, and he added, "It's not just me saying this, it's the Attorney General Eric Holder who says he can't sleep at night because of the growing amount of radicalization among young Muslim American men. Janet Napolitano says its threat level is as high as its been since September 11." King ended by saying that was the reason he was going ahead with the hearings.

On Sunday, March 6, a protest rally was launched in Times Square to denounce King and his hearings for singling out Muslims—they said—instead of extremists. The orchestraters of the rally were Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (one of the World Trade Center Mosque promoters) and Hip-Hopster Russell Simmons. The group protesting King's hearing was the Committee on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] and, in his Fox News interview, King said, "The media constantly quotes CAIR as though they were the Knights of Columbus, B'Nai Brith, or the Masons, but the fact is CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist funding case."

When King's hearings were announced, the Obama Administration jumped into the media spotlight in an attempt to [a] show they did not support King's hearings, and [b] that they believed that while King was planning to demonize Muslims, the Administration planned to continue defending them. On Sunday, March 6, Deputy National Security Director Denis McDonough spoke at a mosque in Virginia, saying "...we must resolve that in our determination to protect the nation we will not stigmatize or demonize an entire community because of the actions of a few. And in the United States of America we don't practice guilt by association. And, let's remember that just as violence and extremism are not unique to any one faith, the responsibility to oppose ignorance and violence rests with each of us."

Because the media construed the King hearings to be politically incorrect, the mainstream TV news largely chose to ignore them. The Washington Times, not the Washington Post, took the lead in reporting on the hearing

To counter King's Homeland Security hearings, the Democratic majority in the US Senate announced on Tuesday, March 22 that they would hold hearings to examine the civil rights of Muslims and, one imagines, whether or not Congressman King is trampling them with his politically-incorrect hearings. Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin [D-IL] announced that when Congress returns from its 10-day vacation—which ironically began the day before Barack Obama committed American military forces to an undeclared state of war with Libya with the advise and consent of Congress.

In a press release on Friday, March 18, Sen. Durbin said: "Our Constitution protects the free enterprise of religion for all Americans. During the course of our history, many religions have faced intolerance. It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights."

Durbin's hearings will be the first ever held under the Senate Judiciary Committee's new subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights which the Democratic majority created this year. (Sounds like a United Nations committee.) I wonder if that means the Democrats are finally going to read the Constitution?

It should be noted that the Washington Times recently reported that, in 2009 (the last FBI statistics available), anti-Islamic "hate crimes" accounted for 9.3% of the 1,376 religiously-motivated crimes—far less than the 70.1% that were anti-Jewish.


Walker issues ultimatum...Democrats snub him—(March 2, 2011)—On Feb. 28, Wisconsin's Republican governor, Scott Walker, issued an ultimatum to the 14 Democratic State Senators who are still hiding out in Illinois to keep from having to vote on the State budget which includes a provision that will gut collective bargaining rights in the State. "Failure to return to work and cast their votes," Walker said in his well-phrased ultimatum, "will lead to more painful and aggressive spending cuts in the very new future. This is the Senate Democrats; 24-hour notice." On March 2, Walker released his new budget that will cut $1.5 billion from the school and state government budgets. The budget cuts 1,200 State jobs. According to Walker, "...this is a reform budget. It is about getting Wisconsin working again. To make that happen, we need a balanced budget that works—and an environment where the private sector can create 250 thousand jobs over the next four years." As Walker addressed the Assembly, union protestors heckled him by screaming, banging on drums and blowing horns.

With the Wisconsin political stand-off entering it's 13th day, Walker believed—or rather, hoped—that the truant Senate Democrats would return to the State in time to vote on the restructuring of the State's $165 million debt payment that is due on May 1, 2011. They did not.

To meet that obligation, the State's budget-overhaul bill needed to be enacted no later than Feb. 25 since, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, because the issuing of new bonds takes at least two weeks. And, to meet all other deadlines, the restructuring needed to be complete by the March 16 deadline. Restructuring that debt would have added $42 million in interest payments to the current debt load over the next decade. It is unclear now how the State solves that problem.

The 14 Democratic State Senators fled the State on Feb. 17, refusing to return to Madison until the Republican majority stripped the collective bargaining provision from the bill. With Walker promising to arrest any of the truant State Senators if they returned to Wisconsin, the Republican leader of the State Senate, Scott Fitzgerald, revealed on Tuesday, March 1, that he met secretly with a couple of the 14 missing State lawmakers in Racine for a two hour meeting. Minority Leader Sen. Mark Miller was not among the attendees. Sen. Fred Risser acknowledged the meeting to the Racine Journal Times, noting that he was not there, but he understand that "a couple" of Democrats showed up. What appears to have brought them out of hiding under a flag of truce was Walker's announced deep cuts in funds to schools and local governments to the tune of about $1 billion. In the past, the Democratically-controlled Wisconsin legislature simply pushed the problem off on some future State legislature by borrowing more money and paying millions of dollars in interest to avoid dealing with the unpopular issues that created the problem Wisconsin now faces

Walker's budget reconciliation, according to the Huffington Post, will reduce the money available to Wisconsin's 424 school districts by about 7%—about $600 million—and will trigger pink slips. Even before the Walker's cuts were rolled out, the Darien-Delavan School District (where Walker's alma mater, Delavan Darien High School is located) issued pink skips to 41 teachers on Feb. 24. (Under Wisconsin law, the deadline for school districts to provide final notices of non-renewal of teachers' contracts is March 15. The terminations can be rescinded after that date, but no new terminations for the 2011-2012 school year can be made after March 15.)

In Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor Angel Traveras sent termination notices to every teacher in the public school system on Feb. 24, creating a wave of anxiety in the nearly 2,000 teachers who were technically "fired." The teachers will continue to work throughout the school year. Those whose firings are not rescinded will have no job in September. Union officials accused Traveras of "anti-union maneuvering. In a standing room only city council meeting on Thursday, Feb. 24, the city's school committee voted 4 to 3 to back the Mayor's decision to send out the termination notices.

The pink slip tsunami is spreading across the country. The Elk Grove United School District in Elk Grove, California will pass out 970 pink slips to teachers, counselors, librarians and other school staff despite a triple-digit protest turnout at the Feb. 21, 2011 school board meeting. Again, as in Providence, the school district has to send non-renewal notices out by March 15 or forego terminations for the next school years. So, like Providence, Elk Grove terminated everyone. San Francisco did the same. Only, in their case, the School Board selectively picked slightly over 400 school employees. Again, with the March 15 filing deadline, none of the teachers and/or staff who received the non-renewal notices will actually know the fate of their jobs for months.


Washington Getting in the Way of Jobs—(Feb. 8, 2011)—It is refreshing when an honest man speaks in Washington. It's so rare, in fact, that the media more often than not ignores what he says because his words seldom sell newspapers. Too bad. But then, in the nation's capital, lies always sell better than the truth. Take Congressman Jim Jordan's [R-OH] Republican Study Committee press release this morning. I didn't hear ABC, CBS, or NBC mention what he said about government spending and job growth. But then, since it tears at the root of the trite myth that government spending creates jobs, I can see why. What I don't understand is why FOX News didn't quote him.

Since they didn't, let me—since I agree with what he said. "If massive government spending truly solved the problem of unemployment," he said, "our economy would be booming. But, nearly two years after...Obama signed his massive stimulus package into law, millions of Americans are still struggling to find work. More spending," he added, "isn't the answer; it's actually part of the problem. Massive deficit (three straight years of $1.3 trillion or more) erode confidence in the private sector and create expectations of higher taxes down the road. Between reckless spending and regulations that cost many small businesses an average of $10,585.00 per employee every year, Washington is quite simply getting in the way of economic growth."

Since Jan. 5 the empowered House GOP has been trying to push the disenfranchised Democrats out of the way so they can start reversing decisions made by the Obama fiat dictatorship enforced by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV]. The first thing they did—with four Democratic crossover votes—was repeal Obamacare in the House. (The Senate voted along party lines to defeat the measure—47 Republicans votes to repeal it and 51 Democrats (Joe Lieberman [I-CT] and Mark Warner [D-VA] abstaining voted to uphold it.)

Next, the House is taking a hard look at the impact that federal regulations have on the creation and sustainability of jobs in our troubled economy. All of this is well and good. Eliminating the expensive red tape that kills jobs. Good. Voting to cut Congress' budget and freeze spending. Very good. Taking the first leg of the journey to repeal Obamcare. Excellent. But somewhere in that good stuff the devil in me was hoping there would be just a little impish political revenge. Nothing really mean-spirited—just a fitting gotcha! Whatever the GOP does or does not do with its newfound power, do not—I repeat—do not force Democrats to wait until the regular sessions are over and have to speak their objections to Republican legislative ideas to an empty chamber with the C-Span cameras rolling. Nothing makes a worthless politician appear to be worth something more than massive TV exposure.

Since 2007 the House Democrats, who did not need a single Republican vote to enact any piece of legislation they wanted, saw no need for Democrats to have to listen to Republicans bellyache about legislation they could not affect, blocked Republicans from being recognized by the chair during the regular session, and forced them to enter their comments in the Congressional Record after the sessions ended.

In 1980 an upcoming political upstart named Newt Gingrich—and his followers, a group of Republican insurgents known as the Conservative Opportunity Society—quickly learned how to use the Democratic weapon against them. Speaking to an empty chamber (but with the C-Span video tape rolling), Gingrich and the Young Turks would promote their positions on a variety of issues, building their own ID brands with the voters. Smart. Particularly since Gingrich parlayed his new identity to the Speakership. In 1984, then House Speaker Thomas "Tip O'Neill figured out the game plan of the Young Turks. To make them look inept, O'Neill ordered the cable TV cameras to continually pan the House Chamber to show the audience that Gingrich and/or any of the Young Turks was speaking to an empty House chamber

So when Pelosi became Speaker in 2007, she unwisely ignored the benefit of allowing Republicans to rant to a TV camera that generated miles of YouTube footage, and made Republicans deliver their rebuttals to that same empty House chamber. By this time, the Republicans didn't bother to pretend there was anyone listening in the chamber. They were all talking to a C=Span audience and, more important, the YouTube audience. If Speaker of the House John Boehner [R-OH] is as smart as I think he is, he won't give the loyal opposition a crack at the YouTube audience—even though, I suspect the only place they would be aired will be the Huffington Post or as audio clips on Air America.


GOP unveils Spending Reduction Act—(Jan. 29, 2011)—House Republicans, keeping their pledge to repeal all remaining unspent stimulus dollars and to reduce all non-military spending by the 112th Congress, introduced the Spending Reduction Act of 2011. The Spending Reduction Act will roll non-security discretionary spending back to 2008 levels (pre-Obama) and non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 levels (pre-Pelosi). The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 calls for a decade-long "hard" spending freeze through 2021. (Which is why, during his State of the Union address on Jan. 25, Barack Hussein Obama mentioned a self-imposed "soft" spending freeze of an indeterminate time frame that sounds good to voters who stupidly believe that the ultra-far left social progressive who occupies the Oval Office actually moved to the center). Obama needed to short-circuit the GOP spending freeze timeline. What better way to do that than to beat the Republicans to the punch and publicly mandate one so he can claim credit for their's if they somehow get anything that resembles their bill out of GOP Black Hole in the US Senate?

Third term Congressman Jim Jordan [R-OH], the new head of the Republican Study Committee, noted the national debt is now sitting at over $14 trillion and H.R. 408, the Spending Reduction Act of 2011 is a $2.5 trillion head start in the race to reduce that debtload on the next ten generations of Americans. Jordan noted that if Congress does not act now to curb spending, the national debt by itself will spark a new financial crisis. "In my time in public life," Jordan said, "I have never seen the American people more receptive, more ready for the tough-love measures that need to be taken to help this country. The American people get it," Jordan observed. "The real challenge for elected officials in this Congress, at this point in history, is to live up to the standard the American people have displayed over the last year and a half."

Since Barack Obama traded his US Senate seat for the pomp and prestige of an overstuffed leather swivel chair in the Oval Office, he has added $5.4 trillion to the national debt. To put that in perspective, it took the US government from 1789 to 2007 for the national debt to climb to $8.6 trillion. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending trifecta added $5.4 trillion to the debt—something that should have taken about a hundred years with a reasonably responsible Congress. And the social progressive trifecta did it in four short years. Given free rein to empty your pockets and spend your great grandchildren's legacy, and if the taxpayer drain continues at its current rate, the national debt will stand at $16.5 trillion when a President is inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2013. Should the Democrats steal back the House of Representatives and the retain the White House, the national debt would stand at $22.5 trillion on Jan. 20, 2017. And, this is not taking Obamacare into consideration. Obamacare will add another $250 to $400 billion per year to the debt. Social Progressive spending is unsustainable. Period. Anyway you look at it, that means raising the debt ceiling at least twice before the social progressive nightmare finally ends in 2017, or until the American people get tired of being financially raped and fire the rapists in 2012.

Congressman Scott Garrett [R-NJ], who along with Jordan and Sen. Jim Demint [R-SC] who proffered the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, noted that the legislation would "...accomplish what the American public wants us to do, and that is reduce spending. Principally, we hit on three—about three or four—different points. The three major ones are mandatory spending, emergency spending, but primarily, it's in the area of discretionary spending.."

The bill, when and if it becomes law, will return spending to its 2006 levels (pre-Pelosi) with the spending regression kicking in on January 1, 2012. Spending would remain frozen for ten years. At that time the law would begin to shrink the size and cost of the civilian work force of the US Government not through layoffs, but through attrition. As federal employees quit, retire or die, their jobs will simply no longer exist. It is the most painless way to downsize the federal government—with the Service Employees International Union [SEIU] and the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO being the only losers.

Which, of course, makes it a win-win for everyone else since currently, federal employees illegally spend some 2.9 million official work hours—on the clock—engaged in some forms of union activities at a cost to the taxpayers of approximately $120 million per year. While most people don't think of it in this light, SEIU and AFGE are running private businesses inside the US government on our dime. As America prepares to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Ronald Wilson Reagan's birth on Feb. 6, 2011, the 40th President of the United States, who fired America's air traffic controllers when 13,000 striking Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization [PATCO] members walked off the job on Aug. 3, 1981. When Reagan ordered them back to work, only 1,300 did so. Reagan gave the striking air traffic controllers 48-hours to return to work. Those who did not were fired.

PATCO was decertified on Oct. 22, 1981. Both SEIU and AFGE need to be decertified as well. There could be no more fitting tribute to Ronald Reagan than to celebrate his 100th Anniversary by restoring a semblance of sanity to Pennsylvania Avenue by decertifying both SEIU and AFGE because goverment employees work for the taxpayers of the United States—or better stated, for 138,950,000 "mom and pop" home-based employers who are exempt from unionization.


Senate convicts federal judge—(Dec. 9, 2010)—On Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2010 the US Senate removed US District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous from his seat on the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The House of Representatives unanimously impeached him on March 11, 2010. The impeachment trial in the Senate commenced on March 17. Porteous, a Bill Clinton appointee, is barred from holding any office or honor, or to profit from any government position

Porteous was the Special Counsel to the Louisiana State Attorney General from 1971 to 1973, and Chief of the Felony Complaint Division of the Jefferson Parish District Attorney's office from 1973 to 1975. He was in private practice from 1975 to 1984. From 1982 to 1984 he also served as City Attorney of Harahan, Louisiana. Porteous served as a judge in the 24th Judicial District Court of Louisiana from 1984 to 1994. Clinton appointed him to the federal bench on Aug. 25, 1994. Porteous was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 7, 1994.

Porteous was a controversial judge almost from his appointment. In a landmark 1999 decision, Porteous overturned a Louisiana law that banned late term dilation and extraction abortions (in which live fetuses or fetuses burned to death in a saline solution are then hacked to pieces and extracted from the mother piecemeal). In 2002, in a direct assault on the President George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative in which taxpayer dollars were given to Christian-based soup kitchens and other church-linked community outreach programs, Porteous ruled that when federal money was used to promote a sex-abstinence program they are promoting a religion. Porteous ordered the State of Louisiana to stop giving tax dollars to individuals or organizations that convey religious messages or otherwise advantage Christianity with tax dollars. Also in 2002, Porteous overturned a drug paraphernalia law that outlawed the easy-access sale of things like glowsticks, dust masks and pacifiers that were commonly used to ingest such recreational drugs as Ecstasy.

His financial troubles and questionable ethics questions began to surface in 2001 when Porteous filed for bankruptcy—under a phony name. Porteous' problems, however, stemmed from a decades old drinking and gambling problem that were concealed by the then State court judge during his Senate confirmation hearings. Among the charges leveled against him was that of lying to Congress during his appointment hearing. Because of an extravagant lifestyle that he could not afford on a judge's salary, Porteous purportedly began accepting cash and other favors from attorneys and bail bondsmen before his court. It was also alleged that he accepted cash, or gambling debt cancellations from those who profited from his vices.

The Judicial Conference that brought the charges against Porteous presented their affidavit which alleged there was substantial evidence that Porteous "...repeatedly committed perjury by signing false disclosures under oath, thus concealing 'cash and things of value' that he solicited or received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him. In one specific case," the report stated, "he denied a motion to recuse himself from a case based on his relationship with lawyers in the case...and failed to disclose that the lawyers in question often provided him with cash. Thereafter, while a bench verdict was pending, he solicited and received from the lawyers appearing before him, illegal gratuities in the form of cash and other things of value, thus depriving the public of its right to his honest services."

As they impeached him, House prosecutors said that evidence showed a decades-long pattern of corruption. They advised the Senate that leaving Judge Porteous on the bench would erode public confidence in the courts, and make a mockery of the federal judiciary. After nine months of deliberation, the Senate met in closed session for more than two hours on Tuesday, Dec. 7 and deliberated Porteous' fate. In the end, the far-left controlled Senate made its decision to expel one of their own. In a solemn, ceremonial vote on Wednesday, one by one, every Senator rose to his feet at their desks and voted "guilty" or "not guilty."

US District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous was the first judge removed from the bench since 1989 when two federal judges—US District Court Judge Walter Nixon of Mississippi and US District Court Judge Alcee Hastings (now Congressman Alcee Hastings [D-FL]) were removed from the bench. Nixon was impeached for perjury when he lied about his role in the drug prosecution of Drew Fairchild, the son of a business partner of Nixon's, Wiley Fairchild. (While the Fairchild case was being held in a State court, Wiley Fairchild asked Nixon to speak to the prosecutor of that case about his son. Nixon did. The prosecutor dropped the case. Nixon was appointed to the federal bench by Lyndon Johnson.)

Hastings, on the other hand, was removed from the bench for accepting a $150 thousand bribe to hand out a lenient sentence to Frank and Thomas Romano who were charged with 21 counts of racketeering. (Hastings was appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter.) The State of Florida, which seemed to object to crooked judges, apparently like crooked politicians. The logic is based, I guess, on the adage that a crooked judge steals for a himself and a crooked politician steals for his constituents. And, Lord knows, Democrats do like experienced thieves representing them in Congress. But, there is apparently one life lesson the people of Florida, and elsewhere where voters allow crooked politicians to stay in office, have forgotten. A politician who will steal FOR you will just as quickly steal FROM you.

Federal Judge rules against Thomas More
Law Center's anti-Obamacare lawsuit
—(Oct. 10, 2010)—On Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010 a federal judge in Detroit ruled against a lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor on behalf of four individuals who do not have private health insurance and object to being forced to buy it from the federal government. The Thomas More Law Center argued in their filing that the federal government does not possess the constitutional authority to impose legilslative edicts under the Commerce Clause. In point of fact, there is no "Commerce Clause." It does not exist. It never did. Do you have a pocket copy of the Constitution? If you do, now is a good time to read it. Begin with Article I. Read it. Find a clause delegating authority to anyone that says the central government has "implied powers "to regulate commerce." Now, don't cheat by checking out the views of the left on where they think this power is.

The text that constitutionally divvies up the power in the central government is found only in Articles I, II, and III. No where else. Particularly not in the preamble, which contains neither enumerated or implied anything. The preamble is nothing more than a nonspecific statement of purpose. Federalist Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers, was among those who wanted to create a strong central government with the authority to control its creator—the States. Hamilton convinced his colleagues that the Constitution needed a preamble to explain to the world its purpose. Hamilton hoped (and reasonably expected) that future generations of US politicians would convert the introductive preamble into an implied rights it does not possess since the authority of the federal government was too limited for it to assume authority over the States.

Article I, sections 1 through 10 delegates responsibilities and authority to Congress. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to grant itself power not given to it by the Constitution. Its powers are enumerated. Article II, sections 1 through 4 delegates the only authority to the Executive Branch possesses. In fact, the 10th Amendment specifically denies it the right to add to its authority. As you read Article II you will see how limited the power of the Presidency is constitutionally. The Executive Branch does not have the constitutional authority to grant itself power. Authority not specifically enumerated to Congress and to the Executive Branch is specifically denied them. In other words, those powers belong exclusively to the States—and to the People. Period. The Constitution is not an evolving document that social progressives can "update" to fit their totalitarian wishlist.

Any federal judge that does not know that, needs to be impeached and removed from the bench. On Oct. 7 US District Court Judge George Caram Steeh for the Eastern District of Michigan rejected the attempts by the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor to kill key provisions of Barack Obama's socialized medicine scheme by upholding a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which mandates that everyone to have health insurance—or be fined the approximate cost of coverage. The Thomas More Law Center attempted to undo that specific mandate (which shows conclusively that Obama is not interesting in protecting people, only robbing what little wealth they have left). Steeh dismissed their action by ruling that the mandate to get insurance by 2014 was legal, and the financial penalty that would be assessed by the government (a new form of illegal taxation that violates the Constitution by singling out one segment of the public and levying a special, punitive tax against them) was also constitutional. Steeh should have known better than that. Since he doesn't, he does not belong on the bench. Congress needs to impeach him and remove him from office.

Judge Steeh, if you recall (SHORT TAKES, July 29, 2010) the former president of the Arab-American Bar Association, dismissed a lawsuit filed by a African-American Christian grad student, Julea Ward, against Eastern Michigan University [EMU] for discriminating against her because, acting as a student counselor, she refused to affirm that homosexual behavior was normal. Ward asked her faculty supervisor if she could refer a homosexual client to another counselor because of her religious views. She was told she would have to undergo a "remedial reeducation program" in order to remain at EMU. When she declined, she was told that because her conduct violated the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics, they were justified in expelling her from the program. In Steeh's view, Christians who express explicit Christian views and tenets under a host of different scenarios can be discriminated against. Judges who do not understand the Bill of Rights, or feel they have the authority to abridge the Constitution with a judicial eraser, need to be impeached and removed from office.

In his ruling in the Thomas More action, Judge Steeh said: "Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times. As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it. In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums." Steeh concluded his argument by saying, "Without a minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times...This would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums." The Washington Post reported that federal workers will be getting between an 8.9% and 10.5% premium hike next year.

While Steeh's views in contemplating his decision in the Thomas More case might have been true on their face, and imperative for the Obama Administration to force all people into the social progressive healthcare system, the Administration's "legal" argument before Judge Steeh was not a legal argument at all. It was the reiteration of a social progressive mandate based not on constitutional health "needs" but political control "needs." Steeh should have known the difference. That's what Article III of the Constitution says judges are supposed to do. Adjudicate cases of law and equity based exclusively on the precepts of the Constitution, not political correctness. In doing so, Steeh's job was to protect the Constitution, not Obama's agenda. Interestingly, cases like this one in which the United States or a State is involved in an action with a State or several States—or individuals—the US Supreme Court is supposed to be the court of original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2). In all other matters the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction (ibid).

Twenty States and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have sued the Obama Administration over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, arguing that the law is unconstitutional, and that it will force States to absorb higher, not lower, Medicaid costs. The problem is that those cases are all being adjudicated by one federal judge in Florida who does not have jurisdiction over most of the States which filed. This is a case where the federal government, which has a vested interest in making all of these casees go away, has joined them together and placed them under the jurisdiction of US District Court Judge David Rivkin of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida where Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed his suit. Rivkin was appointed by Ronald Reagan. But, the States who joined McCollum erred. Their citizens would have fared better if they had filed their suits within their own jurisdictions rather than 21 plaintiffs pinning their hopes on one judge in Florida. Adding more plaintiffs does not make the case stronger. It makes it easier for the Obama Administration to deal with them at one turkey shoot. Judge Rivkin is expected to determine by Oct. 14 if he will allow the case, or parts of it, to go to trial. The State of Virginia filed a separate action in federal court in Richmond.

In the Thomas More case, lead attorney Robert Muise said the Christian Rights organization planned to appeal Steeh's decision to the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati.

Obama Justice Department joins the fray
in Murfreesboro, TN—on the side of Islam.
(Transferred from Behind The Headlines on Sept. 20, 2010)—In the shadows of the Election of 2010, the Obama White House is scrambling for votes—any votes. And, convinced he's about to lose Bible Belt Tennessee to the Republicans, it appears as though the White House figures it will take whatever stragglers from Tennessee the Democrats can get. Barack Obama's going after the melting pot vote: the social progressives, the ethnic and cultural minorities, the union crowd and the Islamic vote in Tennessee by backing the backers of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. On Mon., Oct. 18, 2010 federal attorneys jumped into the middle of what has become a major brouhaha in Rutherford County. In fact, the brouhaha was caused by US Attorney Jerry E. Martin of Nashville who told the Nashville Tennessean that his office would not sit quietly by while opponents to the Murfreesboro mosque raised questions about the nature of Islam and, Martin said, whether or not Islam is a recognized religion. (Martin was appointed US Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee by Obama on March 25, 2010. Obama, as we all know, is a champion of religious liberty in the United States providing those religious freedom rights are based on Liberation Theology or Islam. Martin's claim to fame before his appointment as a US Attorney? He was a major fund-raiser for Obama in 2008. Aren't you glad we have such qualified people serving the American people?)

Thomas Perez, Assistant US Attorney General and head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division told reporters on Tuesday that the DOJ's decision to file an amicus brief to support the Murfreesboro mosque (which has already violated Tennessean health laws), was done to affirm Islam's right as a religion. Perez noted that it was "...an action to defend a very, very important principal that this nation has fought for, which is the principle of religious liberty." It is amazing how the social progressives can wave the flag of religious liberty and expound the virtues of the 1st Amendment except to protect Christianity and Christian values in America. Perez, like all of his political bosses in the Justice Department and the Executive Branch of government, is a hypocrite since under our increasingly totalitarian judicial system, religious liberty applies to all religions except Christianity and, increasingly, Judaism. Perez reiterated "...the Attorney General's very strong commitment to use every tool in the Department's law enforcement arsenal to route out intolerance." The federal courts, up to and including the United States Supreme Court no longer reads nor applies the Bill of Rights when it considers the 1st Amendment. Instead, the federal courts have erased the 1st Amendment and replaced it with Articles 13 and 14 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights. No longer is there a presumption of an inalienable right to worship God as we please even though the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits government from restricting our right to worship God wherever and whenever we please. Under the Covenant on Human Rights, government has the right to restrict religious liberty to whomever they wish and grant that precious gift to whomever they favor. That's how a political-theological system can be granted protection under the 1st Amendment and Christianity is denied that same protection.

The Obama-Holder Justice Department will do what it can to make it appear that what is going on in Murfreesboro is pure racism rather than a political debate. Which, of course, is the reason the DOJ Civil Rights Division is weighing in with allegations of racism and anti-religious bias.

But, when you talk to Kevin Fisher, a Murfreesboro corrections officer, a Republican running for the school board, and most of all, a Black American leading the fight to stop the mosque, he will be the first to tell you that "...this has nothing to do with racism or racial intolerance. It's about a difference of opinion. In America, that's okay. Religion. Race. These are just code words used to distract people from the real issues. If Home Depot was burying bodies in the water supply, I would be equally concerned." (The reference to burying a body in the water supply stemmed from the Islamic Center burying a body on their recently purchased property—without his body being embalmed, or without being placed in a casket.. The act was done without a State permit and before a death certificate for the deceased was even issued. The body was buried in May and the death certificate was not issued until October, long after the battle for Murfreesboro had began.)

While the lawsuit filed by the Murfreesboro mosque opponents questions the right of the Muslims, under the 1st Amendment, to build the mosque, their argument is not that Islam is not a "recognized" religion, but that it is also a recognized political system that is not entitled to 1st Amendment protection. So, just as it would be hard to deny that Islam is a religion, it is equally as hard to ignore the fact that Islam is the most feared political system in the world—much more feared that communism as the height of the Soviet threat in the 1960s. Furthermore, Tennesseans are concerned that Muslims in western Tennessee will use their enhanced position to advocate for Shai'ra Law and for Shai'ra courts in that State and across the nation.

Martin filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro in the wake of the bitter, national debate in New York over the Cordoba House Mosque, better known as the Ground Zero Mosque in lower Manhattan. While those fighting the mosque argue in a new lawsuit filed against officials in Rutherford County that the county violated their own "open meeting" law in how they granted the building permits without fair and open debate on the issue.

In another lawsuit filed by Murfreesboro lawyer Joe Brandon, Jr., opponents are attempting to block the county's attempt to force the citizens to pay for their elected officials deception in approving the site for the Islamic Center. Further, the suit argues that county officials "acted knowingly, willfully, maliciously and with oppression and reckless and callous disregard to protect the citizens of Rutherford County..." by allowing the property to be used as a cemetery, educational-cultural teaching center (i.e., cultural brainwashing), and a Shar'ia teaching and interpretation center without requiring a new zoning classification. Brandon's suit was scheduled for a hearing on October 20.

Earlier testimony from former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney outlined the dangers of Shar'ia law based on the advocacy of the Muslim Brotherhood in a report entitled "Team B." The Muslim Brotherhood which is involved in the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque in Manhattan. The "Team B" Report is a 1991 strategy paper for the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) that was found by the FBI in a raid on a Virginia home with the arrest of an indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist-funding case. The report describes the group's goals in the United States.

"The Ikhwan (Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." Brandon noted that the principle conclusion of the report is that "Shar'ia" is an enemy threat to the United States because it is a totalitarian political ideology—its seditious purpose is the replacing of the US government with a Caliphate that must be differentiated from the religious practices of peaceable and law-abiding Muslims. The second finding, according to Brandon, is that Shar'ia obligates its followers to engage in "jihad" to the extent that it involves violence as we saw on 9/11. It can, he concluded, involve mass murder and great destruction.

In his testimony, Gaffney identified Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two al-Qaeda leader to Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the captured mastermind of 9/11 as trained members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Which is the basis for the argument of the Islamic Center's opponents that the center does not meet the standards set for its designation as a religious meeting place. Gaffney's testimony raises the specter of whether the mosque should be afforded protection under the 1st Amendment , and protection under the Religious Land Use and Act of 2000 that was enacted to protect the right of citizens to build churches within their communities without fear of discrimination from city or county governments. The Justice Department, of course, has flipflopped the law and is applying it against the people of Murfreesboro who bitterly oppose the construction of what they view as a political threat to their own religious liberty.


Sweden seeks WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange for questioning in
molestation case
(Transferred from Behind The Headlines on Sept. 15, 2010)—Swedish authorities announced on Friday, August 20, 2010 they are seeking WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as a suspect in a molestation and possible rape case in Stockholm. Authorities issued a warrant for his arrest for rape on Friday, and then withdrew it on Saturday. The allegations of rape were first reported by the Swedish tabloid Expressions. When the story hit the paper, Assange responded to the allegations on WikiLeaks' Twitter page, stating the accusations were linked to his release of 77 thousand US military documents. Among them was a cache of records that revealed the names of hundreds of Afghan citizens who helped the Americans and their allies pinpoint Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds and capture Muslim extremist leaders in that country.

On Saturday, less than a day after issuing the warrant, Swedish authorities said the rape charge resulted from an unfounded allegation of rape. Police still want to question Assange about one other case involving the suspicions of rape and one accusation of sexual molestation. When she withdrew the rape warrant, Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne told the media she didn't "...think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." She did not address the status of the molestation allegation, which is a less serious charge that would not lead to an arrest warrant.

On his Twitter page, Assange wrote that "...[t]he charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing." Assange implied that the accusations were part of a dirty trick campaign against the WikiLeaks founder who has been strongly criticized by the Pentagon and by Barack Obama. "We were warned to expect dirty tricks. Now we have the first one...Expression is a tabloid. No one here has been contacted by Swedish police. Needless to say, this will prove hugely distracting."

Fearing that fellow traveler and White House resident Barack Obama was planning to have him extradited to the United States where he could be charged with revealing top secret US military documents, the 39-year old convicted Australian computer hacker, Assange, went to Sweden last week (where a couple of his WikiLeaks servers are located) to apply for a publishing certificate in Stockholm in order to take advantage of the laws in Sweden that protect whistleblowers.

When queried by the media on Friday when the rape charge was initially filed, Karin Rosander, a spokesperson for the Swedish Prosecution Authority confirmed that Assange is suspected of at least one count of rape and one charge of sexual molestation.

Assange, now 39, was born in Townsville, Queensland in 1971. His parents met at an anti-Vietnam War demonstration. His mother was so anti-establishment that she did not want her son to go to school believing it would instill an unhealthy respect for authority in her son. During his childhood he attended 37 different schools because his mother, who worked for a touring theater group, traveled throughout Australia during his growing years. Today, he lives the same nomadic life of his youth. He has no permanent, nor even temporary, address he calls his own. His personal possessions include a laptop computer and a rucksack of belongings. Assange lives on the hospitality of fellow travelers—social progressives around the world—who put him up for brief periods of time as he travels the globe. Those acquaintances, and the handful of well-to-do socialists who finance WikiLeaks, view the convicted computer hacker as a heroic crusader, which makes him a celebrity whenever he comes to town.

His mother introduced him to computers at an early age. With his sharp mind and an "outsider mentality," he entered the world of hacking, setting up a group that became known as International Subversives. Assange has been called the "Robin Hood of Hacking." Among the websites he has hacked are the US Department of Defense and NASA. Among file footage hacked by Assange is a helicopter cockpit video shows civilians shot in Baghdad. The video was hacked and prepared for release on WikiLeaks through the Icelandic Digital Freedom Society. While Assange claims the Department of Defense files he recently released—and the 15,000 files he is preparing to release—were given to him, it appears Assange has the ability to hack into the Department of Defense website at will, and it's just as likely that he secured the files himself as it is that someone with access to them gave them up. US authorities have charged Pfc. Bradley Mannings, 22, with disseminating the top secret video which they believe he turned over to WikiLeaks. Assange has said the files he released came from soldiers with whom he came into contact after publishing a vast database of army equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan. British Security Minister, Lady Pauline Neville-Jones admitted "...[w]e don't know how they got that material—it may be a combination of leaking of documents, but also one strongly suspects they have hacked into the systems as well...But, if you stop to think about it, military systems have to be secure because people's lives are at stake."

In 1989 the Australian government linked Assange to what the media called the "audacious attack" on NASA's computer. During the investigation, Assange monitored the police who were investigating him. He, or others in collusion with him, left messages for the detectives conducting the investigation on their computers. In December, 1995 Judge Leslie Ross of Melbourne's County Court, fined Assange $2,100 Australian dollars, telling Assange that the accused was driven by a desire to "...be empowered by his access to high security files."

The Berlin-based Wau Holland Foundation that manages the finances of WikiLeaks acknowledged that the fund received £330,000.00 thus far in 2010. The Foundation has issued checks totaling about £25,000.00 to Assange through the first half of this year. The Foundation added that they are compiling the financial records of WikiLeaks and will publish them when they are completed, adding that they have no way of knowing how much money is being donated through Iceland or other countries Assange visits. That money appears to go directly to Assange. WikiLeaks does not publish any statistics about money received or spent, but it claims to have raised about £655,000 since it was founded, adding that operating costs are about £131,000 per year. WikiLeaks noted that it will have to raise at least £390,000 per year if the handful of volunteers that currently donates it time are to be paid in the future.

Wau Holland, was born Herwart Holland-Moritz on Dec. 12, 1951. He was a co-founder of the Chaos Computer Club, the world's oldest computer hacking club. The hackers became world famous when they hacked into Germany's banking system and got 134 thousand Deutsche Marks. They returned the money the following day, advising the banks to increase their security to prevent hackers from looting their vaults. He then began to publish a computer hackers' magazine for club members. When Holland-Moritz died of a brain stem stroke on July 29, 2001, five club members formed the Wau Holland Foundation believing they had a social obligation to expose everything—without regard for the consequences. Holland-Moritz's family funded the startup of the tax exempt foundation with €62,000.

Assange noted that he recently hosted a seminar for the Socialist Democratic Party in Sweden. He further announced that he would write bimonthly columns for a leftwing Swedish newspaper.

Man arrested in Chicago for praying on the sidewalk—(Aug. 3, 2010)—To protect abortion clinics from pro-life protesters, the City of Chicago enacted the nation's first "bubble law" which prevents certain types of "picketing activity" outside of abortion clinics. The law took affect on Wed., Nov. 18 in the Windy City. On Nov. 17, 2009—a day before the ordinance went into affect—about 40 pro-life supporters protested the new ordinance outside of a North Side Planned Parenthood Clinic. Planned Parenthood issued a statement to the media during the protest that they were thrilled by the ordinance. And, why wouldn't they be? They proposed it and campaigned for it. The measure was voted on and signed by Mayor Richard Daley in October, 2009. The fact that it violates free speech right under the first amendment was of no consequence to Daley because, after all, this was Chicago where political jobs are bought and sold like penny candy and corrupt social progressive politicians rule Cook County like third world despots.

The new law went untested until July 3 of this year. On that day Joseph Holland, a Northwestern University graduate student was arrested outside Planned Parenthood's North Side facility for committing an unthinkable act—he was praying. He was not invading anyone's "private space." Employees called the police because they believed Holland was committing an intolerable act—and Holland was arrested for violating the city's Bubble Zone law. Keep in mind the "Bubble Law" specifically prohibits protesters from approaching within 8' of a person without consent "...for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling." Praying is "none of the above," and in the United States, praying is still protected speech under the 1st Amendment even though the courts, using an illegal sleight-of-hand, have erased almost every right under the 1st Amendment by illegally coupling the 1st Amendment with Articles 13 and 14 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights. In doing so, the courts have converted an inalienable right into a conditional one. And even though the Constitution of the United States mandates that no law can be written that abridges the right of Americans to worship God in any way they wish—which includes praying where and whenever they please without inference from government, the courts now construe that right to be conditioned on the whims of those who dislike Christianity because God condemns both homosexuality and the killing of one's children, born or unborn. (Strangely, while the government of the United States has unofficially labeled Christianity as a religion of hate for teaching that the killing of the unborn violates the 6th Commandment and that unrepentive homosexuals will spend eternity in Hell, it eagerly opens its arms to Islam which, in Hadith 2:1 under Shari'a law, demands that Muslim believers kill homosexuals. The reason for pointing this out is to raise a logical question: why does our government, and other governments around the world malign Christians as racists while embracing Islam which promotes itself as a religion of peace while Shari'a Law mandates that Muslim believers kill homosexuals?)

In any event, witnesses—and a video—affirmed that Holland was standing stationary and praying outside everyone's "Bubble Zone." He was not passing out leaflets or handbills. Nor was he protesting or trying to get into anyone's face and counsel them on the fact that women who have abortions are killing living, although as yet unborn, children. Yet he was arrested for violating the Bubble Zone law. When the Thomas More Society, which represented Holland without charge, produced the video to show that Holland had not violated the Bubble Law, charges against him were dropped. Because of the video tape, the City of Chicago had no recourse. Holland had committed no crime. Peter Breen, legal counsel and Executive Director of the Thomas More Society said, "We are pleased that the City of Chicago dismissed these false and baseless charges against Joe Holland. The First Amendment protects prayer on a public sidewalk in Chicago the same as in any other city in the country. We hope that the city will cease the suppression of pro-life speech under the bubble zone ordinance and dismiss the lone remaining case, brought against David Avigone, who was arrested a few days after Joe."

The question is: does Avigone have a video tape to prove he was not harassing either abortion clinic employees or women going to the Planned Parenthood clinic to kill their unborn children? If he does not, it's likely that the Cook County Express will railroad its first Bubble Zone victim since the purpose of the ordinance is not to protect people who need protecting, but to deny the free speech rights of pro-life Americans that is mandated by the 1st Amendment—sans Articles 13 and 14 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights which serves as the rest of the world's "conditional" Bill of Rights.

NAACP issuing resolution condemning
Tea Party Movement as racist
—(July 13, 2010)—The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP] said they will propose a resolution this week condemning the Tea Party Movement as a racist organization when the NAACP meets for its 101st Annual Conference in Kansas City this week. The resolution, which will be proffered today, will call upon "...all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era." NAACP leaders said the resolution was necessary to make people aware of what they believe is a racist element within the Tea Party Movement. Michelle Obama will be present for what the NAACP expects will be the quickly passage of the resolution. Michelle Obama will give the keynote address.

Here's the rub. Say what you think, and think what you want, the Obama Administration's talking heads were given their talking points about the Tea Party within weeks of the movement's birth—call it racist. When anyone questions the legal status of the guy in the White House, call them racist. When anyone speaks out about the Obama agenda (i.e., Obamacare, Cap & Trade, or the back-breaking spending bills that have indentured the next 10 generations of Americans to the masters on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue), call them racists. If they speak about in favor of Arizona's immigration law that does nothing more than force law enforcement officers in the State to enforce federal immigration laws, call them racist.

Yet when New Black Panther Party chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz asks if its time for blacks to start killing every white baby, that's not construed by the NAACP or the mainstream media as racist. And, when Shabazz, his brother Samir and "poll watcher" Jerry Jackson who openly threatened white voters in Philadelphia's 13th Ward in Philadelphia with a club, and use intimidating racial slurs, threats and statements that they were tired of "white supremacy," they were not construed to be racists by the Obama Justice Department which dismissed all charges against the three—including their guilty plea. They did that because, in their view, everyone knows that "racism" is a white-against-black crime, not a black-against-white crime.

Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City chapter of the NAACP but who appears more like a pawn of the Obama White House told the Kansas City Star that "...I think a lot of people are not taking the Tea Party Movement seriously. And, we need to take it seriously. We need to realize it's really not about limited government." While those words were spoken by Russell, they were crafted by a White House propaganda machine that clearly understands just how serious the Tea Party Movement is, and the power it wields. And, Russell and the NAACP knows if the social progressives lose control of Congress this November, their best wet dreams of getting a share of the redistributed wealth of the middle class (which, by the way includes more than "whitey," since there is a rapidly growing Black-American middle class in the United States, and I don't think the Social Progressives have managed to craft an "I'm Black" tax exemption that will allow the growing number of Black Americans making over $200 thousand per year to avoid paying the same tax load as their white neighbors) dies with loss of a Democratic majority in either, or both, Houses of Congress.

Plain and simple, this is about politics—dirty socialist Democratic politics—the Saul Alinsky, Cloward-Pivens mudslinging politics that is specifically designed to malign the Tea Party movement not because they are racists but because the American people—Black and White—feel threatened by the social progressives and are taking a hard stand against the socialist policies of the Weather Underground radicals from the 1960s who now control the government of the United States and are intent on destroying this nation and recasting it as an oligarchic Soviet Union of the Americas.

The rhetoric of the social progressives isn't fooling anyone except perhaps those who view the world through the prism of socialist radicalism which, of course, includes the mainstream print and electronic media that is now owned by the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who decide not only what news is fit to print, but what slant needs to be foisted as truth on who they are convinced is still a sleepy-eyed, gullible public that believes the sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat and that you can get rid of half of the carbon dioxide on the planet and still have air to breathe and water to drink when carbon dioxide is the "food" plants eat in the process of photosynthesis that creates oxygen. The social progressives have declared war on America, and clearly the NAACP is in bed with Obama's agenda since they know if Obama fails to redistribute the wealth of America's middle class as it makes serfs of all of us, they will not be the recipients of the new entitlements that will put that money in their pockets.

Is the Tea Party movement racist? Not in a million years. Are they trying to hard to force the guy in the White House to prove he has a constitutional right to be there? You betcha. Are they fighting Obamacare and the Death Board that will ration healthcare to the elderly and anyone else with a catastrophic illness? You betcha. Are they fighting Cap & Trade, which will steal the wealth of all Americans—including poor Black Americans—and transfer that wealth to the emerging nations where the princes of industry and barons of business have moved their factories in order to capitalize on the human capital which they believe will be the primary global consumers in the 21st century? You betcha. What is happening in this country at this moment in Kansas City is the opening of a new salvo in the economic war between the social progressives and the free enterprise capitalists in an attempt to politically disarm the American people who are determined to take back their government.

Tea Party leaders and advocates of the constitional restoration movement rightly deny the allegations of racism which, as noted above, come from the Cloward-Pivens interpretation of racism which argues that because Obama is Black, any criticism of him or his policies are a form of racism. Advocates of this theory insist the real reason negative comments are made is because of the color of Obama's skin and not the color of his politics.

Democrats make $700 billion in Medicare cutsDec. 4, 2009 On a 58-42 vote party-line vote, Democrats defeated a measure by Sen. John McCain to send back to committee the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act) which will cut $400 billion in Medicare spending that targets medical care for the elderly. The Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 cleared the House on Nov. 19. If it clears the Senate when the bill comes up for its final vote on passage, the Democrats believe they have the votes to enact the legislation. If that proves to be true, then after a brief lovefest in Joint Conference, legislation designed to further rape the elderly will be signed into law by Barack Obama.

Voting with the Republicans were Senators Jim Webb [D-VA] and Ben Nelson [D-NE]. AARP lobbied seniors to support the Democratic measure, assuring them that cutting $700 billion in wasteful spending would serve to strengthen Medicare in the future, and no Medicare subscriber would lose any benefits to which they are entitled. McCain responded by telling seniors to "...[t]ake your AARP card, cut it in half and send it back. They betrayed you." McCain's proposal would have stopped the legislation in its tracks. Democrats argued that cutting what amounted to $400 billion over ten years would not affect the basic services guaranteed by Medicare but would, instead, squeeze insurance companies and hospitals that are overcharging for the services they provide.

Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT], an institutionalized politician who has served 25 years in the Senate, and who is the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee told the Washington Times that "...this isn't the first time defenders of our broken health care system have tried to scare seniors, and it won't be the last...Now they're coming, riding to the rescue of Medicare. We have a right, I think, to be skeptical." McCain argued that "...these are not attainable cuts without eventually rationing health care in America, and rationing healthcare to our senior citizens who have earned these benefits." (If you remember, the Democrats told seniors that former President George W. Bush was trying to scare them by telling them that Social Security was broke. Bush was correct, and the euthanasia mandates in Obamacare that will treat old age as a terminal illnesses in order to deny medical care to Social Security recipients in what the communists in the Democratic Party view as a "win-win" situation is the "proof in the pudding." Wake up, America. Every now and then a politician does tell you the truth. Granted, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Why do you persist in believing the pretty lies but not the ugly truth?)

Also buried in that legislation—which was designed to force some 31 million new, uninsured senior citizens into the Medicare program—is a provision (in HR 3961 which has already passed the House) that will require all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. McCain's bill to send the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 back to committee for further debate also contained a provision by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK] that would have required doctors to go to practicing medical professionals and not Obama's federal Healthcare Board for coverage decisions affecting the lives of the elderly.

Under special rules agreed upon prior to the debate of this legislation, Democrats and Republicans agreed to the 60-vote threshold. If the Democrats can't pull Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Webb and Nelson vote against the legislation when it comes up for a floor vote, the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 will be defeated. It appears the measure to force every American citizen to purchase health insurance or pay what amounts to a federal non-compliance fine is designed to make socialized medicine look more appealing—and much less costly.

The communist left that now controls the government of the United States is determined to keep the national healthcare door open—if Obamacare fails—by making private insurance so costly that the Obamacare smoke and mirrors will look so convincingly appealing that the Tea Party activists will return to the sofa with a bag of chips, a cold beer and the TV remote control and the far left can return to the task of destroying the United States without arrogant rednecks protesting the transformation of their Republic into a totalitarian state.

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.