Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

Thomas Jefferson[i]

Once again, our nation has been attacked by the followers of Islam, the so-called religion of peace. This time their claim is a movie which depicts their prophet and their religion, in what they consider to be an intolerable manner, has sparked their outrage and their response is attacks on sovereign U.S. soil. These are not isolated events which were enacted by a few fringe elements of their society. These were coordinated and orchestrated attacks sanctioned by their religious leaders and their governments. Of course, it doesn’t stop there, it never does. Sovereign German and British soil was also attacked in the same manner, yet in no way were the nations of Germany or England even remotely involved in this. Unfortunately, our so-called leaders, making certain they act in a manner which is true to their form, denounce these attacks on our nation in the ‘strongest possible terms’ to assure everyone they are not the impotent, spineless jellyfish which they know themselves to be. We have seen and heard apologies, statements of disgust at this movie, and we have heard the same old rhetoric regurgitated by the leaders of our nation, the United States, which amounts to nothing more than laughable and satirical attempt to assuage our fears that our leaders really have no backbone whatsoever. As we can plainly see, a rose by any other name…is still a rose, but in this case, a bowl of jello is just that, a bowl of jello.

If the so-called act of insulting their prophet and their religion is such a heinous crime, I would have to ask, why is it not a crime when they do the same thing? For years, if not decades or even centuries, they have been calling us infidels. But the truth is, as the United States is and has been a Christian nation, which was clearly stated by our forefathers, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision in 1892 as well; we are legally and organically a Christian nation. If you stop for a moment and consider that as a Christian nation, we believe in Messiah Yeshua (Christ Jesus) as our Lord, King and Savior, but the people who are attacking us do not believe this, so I would have to ask…who are the true infidels? I can assure you the term infidel means godless one. If their argument is that they have been insulted and they have the right to attack the United States as a result of their displeasure, I would argue, their slurs against the United States; calling us infidels, the Great Satan, the devil and a multitude of other false labels, are in fact the exact same types of insults which they claim to find so utterly offensive. The fact that they do not believe in the true Son of God leads one to the conclusion that Satan is within them. However, the people of Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia have committed acts of War against the United States by attacking our sovereign soil. This cannot and should not be tolerated. Their hypocrisy and fallacious arguments are neither an excuse nor logical reasoning for killing our people, destroying our property or desecrating our flag. What they are doing is making their position known. The people of the Middle East do not keep this a secret; the entire world needs to accept Islam as their faith, or be enslaved or killed. This is their mantra. These are their words. These words have been echoed since the time of the Dey of Algiers, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, when he spoke to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and right up to the present day motto of the Muslim Brotherhood. Personally, I will never submit to their will or to their religion. And I certainly will not allow my own misguided elected leaders within our government make me believe in their way. This will never happen.

We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin

The question which comes to mind is why do our political leaders allow this to happen with a mere statement of disapproval as their response? The people of the United States know our nation has some of, if not the absolute best intelligence gathering agencies in the world. There is absolutely no way our government did not know this threat existed. Unless the Hussein Obama Administration has changed our policy of having United States Marines guard our Embassies, but that was changed under the Clinton Administration, so we can only wonder why there wasn’t a contingent at each and every U.S. Embassy, everywhere in the Middle East, and North, Central or East Africa capable of dispatching such attacks with the fiery brilliance which they are known to possess. We also have to wonder if orders were given to the few Marines who are there not to fire on those who attacked our nation, and why? It is simply impossible to make the argument that U.S. Marines don’t lay down the heaviest and most sustained firepower against their enemies or attackers, as history has already proved this, time and time again. These attacks could have easily been stopped and we all know it. But Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton have denounced these attacks in the ‘strongest possible terms.’ What does this tell the people of our nation and the world about the President of the United States and the U.S. State Department? I would laugh if I wasn’t so disgusted.

Now we get to the Congress of the United States, which has the power to Declare War. Our nation has been attacked in at least four (4) separate countries. Our government tells us these are acts of a few individuals and not their governments. This is a lie. These attacks were planned, orchestrated and then carried out by their regimes, with the sole intent of killing our people, destroying our property and committing an Act of War against the United States, then lying about it by telling us and the world, ‘they are fringe elements of society’ who perpetrated these acts of aggression against the United States and now Germany and England. But as we all know too well, Congress is only capable of agreeing to give themselves pay-raises. There has been no Declaration of War. So one can only infer our government is willing to allow our nation to be attacked without reprisal. If our elected leaders actually had a backbone, a Declaration of War would have already been made. Our so-called President would have already decided with the help of his advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to Make War on those who have furtively and cowardly attacked us. And we would be sitting here in the United States today looking at the aftermath of U.S. response on our television screens. Cairo Egypt, Benghazi Libya, Sanaa Yemen and Tunis Tunisia would be extremely large heaps of rubble. By allowing this sort of attack on our nation, we have only given those nations which are thinking of doing the same, the courage to do so.

We cannot allow our elected government officials, who serve at our pleasure, make these kinds of disastrous decisions. As a sovereign nation, we have every right to defend ourselves against aggression. In this case, we have been attacked in four (4) locations. Our people have been murdered. Our flag has been desecrated. Not to mention, we are forced to listen to a fallacious 4^th grade argument for why this has been done and the two faced assurances that these forked tongued governments have condemned these actions. Then we are further subjected by the nonsensical jibber-jabber of our own leaders who tell us this will not go unpunished. Really? To make matters even worse, we know at this moment in time, our government is in negotiations with these same nations with regard to how much foreign aid they will receive from the U.S. taxpayers.

Certainly, I cannot be the only one in this great Republic who finds this to be unconscionable. In fact, I know I am not. I speak to people each and every day who feel just as I do. While I know there are many within the United States who undoubtedly feel this (and everything else) has all been caused by the United States, there are an equal if not greater amount of people who are simply dumbfounded at the continuation of this insanity. I understand as much as anyone else, our foreign policy has and continues to be a thorn in our side and a harbinger of what is undoubtedly yet to come. But despite these foreign policy blunders, in no way does this give other nations the right to attack our nation. How is it, our government supports their Arab Springs, yet they turn around and commit an Acts of War against the United States? There are no excuses. There are no arguments or justifications for these acts. And I state this with absolute certainty, this must not be tolerated.

If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained_we must fight!

Patrick Henry

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com

There is a debt of service due from every man to his country, proportioned to the bounties which nature and fortune have measured to him.

Thomas Jefferson[i]

Have you ever wondered what is meant by the term ‘public servants?’ I suppose these days it depends on who is either using or misusing the term. If you look at any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution, you will see men who believed in public service. And I will show you examples of this. I have absolutely no doubt the founding fathers of this nation knew what the term meant: to serve the public for the greater good; public servants. But what is today’s meaning? As I have shown in other treatises about the Legislative and Executive Branches, our politicians are extremely self-serving. They concern themselves with the aggrandizement of their bank accounts by trading stocks using classified information, they take money from lobbyists, they believe in nepotism even though House Ethics Rules forbid the practice and there have been earmarks where Congressmen have made vast sums of money at our expense. There have been incidents such as Watergate and Iran/Contra, plus there have been organizations like the Suite 8F Group. All of these examples have been of our present day public servants, but they only served themselves. I believe our illustrious, or should I say lusterless politicians believe public servant means something altogether different, such as the public as servants; public servants. The term public servants isn’t really a double entendre, but it has been perverted into just that; a term with a double meaning, which when used by our smiling two-faced professional prevaricators, has rendered us all into nothing more than offal on the slaughterhouse floor, to be devoured as carrion by our vulture-like politicians. I suggest we take a look at some of our forefathers and find out just what it means to be a public servant.

I found something interesting on a blog called Dover Beach. John Adams wrote, “Public business…must always be done by somebody…If wise men decline it, others will not; if honest men refuse it; others will not…Integrity should be preserved in all events…through every stage of his existence. His first maxim should be to place his honor out of reach of all men[ii].” John Adams does make me ask a few questions. Do our elected leaders today have this same belief? Are our leaders in any way wise or honest? Do they have integrity or honor? One might think that as the most powerful nation on the planet, the answer to these questions would be an unequivocal yes. Unfortunately, just the opposite would appear to be true. Our elected leaders are only wise in their deception to the public and their honesty is always a matter for debate. As far as integrity and honor, I seriously doubt you can have either if you aren’t wise and honest, but I would state our politicians possess neither. But there isn’t a reason to go over the dirty-laundry list of our politicians again; I would simply direct you to read some of my other treatises or read whatever you can find on our leaders of today, then you can answer the question yourself. This is more about the founding fathers of this nation and their beliefs with regard to public service, so we will know exactly what it is to serve the public. We can easily look back at history and state with certainty, the founders were an extremely wise and honorable group of men, who possessed a great deal of integrity and honor. All one really needs to do in order to know this is read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and they will come to that conclusion.  John Adams finished his thoughts for the most part with these words, “In order to do this he must make it a rule never to become dependent on public employments for subsistence. Let him have a trade, a profession, a farm, a shop, something where he can honestly live, and then he may engage in public affairs, if invited, upon independent principles.” I cannot fathom in this day and age, a politician who isn’t a career politician; much less one who has undertook public affairs upon independent principles. Certainly some have been quite successful before they entered public office, but we see these people feeding from the public trough for twenty, thirty years at a time, while gorging themselves at the cost of our nation’s wealth and well being. And they consider themselves to be righteous! No matter how much they have, they want more and actually increase their net worth while in office at an astronomical rate. This isn’t public service, it’s gluttony and avarice.

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it is obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.

James Madison[iii]

As I was reading George Washington’s first inaugural address, it made me think about what was just written about John Adams and his beliefs regarding public service. While it may seem as though I am actually going backwards, from the 2^nd U.S. President to the 1^st U.S. President, I believe what George Washington said in his first address simply underscores what John Adams averred. George Washington stated, “Since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained[iv].” Washington’s ardent belief that man is perpetually bound by his association to the truth through the immutable bond between his virtue and his happiness, his moral obligation and his circumstance, his generous course of action and the blissful rewards of his office, reminds me of Adams when he spoke of wisdom, honesty, integrity and honor; without these four maxims which Adams spoke of so fervently, there can be no truth which Washington spoke of so eloquently. As our first President, Washington knew this new nation would rely on his wisdom, honesty, integrity and honor, and his duty as our first President relied on truth to the people. His reward was not only his happiness but the divine advantage given to him by the people and by God. Washington was happy to serve, he sought nothing more than the opportunity to be a public servant in a prosperous nation of people, “When I was first honored with a call into the service of my country…the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation…I must decline as inapplicable to myself any share in the personal emoluments…and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station which I am placed…be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.” I cannot say it enough times; George Washington’s only desire was to serve the public. His reward was the honor of the office itself; he eschewed any monetary compensation other than the expenses which were appropriate in relation to the Office or greater good of the nation. I realize there are politicians in this day and age who receive no more than $1 for their service, which is admirable. I can only believe they are not only fans, but followers of our forefathers. Men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison truly believed leadership was best accomplished by being a public servant, and by being a public servant they were able to lead by example.

I would like to take a moment and speak about the 5^th President of the United States, a man who is considered to be the last founding father of this nation who was President, James Monroe[v]. Monroe had a long history of public service to this nation; his final service was obviously as the President. Just prior to Monroe’s departure for Europe after being appointed as Minister to France in 1794, he gave his nephew some advice which gives us some insight into Monroe himself, “You may by your industry, prudence, and studious attention to your business…advance your fortune and reputation in the world, whereby alone your happiness or even tranquility can be secured[vi].” I believe Monroe was telling his nephew that only through the careful and diligent application of his endeavors would he truly be able to increase his wealth and his repute or good name. And from those endeavors alone would he find happiness and the inner-peace of an honest businessman. How many men these days tell their own sons such things? Monroe then said, “Solid merit and virtue alone will support and carry you with credit through the world.” Once again, here is a man who espouses good, hard, work not only done honestly but done with a good moral center or righteousness as a mantra for a way to live a good life.  But if you look at Monroe’s reasoning for telling his nephew this, you can see where public service comes into play. “The principle danger…if he errs, he inflicts the most incurable wound on his reputation, is the abuse of pecuniary confidence. Let me, therefore, warn you never to use your client’s money…for the protection of virtue, it should never be commenced.” This was really just the beginning of Monroe’s cautionary advice to his nephew with regard to vice and virtue. Monroe, like the rest of the founders, believed that virtues were Heavenly as vices were not. The belief that a man’s reputation was his name meant everything. If one was to get caught with their hand in the so-called cookie jar the lack of confidence in the man and his name would simply be irreconcilable. This all goes right back to George Washington and trust, John Adams and wisdom, honesty, integrity and honor. Without any of those five traits, there is no virtue, no good reputation and certainly no happiness or tranquility would or could follow a man throughout his life. Monroe further stated to his nephew, “I would make it one of those sacred rules of my life which should not be violated.” There can be no doubt James Monroe knew any type of service to others, especially public service, cannot be done without a virtuous reputation which fosters trust. Are we able to say this of our present day politicians? Think about the seven deadly sins and the seven Heavenly virtues for a moment. Most people could name the sins, but not the virtues. Which seven do our politicians follow?

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

George Washington[vii]

I have been asked why I write these papers. My only response can be that I find what the founders said and wrote to be extremely enthralling. That being said, and with regard to this paper, in no way do I claim these treatises are a public service of any kind. If anything, I believe they are simply a vehicle for me to express what infuriates me with regard to our government today and if these treatises actually possess anyone to think about the state of the union, if I am allowed to make that pun, I believe it is a good thing. But I cannot help but to compare our modern times and political leaders of the day with that time of our past political leaders which we call our forefathers and recognize the predominant chasm which exists between them. Truly, I believe if our politicians carried themselves in a manner akin to the forefathers of this nation, with the same passion for our Constitution and showed the wisdom and an honorable determination to lead by virtue rather than vice; perhaps I could and would be content. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

I was asked by a friend, “Why do you put your own name on these treatises rather than using a pen name? Don’t you think if they ever read this stuff you will get into trouble?” My response was actually quite simple. I told him, “Do you really think the shameless lot of bottom-feeders who are running this nation into the ground care about what I think or say? After all, I really have nothing to lose.” Certainly, any fraudulent charge could be trumped-up against anyone, but that’s nothing more than an exercise in futility. I say this because it would only tend to confirm what I write and what I claim to believe. Of course, the point is moot. After all, today’s politicians habitually speak out publicly against each other without a modicum of truth to what they say and in as harmful a manner as possible. I at least give honest examples of what I believe. Their sole purpose is to publically malign and destroy their political rival for personal and political gain. As I have previously stated, I only want people to think. But privately, I would bet they [these political rivals] are friendly sipping Dom Perignon, eating fillet mignon and lobster while washing it down with a bottle of Chateau Lafite-Rothschild together, and on our dime. I simply can’t imagine the founding fathers of this nation carrying on in such a dishonorable manner. What we witness is nothing more than a public dog and pony show which is meant to appease us, as well as divide us in a partisan manner, while they privately scratch each other’s backs and reap the abundant rewards of the dishonest lawmaker. Besides, if you look at the bigger picture, such as the way our infant-like politicians constantly bicker with each other and the odious nature of their discourse (especially during an election year), I would have to say that I’m really being quite generous.

Think about John Hancock for a minute. This man didn’t just sign the declaration of Independence, his signature was so large compared to the rest of the signers, he may as well have had a neon-sign with arrows pointing directly at him. John Hancock had his wealth, property, position, family and his life to lose. Of course, in no way am I or would I compare myself with John Hancock who I consider to be a great man and leader. So that comparison just isn’t possible. I am only trying to point out a man, a leader, who really had something to lose, but did the honorable thing despite the overwhelming risk. The vast majority of us today are a mere fraction of what any of our founding fathers were, and we should all be extremely grateful for their sacrifice, intelligence, courage, selflessness, honor, integrity and public service. We should also remember to view them as true role models.

Stop and think about what it is to really put yourself in jeopardy. Look to our troops throughout the history of this great nation who courageously put themselves in harm’s way on a daily basis, that’s public service. Or look at the fire departments throughout the nation, while people are running out of burning buildings, who risks their lives by running inside to save people and property? The firemen do and that’s public service. When there is an armed robbery or a kidnapping or any number of other violent crimes being committed, who wades in while putting themselves in danger? Someone in law enforcement does. These people have families and they have something to lose, yet they still come to the aid of others, that’s public service. And there is a seemingly endless list of other professions which also provide a public service to our nation. Are any of these people our servants? No, of course they are not. However, they are all public servants and they all do their duty which serves the public interest. How can it be that the leaders of a nation are not held in such high esteem? Personally, if I was a politician, I believe I would be offended. Yet the ordinary people of America who are in these various professions, don’t stand there telling you how great they are, they stand there and tell you how great America is. Yet our politician can’t wait to have a press conference and tell you about their exploits and accomplishments, which are nothing more than mere fantasies! So I would have to ask you, who really are our leaders?

So, after all of this has been said.  Who are our leaders and public servants? Is it our forefathers, our elected and appointed politicians, or those Americans who daily risk their lives for us? The easy answer is our forefathers, there can be no doubt they knew what public service was all about; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Hancock as well as every other founder who was an honest and honorable upstanding man. Then there are the regular Americans who work within the vast variety of professions who daily risk their lives or who work under conditions so deplorable that most of us would not wish it on an enemy, these people are certainly our leaders. Perhaps they aren’t elected, but they are leaders nonetheless and they certainly know what public service is. And lastly, we come to our elected and appointed politicians. What can I say? If these people had the wisdom, honor, integrity, honesty or sense of duty the size of a mustard seed I would undoubtedly fall over dead. But it would appear as though all they desire from public office is to find the lamp which holds their Djinn, so they may rub it and be granted whatever they wish. Sadly, what they wish for is the public to be their servants.

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity…to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory.

Alexander Hamilton[viii]

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

References

A general dissolution of principals and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams[i]

The sanctioned backwards display of the U.S. flag is a perfect example of the backwards thinking of our federal and State governments, as well as our laughable policy-makers in general within the United States. The sad examples of what we call leaders, do much more than support this sort of idiocy, they enthusiastically promote more of the same. But there are other examples of backwards thinking we can look at, not just the flag. Let’s look at the bills Congress passes or attempts to pass. Even a moron tries to read what he is going to sign, although he may be incapable. But Congress routinely signs bills without reading them. The Legislative and Executive Branches have created more public debt than could be paid off in a millennia, yet they continue to foolishly borrow more money from foreign nations with the sole intent of giving that same money to other foreign nations in the form of aid which will never be repaid, only to leave the U.S. taxpayer dangling on the hook with more debt to suffocate him. We allow this by giving the so-called fix to our junkie lawmakers time and time again. Another example is government refusal to police our international borders while we police the borders of foreign nations who neither pay for the service nor wish for our presence in those nations. At the same time, they encourage and we allow overzealous policing of ourselves by an overly militarized police force right here in the United States. Then there is the hypocrisy of government when they speak of the evils of China and Russia (or the former Soviet Union if you will), only to turn around and gladly incarcerate more U.S. citizens than either China or Russia incarcerate, and at a staggering cost. But remember, we are the ‘land of the free.’

So what do We the People do? We enable these forked-tongued prevaricators by giving them whatever they desire, rather than disabling them so they have to slither on their bellies like the snakes which they actually are. This is the backwards thinking of our government officials at every level and these are just some of the tools which they are using to happily bury us with what appears to be our consent.

If you look at the U.S. flag code Section 175 (i), which deals with the position and manner of display of the flag. It states, “When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag’s own right, that is, to the observers left[ii].” Just so you are not confused by this, it is quite simple. The canton or union, which is blue and holds the stars, always, goes in the upper left hand corner as the crowd is looking at it. So if you hang the flag from your porch, while you look out of your own window and see the canton in the upper right corner, to the people who pass by and see the flag, the canton is in the upper left hand corner. Now we get to my problem. The backwards display of the flag on military uniforms as ordered by the federal government. While the U.S. Army claims this ‘backwards’ display has always been the case (at least for the Army), so the soldiers appear to be advancing and not retreating is really nothing more than a misleading argument. In no way is it possible for a patch of the U.S. flag on the shoulder of a uniform capable of giving anyone the appearance of retreating. I looked at hundreds if not thousands of photos of troops who fought in WWII through the Viet Nam War; I could not find one photo of the patch which was displayed in that fashion. If there was a patch, the canton was always in the upper left corner, I don’t care on what sleeve the patch was on. If you look at old photos of U.S. military aircraft, if there was a flag on the starboard side of the aircraft, the canton was in the upper left hand corner. I asked a friend of mine who is a retired U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant if I was right or wrong, he agreed with me. He stated, with a disturbed look on his face, “The canton always goes in the upper left corner, but in the upper right…that was never the case.” The canton always was in the upper left hand corner, until maybe 2002-2003 when some mental midget in the government thought it would be a good idea. I know people think this is a good idea, I personally think it is disgraceful, wrong and it makes me sick. Let’s move on, because the government and at least some of the people seem to have what they want, something backwards.

A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the objects of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can best be attained.

Joseph Story[iii]

Since the Republican National Convention just happened in Tampa Florida and the Democratic National Convention is happening right now in Charlotte North Carolina, these are good examples. According to an article, “Congress set aside $50 million for security at each of the party conventions for 2012, for a total of $100 million. The total cost to taxpayers of the two national party conventions in 2012 exceeded $136 million[iv].” Here in Tampa, it was like some sort of police state. I personally have never asked the government to protect me in this manner. There were barricades impeding pedestrians and vehicles, cops in gangs roaming about. In fact you couldn’t walk 100 ft. without encountering a bunch of them. Did they bother people? No, but that isn’t the point. If I wanted to live in the Middle East, that’s where I would go. So are we to actually believe, our so-called leaders need this type of security? If they do, then they are obviously doing something wrong. I cannot believe the security was to protect them against al Qaeda, because we know it was to protect them from Americans. What would possibly make U.S. politicians feel as though they need that type of security to protect themselves from U.S. citizens? If the massive security was to protect property from protesters, then it also seems like overkill. People do have the right to protest, whether I agree with them or not. But to assume they will be a violent mob in some way violates the 1^st Amendment; the right to the people to peaceably assemble. Where does it say peaceably assemble under threat of an overly militarized police force? Or in the 5^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; nor be deprived of…liberty…without due process of law. Barricades and an excessive police presence do in fact deprive us of our liberty. But once again I will state, in no way did the police act in a Nazi-like fashion. However, I still have a problem with the apparent lack of trust by our elected government officials who feel this type of security is needed with regard to U.S. citizens.

An example of our leaders not paying attention is the Read the Bills Act of 2011 (RTBA). Why would there need to be such an Act if our legislators actually read what they were signing? According to Downsize DC, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens. Neither should it be for Congress[v].” The report goes on to state, “Any member of Congress wishing to cast an affirmative vote for more spending, greater regulation, or the creation or retention of a program of bureaucracy, must sign an affidavit swearing that he or she has either…read the entire bill or heard the entire bill read.” Can you actually imagine our geniuses in Congress passing legislation without reading the bill first? Keep in mind, this isn’t like reading a thousand page novel, this is difficult stuff and takes time, effort and thought. We know there is absolutely no way they can read and understand something that large or complex in a short period of time. Maybe if the plumbing wasn’t so difficult, it wouldn’t be so easy to stop up the drain. Bills should be simplified and they should stick to the proposed idea or intent of the bill and not have phony pork-laden trailers added ad nauseam. So the easy answer to what has been happening is, Congress is and has been passing bills without reading them. I believe this is criminal behavior. Why you ask? Simple, fraud is a crime in the United States. To enact a law which affects us all without knowing what is actually in the law is fraudulent. The devil is always in the details and lawmakers should know that. US News reported, “Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives…all but admitted that few if any members of Congress will read the healthcare reform bill before voting for it[vi].” Representative Hoyer further stated, “If every member pledged not to vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” That would actually be a good thing. But be that as it may, it certainly is nice to know our elected leaders don’t find it important enough to take the time to read, digest and discuss the bills which have a huge impact on American citizens. Someone should really slip in something that states these fools will accept a 95% pay cut, but you can bet they would read that part of any bill.

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.

John Marshall[vii]

A perfect example of us borrowing money just so we can give it back to the same nation would be China. House “Republicans and Democrats bashed the programs during a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Asia and Pacific panel, calling them a “giant mistake of thinking” by the State Department and “an insult” to taxpayers in America[viii].” For once I can actually applaud the words of some politicians. But, even though Congress controls the purse-strings, they still allow this to happen. So once again the State Department and their misguided foreign policy agenda strikes and our impotent House members can only be ‘insulted.’ According to the Daily Mail in the UK, “The U.S. is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world’s richest countries – while at the same time borrowing billions back[ix].” Articles like this one make it very difficult to think that U.S. lawmakers aren’t slightly ‘special’ when it comes to intelligence. The report went on to name some of the countries receiving the aid in 2010, “China…$27.2m, India $126.6m, Brazil $25m, and Russia $71.5m. Mexico also received $316.7m and Egypt $255.7m.” This is why we pay so much money in taxes. The government throws our money around the globe like the Secret Service does while on duty in a Columbian brothel. How and why we allow this to continue is beyond me, but it is quite easy to see why our public debt as of 4 September 2012 is a whopping $16,009,448,000,594.65[x]. Remember how Thomas Jefferson described public debt, as “A departure of principle” which reduces us to “Mere automations of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…The fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression[xi].” Thomas Jefferson was not wrong.

According to Vet Friends, “No military in the history of the world has been more widely deployed as the United States. Currently, the United States has military personnel deployed in about 150 countries…This covers 75% of The World’s Nations[xii].” In a Tampa Bay Times report, Ron Paul states, “We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke[xiii].” Even if we split the difference between 150 and 130 nations, that’s still 140 nations out of roughly 196 nations (that number changes depending  on who is calculating the number). Still, if we had those troops in the United States, securing our borders instead of everyone else’s borders, do you think it would cost so much? Plus, the United States and our borders would be better protected and at a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Does South Korea really need us there to secure the DMZ? I’ll bet if we left and told them what they do is their business, the ROK would stomp on North Korea in no time. How about Europe? Maybe Europeans nations should guard their own borders, I like Europe, but if they can’t handle their own security, maybe they should be called something else. Either way, that wouldn’t be my concern, it would be theirs. My concern as should be the concern of all Americans is the United States of America, not every other nation on the planet. Read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. To ‘provide for the common defence… to ourselves and to our Posterity’ is for the United States, not Korea, Germany, or any other nation. I don’t believe in the U.S. being the policemen of the world and if we are going to be that, then I believe people of other nations should be paying us handsomely for the service.

Let’s take a moment to talk about prison populations around the globe. While we all know for a fact we are the land of the free, which might not actually be true when you stop to consider we have more people in prison than any other nation on this planet. According to Nation Master[xiv], we have 715 people out of 100K people in prison, while Russia has 584 per 100K and China has 119 out of 100K. If you take these numbers, you come up with about 2.5m incarcerated in the U.S. to China’s 7.14m. If Nation Master’s figures are correct, and if you figure China has 6 billion people and we have 350 million, then we still incarcerate the most per capita. Stop and consider the fact that China has a population over 17 times greater than the United States, but we have a third as many people incarcerated. However, in a 2006 report by Natural News, “The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population.” The report goes on to state, “A report released by the justice department…a record 7 million people -- were incarcerated, on probation or on parole at the end of 2005, with 2.2 million of them in prison or jail[xv].” So how ever you do the math, the United States has far more people incarcerated than any other nation per population. Then there is “China ranking second with 1.5 million prisoners, and Russia sitting in third with 870,000.” A CBS News report about the U.S. prisons or ‘Incarceration Nation’ stated, “A report by the organization, “The Price of Prisons,” states that the cost of incarcerating one inmate in Fiscal 2010 was $31,307 per year. In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it’s anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000[xvi].” It seems fairly obvious there has been a push in the United States to incarcerate as many people as possible in order to sustain what I believe is an institution which has no intention of ever getting smaller. Prisons are now being built and operated by private companies, not that it wasn’t bad enough to have the government doing this to their own people, now it is for-profit prisons and we all know they are only going to get bigger. “Is it fair to call the United States “incarceration nation”?” Fairness has nothing to do with what is happening in the United States to the people through petty laws meant to strip us of our freedoms and keep us locked up in prisons so a profit can be turned.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Patrick Henry[xvii]

We should all remember how the founding fathers of this nation wanted limited federal government. While the people within each sovereign State can easily make up the laws as they see fit, nobody needs to go there if those laws are too draconian. But when the federal government gets it claws into you, there is little chance you will ever break free. While you may or may not like my analogy of the backwards flag, keep in mind our so-called leaders are backwards, and they prove it time and time again. Why else would they pay $100 million for security for 2 weeks of political conventions, when we know they are trying to protect themselves from us, not to protect the cities from a foreign attack. Why would they sign bills without reading them? Those bills impact us greatly. Why would they borrow money from foreign nations only to give it back to foreign nations, while we suffocate under a $16 trillion plus public debt? Why would we have our troops in 75% of the nations of the world, while we are policed by an overly militarized police force right here at home? Are we that much of a threat? Yet our borders protections are much like a malfunctioning sieve, allowing practically anyone or anything to pass. I guess in the end that is why we have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prison population. It’s nice to know the U.S. government has such affection for its people. Perhaps we should show our government the same kind of affection. I realize they don’t think the laws apply to them, but they do.

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

I believe the subject of this treatise will be about an individual which a great many people consider to be public enemy number one. For those of you who have read my other treatises, I hate to disappoint you, this particular treatise will not be the scathing witch hunt which uncovers the corruptness of our so-called leadership or of any particular leader for that matter. Instead, I am going to spend the time looking into a man who much of the public seems to intensely dislike, but for whom I have a great deal of respect.

While there are nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, I am going to focus on one. If you haven’t guessed who I am referring to by now, it is Senior Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Antonin Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate and assumed his office, or his seat, on 26 September 1986 as a Supreme Court Justice. Who is this Supreme Court Justice and what sets him apart from the rest? According to Wikipedia Justice Scalia is, “The longest-serving justice currently on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court’s conservative wing[i].” I would like to mention a few more items noted in Wikipedia before I continue, which I believe will give us something to work with regarding Justice Scalia. Wikipedia also notes, “In his quarter-century on the Court, Scalia has staked out a conservative ideology in his opinions, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. He is a strong defender of the executive branch…and, in his minority opinions, often castigates the Court’s majority in scathing language.” I’ll also touch on Justice Scalia’s beliefs on such matters as flag-burning and abortion as they relate to the Constitution of the United States. I believe these items through his over 25 years on the Court will allow us to find out who Supreme Court Justice Scalia is and why so many people believe he is public enemy number one.

A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.

Antonin Scalia

Because I love the U.S. Constitution and know the founding fathers of this nation were great men, I believe that would be a good place to start. What does Justice Scalia mean when he speaks about originalism in constitutional interpretation? According to an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, the CBS News report states, “Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as “originalism,” which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago[ii].” Personally, I like the idea of interpreting the U.S. Constitution[iii] in a manner that upholds the values, principles and words of our founding fathers who actually risked everything to create such a wonderful document for the people of the United States. In the report Justice Scalia goes on to explain what he means, “It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend.” Ms Stahl notes, “Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution – like a right to abortion – by interpreting the Constitution as a “living document” that adapts to changing values.” Justice Scalia states why he is against the idea of a living Constitution, “What’s wrong with it is, it’s wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution.” So it is apparent, Justice Scalia believes the U.S. Constitution should be and is our ‘rock solid foundation’ which we stand upon and which has elevated us, the United States, to our (at least once) grand stature. With regard to the founders, Justice Scalia goes on to say, “Well, it isn’t the mindset. It’s what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.” Justice Scalia isn’t against progress or change, “Create it the way most rights are created…Pass a law.” But he is against changing the Constitution, our foundation. Like many people I believe if you wish to change the Constitution, lawmakers need to go through the extremely cumbersome amendment process in order to make the Amendment. However, making a law in itself, is much less cumbersome, it just needs to be constitutional.

Why does Justice Scalia advocate textualism in statutory interpretation and what is it? Oliver Wendell Holmes in The Theory of Legal Interpretation stated, “How is it when you admit evidence of circumstances and read the document in the light of them? Is this trying to discover the particular intent of the individual, to get into his mind and to bend what he said to what he wanted?” Mr. Holmes, who I might add was a brilliant man, further states, “Thereupon we ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used, and it is to the end of answering this last question that we let in evidence as to what the circumstances were[iv].” So I believe Mr. Holmes is stating textualism is not necessarily the intent of the man as much as it is the words themselves, as used by men in general, to understand the meaning of the words within a certain circumstance.

According to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “The basic premise of textualism is that judges “must seek and abide by the public meaning of the enacted text, [as] understood in context” and should “choose the letter of the statutory text over its spirit[v].”” Mr. Davis further states with regard to textualism, “Only the statutory text has passed the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment, and that judicial reliance on unenacted intentions or purposes “disrespects the legislative process.”” Also according to Mr. Davis, textualists believe those ‘unenacted intentions and purposes’ are that which “Skirts the constitutional protections designed to safeguard liberty by diffusing legislative power.” So textualism maintains the separation of power within the three branches of government itself and protects the U.S. Constitution as well as the liberty of sovereign individuals and sovereign States.

Just so you know bicameralism is Congress as two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. For the definition of presentment I’ll go to Black’s Law Dictionary, “In criminal practice. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment Is an informal statement In writing, by the grand jury, representing to the court that a public offense has been committed which is triable in the county, and that there is reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual named or described therein has committed it[vi].”

So between Oliver Wendell Holmes and Mr. Davis of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Justice Scalia’s advocacy of textualism in statutory interpretation is not the intent of what is or was meant, but the actual public meaning of the text itself within the context of what was said [in the statute] and this is done strictly to safeguard our liberty under the U.S. Constitution while holding the government in check. I can’t figure out how that is a bad thing. The framers of the Constitution believed in limited government, to be sure, limited federal government as stated by James Madison in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined[vii].”

Now imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after…the Naturalization clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

Antonin Scalia

An example of one of Justice Scalia’s minority opinions can be found in Arizona v. United States. Justice Scalia states, “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding[viii]?” Justice Scalia goes on to say, “The President said at a news conference that the new program “is the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.” This is wonderful example of Justice Scalia castigating the majority (let’s call it) in scathing language-lite (I would have just called them spineless jellyfish). While the majority opinion was in favor of the President’s so-called plan of doing nothing other than trampling atop the rights of the sovereign State of Arizona, Justice Scalia sets himself apart and appropriately rebuffs the majority as well as the Executive branch. Justice Scalia states, “The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror…seems to me not so horrible and even less looming…the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written…Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?” Justice Scalia seems right on point and makes my previous statement with regard to the Supreme Court Justices in “On Sovereignty[ix]” seem a bit harsh. Quite frankly I should have stated the Supreme Court might as well be referred to as ‘Eight Empty Chairs’ instead of nine. Justice Scalia quite eloquently affirmed Arizona’s sovereign status and rebuked the Executive’s misguided stance as well as the Supreme Court’s inconceivable majority opinion. Why should the sovereign State of Arizona be required to allow its borders to be violated? As a sovereign State, Arizona has every right to secure its borders, protect its citizens and enforce Immigration Laws even if the Federal government doesn’t have the backbone or the intestinal fortitude to aggressively enforce those laws. I have always been unable to fathom why the federal government shirks its own responsibilities but has such a voracious appetite for prosecuting decent Americans who simply exercise their freedoms as they see fit, which seem to be at odds with the misguided beliefs of the jack-booted thugs in Washington.

Apparently, the Obama administration which flatly refuses to rigorously enforce existing immigration laws, just like his predecessor, George W. Bush who also refused to enforce those laws should not handcuff a sovereign State from doing so. Each sovereign State, like the nation as a whole, has its own Constitution and its own three branches of government. The federal government in my view is always subordinate to the States as well as the individuals who make up the States, unless one of the various constitutionally guaranteed rights of the individual has been violated by the State. What right does the federal government believe it has to step in as ‘High Lord and Potentate’ and issue its so-called fatwa’s or to even dictate to the sovereign individuals and the sovereign States? The business of the State is just that, the business of the State. The federal government’s power is limited for a reason, the founders believed in the sovereign individual and the sovereign State.  Clearly, the federal government merely acts out of jealousy in its daily attempts to usurp what is not rightfully theirs as stated in the Law of the Land, the U. S. Constitution.

Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing…But this wolf comes as a wolf.

Antonin Scalia

Now that we have seen Justice Scalia beat up on Obama, I think it would be a good time to touch on him [Scalia] as a strong defender of the executive branch. In Morrison v. Olson Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “We should say here that the President’s constitutionally assigned duties include complete control over investigation and prosecutions of violations of the law, and that the inexorable command of Article II is clear and definite: the executive power must be vested in the President of the United States[x].” Clearly, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states the duties and power of the Executive Branch as separate from either the Legislative or Judicial Branches, as stated in Articles I and III respectively, and vice versa. Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion continues, “In my view…the Court’s conclusion must be wrong…One of the natural advantages the Constitution gave to the Presidency, just as it gave Members of Congress (and their staffs) the advantage of not being prosecutable for anything said or done in their legislative capacities…It is the very object of this legislation to eliminate that assurance of a sympathetic forum.” As executive privilege is a principle based on the constitutionally mandated separation of powers – the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches operate independently from one another. Private decision making with their advisors, in this case the independent council was the Assistant Attorney General Olson, has to be done without fear of ‘how something might look’ to either of the other branches of government. Unless a crime has been committed, no branch of government may frivolously impede the duties of the other branches of government. Especially when the aim is simply to destroy an elected leader’s ability to carry out the duties of his office through a so-called witch hunt or a fishing expedition which effectively renders the elected leader impotent without just cause, or simply to act as a device to destroy one’s political enemy. “The purpose of the separation and equilibration of powers in general, and of the unitary Executive in particular, was not merely to assure effective government but to preserve individual freedom.” This is a good example of Justice Scalia’s strong defense of the executive branch. But in doing so, Justice Scalia is actually defending all three separate branches of government and their duties as delineated in the U.S. Constitution. What strikes me as even more paramount than the defense of the Executive and the separation of powers (which is extremely important), is Justice Scalia’s believe that in doing so it is in the defense of the individual freedoms which are ultimately protected.

Lastly, we should take a look at Justice Scalia’s conservative ideology. If we go back to the 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Justice Scalia states, “I’m a law-and-order guy. I confess I’m a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases.” An example of Justice Scalia’s impartiality, in spite of his own personal beliefs, is in regard to flag-burners, “If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal wearing flag-burner into jail, but it was not up to me.” While that does sound conservative to me, it also sounds impartial. Justice Scalia clearly states his disdain for flag-burning and flag-burners, yet his opinion with regard to the law is flag-burners are protected under the U.S. Constitution. I’m not so certain I could be so fair-minded. It seems to me, flag-burners have plunged themselves into the depths of the multitudes of depraved individuals around the globe who constantly burn our flag, yet cry a river whenever the United States does something with which they do not agree. Of course, they claim they burn our flag because of our aggression, and while there may be a certain amount of truth to that statement, these people which I speak of live in a barbaric rat hole as a result of their own choosing, not ours. Their argument is disingenuous as well as fallacious.

The right to abortion is another issue with which we are all too familiar, based on the landmark case Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. – We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining[xi].” Whether someone is for or against abortion, it seems clear to me as it seems to be with Justice Scalia, nowhere within the U.S. Constitution does it state there is a right to abortion. However, I do believe as Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion states, this is a matter that should be left up to the States. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of the federal government’s attempts to destroy States rights. Has there been an amendment to the Constitution? The easy answer is no, but if that is the case, then why does the federal government feel they have the right to enact a national law without going through the cumbersome amendment process to the U.S. Constitution? If a State or the people of a State enact a law which either affirms or denies the right to have an abortion through State law, the individual on either side is not held against their will in that State. They have the freedom and the right to leave and seek out their liberty in another State where the people of that State have beliefs which are more in keeping with their own set of beliefs. But to have a national law foisted upon us all with the misguided attempt at appeasement for some, completely disregards the others. Not to mention the fact that such an idea is completely foreign to the U.S. Constitution.

I would conclude by stating Justice Scalia is not only a fantastic jurist, but an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. This man has a clear grasp of the law and an understanding of the U.S. Constitution which is unparalleled. I happen to like the fact that he adheres to the public meaning of text in his interpretation of the statutes and how he sticks to what the founding fathers said and what the words meant to them regarding the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Justice Scalia’s belief that the idea of a living constitution is in reality a dead constitution is an honorable defense of the U.S. Constitution. His belief that his duty is to defend an enduring Constitution speaks volumes about this man. Justice Scalia’s defense of the sovereign State in the face of Executive, Congressional and Judicial malfeasance is also quite noteworthy. To protect the sovereign State is to protect the sovereign individual and it would appear as though Justice Scalia is a staunch supporter of both. As I have already stated, he defends the Constitution, but he also does this by affirming there is a clear separation of power between the three branches of government as stated in the Constitution. His conservative leanings don’t seem to sway his opinions or impartiality with regard to any case. And his opinions in general are quite interesting to read. Justice Scalia shows up for work each day fully prepared to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I cannot imagine why so many people hate this man, unless of course, it is because they hate the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Scalia is in many ways like Socrates, he questions and reproves, he educates and he enlightens. While in his interview with Ms Stahl he stated, “I was never cool,” I would have to disagree with him on that point. I personally believe Justice Scalia is in fact very cool, I might even go so far as to say he is a role model for decent and honorable men and not just young lawyers who someday wish to sit on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia is an example of a man who leads by example. If we had more like him on the Supreme Court, it’s possible our nation wouldn’t hit the nail right on our thumb quite so often.

If you think aficionados of a living constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens to enact it. That’s flexibility.

Antonin Scalia[xii]

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

References

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.

Thomas Jefferson[i]

Has our Legislative branch of government become a mere legislature for the legislators? The only time either side of the aisle seems to be in agreement is when they legislate for themselves. Of course in regard to partisan politics the results are more egregious. But when it comes to the people of the United States, or in the larger sense, the United States itself as the people are the United States, the Legislative branch of government appears to be absent. Why is this the case? If you consider the fact that elected officials are supposed to serve the people, then why is it that they only tend to serve themselves? And how does this happen? To make matters even worse, it’s not just the Congress, it is our government officials at every level; Governors, Mayors, City Councils, you name it. While I’ll never understand how these degenerates get elected in the first place, I absolutely will never understand how they continue to get re-elected over and over again. These are the questions which will be the focus of this treatise and I believe the answers will shed light on an unfortunate, but very real set of facts; the Legislative branch of government or any type of legislator in general, only serves itself.

Illinois is a good example of the self-serving politician. In a 6 March 2012 report, “Just a week after Democratic Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois gave his State of the State address in which he announced massive cuts throughout the system due to the state being broke, the governor and other lawmakers have given themselves a pay raise[ii].” The truth is the U.S. Congress has been at this for quite some time. An article by Robert Longley reports, “For the fifth year in a row, lawmakers voted not to reject their automatic “cost of living” raise that will increase the annual salary of members by $3,400 to a total of $158,103 per year[iii].” Mr. Longley continues, “In 1989, Congress passed an amendment allowing for the automatic raises.” The report also states, “The fiscal year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Department Appropriations bill included Congress’ 2.2 percent pay raise.” It’s no wonder so many people look down on our elected leaders, these politicians only vote for themselves, and they do it time and time again. When the States, the nation and the people are broke, only the most shameless bunch of self centered frauds the United States has to offer would actually vote for automatic pay raises and accept them. Of course their childish, petty and partisan bickering must entitle them to these raises, because they accomplish nothing else. The Congress can’t even follow the U.S. Constitution as stated in Article I, Section 8. For proof of that I will cite two wars, one which is still ongoing, Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Congress was too cowardly to even Declare War, but they did allow them to last for a decade and even longer in the case of Afghanistan which is still ongoing. This is a perfect example of politicians thumbing their noses at the people.

This same obnoxious behavior by politicians happens at every level. I came across a letter to the editor for Cumberland County Voices in New Jersey. The letter starts out, “Our city government is underpaid for the hours of service they perform. Sitting for hours at a time puts a tremendous amount of stress on their decision-making muscle. Yes, this group has the nerve to take a 42 percent pay raise[iv].” The letter goes on to state, “They [the city council] want it retroactive…They even had the unmitigated gall to attach their raise to the salary schedule for city employees, so if it does not pass the city employees will have to wait for their raises, too.” The individual who is being talked about is the Mayor of Bridgeton New Jersey, James B. Begley. Apparently this man is the least visible Mayor in history and really only wants to secure pay raises for him and his fellow crooked city politicians, without actually working. That seems about right for a politician. Begley proves you don’t have to be in the House or the Senate to be a crooked politician. You don’t even have to be governor! Just a pathetic little city mayor, in a town where violence runs rampant throughout the streets and the mayor can only seem to secure himself a 42% pay increase! But I guess he’s been in office for about 20 years, so that tells you something about the voters. My suggestion would be getting Begley out of office and never vote him back in under any circumstance.

I saw an interesting article on the Yellow Hammer Politics web-site. Apparently, not surprisingly, there is a very self-serving Democratic Alabama Senator named Roger Bedford. This man was “The architect of the 2007 pay raise.” The report states, “In 2007, in some dark crevice of the Alabama State House, Democrat legislators hatched a plan to give themselves a 62-percent pay raise. With the next election still several years away, they figured that while the voters may be upset initially, they would have plenty of time to forget about this inexplicable violation of public trust. They were wrong[v].” Apparently, the people of Alabama didn’t take a shine to this sort of behavior. What eventually happened was, in April of 2012 the Alabama House passed a bill repealing the 62% pay increase, “And passed enabling legislation that will place a constitutional amendment on the ballot which will provide voters with control over legislative pay.” The idea behind this GOP push in the Alabama House was to make certain this could never happen again; voters would control pay raises for their State legislature. The Alabama Senate attempted to follow suit, but Senator Bedford “Jumped into action offering amendment after amendment in a death-by-a-million-paper-cuts strategy…his amendments allowed the legislature to retain control over legislative pay rather than giving that power back to the voters – which is the true spirit of the GOP’s plan.” This is a perfect example of politicians serving themselves. Even when there are some members who wish to do the right thing, the self-serving leaches somehow are able to maintain their advantage. What strikes me as funny is this so-called Senator, Roger Bedford, who is obviously an enemy of the people of State of Alabama, is able to walk free. Bedford is a public servant, but he is only serving himself. Why is this man not in a prison cell? The reason, is because the people of the State of Alabama allow this to happen (just as we all do). Fortunately, the fight isn’t over, “I’ve withstood as much hypocrisy as I can for one day,” Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh stated, “What came out today was a monstrosity that we want to correct in conference committee.” I wish the people of the Great State of Alabama luck with their endeavor.

Of course, legislators who give themselves pay raises need even more. According to a Washington Post analysis, “One hundred-thirty members of Congress or their families have traded stocks collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars in companies lobbying on bills that came before their committees, a practice that is permitted under current ethics rules[vi].” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines ethics, “The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values; the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group; a guiding philosophy; a consciousness of moral importance; a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness)[vii].” It would appear as though members of Congress believe their moral duty, obligation and guiding philosophy is to amass as much wealth as possible while in office. I had to laugh when I read, “The Post analysis does not provide evidence of insider trading, which requires showing that Lawmakers knowingly used confidential information to make trades benefitting themselves.” The article only stated that this, “Raise[d] questions about potential conflicts and illustrate[s] the weaker standard that Congress applies to itself.” Fortunately, Martha Stewart wasn’t a lawmaker or the government wouldn’t have been able to throw her in prison for five months for lying about dumping ImClone stock before the price plunged. Yet the Washington Post article states, “Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) sold between $50,000 and $100,000 in General Electric stock shortly before a republican filibuster killed legislation sought by the company.” What strikes me as funny about this is, politicians are the biggest liars on the planet, so why go after Stewart? The Post analysis did state an interesting fact, “Almost one in every eight trades – 5,531 – intersected with legislation…The party affiliation of the lawmakers was almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, 68 to 62.” It’s good to know there is a little bipartisanship in Washington. That being said, this is still the worst type of so-called leadership; it’s self-serving and arrogant to say the least.

Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.

Samuel Adams[viii]

But legislators have even more unscrupulous ways to make money. Fox News reported on a deal made by former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, “In February 2004, Hastert…through a trust…bought up 69 acres of land that adjoined his farm…transferred an additional 69 acres from his farm into the trust…Two months later, Congress passed a spending bill into which Hastert inserted a $207 million earmark…in August 2005..Hastert and his partners flipped the land for what appeared to be a multi-million dollar profit[ix].” The Fox documentary which was called ‘Porked: Earmarks for Profit’ named other wastes of taxpayer money which benefitted politicians and their families, “A $223 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, a $500,000 teapot museum in North Carolina, a $10 million extension to Coconut Road in Florida.” Personally, I think these ‘pigs’ are already fat enough and don’t need our taxpayer money to fill their troughs or to line their already golden pockets.

Of course there is more. Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington State is also crooked, according to the Seattle Weekly, “In 2008, Dicks, as an appropriations chairman, secured a $1.82 million earmark for a Washington State environmental agency where his son worked as executive director…the congressman also sent $15 million to the Environmental Protection Agency, which gave the funds in noncompetitive grants to his son’s agency, the Puget sound Partnership[x].” I cannot believe we allow our money, our tax dollars to be siphoned from our bank accounts only to fuel the engines of the depraved, so-called leaders who have absolutely no shame or honor. These are just a few examples; I could easily go on with many more examples. If an individual citizen (who wasn’t related to a politician) did this, then I have no doubt there would be jail time involved. Is it a surprise our legislators continue to increase their wealth, but we continue to get closer to poverty? But the truth is once again, when it’s connected to an elected legislator, we can see how they are given (or give themselves) carte blanche to do as they please. Where does the service to your constituents or to your country fit into this type of leadership?

I think now is a good time to take a look at one of our elected legislators and see just what we uncover. Let’s look at Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who according to Citizens for Ethics states, “Her ethics issues stem from the exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son. Rep. Waters’ family has earned a total of more than $1 million in the last eight years through business dealings with companies and issue organizations Rep. Waters has assisted[xi].” Among the organizations are, “L.A. Vote, the African American Committee 2000, the firm of Siebert, Brandford and Shank, and the Chester Washington Golf Course. It would appear that Rep. Waters believes her position in the House of Representatives entitles her to make backroom deals which benefit her family to the sum of $1 million. This is actually a perfect example of how politicians in the U.S. get rich on our taxpayer money. The report states, “Of the $1.7 million collected by L.A. Vote over the past 8 years…$450,000 has gone to Karen Waters and her consulting firm, Progressive Connections, and $115,000 to Rep. Waters’ son, Edward.” The report also notes, “Karen Waters also has collected $20,000 from…African American Committee 2000 & Beyond…Many corporations and organizations seeking to win Rep. Waters’ favor have donated…The non-profit has used this money to pay for parties hosted by Rep. Waters at the Democratic national conventions. Sponsors…include Fannie Mae.” Apparently, Rep. Waters believes non-profits exist to fill the bank accounts of her family members for her favors as a member of the House. Rep. Waters and her children weren’t the only beneficiaries, “Rep. Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams…working as a part-time consultant for…Siebert, Brandford and Shank…collected close to $500,000 by  making valuable introductions for Siebert to politicians who have received his wife’s support.” The report gives an example, Waters “Guaranteed a $10 million loan from the Department of Housing and Urban Development…to handle a $40 million school bond sale, they chose Siebert. Mr. Williams earned $54,000 in commission from the deal.” A $500,000 payout for a part-time consulting job, that’s a pretty sweet deal. Of course as we all know, ordinary Americans work for peanuts and allow these criminals to ‘govern.’ And then there was the Chester Washington Golf Course, “Waters’ son, Edward Waters…her husband Sidney Williams…won a 20 year lease to run the county-owned Chester Washington Golf Course in South Los Angeles. The key decision-maker for the deal was County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke…Rep. Waters handed the County Supervisor a victory just several months earlier…Mr. Williams and Mr. Waters earned between $140,000 and $400,000 through the golf venture.” It really does pay to go into politics, especially if you are Rep. Maxine Waters or one of her family members.

I should mention, the report also states, “Rule 23 of the House Ethics Manual requires all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects credibility on the House.”” I’m guessing that House Ethics Manual has collected a lot of dust over the years.

Before I move on I would like to mention one more item in the CREW report, “5 CFR §2635.702(a)…An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person…to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a non-governmental capacity.”

How can I put this? It is blatantly obvious that Rep. Maxine Waters did everything she wasn’t supposed to do with regard to her position in the House of Representatives. As we all know, Maxine Waters hasn’t been charged, tried or convicted with regard to any of the above offences. If you are asking yourselves why, the answer is quite simple. Our elected so-called leaders are nothing more than a gang of unethical, self-serving criminals who are above the law. But I urge each and every one of you, don’t get caught smoking a joint on the street, because you will go directly to jail. Are any of you starting to see the problem here? It’s really quite simple as demonstrated by Maxine Waters; the legislators only legislate for benefit of themselves, their families and their confederates.

Let’s take a look at how our legislators spend our money. We have already seen how Governor Pat Quinn, Mayor James Begley, Senator Roger Bedford, Representative Ed Whitfield, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, House Appropriations Chairman Norm Dick and Representative Maxine Waters serve themselves and their families. But there are more.

I think the place to wind this up is Solyndra. In a report from The Center for Public Integrity, “Time and again, the government handed breaks to Solyndra Inc.; an upstart California solar panel firm backed by a major supporter of the president…benefits flowed from Washington despite warning signs that the government’s $535 million investment was a risky bet, at best[xii].” First I must say, it wasn’t the government’s $535 million, it belonged to the people of the United States, the taxpayers who got fleeced. A major backer of Obama, in this case “George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who raised at least $50,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign and is a frequent visitor to the White House,” received over a half a billion taxpayer dollars for his efforts. I can’t blame Kaiser, if I thought I could give $50,000 for over 10,000 times that amount in return, I suppose I would. The report went on to state, “The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations escalated its examination of DOE spending by focusing on Solyndra.” Of course, it is the Congress who holds the purse-strings in the United States. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[xiii].” So it would appear the Congress was in fact involved just as much as Obama with giving $535 million in taxpayer money to Solyndra. The result was 1,100 employees got fired in the end; that’s a little over a $486,000 investment for each employee to have a job. Solyndra as we all know went bankrupt and the company has been shut down. But I believe this is a perfect example of the short-sightedness of our government. From the top down, both the President and Congress are fools and crooks. What the taxpayers get in return is a U-6 unemployment rate of about 15% according to Portal Seven[xiv], and as of 28 August 2012, according to Ed Hall a national debt of $15,988,985,503,358.85[xv].

It’s fitting that Mars (Nimrod) guards the entrance to the U.S. Capitol Building as our legislators spew gibberish out of their mouths whenever they speak. It’s also fitting Persephone; the Queen of the Underworld (Semiramis) sits atop the U.S. Capitol Building looking down upon us, as our legislators by all appearances look down upon us as mere fodder for their arsenal of evil misdeeds. Our forefathers believed in service to the people, the State and to the nation. Now our elected officials, the so-called leaders of our nation, have elevated a self-serving and egocentric way of life and quasi-form of governance and/or leadership to new highs, which effectively, have left the people of this nation in a position of servitude and poverty. Service to the people is a spectre; it no longer exists. It really makes you proud to be an American when you see how our elected leaders behave. Nepotism, cronyism, unethical behavior at every turn, self-serving criminal attitudes and actions; these are what the people of the United States receive from their elected officials. And in return, we continue to re-elect the same set of reprobates so they can continue to serve themselves.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

James Madison[xvi]

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com/ 

References

I’m saying that when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal!

Richard Milhous Nixon

It has been said that a nation can be judged by the way it treats foreigners within its borders. But more importantly, a nation can and should be judged by its elected leaders and their actions. I intend to go through approximately fifty years of elected quasi-leaders known as President of the United States and examine their actions. The side of the aisle which they align themselves with is irrelevant. Partisan politics will take no part in this discussion. A simple evaluation of the conduct, policies and/or actions of these individuals should suffice. But I must state ahead of time, I will dwell on the bad and not the good; the good actions of a leader are by far outweighed by the bad. Our leaders, in this case the President of the United States, should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the population. If a leader acts in a corrupt or malevolent fashion, then this is where the focus will be directed. I believe this should actually prove to be quite interesting. Their leadership skills or lack thereof will be bared for all to see and I believe this will show what type of man each president was. Below is the list of these men starting with Johnson and ending with Obama and their dates of service. Please note: Ford was never elected President of the United States, so I will bypass the time between 9 August 1974 and 20 January 1977.

• Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36^th President; 22 November 1963 to 20 January 1969. Elected to one term and assumed presidency after the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy on 22 November 1963.
• Richard Milhous Nixon, 37^th President; 20 January 1969 to 8 August 1974. Elected to two terms and the only president to resign the office. On 27 July 1974 the House Judiciary Committee passed the first 3 articles of impeachment against Nixon and he faced almost certain impeachment by the Senate and removal from office. Nixon’s resignation speech was on 8 August 1974 and he vacated the Office of President on 9 August 1974. Nixon was later pardoned by President Ford on 8 September 1974.
• Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. (born Leslie Lynch King, Jr.), 38^th President; 9 August 1974 to 20 January 1977. Never elected President or Vice President of the United States. Nominated in October 1973 for the office of Vice President after the resignation of V.P. Spiro Agnew and was confirmed by the Senate 27 November and by the House on 6 December 1973 and took the Oath that day. Ford assumed the Presidency on 9 August 1974 after Nixon resigned.
• James Earl Carter, Jr., 39^th President; 20 January 1977 to 20 January 1981. Elected to one term.
• Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40^th President; 20 January 1981 to 20 January 1989. Elected to two terms and survived an assassination attempt on 30 March 1981.
• George Herbert Walker Bush, 41^st President; 20 January 1989 to 20 January 1993. Elected to one term.
• William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III), 42^nd President; 20 January 1993 to 20 January 2001. Elected to two terms and was impeached on 19 December 1998 by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate on 12 February 1999.
• George Walker Bush, 43^rd President; 20 January 2001 to 20 January 2009. Elected to two terms.
• Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, 44^th President; 20 January 2009 to present. Elected.

Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently, and all for the same reason.

José Maria de Eça de Queiroz

Let’s start with Johnson a Texas Democrat and his involvement in the Suite 8F Group; a right wing political activist group which was concerned with their ability to secure and maintain massive profits in the oil, reconstruction and armaments industries, amongst others. According to Spartacus Educational, “Several…Texas politicians became involved in the Suite 8F Group, a collection of right-wing businessmen.” A quick laundry list of the members of this group included Brown & Root, chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, American General Insurance Company, Cameron Iron Works, Quintana Petroleum, the Governor of Texas (who was also the owner of the Houston Post), Great Southern Life Insurance, Pure Oil Pipe Line, Humble Oil, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Majority Leader of the Senate (Lyndon Johnson) and other Texas politicians and lawyers. “Suite 8F helped to coordinate the political activities of other right-wing politicians and businessmen based in the South.” This list included but is not limited to the Secretary of the Navy and Treasury, Bell Helicopters, chairman of the Committee of Manufacturers, Committee on Armed Forces and Committee on Appropriations, Chairman Judiciary Committee, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, political lobbyists as well as Oil and Gas Companies. The report goes on to state, “The discovery of oil in Texas made a small group of men a great deal of money. They decided to join together to maintain profits. This included strategies for keeping the price of oil as high as possible.” These companies and men did indeed maintain profits. If you look at the companies themselves as well as the individuals involved, what you will find is an inappropriate relationship between government and private businesses in which contracts were awarded over a period of time spanning decades. This is a perfect example of cronyism designed to bilk the U.S. taxpayers out of money and transfer that money into the pockets of an incestuous cabal of criminals and criminal organizations who appearance seems to be above the law.

So it would appear that government officials and private businesses joined forces to form their own little monopoly, fix prices, secure contracts and amass great sums of wealth. This is a part of the U.S. Constitution I must have glazed over, because I don’t remember reading that anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The report by Spartacus Educational goes on to name companies and individuals who decided where tax dollars were spent, who acquired contracts and how Johnson set up the committee to investigate lobbying in this area. Interestingly enough, not all politicians were in favor of this type of behavior. Dwight D. Eisenhower apparently wrote in his diary and called this immoral lobbying, “The most flagrant type of lobbying,” and called those involved “So arrogant and so much in defiance of acceptable standards of propriety as to risk creating doubt among the American people concerning the integrity of governmental processes.” Of course none of this actually ended even after the scandal with General Dynamics in 1963 over the $7 billion contract for a fighter jet, Johnson simply got in bed with a Standard Oil Company heiress by selecting her husband Paul Nitze as Navy Secretary. If you look at Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War, his cronies were beneficiaries of contracts and they did make huge sums of money. These companies included the newly formed “RMK-BRJ to obtain these contracts…RMK-BRJ did 97% of the construction work in Vietnam…Brown & Root (Halliburton) alone obtained revenues of $380 million from its work in Vietnam.” And of course let’s not forget about Bell Helicopter, “By 1969 Bell Helicopter Corporation was selling nearly $600 million worth of helicopters to the United States Military.”

By all appearances, Johnson’s involvement in the Viet Nam War cost over 58,000 men their lives and wounded another 153,000 plus men and all for the sole purpose of lining the coffers of certain companies which were involved with Suite 8F. Just how the American public allowed this is beyond me. I do realize there was a great deal of protesting against the war and the government for these shady dealings, but this type of governmental behavior has not been stopped. Johnson should have been in a prison cell long before he became president, he was one of the biggest crooks in the history of the United States government in general, not to mention in the White House.

I really don’t think I need to continue with President Lyndon Baines Johnson. The evidence clearly shows how President Johnson used his power from long before his presidency and during his administration to aggrandize his own wealth and the wealth of his accomplices. Johnson is a perfect example of abject greed and a self-serving political leader whose main concern was only to his bank account and to the bank accounts of his confederates, and not the people of the nation which he was supposed to serve. Johnson was the epitome of greed and cronyism, and a disgusting example of a politician and a president. What really strikes me as funny is, President Johnson actually stood to gain the most from the assassination of President Kennedy and he in fact did! But people just don’t want to talk about that. Conclusion: Johnson was an extremely self-serving, corrupt politician whose behavior was criminal.

We now move on to Nixon a California Republican and the only man to resign the presidency of the United States. The logical place to start would be with the Watergate scandal, but I believe we should start with the Huston Plan instead. While the Huston Plan was never actually initiated, it was implemented by government agencies. What the White House wanted was, “A thorough coordination of all American intelligence agencies; he [Nixon] wanted to know what the links were between foreign groups – al-Fatah; the Arab terrorists; the Algerian subsidy center – and domestic street turbulence.” The committee which was formed had J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI as the Chairman, “The committee report confronted the issue…and it laid out a number of other “further steps,” many of which were illegal. The report recommended increasing wiretapping, and microphone surveillance of radicals – relaxing restrictions on mail covers and mail intercepts; carrying out selective break-ins against domestic radicals and organizations; lifting age restrictions on FBI campus informants; and broadening NSA’s intercepts of the international communications of American citizens.” According to GlobalSecurity.org, “The president sent word back to Huston, through Haldeman, of his approval, but did not initiate any paperwork.” This could be one instance where Nixon lived up to his nickname ‘Tricky Dicky.’ Nixon did verbally implement the plan through Haldeman to Tom Huston who had the task of implementation, but Nixon didn’t leave a paper trail. Hoover wouldn’t act on this unless the A.G., Mitchell put the order in writing. The report went on to state, “Ultimately, the president voided the plan, but not before NSA had become directly involved in the seamier side of life.” While it is understandable the Nixon administration wanted information on terrorist groups such as ‘The Weathermen’ and ‘al Fatah,’ by not following the procedures for obtaining a court order for wiretaps or search warrants, and by attempting to have the NSA target and secure U.S. national’s communications and disseminate the intelligence to other agencies was a clear violation of the law. Even though the plan was scrapped, “Four days before it was due, plans had gone to the directors of the FBI, CIA, DIA and the NSA.” The Huston Plan was, “Placed in a White House safe…became public in 1973…and uncovered… evidence that Nixon had ordered the NSA to illegally monitor American citizens.” This obviously led to Nixon’s downfall. His statement, “I’m not a crook” is a perfect example of a political leader who was in denial and thinking he was above the law and not bound by any sense of moral decency.

Let’s move on the Watergate scandal. According to Wikipedia, “The Watergate burglaries, which took place on May 28 and June 17, 1972, were the focus of the Watergate scandal.” This scandal was the result of, “The arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate complex.” The FBI was able to connect, “Cash found on the burglars to a slush fund used by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President.” An investigation by the Senate Watergate Committee later found Nixon had been recording conversations in the Oval Office, “Recordings from these tapes implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up the break-in.” The report further states, “Liddy’s team placed wiretaps on the telephones on the DNC Chairman Lawrence O’Brien and Executive Director of Democratic States’ Chairman R. Spencer Oliver, Jr.”  Subsequently, seven men were indicted, “For conspiracy, burglary, and violation of Federal wiretapping laws.” While there is much more to this scandal, Nixon was also recording conversations in the Cabinet Room as well as other offices, plus his own private office in the Old Executive Office Building. According to a Washington Post article, “Transcripts from a telephone conversation released show President Richard M. Nixon jokingly threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on Capitol Hill in March 1974 as Congress was moving to impeach him.” I can only imagine what would happen if a citizen of this nation ‘jokingly threatened to nuke Capitol Hill or any other location within the United States.’ Break-ins, pay-offs, recording private conversations and cover-ups are not the acts of an honest man and definitely not the acts of an honest President. There is no point continuing with Nixon. While his operatives called their spying on the Democrats Ratf_cking, I think we can all see who the real Ratf_ck was; Nixon.

Apparently, Nixon believed and acted as though he was above the law. Threatening the nation’s capitol with a nuclear device (whether jokingly or not) is treasonous behavior. Ordering the burglaries and illegal wiretaps of the Democrats offices was criminal, as was his involvement in the conspiracy as was his order to spy on sovereign U.S. citizens. All of this shows Nixon had a complete lack of moral fiber as well as a corrupt and paranoid mind. Nixon may have stated, “I am not a crook,” but his being a crook was Nixon’s legacy to himself and to the United States of America. Richard M. Nixon not only disgraced himself, but he disgraced the nation and the office of the President. Conclusion: Nixon was a deceptive manipulator whose criminal and corrupt behavior was a disgrace to the nation.

The word ‘politics’ is derived from the word ‘poly,’ meaning ‘many,’ and the word ‘ticks,’ meaning ‘blood sucking parasites.’

Larry Hardiman

Next is Carter a Georgia Democrat who is considered to be the hero of the Camp David Accords, a so-called peace accord for the Middle East between Egypt and Israel in 1978. Carter is portrayed as the champion of the peace treaty in that region, but oddly enough, peace never really happened. Carter completely overlooked the al-Fatah massacre of 37 Israeli civilians, and allowed Arafat and his PLO to find safe-haven in northern Beirut. On the 29^th of September 1977, Carter had a press conference where he spoke about the PLO, “It’s obvious to me that there can be no Middle Eastern peace settlement without adequate Palestinian representation…” A question later in the interview had to do with the assurances given to the PLO, Carter stated, “If they accept…the right of Israel to exist, then we will begin discussions with the leaders of the PLO.” Of course the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ took place on 11 March 1978 after the press conference where Carter stated the PLO must accept the right of Israel to exist. So, on one hand, Carter the Nobel Peace Prize (2002) winning champion of peace, was the famed intermediary between Egypt and Israel, but he was willing to overlook the slaughter of Israeli civilians as long as the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist. How disingenuous political leaders can be when they unequivocally state one thing and completely disregard that same thing at a later date, but later take credit for being a so-called champion of peace and détente.

On 4 November 1979, Iranian terrorists who called themselves ‘Imam’s Disciples’ raided sovereign U.S. territory known as the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. After women, blacks and other individuals (due to illness) were released, 50 U.S. citizens and diplomats, “Remained imprisoned for 444 days.” (Note: there is some debate as to whether there were 50 or 52 hostages in the end, but for the purpose of this paper it is irrelevant). According to u-s-history.com, Carter’s original response was, “Economic sanctions…diplomatic pressure…cancelled oil imports…he expelled a number of Iranians…followed by freezing about $8 billion of Iranian assets in the U.S.” In late April, Carter’s failed plan dubbed “Eagle Claw” ended almost as soon as it began, “The aftermath, as Iranians eventually found and mockingly paraded the wreckage on worldwide television, was total humiliation for the United States.” While it would appear as though Jimmy Carter was the champion of Arabs, Palestinians and Iranians, he certainly wasn’t the champion of the Americans or Israelis. Neither President Carter nor the Congress acted in an honorable fashion with regard to this ‘Act of War.’ I personally believe Carter violated Article II, Section 1 by not defending and protecting the U.S. Constitution and I believe Congress violated Article I, Section 8 by not defending the United States against foreign aggression. I cannot understand why an individual with these lack-of credentials was ever awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, much less elected President of the United States.

I believe we cannot end our discussion of President Carter without mentioning the disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor. On March 28, 1979 a meltdown occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania near Middletown. The official story was, “The most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.” Supposed studies from the NRC, EPA, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Department of Energy, the State of Pennsylvania and several independent sources stated, “Estimates are that the average dose…in the area was only about 1 millirem…exposure from a chest x-ray is about 6 millirem…the natural background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose…at the site boundary would have been less than100 millirem.” This is according to the NRC. Their conclusion regarding the health effects was the meltdown had, “Negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.” This of course is the ‘Official’ story which the U.S. government stood by at the time and continues to stand by to this date.

According to The Institute for Southern Studies, Randall Thompson a health physics technician who was hired to monitor radiation releases (and did for 28 days at TMI) stated, “What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported…Hundreds of times worse.” Thompson and his wife, who both worked in the same capacity at TMI reported, “What they witnessed there was a public health tragedy. The Thompsons also warn that the government’s failure to acknowledge the full scope of the disaster is leading officials to underestimate the risks posed by a new generation of nuclear power plants.” These statements by the Thompsons are in direct contradiction to the official story from the Carter Administration, the U.S. government in general and the NRC. The report also gives Thompson’s background, “A veteran of the U.S. Navy’s nuclear submarine program, he is a self-described “nuclear geek.”” This doesn’t sound like the type of individual who has an axe to grind, as the United States has the finest nuclear Navy and the best sailors the world will ever know. This being said, Mr. Thompson doesn’t sound like the type of individual who would say, “Radiation releases from the plant were hundreds if not thousands of times higher than the government and industry have acknowledged -- high enough to cause the acute health effects…that have been dismissed by the industry and the government as impossible.” The government’s failure in this case (and all other cases) leads directly to the so-called leader of the nation, the Commander in Chief, also known as the President of the United States. Clearly the President, in this case Carter, didn’t deem it necessary to protect the citizens of Pennsylvania or the surrounding areas, but found it more important to maintain a misguided government and business stratagem to promote and maintain the civilian nuclear industry at any cost.

A number of interviews were taken from people in the area who suffered and can be found in Three Mile Island Alert, Three Mile Island: The People’s Testament as well as other online reading material which can be found in PDF form at PDF Search Books.

I would also like to mention a notarized statement from Jane Rickover, Admiral Rickover’s daughter-in-law, which can be found at radical.org which states, “In May, 1983, my father-in-law, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover told me that at the time of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, a full report was commissioned by President Jimmy Carter. He [my father-in-law] said that the report, if published in its entirety, would have destroyed the civilian nuclear power industry because the accident at Three Mile Island was infinitely more dangerous than was ever made public. He told me that he had used his enormous personal influence with President Carter to persuade him to publish the report in a “highly” diluted form. The President himself had originally wished the full report to be made public. - In November, 1985, my father-in-law told me that he had come to deeply regret his action in persuading President Carter to suppress the most alarming aspects of that report.”

While President Carter’s conscience may have been urging him to fully disclose the information people needed, he allowed himself to do the wrong thing and keep vital information from the American public; that isn’t leadership, it is cowardice and incompetence. Personally speaking, this sounds like just one more example of a government cover-up aimed at protecting the politicians we call leaders and their pet projects. A compelling article about Jimmy Carter on Seeker Blog states 7 words which sum up Jimmy Carter, “President Carter’s exaggeration of his nuclear experience…” While I will admit President Carter is a good diplomat as far as bringing two disparate sides together for talks, President Carter’s actions as President of the United States was that of an utter incompetent. Carter persuaded Israel to make a pact with the Devil. Carter also cozied-up to Yasser Arafat; the little horn and he ignored the slaughter of Israeli citizens. By all appearances, I would state Carter is wholeheartedly anti-Semitic. He utterly botched the Iran hostage crisis; his cowardice allowed the United States to be attacked without reprisal. And Carter spinelessly covered-up the disastrous Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. Conclusion: Carter was an incompetent and cowardly example of a president. His inaction and deception reek of corruption and malfeasance.

We now move on to Reagan a California Republican. Unfortunately, I cannot and should not proceed with Reagan without including George H. W. Bush a Massachusetts born Texas Republican at the same time. Reagan was a great orator (and I would like to add, I met him, I spoke with him and I liked him), but he was really nothing more than a puppet for V.P. Bush, who was a former Director of the CIA, amongst his other accomplishments.

We’ll start with the 1980 campaign for the Presidency. According to a report by History Commons, “Robert Sensi, a young CIA agent with excellent contacts among prominent Arabs, the Republican National Committee opens what Sensi calls “a secret channel to Iran.” Sensi is not only alluding to the secret plans to sell arms to Iran…but to the “October Surprise” of the November 1980 US presidential elections.” Both of these events have Reagan’s Vice Presidential Candidates fingers all over them; George Herbert Walker Bush. So the CIA and the U.S. State Department, working with the Israelis tried to persuade Carter to sell arms to Iran for consideration (release of the hostages), but Carter wouldn’t sell Iran arms. Israel on the other hand, probably at the behest of the CIA and the U.S. State Department, did sell arms to Iran. The report further states, “Salem bin Laden, Osama’s eldest brother …is involved in secret Paris meetings between US and Iranian emissaries…and some have speculated that in these meetings, George H.W. Bush negotiated a delay to the release of the US hostages in Iran.” I’m obliged to note from the report, this “Points to a long-standing connection of highly improper behavior between the Bush and bin Laden families.” This connection becomes even more apparent when Bush 41’s son, “George W. Bush cleared the bin Laden’s to fly out of the United States” right after the September 11, 2001 attacks which were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. The report further states, “Sensi will note that CIA Director William Casey has been involved in the US’s secret dealings with Iran since the outset, as has Robert Carter, the deputy director of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign.” And to top all of this off, Sensi’s organization Republicans Abroad gave them access to U.S. Embassies and the CIA (not that Bush 41 didn’t have access) which was capable of “conducting espionage and sabotage for the Republican Party.” Where have we heard this before? This is Watergate part II, or “Ratf_cking as the Republican operatives call it.”

It would appear as though Reagan was led by Bush 41 into a depraved world from the beginning of his campaign and as we will see, right through his two terms as President, which continues into the one term of President Bush 41. An hour after Reagan was sworn into office, the hostages were freed. If the French secret intelligence report was correct, then Reagan and Bush 41 were as dirty as could be. This is not implausible, as George H.W. Bush was the Director of the CIA at one point and he knew exactly how to get things done, especially dirty business. But there is the possibility the Iranians simply didn’t want to get blown completely off the map, which is what Carter should have done in the first place, but was too spineless to do. Even though the hostages in Iran were released, there were subsequent hostages in Lebanon. According to a PBS report the arms-for-hostages proposal was somewhat divisive. But, “Reagan, McFarlane and CIA Director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed.” The report goes on to state some interesting facts, “More than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released; only to be replaced by three more, in what Secretary of State George Schultz called “a hostage bazaar.”” Knowing this, it cannot be difficult to assume there in fact was a shady deal to secure the release of the Iranian hostages, just not until after Reagan took office. Backroom deals which prolong the imprisonment of Americans, is highly distasteful to say the least. The illegal sale of arms to an enemy which has attacked our sovereign nation and its citizens is criminal. The pay-offs to the terrorists in Lebanon was not only unfathomable but unconscionable and disgraceful.

As we have already seen, the U.S. was supplying arms to Iran, but according to many different reports, this one from Wikipedia, “Starting in 1982…the United States made its backing with Iraq more pronounced…supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.” Now the United States was funding both sides during the Iran-Iraq War. Was this a highly honorable thing to do? I will agree it is quite a plan to clandestinely supply both sides of a war, especially when you have an antagonistic history with each side! But these actions only diminish the stature of the United States and sully the reputation of its people. The promotion of war between two nations as a result of a misguided government foreign policy agenda can only be described as subversive and malevolent.

We should at least mention the arming of rebel groups such as the Mujahedeen in the 1980’s. Regarding foreign policy blunders according to the blog, Ottomans and Zionists, “The most prominent one was the effort to arm the Afghani mujahideen in the 1980’s in a bid to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan.” The report goes on to state, “Arming the mujahideen caused enormous blowback for the U.S., since the weapons supplied by the U.S. were ultimately turned on U.S. and NATO troops years later and the arms and training indirectly benefited al-Qaida and the Taliban down the road.” I can’t help but think this did more than just indirectly benefit al Qaeda and the Taliban. Osama bin Laden was in some way a protégé of the CIA and the U.S. State Department. We also know bin Laden was the head of al Qaeda. Just as we know the Bush family and the bin Laden family have longstanding ties. So I would agree this was in the least a foreign policy blunder to put it mildly.

Let’s move to the Republican National Convention in 1988, we all remember George H.W. Bush’s presidential nomination acceptance speech. But let’s cite Time.com, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” Of course, this didn’t last. The University of Virginia’s Miller Center states, “In June 1990, Bush issued a written statement to the press, reneging on his “no taxes” pledge made during the campaign.” Well, it’s not unusual for a politician to say one thing and then turn around and do another. Perhaps a pledge made to the American people didn’t mean much to Bush 41. But raising taxes when he pledged not to raise them is really nothing compared to his bailout of the Savings and Loans industry. “In February 1989, with many S&Ls failing, Bush proposed a plan to bailout the industry…that ended up costing the taxpayers more than $100 billion.” The Miller Center did state the reasoning for the failures of the S&Ls, “The federal and state governments had deregulated the industry in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s…the industry ventured into riskier investments that destabilized it.” Basically, the Bush administration and the Congress rewarded the S&L industry for malfeasance and incompetence. The ‘more than $100 billion’ it cost the taxpayers didn’t belong to the federal government or the S&L industry; it belonged to the people of the United States and was misappropriated. A bailout and a tax hike really aren’t any different; both come directly out of the pockets of the people who make this nation what it is. A report in the Enquirer Daily News states, “It will cost at least $306 billion over the next 33 years, according to a June 28 analysis by the General Accounting Office. Taxpayers will pay 51 percent, or $157 billion.” Eight years of Bush as the Vice President and a little over one year with him as the President cost the American people a great deal of wealth and increased the deficit even higher than in the Reagan years.

According to Wikipedia, during the Bush administration in the 1990’s, they “Paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones. Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.” Other information about Halliburton an its subsidiaries include, “In the early 1990s, Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya…After having pled guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another 2.61 million in penalties.” But there’s more, “During the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg-Brown Root (KBR) supported peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary…In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton; his son, former president George H.W. Bush, worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948 to 1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation.” You will notice that some of the same company names re-appear from where this paper started with Lyndon Johnson. I find this to be very incestuous. I also believe this is another egregious example of a political leader, aka a government official, lining the pockets of their confederates. It seems very odd that politicians should be believed when their seemingly subversive cronyism is so wide out in the open. How do we know, Bush didn’t invade Kuwait to support companies with which he is aligned? Or possibly further a foreign policy agenda which lines the pockets of companies with which they are affiliated? By the way, Bush’s company Zapata was funded by the Brown brothers of Brown & Root. Are any of you starting to see the connection from one president to the next here?

So what do we have? Both Reagan and Bush 41 were involved in illegal arms sales. They both used the CIA to further a presidential bid. Both men had an affiliation with the bin Laden family and a secret deal to prolong the imprisonment of U.S. citizens held in Tehran. And then there was training of the Mujahedeen with bin Laden as their golden boy. There were botched arms sales or pay-offs to al Fatah terrorists for the release of hostages which didn’t work. There was the clandestine and disgusting arming of two nations (Iran and Iraq) to fight in a war against each other. There was espionage and sabotage without Congressional approval. And there was either lying or just simply going back on campaign promises. There were the unbelievable and ineffectual bailouts of S&Ls (who acted and operated as banks), plus a massive increase in the deficit. And there was the awarding of contracts to companies with which at least Bush 41 was affiliated as well as his father and that dated back to Suite 8F, which was actually before Lyndon Johnson’s presidency.  And I didn’t even mention the U.S. Marines who were killed in Lebanon due to their lack of leadership skills. I should almost feel like laughing at this point, but this is just too sad for anything of that nature. Ronald Reagan conclusion: Reagan was a deceptive individual whose actions were corrupt. -- George H.W. Bush conclusion: Bush was a deceptively malevolent and corrupt politician whose actions were criminal.

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

Ronald Reagan

Now to Clinton a Democrat from Arkansas may be best known for his licentious sex acts with Monica Lewinsky, which is where I will start seeing as how I am already laughing. This information can be found at CNN Politics. In January of 1998, President Clinton denied having a sexual relationship (or any other type of affair or relationship for that matter) with Lewinsky, and in August of that same year, President Clinton did admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky. On December 12 of 1998 the House impeached Clinton for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. On February 12 of 1999 the Senate acquitted Clinton. Another timeline of the Clinton impeachment can be found at the Brooklyn College website. I must note: I felt compelled to enter this because Clinton was impeached, but I personally found this entire incident to be uncalled for and quite an embarrassment to the nation. However, President Clinton should have just told everyone to mind their own business from the beginning, rather than lying about the affair; lying under oath and lying to the American people. Both Clinton and Lewinsky were of age and free to do as they pleased. If anything, this was a matter for Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, not the entire world. Unfortunately, Clinton proved himself to be just a liar.

Now is a good time to talk about the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco Texas in 1993. According to the Free Dictionary by Farlex, “Approximately 80 Branch Davidians died, including their leader, 34-year old David Koresh. In all, 57 Davidians died in the fire, while 23 died from gunshot wounds. Of these dead, 17 were children, some of whom died from gunshot wounds and some in the fire. Eighteen children and 22 adults left the compound unharmed during the seven-week standoff.” A report from PBS stated, “On April 18, in a conversation with Reno, the President endorsed the gas plan. Although Clinton distanced himself from the matter after April 19…FRONTLINE has learned that Clinton apparently followed developments at Waco closely through some of his closest White House aides.” What we have is a President of the United States ordering a raid on a compound in the United States where 40 adults and 17 children were killed, and then the President had the audacity to try and distance himself the very next day. PBS FRONTLINE, which is not a partisan news organization, clearly stated they learned Clinton was closely kept abreast of the situation by his closest White House aides. Canada Free Press reports former advisor Dick Morris stated, “Bill Clinton orchestrated that takeover.” And then further reported, “Clinton in fact was so ashamed about what he did in Waco that he was not going to appoint Janet Reno to a second four year term.” Morris then gave information from a meeting with Reno before the inauguration day. Reno stated, “If you don’t appoint me I’m going to tell the truth about Waco.” Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris states on his web-site, “It was not anti-government rhetoric that inspired McVeigh…it was the action of the federal government during the Waco raid that incited him to violence…the attack on the Federal Office Building…on the anniversary of the Waco raid underscores the connection.” The only thing I didn’t find in the articles I read was the description of the entire incident described as a pathetic example of Clinton’s leadership. Of course there were the typical descriptions of Clinton as blameless and a mere by-stander plus the unfairness of the press. This is the second example I have given of why ‘Slick Willie’ got his nickname, but it’s a shame 80 American people, 17 which were children, had to be killed for no reason.

Clinton’s lies didn’t stop with Waco, according to Accuracy in Media, “President Clinton in his Chris Wallace interview…his claim that he was involved in “trying to stop genocide in Kosovo…” The report further states, “Clinton’s bombing…killed more people than died in this “genocide.” And his policy benefited Osama bin Laden and the global jihad.” And there is more, “The main beneficiary…a Muslim terrorist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), with links to bin Laden, who had declared war on America in 1996, bombed our embassies in Africa in 1998, and would later, of course, orchestrate 9/11.” Believe it or not, this actually gets even more interesting. Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer stated, “The Clinton Administration “had eight to ten chances” to kill bin Laden and “they refused to try…Clinton had a pro-Muslim foreign policy that actually benefited bin Laden and facilitated 9/11.” Now that’s what I call pathetic. And we haven’t even really touched on the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center or the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa, which were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. While it is true the Mujahedeen was originally trained during the Reagan/Bush administration to fight the Soviets, it would seem blatantly obvious the Clinton administration was also quite fond of Osama bin Laden. Why else would Clinton support the KLA to kill Serb Christians, or refuse to kill bin Laden when he had 8 to 10 chances? Once again, I find myself writing the word pathetic with regard to Bill Clinton.

Mogadishu Somalia in 1993 was another one of Clinton’s low moments. “An American soldier’s bound corpse being dragged through the streets…and a videotape of a captured US pilot appeared to mark the turning point yesterday for the U.S. intervention in Somalia.” The Guardian went on to report, “The gruesome parade was a jolting reminder…of the public mangling of US soldiers’ bodies in Iran…it also recalled the…bomb which killed 241 Marines in Beirut.” The Guardian further reported, “President Bill Clinton said…any mistreatment of the captured Americans would be viewed ‘very gravely.’” How comforting Clinton can be issuing such a pathetic statement like that after the Soldier’s corpses had already been dragged through the streets by cheering crowds and videotaped. Of course, true to Slick Willie’s nature he later “Has attempted to keep the worsening Somali nightmare at arm’s length.” This is another sad example of Clinton’s so-called leadership of distancing himself and doing nothing. But this is not a surprise considering Clinton was nothing more than a draft dodging war protester who really hated honorable men.

Two U.S. embassies were attacked in Africa, Mr. Ben Snowdon and Mr. David Johnson reported, “In 1998, the Clinton Administration demonstrated an atypical aggressive response towards terrorism after the assault on…U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were bombed by terrorists, leaving 258 people dead and more than 5,000 injured.” Both of these attacks were attacks on sovereign U.S. soil and both occurred during the Clinton Administration. Clinton’s response was, “The U.S. launched cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998, striking a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. Both targets were believed to have been financed by…Osama bin Laden.” According to a report in the National Security Archive, declassified documents, “Suggest the strikes not only failed to hurt Osama bin Laden but ultimately may have brought al-Qaeda and the Taliban closer politically and ideologically.” I can’t understand why such a sad little response was necessary. If military action was necessary, which I could have lived with, why not real targets? A so-called training facility and a drug factory (which was probably a milk factory) hardly seem like anything more than a waste of cruise missiles. But this is in keeping with Clinton’s façade. Slick Willie wasn’t trying to send a real message to the terrorists, he was attempting to make American’s believe he wasn’t limp wristed. A 400 page Sandia National Laboratories report stated, “In retrospect, it seems as if threat assessment personnel in Washington did not take the warning signs as seriously as did the embassy personnel in Nairobi.” Once again we see how the Clinton Administration fails to take threats to the security of the United States seriously. In fact, Clinton did more actual physical damage in Waco Texas than he did in Afghanistan or Sudan.

Let’s not forget about Clinton and the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. President Clinton stated, “We will pursue this. Those who did this must not go unpunished.” According to Crime Library, FBI Director Freeh stated, “Freeh expressed his frustrations and blamed President Clinton and his national security advisor Sandy Berger for having “no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers.” FBI Director Freeh stated later in the article, “The Clinton administration feared that “Congress, and ordinary Americans, would find out that Iran murdered our soldiers,” which would imperil their diplomatic initiatives… President Clinton “deserted” the 19 victims and their families.” Here is another example of Clinton’s policy of doing nothing but paying lip service to America. Of course I haven’t mentioned Osama bin Laden yet. In a 1997 interview with a London based Arabic-language newspaper, bin Laden stated, “We had thought that the Riyadh and Al Khobar blasts were a sufficient signal to sensible U.S. decision makers…but they did not understand the signal.” This is typical of the Clinton mentality. How many times did Osama bin Laden’s name need to come up with regard to Americans being killed? But each and every time, Clinton did basically nothing.

I cannot finish with Clinton without mentioning the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993. And of course, Osama bin Laden was behind the bombing. Larry Johnson a former CIA agent as well as having worked for the State Department stated, “Clinton’s weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.” The report goes on to state, “On Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New York City…Osama bin Laden is suspected to have been behind the attack.” Clinton’s reaction and statement to the American people was, “I would plead with the American people and the good people of New York to keep your courage up and go on about your lives. I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this.” Overreacting? How can anyone believe a president who would say such a thing is anything other than a traitor and a coward? Bill Clinton really does have a long history with Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden was always the one who was killing Americans and Slick Willie was always the one who was making excuses as to why he couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything. The exception, of course was when Clinton was ordering the deaths of American citizens. Remember Waco?

“Interestingly, Al-Jazeera celebrated the fifth anniversary of 9/11 by airing several al-Qaeda videos, one of which showed two of the 9/11 hijackers saying their actions were designed to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya. Nothing demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Clinton policy more than that.” Bill Clinton, aka Slick Willie, can only be summed up as a prevaricating fool who was impeached because he was a liar and an individual who obstructed justice. He was a murderer who ordered the deaths at Waco of approximately 80 Americans including 17 children and the inspiration of Timothy McVeigh. He was a friend of islamo-fascist terrorists who included al Fatah, Osama bin Laden and the KLA; the killers of Serb Christians. Clinton was the spineless excuse-maker for all of his failed foreign policy blunders which included Mogadishu, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iran and I didn’t even go into his shameful Haiti legacy, and of course, his complete and utter failure with regard to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City and the obvious connection through all of his blunders which eventually led up to the complete destruction of the twin towers on 9/11. Conclusion: Clinton was a deceptive, spineless, pathetic example of a president whose actions were not only criminal, but corrupt as well. He was a disgrace to the nation.

We now come to George W. Bush a Texas Republican whose very close family ties with the bin Laden family has already been clearly stated. I think the best place to start with Bush 43 is the USA PATRIOT Act which was signed into law by Bush on 26 October 2001, a whole 45 days after 9/11. The USA PATRIOT Act really only takes the rights away from Americans, it doesn’t do much to combat Muslim terrorists. I might have viewed it differently if all the provisions in the Act were aimed at Muslims, but they are equally if not overtly aimed at us, Americans. As previously stated in my treatise titled, “The Purpose of the U.S. State Department,” I clearly showed how the PATRIOT Act could easily label an American a ‘terrorist’ for protecting himself, just as an officer of the law or military personnel could be labeled as such. Section 411, Subparagraph B, Clause (iv) states, “Engage in terrorist activity means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization—“(I) to commit or incite to commit, under circumstances indicating and intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity.” When you consider all of the terrorists on 9/11 were Muslim and the majority of them were from Saudi Arabia, the fact that there is absolutely no reference to delineate and connect terrorist or terrorist activity to Muslims is absurd. No new law is necessary to act against American’s who engage in criminal activities, as there are already a multitude of laws on the books and procedures in place to deal with that problem. The USA PATRIOT Act was designed, with speedy intent, to take away the rights of Americans. Now an American cannot go to an airport and get on a plane without being probed and fondled by the TSA, of course if you walked up wearing a burqa, they wave you right through. How does this help to prevent terrorism?

Next I would like to talk about the failed reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. While I personally believe Bush 41 should have ordered troops to finish Saddam and his henchmen while they were there the 1^st time, I cannot figure out why we were there the 2^nd time. There were no WMD in Iraq and they all knew it. Please don’t believe me, go and purchase Charles Duelfers book, “Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq.” Mr. Duelfer was the head of the U.S.-led ISG in Iraq after Dr. Kay resigned. Both stated there were no WMD in Iraq. An article on MSNBC stated, “In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing.” In other words, there was no just cause for the invasion, unless you want to call getting Saddam for his daddy-Bush 41 ‘just cause.’ If you remember, CNN reported Bush’s reasoning for the invasion, “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” Personally, this sounds like a president lying to the American public. Maybe he should have listened to Dr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer. Many good men got killed and many wounded and maimed as a result of his vendetta with Saddam who was a former CIA protégé.

I should touch on the national debt; of course I will revisit this issue with Hussein Obama. CBS News reported, “The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight year presidency of George W. Bush.” This is a huge sum of taxpayer money. What I cannot figure out is why we didn’t take the Iraqi oil and force Afghanistan to pay for our troops in their respective countries. From 2003-2009 the Iraq War cost at least $684.8 billion according to the Congressional Research Service. They also state in another PDF on Pakistan foreign assistance, which gives the amount of a transfer of $600 million right after Sept. 2001, and beginning in 2005 for a 5 year, $600 million per year amount totaling $3.6 billion, and beginning in 2007 a 5 year $750 million deal for the tribal areas. Aid for Afghanistan from 2001-2009 was nearly $38 billion also according to Congressional Research Service. Of course this isn’t all the money that was spent in these three locations, but it gives an idea of what the Bush Administration was doing with our taxpayer dollars, which means ‘our money.’ Just the figures above total nearly $728 billion. It’s not hard to see how the deficit increased $4,900,000,000,000 in an eight year time frame.

The eight years of illegal immigration (or invasion) during the Bush Administration is a good topic. According to End Illegal Immigration, “Bush’s administration saw a marked increase in illegal immigration and a drop in immigration enforcement…illegal aliens arrested in workplace cases fell from nearly 3,000 in 1999 to 445 in 2003.” The report goes on to state, “Not surprisingly, by 2005, there were an estimated 10-20 million illegal aliens living in the United States.” I’ve touched on this issue before in another treatise, but I’ll briefly go at it again. The article by Dr. Corsi Ph.D. starts out, “Despite having no authorization from Congress, the Bush administration has launched extensive working-group activity to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada.” So what exactly does that mean? What is a trilateral agreement with no Congressional oversight? It means, Bush and his cronies are secretly attempting to create a new nation; a North American Union. NAFTA negotiations began in 1986 during the Reagan-Bush Administration and it was signed and came into force in 1994 during the Clinton Administration. According to Dr. Corsi, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership…signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.” Dr. Corsi further states, the agreement was, “Not submitted to Congress for review, led to the creation of the SPP office within the Department of Commerce.” Apparently there has been absolutely no Congressional oversight, there has been no bill from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and there is nothing about this that isn’t a secret. And government wonders why we don’t trust them. Not that there is a connection, but a lot of ugly things seem to happen in Waco, Texas. If our so-called leaders are attempting to destroy the United States and form a North American Union, then these so-called leaders are guilty of treason. But I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

Before we sum this up, let’s talk about Tora Bora. As we all know Tora Bora was a CIA financed complex built in the White Mountains barely 20 miles from the Pakistan border. The CIA knew every trail which led through the area. During the early 1980’s (Reagan/Bush Administration), at least $3 billion was used to finance and arm the Mujahedeen to fight the Soviets. Osama bin Laden actually had the equipment flown in to the area from his father’s construction company, the Saudi Binladen Group. While the Bush Administration did order the bombardment of the area in December of 2001, what strikes me as most curious is the fact that the U.S. government actually knew a great deal about Tora Bora. After all, the CIA financed the entire operation and was more than just familiar with the area. If you consider these facts, why weren’t the U.S. troops given the information so they could go into each and every cave after the bombardment took place? Perhaps there were some changes made to the structure, but the general design was no different. According to a New York Times article, “A mile below, at the base of the caves, some three dozen U.S. Special Forces troops fanned out. They were the only ground forces that senior American military leaders had committed to the Tora Bora campaign.” If at least one of the objectives of the Afghanistan War was to kill Osama bin Laden, wouldn’t it have made more sense to pass on the intelligence from the CIA to maybe the Marine Corps or the Army and have an entire division go after bin Laden at Tora Bora? But it would seem as though the true purpose wasn’t to actually kill bin Laden or the Bush Administration would have made Tora Bora a much higher priority. Remember, not long before the Tora Bora campaign Bush 43 did make certain the bin Laden family in the United States was able to board an airplane and fly out of the United States safely while each and every American within the U.S. was not allowed to fly at all. There certainly is a very strange symbiosis between the Bush family and the bin Laden family that makes me uncomfortable.

I’m really not sure if I need to waste any more time with President Bush. As we have seen, the Bush family has a very close and inappropriate relationship with the bin Laden family. George W. Bush personally enabled the bin Laden family to fly out of the United States when all flights except military were grounded after 9/11. Why would he have done that? Was this to appease the Saudi terrorist friends of Bush’s family? I still cannot understand why they weren’t all hung from newly erected gallows outside the White House. There is the USA PATRIOT Act, which was done with such haste, it really only serves to strip the rights of U.S. citizens. Bush absolutely lied about the reasoning for invading Iraq; there were no WMD’s in Iraq and he knew this, but he invaded anyway. Bush also increased our national public debt by $4.9 trillion in eight years, but seemed to accomplish nothing of any real value than couldn’t have been accomplished with nuclear weapons at a much lower cost. Bush also failed to enforce existing immigration laws and refused to defend our southern border with Mexico, he set up secret trilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico without Congressional oversight or without any bill from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Once again furthering his father’s NAFTA agenda just as he furthered his father’s agenda with regard to the bin Laden family. And as we have just seen Bush’s utter failure at Tora Bora, unless what happened was just a show for the American people and not a campaign really designed to kill Osama bin Laden. Either way, it would appear Bush 43 was very successful at what he did, although I consider his legacy to be nothing more than a complete and utter failure. Conclusion: Bush was an arrogant, deceptive and corrupt president whose malfeasance can easily be considered as stupid, criminal behavior.

When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.

Clarence Darrow

And last but not least is Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, a Kenyan born, Illinois Democrat who by far is the worst president in the history of the United States of America. I say Kenyan born for a couple of reasons. One reason is because his wife, Michelle Obama was speaking about her husband and was quoted saying “Visited his home country in Kenya.” There is very little chance a man’s wife doesn’t know where his home country is, in this case Michelle Obama knows exactly where her husband’s home country is, and she stated it correctly, Kenya. The second reason I say Obama is a Kenyan is his birth certificate from the Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. According to the report on WND, “California attorney Orly Taitz…has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.” The report continues, “The document lists Obama’s parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.” Now I would consider both of these items to be extremely compelling. Obama’s wife says his home country is Kenya, and now a birth certificate from Kenya surfaces. What is most interesting is that it took nearly three (3) years for Obama to show his so-called birth certificate from Hawaii to the American people. Why the big deal?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution makes Obama ineligible to even be President of the United States. Opponents of the idea that Obama is a foreigner, stated in claim, “The Feb. 17, 1964, date for the document, explaining that the “republic” of Kenya wasn’t assembled until December of that year. – Media Matters wrote, ‘Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn’t a republic until Dec. 1964.’” However, according to a number of different sources, that isn’t actually the entire truth. According to WND, “At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking place as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.” The People Daily News Agency states, “Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki gives a speech during a celebration to mark the country’s 42^nd independence anniversary in Nairobi, capital of Kenya Dec. 12, 2005. The country gained independence from Britain on Dec. 12, 1963.” According to BBC News Africa, “1963 – Kenya gains independence, with Kenyatta as Prime Minister. 1964 – Republic of Kenya formed. Kenyatta becomes president and Odinga vice-president.” According to mapsofworld.com, “The Constitution of Kenya was formed on 12^th Dec. 1963.” While I could easily go on about the date, I think it is clear any official paperwork for and from the Republic of Kenya would be dated back at least as far as 1963.

We can’t talk about Hussein Obama without talking about Bill Ayers. As reported by David Horowitz in a piece entitled “Allies in War,” Mr. Horowitz states, “On the morning of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon…I opened its pages…showing a middle-aged couple holding hands and affecting a defiant look at the camera. The article was headlined…‘No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives.’” Of course the photograph was of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, both Ayers and Dohrn were members of the Weathermen, in other words, they were terrorists. Aside from being terrorists, both Ayers and Dohrn were and are partisans of Charles Manson, “Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” That was a statement from Dohrn when she was referring to the Manson family murders of Sharon Tate and her guests.

All that being said, Hussein Obama and Bill Ayers seem to have some common connections. According to the Washington Post, both “were members of the board of…the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002…Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April  2001…[and] they lived within a few blocks of each other…and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.” While this could simply be a random connection between the two, I have to say I don’t believe a Senator or a President for that matter should allow themselves to be associated with terrorists in any way shape or form. In the least this is an example of Obama’s poor judgment, at most it’s a disgraceful example of the type of individual Obama really is. But as we have previously seen with the Bush and bin Laden families, this happens far too often. Of course according to The Obama File, “In 1989, Obama was a summer intern at Michelle Obama’s law firm. One of Michelle’s co-workers was Bernardine Dohrn.” That law firm was Sidley & Austin. The report goes on to tell a, “Couple hosted a “meet and greet” for Obama at Ayers house in Hyde Park…where Obama now lives as a neighbor of Louis Farrakhan.” Later, in 1995, “Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge,” Bill Ayers was the co-founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And in 1997, “Ayers and Obama participated in a panel at the University of Chicago.” Lastly, according to the article, “Ayers, Dohrn and Obama …participated together at a conference entitled “Intellectuals: Who needs them?” Now what connections between Bill Ayers the terrorist and Hussein Obama do we have? We have the Woods Fund of Chicago, Ayers contribution to Obama’s re-election campaign for the Illinois State Senate, the close proximity with which they both lived, the liberal-progressive circles with which they both travelled, Obama’s working relationship at Sidley & Austin where Dohrn was a co-worker of Michelle Obama, the meet and greet at Ayers house, Obama’s chairmanship at Challenge where Ayers was a co-founder and their participation in the panel at the University of Chicago. It apparently is not coincidence that Ayers and Obama crossed paths. These two have had a longstanding relationship that dates back to at least 1989, that’s nearly a quarter of a century.

I’m not really certain there is a point to pointing out the multitudes of lies that have come out of Hussein Obama’s mouth, but I will point out at least a few. ABC news reported, “Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing “God Bless America” but “God damn America.” Those were the words from Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ. According to the article, Wright said “The United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”” Of course, then Senator Obama stated, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” That sounds like a very controversial statement to me. If you think about the statement, the person who said it and the people who listened, then you should understand what they want. While you could easily say we have a misguided foreign policy agenda which causes us endless problems (and it does), the bigger truth is, Hussein Obama is a Muslim or at least a Muslim sympathizer and he aligns himself with radicals and radicalism. The leadership of Islam not only appears to be, but is nothing more than a bunch of fanatics who want to kill the West and force their way of life and their religion on everyone of us. The unfortunate fact is, the U.S. government keeps kissing their behinds, and will continue their attempt to elevate Islam into something that they want to be considered mainstream. Until people realize this, the problem isn’t going to be solved. Even the founding fathers of this nation knew the Islamists wanted to kill anyone who didn’t conform to their belief system. In 1786, Adams and Jefferson met with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey of Algiers who stated, “Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations that should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners.” This same belief is furthered by the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood, “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Obama and any other so-called leader in the U.S. who tells you that isn’t what Islam is about, obviously has a hidden agenda and objective. This is what the Muslim leadership says; we did not put these words into their mouths.

Let’s talk about Gitmo for a moment. On 22 January 2009, two days after Obama was sworn into office, “President Obama ordered the controversial prison camp at Guantanamo Bay closed within a year.” Today’s date is 21 August 2012 and according to a 17 August 2012 story on ABC News, “A federal judge voiced skepticism Friday about new government restrictions on lawyers’ access to detainees at Guantanamo Bay.” I cannot believe a federal judge would be skeptical about a new government restriction regarding a detainees bid to challenge their confinement with regard to the attorney’s access to their clients at Gitmo, if Gitmo were indeed closed. In fact it sounds like the prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba is still up and running strong! I guess Obama figured if he couldn’t get them all transferred to Illinois, then he might as well leave them in Cuba where they belong. This is an obvious example of Obama lies. The prison at Guantanamo Bay suits Obama or he would have shut it down by now, the undeniable fact is it in some way benefits Obama to keep it open, he only thought it was a bad idea when Bush was in office. Apparently, this was just another Obama lie.

Libya is a subject Obama would have you believe is one he can put in the win column. I disagree with that idea. The United States didn’t have any business bombing Libya. The only thing it did was get rid of a dictator so he could be replaced with another, this time, one who will make Libya an Islamic republic complete with sharia Law. Qaddafi was undoubtedly a loser, but he was a loser who wasn’t making problems anymore. Now Libya is a lawless nation of fiefdoms at best. As of the 20^th of January, 2012, Libya still has a massive stockpile of mustard gas. When you stop to consider many of the fighters who called themselves ‘rebels’ had just left places like Iraq, where they were fighting U.S. forces, it’s not hard to make the connection that they were al Qaeda and the Taliban. According to UPI, “The country still has to destroy 11.25 tons of mustard gas.” In other words, there are approximately 22,500 lbs of this stuff in Libya and as you have already guessed, “A team of Americans and Libyans” are guarding the stockpile. What is actually interesting, didn’t Obama say there would be no American boots on the ground in Libya? Aside from the obvious spotters for the bombing, now Al Arabiya states there were others there as well. I only point this out, because it is another one of Obama’s lies.

Since I have already made the connection between Bill Ayers and Obama, I don’t really see any point in going over it again. But I will say this, Obama did claim Ayers was, “A guy who lives in my neighborhood…He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” This was an obvious lie. Obama and Ayers had a relationship that has lasted nearly 25 years. It isn’t possible to have so many connections to someone and simply refer to them casually as a guy in the neighborhood.

Why does Obama continually apologize for America? According to CNS News as well as Newsmax, Obama has apologized, “For America’s “arrogance” regarding countries Americans died to help free; To detainee terrorists interrogated by the CIA; For the accidental burning of the Korans; To Obamacare activist Sandra Fluke.” But the article also stated the apologies Obama didn’t make, “To Catholics forced by the government to violate their faith; To the family of border patrol agent Brian Terry murdered by Operation Fast and Furious guns; To families of American soldiers killed after Obama said he calmed things down in Afghanistan; To Israel, for saying it should return to its 1967 borders which would’ve subjected it to attacks; To American taxpayers forced to violate their religious beliefs and pay for abortion; For attending radical Rev. Wright’s church for years.” This all comes from a speech from Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas in the House of Representatives. So what do we have? We have three apologies to Muslims and one to his own activist, but we have none to Americans or their families for governmental blunders (Fast & Furious) or to our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. It’s one thing to apologize for something that we really screw-up, but it’s another thing to continually apologize for America like we’re some sort of idiots, which isn’t the case. If anything, the idiots are in the government; Obama should just start apologizing for himself. This isn’t humility on Obama’s part, it is utter weakness. Another thing Obama should remember is, when he apologizes, in effect he is apologizing for the people of this country. Personally, I don’t remember asking him to do that and I know a great deal of other Americans feel the same way. This is another example of a president thinking he is more than just a servant to the people. Both Obama and his wife have serious issues with the United States which the liberal media is more than willing to continually gloss over.

Maybe we should spend a moment talking about the national debt under Obama. While the national debt increased $4.9 trillion during eight (8) years of Bush, in just less than four (4) years of Obama the national debt has increased $5.4 trillion. In an article from CBS News on 22 August 2011 (today is 21 August 2012) the article states, “The national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch…It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.” Of course, Obama can only blame this on Bush. While Bush did increase the debt dramatically, Obama has increased the debt astronomically. Oddly enough, Obama has maintained most of what Bush was doing, even though he stated he was going to do away with what he considered Bush’s failures when he got into office. What we have seen is the failure of Obama himself. He has accomplished nothing, but he has taken credit for things he had nothing to do with at all. But one thing we know he has done is increased the national debt more than any other president in the history of the United States and in a much shorter period of time.

I simply cannot finish with Hussein Obama until I talk about how he and his administration leak information and his bragging about how he killed Osama bin Laden. For starters, Obama didn’t kill anyone. He may have given the orders, but he never pulled a trigger. His boasting only puts men in harm’s way who fight for the United States. According to a report from Reuters which I found on Yahoo News, “A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives…scolds President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and argues that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.” The report further states, “Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not.” The report stated the man who said that was Ben Smith, a U.S. Navy SEAL. I don’t know about you, but personally, I believe the SEAL. Mr. Smith goes on to say, “As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy…It will get Americans killed.” You can believe whomever you wish, President Hussein Obama or a U.S. Navy SEAL, the choice is yours. However, Mr. Smith is obviously a selfless man amongst other selfless men whose service to the nation can only be described as more than exemplary. His humility in stating that America killed bin Laden is a credit to the finest warriors the world will ever know. I believe Obama is nothing more than a blowhard, a fraud and a liar.

Another example as noted by The Lonely Conservative is Obama originally saying the surge in Iraq wouldn’t work but create sectarian violence, “Tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true.” Of course the surge was working and it was what was probably needed from the beginning, enough troops to pound the enemy. That being said, Obama seems to take credit for any gains in Iraq, but Obama’s hasty withdrawal has only led to sectarian violence. In fact, Iraq is like a ticking time bomb that is ready to explode. Now Iran is able to influence the crazies who are there without fear of reprisal. Certainly, Obama has done nothing other than order the deaths of people around the globe. He has increased the number of countries the U.S. is operating in with regard to military operations. I can only imagine what his plan is, but I seriously doubt it will benefit the United States. One curious bit of information is, since Obama’s inauguration, in a report dated 4 April 2011, “Combat-related deaths that occurred since the Afghanistan war began in October 2001, about 64 percent happened in the two years since Obama took office.” That report was almost one year and 5 months ago. Obama’s leaking of information and bragging about exploits he didn’t do, plus lying about what is really happening as related to the surge in Iraq and the result of a hasty withdrawal is nothing but reckless.

There is no reason to continue with Hussein Obama. He has lied about where he was born, which was Kenya as shown on his Kenyan birth certificate and in his wife’s words. The part I didn’t mention was his Hawaii birth certificate, which must be a forgery, which is a crime. Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has investigated that document and states it is a forgery. Obama has lied about his close relationship with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and has had a relationship with them for nearly 25 years. Another lie is Obama’s close association with the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright is a man who hates the United States (probably as much as Ayers and Dohrn) and blames Americans for all the terrorism in the world, when the truth is the leadership of radical Islam promotes terrorism against everyone who isn’t Muslim. Which really makes Obama a Muslim sympathizer, but I believe he is a radical Muslim from the start. Obama lied again when he stated he was going to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, but it is still operational and he seems to be just fine with the prison still being open now that he’s in office. Libya is another one of Obama’s fiascos. Nothing more was accomplished than opening the door for another Islamic State ruled by sharia Law. Plus his lies about no American boots on the ground in Libya, when we know there were spotters for the bombing raids as well as men guarding mustard gas stockpiles. Then of course we have Obama the Apologist, embarrassing himself and the United States whenever he apologizes for America to the Muslims, but he refuses to take responsibility for the death of agent Brian Terry or his Fast and Furious gun smuggling debacle. Obama has increased the national debt faster than any president in the history of the United States, $5,400,000,000,000 and he still isn’t done with the 4 year term he was illegally elected to serve. Obama has also taken intelligence leaks to a new low, which endanger U.S. troops, not to mention his outlandish claims that he killed Osama bin Laden. Obama even lied about the surge that Bush did in Iraq and stated it wasn’t working, when in fact, it was working. But Obama hastily pulled out of Iraq and now Iraq is just a powder-keg ready to explode rife with Iranian influence and God knows what else. And lastly, at least 64% of combat-related deaths in the entire Afghanistan War can be attributed to the incompetence of Obama and his administration, and that figure is from about 17 months ago. What else can possibly be said about this man? He is by far the worst thing to ever happen to the United States of America and he will continue to happily destroy us if he is given the chance. Conclusion: Obama is the most self-serving example of a president the nation has ever had. His actions are that of a spineless incompetent whose malevolent nature can only be described as cowardly and pathetic. This man is the definition of a corrupt politician whose criminal behavior plunges the definition of disgraceful to new depths with each waking moment. He is an embarrassment to himself and to the nation. The word malfeasance doesn’t even come close to defining his acts of utter shame which have violated the public trust, and are only surpassed by his complete lack of moral fiber. Obama is a hypocrite and a prevaricator whose façade is a mere illusion, when in reality he is a nightmare.

What does all of this say about our elected leaders, in this case the Presidents of the United States, over the last fifty years? I can’t help but think that each and every president has forgotten they are merely servants of the people of this great nation. I also can’t help but think, We the People have allowed the mis-managers of governance to continue on their path of malfeasance and corruption. If we don’t force our so-called leaders to obey the supreme Law of the Land; the U.S. Constitution as well as the laws of the various States, then how can we actually expect such a self-serving bunch of miscreants to obey the law? The U.S. Constitution is an instrument for the people to restrain government, as eloquently stated by Patrick Henry. Until the sovereign people of this great nation are willing to step forward and demand lawful and moral actions from our elected leaders we will continue on the downward spiral which we are currently experiencing. At the end of the day, we should all ask ourselves some tough questions. Who are the real fools? Are the fools our so-called elected leaders or are we the fools for continuing to vote them into office ad nauseam? Or is the answer both. I’m not certain it is actually possible to conclude this paper. How does one conclude something which has been ongoing for at least the last fifty years, and appears to have no end in sight? I would argue the answer is in the U.S. Constitution. We need to make certain that those who wish to serve the people, are held accountable for their actions. We the People are not the servants; we are the Masters.

Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com

                                                                                                         By

                                                                                                                          Brett L. Baker

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

John Quincy Adams

You will not find the phrase, the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. What you will find is the 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The phrase ‘the separation of church and state’ which was actually ‘wall of separation between the church and the state’ was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In 1892, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that America was “legally and organically a Christian nation.” But is that really the truth? What was the U.S. Supreme Court actually talking about regarding the decision in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States? Was this really about Christianity or was it about something else? We see in the U.S. Capitol building the words above the Speaker of the House, “In God We Trust” and you will see there are carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments (which is a reference to Mosaic Law) on the Supreme Court building and in various other locations throughout the nation and government buildings. But as a nation do we actually follow these tenets or is there a totally different meaning behind all of this, such as Catholicism? Let’s take a closer look at the symbolism and the actions here in the United States and see what we uncover; Christianity or something else.

There have been court battles over the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words which were added, due to the perceived threat of Communism, in 1954 after ‘one nation’ which are ‘under God’ and there are municipalities which ban nativity scenes because they depict the birth of the Messiah as well as school prayer. But there are plenty of pagan symbols in the United States on government and/or public property and many people really don’t seem to say anything even care and these symbols do appear to be sanctioned by the U.S. government. Is this because of the beliefs of the so-called ruling elite, the people or both? Ellis Island is a good example of what I am talking about. It is managed by the U.S. National Park Service and owned by the States of New York and New Jersey; it is clearly government and public property. Yes, I am referring to the Statue of Liberty. Is the Statue of Liberty a pagan idol?

Who is Lady Liberty? While we know she was a gift from the French which was completed in July of 1884, she arrived in New York harbor in June of 1885, the dedication ceremony took place October 28, 1886 and the sculptor was Frederic Auguste Bartholdi. According to William F. Dankenbring, he originally “was seeking a commission to construct a giant statue of the goddess “Isis,” the Egyptian Queen of Heaven, to overlook the Suez Canal.” He may have got his wish, just not in the location which he originally intended. Many believe, she (Lady Liberty) is the representation of the pagan goddess Queen Semiramis the Goddess of Lust and Sexual Desire, the mother-wife of Nimrod (the reincarnated Sun God) and the mother of Tammuz (the reincarnation of Nimrod as well as the Moon God); she’s also known as Isis (Egyptian), Mother of God, Oaster (Easter-Eastern-Star), Ishtar (Babylonian), Astarte (Syrian), Cybele (Roman), Ashtoreth (Israel), Goddess of Love, Aphrodite (Ephesus), Helena (Greek), Lady of the Towers (Sumerian), Wife and Sister of Kronos, Sammurant (Assyrian), Ish-Tara (the Indian deity), Sami-Rama-isi (Vedic) and Mother Mary (Rome) just to name a few, according to Ms. Lynda Brasier of Mission-Ignition.        

The symbolism of the statue is apparent and unmistakable; the turreted crown or crown of towers which symbolize the rays of the sun on her head to show “sun worship.” The torch she is holding is not “of liberty, but of the illuminated ones, the ruling elite.” And the “gown folds around her like a classical Greek toga.” The “helmet of sunray spikes” is an “allusion to the headgear of the Colossus of Rhodes, a monument to the Sun-God Helios standing astride a Greek harbor, which is said to be one of the key influences on the New York statue,” according to Ms. Brasier, and she further states, “She stands on a base patterned after Babylonian Step pyramids (ziggurats)…designed after the ‘Tower of Babel.’”

So it would appear that the Statue of Liberty is a pagan religious symbol which is sanctioned by the U.S. government. Fortunately, it’s not a nativity scene or it wouldn’t be allowed. But the true question is why is it allowed? Perhaps it is because of the Masonic influence within the U.S. government, or maybe the real reason is religious in nature, specifically Catholicism. We should take a look at some of the leaders of the United States and see what unfolds.

While it is not an unusual phenomenon for U.S. leaders to visit the Pope, it is also not unusual for other world leaders to visit with the Pope. President’s George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hussein Obama, as well as many first ladies visited the Pope. Secretary of State Rice and Representative Pelosi have also been with the Pope. Of course Nancy Pelosi is the only U.S. leader I could find a photo of who is kissing the Pope’s ring, but I’m sure there are others. Perhaps she is a servant of the Pope, I don’t know. But keep in mind the list of visitors is endless, even Adolf Hitler and Yasser Arafat have been photographed with the Pope. Maybe this has something to do with Catholicism, but it does have something to do with worship in general. The UK Telegraph reported on 1 August 2012 that President G.W. Bush “May follow in Tony Blair’s footsteps and convert to Catholicism.” The report further stated, “Jeb Bush, the president’s brother, has already converted to Catholicism.” While this really doesn’t concern me, nor do I (or should I) really care, I do find this to be very interesting. What is Catholicism? And just what is its appeal? According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, catholic is defined, “Of the doctrines of the ancient church,” literally “universally accepted,” from FR. catholique, from L.L. catholicus “universal, general,” from Gk. katholikos, from the phrase kath’ holou “on the whole, in general.” General sense of “of interest to all, universal.” Wikipedia defines the word catholic, “Derived from Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective katholikos, meaning “universal.”” So, Catholicism is Universalism by definition. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines Universalism as, “A theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved.” So it appears that some certainly believe it is good news to know Adolf Hitler, Emperor Nero, Judas Iscariot and Osama bin Laden and their ilk will eventually be saved, at least according to Catholicism.

What is the Trinity? According to Catholic Answers, “The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament…that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).” Parallelism is an interesting term which they use for this idea of the Trinity. I have heard it before and not just from the Catholic Church; there was the supposed Babylonian Trinity of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz as well as so-called the Egyptian Trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horace, the Israeli paganist Trinity of Kether, Hokhmah and Binah, the Greek triad of Zeus, Athena and Apollo and the Romans had Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. That’s quite a number of Trinities, Triads and Triunes! So within Catholicism, the Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate individuals, but one single being which rule as one. If we take a look at the King James Version of the Bible, 1611, and go to Exodus 20:1-17 we find the 10 Commandments, “And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” In the book of Deuteronomy 5:1-21, we also find the 10 Commandments, “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me.” Just for reference, that is the 1^st Commandment. It certainly sounds like God is an individual; His Son Jesus is an individual. As for the Holy Spirit, I have not been able to find anywhere in the Bible where it states the Holy Spirit is a separate (3^rd) individual, however it does describe God as the Holy Spirit.

What are the origins of the Catholic Church? According to Sword of the Spirit, Simon Magus was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. “The great false church system of Rome had its beginning in the day of the Apostles of Christ…mixed into one religious system. This is why there are so many pagan ideas and doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church.” Simon Magus is first heard of in Acts 8:9-25, “But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used Sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.” Again, according to Sword of the Spirit, “The person that is mentioned and that we need to concentrate on is Simon Magus and how he transformed himself into the first leader of the false worldwide religious system, the Catholic Church.” The makeup of this church is further delineated, “The four beasts used to make up the beast are the same four beasts Daniel saw in a vision in Daniel 7…papal Rome inherited from each of these pagan empires…that we see practiced in this modern day false system of religion, the Roman Catholic Church.” Then this is explained even further, “From Babylon, the lion the papacy inherited a pagan priesthood; from Medo-Persia, the bear sun worship; from Greece, the leopard human philosophies; and from the dragon, Pagan Rome, its power, seat and great authority. As stated in Rev. 13:2 the mixing of these pagan ideas of the Roman Catholic Church had its onset from the very beginning… can be traced back to…Simon Magus.” And the Sword of the Spirit makes their position perfectly clear, “Yes, the correct meaning of the Catholic Church is the Universal Church.” If this is correct, Simon Magus, who was a sorcerer and a magician, founded what is known as the Roman Catholic Church and this church is a very old mixture of belief systems which are known today as Catholicism or Universalism. These different belief systems were pagan in origin from the region known as Samaria and this mixture brought about a false religious system, which in turn has become a worldwide system of religious belief. This system is said to be from the Babylonians, Medo-Persia (which is defined as the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550-330 BCE and founded by Cyrus the Great and also known as the First Persian Empire), Greece and Pagan Rome. I must admit, that’s quite a mixture!

All this makes me wonder about Easter Sunday. What is it and what is it about? According to therefinersfire.org, “The Nicaean Council of 325 A.D. decreed that “Easter” should be celebrated on the first Sunday, after the full moon, on or after the vernal equinox.” So what is Easter? “Easter is a completely man-made “holy-day”…It is the day that Tammuz was immaculately conceived by the rays of the sun-god Nimrod and the day that Tammuz’ mother, the “Queen of Heaven,” was fabled to have returned to earth from heaven as the goddess of fertility, who purportedly transformed a bird into an egg-laying rabbit to prove her divinity.” One ritual according to thinknot.net is, “At Babel…Every year the priest of Easter would impregnate virgins on the altar of Easter. The next year those infants would be 3 months old. They would kill infants and dye eggs in their blood.” Another ritual is people “Stand there with rapt faces adoring the sun as it rises in the east, not realizing they are performing the rituals demanded by the mythical and idolatrous goddess Ishtar (Easter). Deceived into believing this is Christian, millions practice the identical form of the ancient sun-worship of the Sun-god Baal!” As stated by refinersfire.org. I suppose this is where we actually get the word Sunday, for the sun-worshippers who dislike the Sabbath which is Friday at even (sunset) to Saturday at even (sunset) according to Jewish tradition, and it also seems blatantly obvious that Easter was simply a way to get rid of Passover by the “Church Leaders such as Constantine, Tertullian and Marcion.” This is some very interesting perspective by therefinersfire.org, and it continues, “The truth is that Easter has nothing whatsoever to do with the resurrection of Messiah Yeshua! God’s commanded Biblical Feasts reveal that Yeshua was born during the Feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles) which falls on the Gregorian calendar September/ October timeframe. He was nailed to the stake on 14 Nisan and was REMOVED before sunset that same day; and He rose exactly 72 hours later, just before sunset on the following Sabbath-NOT on a “Sunday.” That’s actually very fascinating don’t you think? And it sounds accurate, because from Good Friday to Easter Sunday, which are both based on Canonical gospels which have been recognized by the Catholic Church since the turn of the 5^th century, is only two days and not three days and three nights!

So I have to ask, why is Christmas celebrated? It is claimed by multitudes that the day the Messiah was born on the 25^th of December, is that correct? If the refinersfire.org is correct, then it seems more likely than not that Yeshua (Jesus) was conceived during Hanukkah, the Festival of Light, and born at the Feast of Tabernacles and was murdered and resurrected during Passover. Just what is so important to the Catholic Church with regard to December 25^th? If the Messiah wasn’t born on December 25^th, then we have to assume something is important to the Catholic Church with regard to that date. As previously stated by many people, the Catholic Church is pagan in its origin and practice. December is the month of the winter solstice; the shortest day of the year and it’s when the days start to get longer and pagans worship the sun. Was the birthday of Tammuz for the second generation of false gods? According to Real Israelites, “The so-called “Christmas tree” has its origin in the ‘Babylonian mysteries;’ it was used as a symbol to personify Tammuz…The Christmas tree or Tammuz tree represents Nimrod redivivus-the slain god revived and worshipped as Tammuz. Semiramis taught the Babylonians that their gods could transform themselves into trees and if gifts were not presented before these trees the spirit of Nimrod would revive and destroy them!” As the story goes, Shem killed Nimrod and dismembered him and spread the parts (or pieces) throughout the Samarian kingdom, as was the custom at the time. Semiramis had all the parts brought back for burial, but the only piece that wasn’t found was Nimrod’s penis and it appears this is a representation of the Christmas tree. So Nimrod’s penis represents the idol of jealousy! And they are all over the world; they are called obelisks.

It certainly would appear Catholicism is closely associated with the worship of sun-gods and they were all born on December 25^th; Nimrod, Mithra, Dagon, Osiris, Horace, Baal, Kronos, Zeus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Mars, Pluto, Neptune, Ares, Bacchus, Shamash, Odin, EL-BAR, Molech, Ra and Tammuz, just to name a few as stated by xanga.com. And if you ever wondered why Christmas is sometimes referred to as X-mas, the answer is quite simple according to theforbiddenknowledge.com; “The legendary symbol for Nimrod is “X.” The use of this symbol always denotes witchcraft. When “X” is used as a shortened form meaning Christmas, it actually means “to celebrate the feast of Nimrod.” A double X, which has always meant to double-cross or betray, in its fundamental meaning indicates one’s betrayal into the hands of Satan. When American corporations use the “X” in their logo, such as “Exxon,” the historic Rockefeller firm of Standard Oil of New Jersey, there can be little doubt of this hidden meaning.” This comes as no surprise to me, as the Rockefellers are one of the family bloodlines of the Illuminati, “One of the 13 Satanic bloodlines that rule the world…the Illuminati…the Rockefeller bloodline is involved in the promotion of the occult and Satanism…they are involved in the control of Christian denominations.” Of course, if this is true, then should we wonder about any information we get from xanga.com? After all, the name does use the “X” of Nimrod, or does it?

So what does all of this tell us about our country and our leaders? A majority of the people around the globe have such a low opinion of the United States because of our so-called leadership it isn’t even funny. And why should, We the People, put up with this sort of behavior if any of this is the truth? Of course that just leads to the question, is it even possible to believe what a politician says? Anyone will tell you the obvious answer to that question is no or laugh derisively while they say yes. U.S. currency has pagan symbols, the U.S. Capitol building has pagan symbols, most memorials and buildings like the White House and the Supreme Court buildings appear to be modeled after ancient pagan societies, statues of pagan gods stand at the U.S. Capitol building, Easter egg hunts on the White House lawn, Christmas trees in the White House, as well as pagan obelisks in honor of Nimrod are in our nation’s capitol. On top of that, the U.S. government seems intent on shoving Islam down our throats as well. They allow a Mosque to be built at ground zero, in New York City, with its honeycomb of pentagrams on the façade rising up to the heavens like some sort of devilish tribute which mocks the destruction of the World Trade Center. But if Catholicism is sun-worship, and it appears to be, Islam and sharia law really are just the left hand of the Catholic Church and cannon law. So just exactly what does that give us? Do we now have moon and sun worship together? And is it sanctioned by the U.S. government and their confederates? Pagan idolatry has become so richly engrained within the U.S. government and the States we couldn’t rid ourselves of the symbolism without a concerted effort and that effort would take 1000 years. Even President’s and first ladies give the devil hand salute like it is some sort of badge of honor.

Our very acts as well as our mantra have become so vitriolic in nature; these pagans will drag the country down with them if we don’t change our ways and our leadership. While the U.S. government claims to stay out of religion, they should really stay out of the business of promoting pagan religions. However, man-made religion does seem to fit in with their plan. The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States is a perfect example of this. The Catholic Church is well known for its long and inglorious history of child molestation and quite probably child sacrifice. The Plain Truth states, “Cannibal (Cahna Baal) is a word which means “Baal Priest” and…had to do with CONSUMING OF HUMAN FLESH – mostly LITTLE CHILDREN.” And continues, “Nimrod, as the representative of the devouring fire to which human victims, and especially CHILDREN, were offered in SACRIFICE, was regarded as the great CHILD-DEVOURER.” The point of all this is, the U.S. Constitution is the Law of the Land given to us by our forefathers; God fearing men. Mosaic Law; God’s Law, is the only thing higher. Those are the only two things which should be of any concern to our leaders; not sun-worship of Ra, not their so-called pagan gods Nimrod and Semiramis, not their pagan leaders or idols; Ratzinger and his vile objects, and certainly not their pagan holidays. Unfortunately, it would appear as though our leaders as well as the leaders of the world are hell bent on the destruction of the United States and the world. Happiness cannot come to a Satanist unless they are allowed to cull billions of people. We cannot and should not allow this to continue.

[i]

Does the United States actually exist as the country we once knew, or is this nation really just some sort of transitional nation which is or will be called America? The concept of our founding fathers, obviously, was to create a Constitutional Republic where men could pursue their dreams and live a life free from the twisted whims of tyrants. Of course, as we all know, nothing man-made lasts forever and it appears that dream is either dead or dying and at a rapid pace. I believe what we now have, is exactly what the framers fought to rid themselves of, a dictatorship run by petty demagogues in a so-called foreign nation which is now just called America.

So just exactly what has transpired to foster this atmosphere, which has festered over time into this seamy dictatorship that would make King George proud? One factor is undoubtedly the misguided belief that the U.S. Constitution is a ‘living Constitution’ which evolves over time. According to David A. Strauss, “A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended[ii].” Mr. Strauss explains some of the pros with regard to a living Constitution such as, “the cumbersome amendment process, the world has changed in incalculable ways, the nation has grown in territory and population, technology, the international situation, the economy and social mores,” are all different today. But he also touches on the cons, “The Constitution is supposed to be a rock-solid foundation, our basic principals-our constitutional principles-must remain constant, and the term…is hardly ever used, except derisively.” So, although time moves on and the nation and the world changes, should the U.S. Constitution change? I believe the Law of the Land is just that and it shouldn’t be surreptitiously altered, by public opinion, a liberal or conservative agenda, or the whims of anyone, especially politicians. I believe a cumbersome amendment process is a good thing; it keeps politicians and judges from forcing their opinions and their laws down our throats just because they are in office or on the bench. However, that rock-solid foundation appears to be more like quick sand than anything else.

Obama care is actually a good example of why a living constitution is a bad idea. Whether we need some sort of overhaul regarding our health system or not is a matter that should be up to the States. Yet, somehow this immediately went to the Supreme Court to decide. In essence, doesn’t that remove State sovereignty? The University of Alabama Law Review states, “A problem for our time is that we cannot help knowing that our highest courts are not merely enforcing rules…We know too well that they often shape the rules… according to their own preferences to assist one rival interest or another[iii]” (p. 4 of 68). Something tells me if Judges are supposed to be impartial referees, their own preferences should have absolutely nothing to do with enforcing rules. The Alabama Law Review goes on to state, “Justices sitting on the Supreme Court…have by the terms of their certiorari rule almost completely disowned responsibility for assuring that individuals’ legal rights and duties are actually enforced by lower courts in individual cases. They seldom bother to decide a case unless it has impact on some public interest…It decides only those cases which provide a suitable occasion for expressing policies the Justices choose to express” (p. 5 of 68). So it would appear that the Supreme Court has, in effect, become an activist for political cause within the U.S. government. How is it possible to be an activist and impartial at the same time? Rather than allowing the States to decide an issue which is inherently an issue for the people of each sovereign State, the Supreme Court has decided that for us all; the Supreme Courts usurpation of the rights of each and every sovereign individual as well as each and every sovereign State is apparent. If the U.S. government wishes to make a nationwide health care system, shouldn’t they actually be required to go through the extremely cumbersome amendment process in order to make that law? As far as I can tell, a national law, such as Obama care, is much like an amendment to the Constitution as it becomes (part of) the Law of the Land. As sovereign individuals, which is a status guaranteed to each of us in the U.S. Constitution through Republicanism, we cannot simply step away from this edict, because the self-serving type of politician which has decreed a national health care system, is the same type of politician which has decreed we are no longer a Republic, but a democracy where we are governed by force. This is the malevolent effect of a living Constitution.

Lobbyists and PAC’s are another form of decimation to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the extremely wealthy organizations who can simply pay for votes to achieve their goal. I’m certain Machiavelli would be proud of our politicians, after all, to these types of people, the end justifies the means. However, if you stop to consider the Republic of the United States is not supposed to be a Machiavellian society where the Prince rules over the people with an iron fist, then there must be a problem. What we now have, like it or not, is a nation which is sold to the highest bidder. This comes in the form of the special interest group. Among these advocacy groups you will find according to Dr. Kathi Carlisle, “The AFL/CIO, Amnesty International USA, the Arab American Institute, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, Campaign for United Nations Reform (or Citizens for Global Solutions), Communist Party USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Feminist Majority, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the John Birch Society, Muslim Public Affairs Council, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the Socialist Party USA[iv]” and many more. In essence, these groups attempt to influence the way which elected officials vote, which basically puts the politician in someone’s pocket. These groups also attempt to steer the country in on direction or another with no legal basis for their actions. Governance paid for by pressure groups is governance by force, not freedom.

Another factor which I believe erodes our Constitution and the status of our nation are agreements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), OAS (Organization of American States) and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which is now called the WTO (World Trade Organization) and are all undoubtedly beholden to The World Bank. Organizations such as these can only tend to move jobs and money out of the United States to others around the globe and leave us here, in the United States, in a position of poverty and servitude. We no longer have a manufacturing base of well paying jobs, we are stuck buying substandard products which are intended to break and be thrown on the junk heap as well as further the misguided notion that we are the worlds policemen. All of this has been done at the cost of our bank accounts and our sovereignty. While Americans are and have always been a people who are extremely generous, that generosity needs to come directly through the people as we see fit, not as the government sees fit. Organizations such as these, especially when given the blessings of our so-called leaders, can only chip away at our individual, State and National sovereignty.

I believe this is, in part, the New World Order. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “Many economists agree that NAFTA has had some positive impact on overall U.S. employment. But most also agree that gains have been accompanied by some painful side effects[v].” According to Edward Alden, “Wages haven’t kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality has risen in recent years.” Opponents of NAFTA such as the Economic Policy Institute state, “The deal’s trade agenda has served to widen U.S. trade deficits and has indirectly pushed some U.S. workers into lower-paying jobs.” I don’t know about you, but I personally don’t like the idea of ‘painful side effects’ or ‘lower-paying jobs’ for Americans. According to RT Question More, “The US government’s official unemployment rate, now at 8.3 percent, only takes into consideration those who have no jobs and are looking for work…this is called a “U-3” rate…The national U-6 rate is 15.3 percent, but some states have a shockingly higher individual rate[vi].” Somehow, I just can-not fathom how these so-called economic blocs are good for either U.S. workers or our economy. But with such a high unemployment rate, the U.S. government still thinks we should allow others to come and take our jobs away from us. I defy anyone to prove to me that politicians in the U.S. aren’t crooks. In a report by Erika Lovley on 6 November 2009, “Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall[vii].” Keep in mind that was nearly 3 years ago, so the figure is undoubtedly higher today. Yet these individuals believe they know what is best for the people of the United States.

[viii]

I believe other factors which further this agenda are a perverted immigration policy, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA and even TSA. If we look at our immigration policy, the word amnesty is used far too often. The Washington Post reports, “Under the new policy, as many as1.4 million undocumented immigrants under age 30 will be able to apply for the amnesty[ix].” It appears the Federal government doesn’t have a problem with the 1.4 million ‘undocumented immigrants,’ which is a really a euphemism for people who broke U.S. law by entering the United States illegally, and their families. If 1.4 million are eligible, how many others are there who are also here breaking our laws? Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security (the name itself smacks of Soviet style language) doesn’t see this as a threat to our sovereignty. But I have to wonder why? Isn’t it their duty to protect the ‘Homeland’ against invasion? If it isn’t, then why have they ordered 450 million rounds of ammunition from ATK[x]? If it isn’t to keep illegal invasion from happening, perhaps it’s for some other diabolical reason. We already know all too well what FEMA’s position is with regard to Americans. During Hurricane Katrina, they stood by and did nothing while Americans died and lived in squalor in New Orleans and many still do. In a PBS NEWSHOUR report, Senator Lieberman stated, “But government failures…allowed much more human suffering and property destruction to occur than should have[xi].” Louisiana Governor Blanco’s press secretary stated, “We wanted helicopters, food and water. They wanted to negotiate an organizational chart.” How pathetic is that? It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if FEMA, which was incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, was in league with the rest of the Federal government in an attempt to assist in the formation of a new North American Union, made up of Canada, the US and Mexico, after all, they are doing quite a good job of turning the United States into a Third World Nation.

In a report by Jerome Corsi on 19 May 2006 he stated, “Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico[xii].” The report goes on to state, “President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union.” The report concludes, “His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won’t do.” As previously stated, it appears President Obama is on board with this same idea. He also refuses to secure the border with Mexico, he refuses to enforce existing immigration laws and neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations are friends of the sovereignty of United States of America. Quite frankly, I believe this goes back even further. Something tells me George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barak Hussein Obama are all cut from the exact same piece of cloth. Plots such as these do not hatch themselves overnight, but take decades to form and implement.

Could this lead to a complete loss of our rights guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution? Would the U.S. Constitution even exist under such a system? While it isn’t much of a secret that the United States has been bankrupt by our leaders; our outstanding public debt as of 7 August 2012, according to Ed Hall of brillig.com is, “$15,918,879,613,227.57[xiii].” Would such a ploy by the Federal government con-artists of this former Republic be for such a simple reason as to gain new taxpayers? I can’t believe it would really matter. Without the United States or the U.S. Constitution, we would be nothing more than slaves to our usurpers, who already are nothing more than puppets of their masters, the so-called ‘illuminated ones.’ So just exactly where would the central power then be located? I have no doubt the central power would temporarily be somewhere in North America. I can’t help but imagine some sort of Triune would be set-up. After all, the United States has already proven their affection for Trinities; Nimrod-Semiramis-Tammuz is a good example of that. But undoubtedly, the central power would eventually be shifted, or should I say freely given to the Vatican. All of this is simply a precursor to a One World Government; a New World Order which has been envisioned by certain extremely wealthy families for thousands of years? Before you laugh too hard, perhaps you should take a moment and think about the ramifications of such an idea. Ask yourselves if the Constitution and your rights have been slowly eroded by the U.S. government, extremely wealthy multi-national corporations and banks. It’s funny how they seem to get bailed-out by us, but we get shafted by them. And by them I do mean the government, corporations and the banks. Please prove me wrong.

Tell me, are the secrets which are enthusiastically and fastidiously guarded by our so-called leaders for the protection of the nation, which means the people of the United States, or are they kept for the protection of the ruling elite? I submit that these secrets are maintained because the people would most likely revolt if they knew the truth. These deceivers know they can continue to spoon-feed us lies and they know we will accept the continuation of those lies because they are easier to swallow that the truth.

Don’t be fooled by the families of those who have prepared for countless millennia for their ‘thousand points of light.’ It’s not the light which they seek, although they call themselves ‘the illuminated ones,’ they seek darkness; war, famine, disease, slavery and death, all in the unholy name of their master who yearns for our wanton obedience to feed his desire for power to control and destroy. Be assured, these people and their master, seek to enthrall others by any means available, but they prefer to receive this through our free-will. Treachery and deception are a small part of the arsenal from which their cabal ensnares others into taking their mark freely by thoughts and beliefs as well as acts and deeds.

Now is the time to wake up! Arise and throw off the chains of mental, physical and spiritual slavery which unknowingly have been fastened around our throats with the sole intent of dragging us down into the depths of the abyss where they reside. It’s never too late to come to our senses and do what’s right and save ourselves and our Republic, the United States of America.

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

[xiv]

On Sovereignty

We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln[i]

Are we in the United States sovereign individuals? I believe we are according to the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this treatise is to investigate and expose the principals of not only what it means to be sovereign, but of sovereignty in general and whether the U.S. Constitution actually guarantees the individual sovereign status. This discourse will touch on the differences between republicanism, democracy and the actual make-up of the United States with regard to the U.S. Constitution as well as the beliefs of our founding fathers.

What is sovereignty? Black’s Law Dictionary 2^nd Ed. Defines sovereignty, “The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived[ii].” By definition, sovereignty gives the ownership of power; ultimate political power to determine; preeminent direction over the make-up and structure of not only the government, but the administration of the government as well; the provision for one to supply for his own needs, sansexternal assistance; and the source of our ability to act with regard to politics.

According to 1215.org Lawnotes[iii], “A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.” This may seem like a very small distinction, but the difference is great. The individual’s sovereign status cannot be taken by the majority in a republic, with the exception in the U.S. being “100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.” But, in a democracy, “The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.” A republic is, “That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.” A Democracy is, “That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.” So, “In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think.”

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Article VI, Clause 2 states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land[iv].” As unequivocally stated in the U.S. Constitution, the sovereign power which is vested in the people through Republicanism is guaranteedby the supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States. There can be no doubt, our forefathers, believed in the sovereign individual or the U.S. Constitution would clearly state, we the people of the United States are a democracy. Yet nowhere within the U.S. Constitution is the word democracy even mentioned.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain government.

Patrick Henry[v]

Are our Constitution and our sovereignty inviolate? I would argue, by Law, i.e. the U.S. Constitution, and by definition, our possession of sovereign power; the answer is undeniably yes, both are inviolate. But if you look not only at our modern day society, but to some of the founding fathers themselves, it is obvious there is a debate on this issue. Modern day discussions involve such matters as the 2^nd Amendment[vi] to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court[vii] has “Ruled the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers and individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense,” in District of Columbia v. Heller. In United States v. Cruikshank, the courts view was the 2^nd Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” Of course, one case (D.C. v. Heller) wasn’t for criminal enterprise, while the other (U.S. v. Cruikshank) was, yet what is interesting is the wording, “No other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” But in the case United States v. Miller, Mr. Miller and another person “Were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.” Mr. Miller’s argument was, “That the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment.” The U.S. District Court agreed with Mr. Miller, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision. The reasoning was, “The absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun…has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Obviously, one has the tendency to believe none of the Supreme Court justices at the time, had ever been in the military. I can only believe with regard to Mr. Miller’s case, as well as present day politics, We the People may as well refer to the Supreme Court as Nine Empty Chairs.

Unlike the U.S. government’s belief in dictatorship, whether it’s Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Federal, State or Local, I personally believe, as I believe many of the founding fathers of this nation believed, the government needs to be restrained by the people for good reason; they cannot be trusted. Let’s take 12 of the founding fathers of the nation, 6 truly believed in a Republican form of government; Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, Wilson and Randolph, but 6 truly believed in a Federalist form of government; Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Morris, Sherman and Jay. Which 6 were correct and which 6 weren’t? All 12 men believed in the U.S. Constitution, the Federalists simply believed in a stronger national government while the others believed in more of a Republican form of government where the individual and not the government maintained the power. Yet to the British, they were all traitors, and none of the founding fathers of this nation believed in an overreaching government or wanted one. The men who fought for Independencerisked their lives, families, wealth, property and their positions for Liberty and Freedom. Now we have just the opposite. We live in a country which is governed by force, the people are fed lies, the economy is a joke, our foreign policy is that of murder and our so-called elected officials are what appear to be Satanists who thrive on killing in order to satiate their thirst for blood.

Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts[viii]

Just exactly what the etymology of sovereign or sovereignty is, is also a matter of debate, which I will not go into. I have no doubt the Supreme Court or any other court in this nation would argue I know nothing, but what I do know for a fact, is the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution, ordained and ratified it, for the people. But the Hussein Obama administration and the rest of our self-centered narcissistic leaders have apparently once again proved their love for Liberty, Freedom and the People of the United States by awarding ATK[ix]a contract to supply 450,000,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security! By all appearances, the U.S. government doesn’t believe in the sovereign individual.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers No. 37, “Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form[x].” In Federalist No. 39, Madison posed the question and gave the answer, “Whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government[xi].” The individual citizen is guaranteed a Republican form of government by the U.S. Constitution, so why does the individual who is guaranteed sovereign status by the Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, have to seek remedy before the court with regard to his sovereign status? Has the Judicial branch of government violated the very Law which they have taken an Oath to defend, protect and preserve; the U.S. Constitution? The obvious answer is yes, but the Supreme Court with their life-time appointments have, in effect, furtively elevated themselves to what they consider to be the level of Godhead.

It is not only his right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

John Adams[xii]

Has the 14^th Amendment[xiii] to the U.S. Constitution been misconstrued and ill applied by the courts? The true purpose of the 14^th Amendment was to ensure a Constitutional guaranteed right was not abridged, such as States enacting “Jim Crow Laws[xiv]” which were portrayed as “separate but equal” but were in effect, “separate and extremely unequal” in order to circumvent the 13^th Amendment. But isn’t the 14^thAmendment which should be viewed as “basic fundamental fairness” viewed as “Federal supersedes State instead?” Federal should only supersede State when the Constitutional guaranteed right of the sovereign individual has been violated by the State or for example, if by some strange reason the State of North Dakota decided to invade either of the Provinces of Saskatchewan or Manitoba. The Federal role in this is merely to assure the State cannot violate the individual, the Federal government has no authority to decide how the individual exercises freedom, nor does the State, unless the individual has committed crimes.

If you consider the fact that in a Republic it is the guarantee given in the U.S. Constitution, that the individual is sovereign and the State is sovereign, the Federal government cannot take away that guarantee; the tail cannot wag the dog, as the Federal government is nothing more than the tail and We the People, which make up the States, are the dog itself. The hierarchy within the United States is the sovereign individuals, which make the sovereign States, which in turn make up the sovereign Nation. The power and responsibility within a Republic is vested in the People, not the government; who serve only at our pleasure. Picture if you will, a pyramid. The triangular point at the top is the Federal government’s three branches, the middle portion would be the States and the bottom portion would be the People. In a democracy, this would be an accurate depiction of the power structure. But in a Republic, where the People are guaranteed a Republican form of government, where the individuals are sovereign and the States are sovereign, the pyramid must be inverted. The portion or base which is at the top is the People, the middle portion the States and the bottom triangular portion is the Federal government. Everything flows down to the State and the Federal levels through the People. And as the People are the power of the United States, it is ourduty to ensure the government, whether State or Federal, are defending, protecting, preserving and furthering the U.S. Constitution which is the Law of the Land or they need to be removed and held accountable for their actions.

But the usurpers of the Republic of the United States are the government officials at every level. They have done nothing more than attempt to destroy our Law, the U.S. Constitution, and this has been done in many ways. The manipulation of our monetary policy[xv]; a weak dollar, low interest rates, excessive debt, unchecked spending, the surreptitious voiding of the gold standard and the creation of a worthless fiat currency, as well as voodoo economics where the belief that wealth trickles down to the people, when the wealth actually trickles down to the State and Federal governments fromthe people. The destruction to our Law has also occurred through a very destructive and misguided foreign policy agenda which clearly debilitates our nation’s stature as well as our wealth and has an appearance based on nothing with any semblance of peaceful diplomacy. The national policy of the United States is one which appears to be, and is in effect, governance by force.

So, are we in the United States sovereign individuals? I believe we are supposed to be, according to the founding fathers of this nation, but in reality, we are slaves to the Federal and State governments. Are we a sovereign nation? Once again, I believe we are supposed to be, according to the founding fathers, but in reality, our so-called leaders are really nothing more than puppets of the Illuminati[xvi]; the destroyers of men and nations and the proponents of a one-world government or New World Order[xvii], where no man is Free and Liberty is non-existent.

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people…must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live… We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers.  Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile…private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

Thomas Jefferson[xviii]

God Bless the United States of America. Completed on this 25^thday of July in the year of our Lord 2012.

Brett L. Baker

On_Sovereignty

The Constitution of the United States[i] is much more than just a piece of paper; it is a document written by God fearing men who believed in Liberty and Justice for all who are citizens of this great nation and their Posterity. While the U.S. Constitution is a guide for ourselves and for those who represent us, the U.S. Constitution is much more; it is the “law of the land” and should be viewed as such, as well as considered whenever any of the three branches of government, i.e., Executive, Legislative or Judicial, enact new laws or perform the duties of their respective offices. I also believe every Citizen of the United States should question themselves with regard to their actions; are we Just, are we promoting the general Welfare, are we striving to ensure Liberty, are our actions helping to form a more perfect Union? These ideals cannot simply be for one, they must be for all, as eloquently stated by our fore-fathers, “We the People of the United States.”

On the 17^th day of September in 1787 the ordination and Establishment of the Constitution was ratified. This document gave us reasonable guidelines by which to govern ourselves in a responsible and civil manner and the delineation of the process by which we elect government officials, the formation and function of the three separate branches of government and the duties of each within the boundaries of the Constitution of the United States. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution also guarantees to each and every State in the Union a “Republican Form of Government,” whereby the individuals as well as the States themselves are sovereign.

Enough cannot be said about the value and intent of the words within the U.S. Constitution itself. Article II, Section 1 clearly states the President shall, “Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article VI clearly states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States; shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI goes on to further state, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Undeniably, the framers of the Constitution of the United States demanded the continued preservation, protection, defense and support of the Constitution in perpetuity for the People of this great nation. There can be no doubt the Constitution of the United States is the Law of the Land. Our leaders are bound by the oaths of their offices to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The U.S. Constitution is a means to promote not only the general Welfare, but to promote an equitable system of governance, through just laws which provide the framework to form a more perfect Union. As stated in Article III, Section 2, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” The U.S. Constitution is the conception of an ideal by decent, free thinking men, whose sole purpose was to live a life free of tyranny from those who would oppress us, and to ensure those same ideals existed for their Posterity.

The United States of America is, in effect, not only a conglomeration of people, but of ideas as well. Through the supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, sovereign citizens of sovereign States, within a sovereign nation act to establish a just and equitable society, where Liberty is unfettered and the government exists to serve the People.

While the art of articulation does not elude me, I find myself unable to match what I consider to be a perfect man-made statement of Truth and Wisdom: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Mission Statement[i]
Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.

American diplomacy in the 21^st century is based on fundamental beliefs: our freedom is best protected by ensuring that others are free; our prosperity depends on the prosperity of others; and our security relies on a global effort to secure the rights of all. The history of the American people is the chronicle of our efforts to live up to our ideals. In this moment in history, we recognize that the United States has an immense responsibility to use its power constructively to advance security, democracy, and prosperity around the globe. We will pursue these interests and remain faithful to our beliefs.

FY 2004-2009 Department of State and USAID Strategic Plan

According to the U.S. State Department, for the fiscal years 2004-2009, the United States mission is to createsecurity, democracy and prosperity throughout the world not only for U.S. citizens, but the people of the world as a whole. While I find this statement to be extremely generous and altruistic, I can’t help but wonder why the U.S. State Departments mission statement is a contradiction rather than an axiom. The premise is fraught with controversy which necessitates discussion.  Typically, actions speak louder than words; I shall endeavor to discuss both the actions and the words of the U.S. State Department.

I suggest we take a look at this mission statement which was taken directly from the U.S. Department of State website and fully examine its meaning. Let’s start with the statement: the creation of a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community. While I would agree the United States has acted in an honorable fashion in the past, such as, the sacrifices made by the American people to end Hitler’s reign of terror. This effort, of course, was not just an American effort; it was an effort by many people of many nations who worked together for a common and righteous goal. I believe the end result was in fact, a more secure, just, and prosperous world. But let’s fast forward to the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century and examine our actions.

Iraq is a good example of the U.S. State Departments mission. How many bombs and bullets does it take to create security, democracy or prosperity in Iraq? From January 1991 to December 2011 the expenditure of munitions by the United States and its allies in Iraq hasn’t actually created security, democracy or prosperity; it has created instability, inequality and poverty. I’m not suggesting Saddam Hussein wasn’t a ruthless dictator, I am suggesting he was an ally and protégé of the CIA and the U.S. State Department. So how did this war that basically lasted 20 years (I include the years between Operation Desert Storm and the 2003 Iraq War, when the U.S. military maintained a no-fly zone by bombing Iraq), create a secure, democratic and prosperous Iraq as a result of our CIA protégé Saddam Hussein and the U.S. State Department mission?

Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East after the Ba’ath party stepped away from the CIA following the coup in 1968. This increased standard of living happened over the next 22 years, basically through the nationalization of the Iraqi oil industry[ii]. Now that the U.S. military has left Iraq, after 20 years of war, the Iraqi standard of living is improving somewhat, yet in 2008 the World Food Programme[iii] estimated “3.1% of Iraqi households were described as “food insecure” and living with hunger and fearing starvation.” This is a sad but “considerable improvement to the 15.4% figure from the survey in 2005.” In 2010 the BBC reported, “23% of Iraqis live below the poverty line[iv].” However, I find it hard to believe Iraqi’s are more secure as a result of its people fearing starvation or because of the 20 year killing spree in their country by the west, or the 8 years of war with Iran for certain favors by Saddam’s mentor, the CIA and the U.S. State Department. Figures for documented civilian deaths from violence in the 2^nd Persian Gulf War, also known as the 2003 Iraq War, alone are between 107,055 and 116,979 people according to IBC (Iraq Body Count) [v].

“…In the case of Iraq, the question that emerges from this consideration is,

“Was there any other way to remove Saddam?” In this case, the answer, as

described above, is yes, but the U.S. government is not sufficiently dexterous

or focused to accomplish lower cost, longer-term solutions.

The conclusion is that American leaders and the American people must assume

that a foreign policy objective must be so important that it is worth doing very

badly--because it is probable that the U.S. government will, in the event, do

it very badly.Good intentions are not enough. Our good intentions, when

acted upon, have done much damage.”

Charles Duelfer[vi]

Excerpt from, Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq

I can only wonder how 20 years of war with the U.S. from 1991 to 2011, along with the decades of meddling by the CIA and the U.S. State Department has created a more secure, democratic and prosperous Iraq? If you look at Iraq today you will find a country besieged by violence; the daily Al Jazeera reports of violence in Iraq are all similar, “Iraq: A country still in shambles[vii],” “Scores killed in Iraq attacks[viii],” and “Has sectarian violence returned to Iraq[ix].” Daily reports from the BBC are almost mirror images, “Deadly blasts hit Baghdad, Kirkuk and other Iraq cities[x],” “Iraq violence: Eight killed in Baquba café bomb attacks[xi],” and “Bomb attack in Iraq kills three Lebanese Shia pilgrims[xii].”

Should the United States aggressively fight and act as the policemen of the world? I would argue our Navy should and does protect international waters to keep open all shipping lanes as well as protect mariners on the high seas, but this is just as much a duty and responsibility of other nations Navies as it is ours. But why should the U.S. military actually be required (other than to simply follow orders), or if it is even legal, to act in other nations at the behest of the U.S. State Department as their minions to further a misguided U.S. State Department foreign policy agenda? I’m not certain within how many countries a combative role is played by the U.S. military, or if it is even possible to know the true number, but reports indicate “direct action has been taken by the U.S. military in Yemen and Somalia[xiii].” In 1980, “The Reagan-Bush administration begins funding the Contra War[xiv],” according to Stanford.edu, “This ten-year war is fought at the cost of 60,000 lives, 178 billion dollars, and the Nicaraguan infrastructure and economy.” Other reports state, “The U.S. funded the rebels, illegally mined a harbor, taught the rebels terror tactics, and destroyed the elected government’s infrastructure. Nicaragua lost approximately a quarter of its population and the rest were terrorized[xv].” Or the U.S. involvement in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990’s as stated in a report, “Croatian troops were being trained by…Military Professional Resources, which was licensed by the U.S. State Department. Some believe the U.S. actually instructed Croatia when to proceed with their attack and promised to reward them[xvi].”  Further evidence the U.S. acts as the policemen of the world, are U.S. military operations in Africa as reported by Al Jazeera in, “Timeline; US military activity in Africa…from 1993 to 2011[xvii].” I do believe the Congress should act solely based upon what is best for the people of our nation when we are attacked. I must also note; many of the operations in Africa during that time were security and evacuation operations of U.S. citizens, U.S. government personnel at U.S. embassies and third nation citizens which are acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. But the true purpose of the U.S. military is for the common defence as stated in the U.S. Constitution. However, without express consent from another sovereign nation asking for our assistance, we have no authority to act within those borders and we should not be compelled to act within those borders as the world’s policemen. Unless the United States has been attacked byanother nation or our citizens in those nations have been attacked, where is our obligation?

While our fundamental beliefs may be to ensure that others are free, prosperous and secure in their rights; our beliefs, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution[xviii], undeniably are intended for the citizens of this great nation; the United States of America. Can we actually defend policies of the U.S. State Department which bring our economy and the economies of other nations to the brink of ruin[xix]? The U.S. State Department must believe the power of the United States, whether wielded constructively or destructively is a responsible way to advance their form of security, democracy and prosperity around the globe. Reuters reports approximately 250,000 deaths, 365,000 wounded and 7.8 million people displaced in Iraq alone and a possible dollar cost of 3.7 to 4.4 trillion for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan according to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies[xx]. The report also noted even with the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, “Iraq and Afghanistan are far from stable democracies.” The National Priorities Project breaks down the costs of the 2003 Iraq War and the Afghanistan War in Cost of War to the United States, which clearly shows, ‘prosperity’ is definitely not part of the U.S. State Department equation[xxi]. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter recently accused the Obama administration of sanctioning the widespread abuse of human rights[xxii] and violating 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[xxiii]with regard to drone attacks. How do these violations of individual human rights ‘secure the rights of all’ as described in the U.S. State Departments mission statement?

Should the U.S. engage in activities which cause massive death and destruction in other sovereign nations, such as Iraq[xxiv], without just cause? Chief inspector for the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group, Charles A. Duelfer stated to a Senate panel, “We were almost all wrong” on Iraq. If Mr. Hans Blix[xxv], head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) from March 2000 to June 2003, stated the war was illegal, and Dr. David Kay[xxvi]chief inspector of the U.S.-led ISG (who resigned 23 January 2004) and his successor Mr. Charles A. Duelfer, all stated there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, then where was the just cause for the invasion?

Perhaps as a Republic, we should demand the Congress of the United States act in a manner as set forth in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution with concern to the Declaration of War and not hand that power over to the Executive Branch of government, which has the power to Make War, but not declare war. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit didn’t see it that way[xxvii]. The U.S Constitution also states in Article II, Section 1 with regard to the duties of the President, “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”” If the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress fail to act in a manner as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then haven’t they violated the U.S. Constitution?

We should act if possible, to provide freedom, prosperity and human rights to everyone on the planet through diplomacy. Unfortunately, the U.S. State Departments attempts in this area are generally at gunpoint or through bribery. But first and foremost, the Constitution of the United States of America was and is intended to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity.”

An example of the U.S. State Departments policy of diplomacy at gunpoint is the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. Prior to the invasion, the UN Security Council was advised by Mr. Blix the lead weapons inspector, that Iraq was cooperating and had given access, but no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found. After the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group didn’t find one WMD[xxviii]. The transcript from an interview with Margaret Warner of PBS and chief inspector for the U.S.-led ISG, Mr. Duelfer, states there were no WMD in Iraq[xxix]. An example of the U.S. State Departments policy of diplomacy through bribery is a $7.5 billion dollar aid package to Pakistan. The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated the money would mainly go to seven signature  projects[xxx]. The New York Times report further stated, “Pakistanis see the aid as a crude attempt to buy friendship and an effort to alleviate antipathy toward United States drone attacks against militants in the tribal areas.”

The founding fathers of this nation created a Constitutional Republic, they never intended to create a democracy[xxxi], nor did they intend to export such ideals around the globe. I would unequivocally state, the chronicle of American efforts throughout the history of this great nation have been to uphold such lofty ideals as stated in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[xxxii]. U.S. citizens have historically been a generous people, who are concerned with the general welfare of others; within the United States as well as outside of her borders. Yet nowhere within the U.S. Constitution does it state, “We the People of the United Stateswill provide these ideals to the entire globe, whether they like it or not.”

Perhaps the U.S. State Departments desire for democracy around the globe should be examined as well as the word itself. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary[xxxiii] defines democracy as “a government by the people; especially: rule of the majority” and “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” However, if we look at the etymology of democracy, I believe we find something entirely different. According to The Olin Revelation[xxxiv], typically, the traditional viewpoint is “democracy is derived from two Greek words: demos, meaning the common people, and kratos, meaning rule.” Other ancient Greek words also “meant or are related to” common people, such as “idiotes” meaning “unskilled person” (“people who didn’t participate in public life”), or “laos” which is where “we get the words laymen and laity” it also means “people of the same community.” However, kratos“appears to be closely associated with acts of strength, courage and/or violence.” So one could easily say and define democracy as “governance by force,” which seems to fit in with the U.S. State Departments mission statement as well as its actions.

                       “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,

                                                      deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

                                                              Benjamin Franklin[xxxv]

Assume the U.S State Department is concerned with democracy and freedom for the U.S. and others around the globe. Why do their actions point away from so-called democracy and freedom? Under Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of State has the power to designate groups, whether foreign or domestic, as terrorists[xxxvi]. Terrorist activity is defined and states, “…’engage in terrorist activity’ means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization--to commit or incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity.” By definition, the Secretary of State could label a home-owner a terrorist for killing an intruder within the home in the middle of the night as well as label members of the military or law enforcement agencies who act within the scope of their duties, as such. Another example, is the U.S. State Departments desire to have their own drones as reported by Nextgov, “The procurement…marks the start of a project to provide…UAV assets that could be deployed anywhere in the world[xxxvii].” Of course this is proffered under the guise of security for diplomats, which is undoubtedly a euphemism for spying.

The New York Times reported on 9 December 2011 about a formal complaint to the UN Security Council by Iran, “The hostile and aggressive behavior of the United States in sending a sophisticated radar-evading spy drone over Iranian territory[xxxviii].” Congress has not made a Declaration of War with regard to Iran, yet we violate their airspace with a surveillance drone. I’m certain the U.S. Department of State considers this to be security for the American and Iranian people, just as their desire for a worldwide fleet of drones is for the protection of the world. However, the U.S. State Department is not alone in this endeavor. The U.S. Congress has passed a bill which requires the FAA to open American airspace to drones by 2015. PRESSTV[xxxix] reports, “There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities” according to, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Project on Government Secrecy[xl]. I can only wonder how this possibly furthers a more secure, democratic and prosperous world. However, I do believe the definition of democracy as “governance by force”applies.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is building a new massive complex in Bluffdale Utah. According to Reader Supported News (RSN) as well as The Extinction Protocol, “near-bottomless databases” will collect and store “all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases and other digital “pocket litter[xli].”” This is a clear violation of the 4^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[xlii].” The upshot according to a senior intelligence official, “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.” I believe this is a perfect example of the U.S. government’s desire to control peoples every move; to do away with Justice, to discard domestic Tranquility, to completely forget about the general Welfare, and to remove peoples Blessings of Liberty not only for themselves, but for their Posterity as well. None of what is happening is about security, democracy or prosperity; this is all about governance by force. Invasive government tactics such as these, whether domestic or international, are a threat to our Freedom, our Liberty and our way of life.

I freely state without reservation, the President of the United States, the U.S. Congress and Judiciary as well as the U.S. State Department have nothing but utter contempt and disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our Republic has been decimated by those who wish to do the same on a global level. I cannot believe we have been using our power constructively over the last number of decades, or we would have been trying to form a more perfect Union, as our founding fathers envisioned, rather than foisting the U.S. governments and the U.S. State Departments depraved policies on ourselves and on other peoples. By allowing these “Nabobs of Obfuscation and Deceit” the unfettered power to destroy people and nations, “We the People” of the United States are, in fact, also guilty of violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing Hypocrites and Prevaricatorsthe absolute power which they so desperately crave. We have neither advanced security in the U.S. nor abroad. We have not advanced Liberty or prosperity around the globe, and we certainly have not advanced Liberty or prosperity right here in the United States of America.

                “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

                                                                  Thomas Jefferson[xliii]

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America. Completed on this 2^ndday of July, in the year of our Lord 2012.

Brett L. Baker

 References