A little bit of background before we get started: In the late 1800’s into the early 1900’s there was a movement of people, mainly in the UK and the US who wanted women’s voting rights.  This group are now referred to as “1st Wave Feminists”.  The goals of this group were accomplished as the UK allowed women to vote in 1910 and the US followed with the same decree in 1920.  In the 1950’s through the 1980’s there became a new group; “2nd wave feminists”.  This group was slightly more radical than their predecessors, their goals being to legalize abortion and to have government subsidized birth control.  This group came and went as a new group formed in the late 1990’s; 3rd wave feminism.  Unlike the first two waves who were found all around western countries, third wave feminists can be found either crying about the “misogyny” and “patriarchy” on social media or sleeping in their parents house.  On a serious note, this group has a very literal cult-like following which has gained them a very negative reputation among society as fat, bitchy, supremacists who have no chance at getting a male spouse and way too eager to claim victim status.  The funny thing is that they do not even know why them have gained this reputation.  In the following presentation I will attempt to explain to these people why they have gained this horrible reputation and why everyone's turning their backs on them.

1. Cult-Like Attributes

Society hates cults, and feminism is no exception.  A am I republican, which is an unpopular opinion where I live.  I normally make jokes about who I will get a scholarship to West Point (a jab at Ben Carson) and how I will build a wall so h-uge it will be envied by Chi-na (a jab at Donald Trump).  However, feminists fail to make jokes about themselves or even laugh at themselves.  Political movements and parties can laugh at themselves, cults cannot.

Another way feminism is similar to a cult is how the separate you from society and then make you more radical and then adopt them as your new family.  They pull you in by claiming that they are a group from women’s rights.  Then  they have you adopt radical stances for LGBT-related issues and environmental issues.  They push you to be more and more radical until you think that it is ridiculous to shower because then you would be “giving in to the patriarchy”.  By doing this, they are isolating you from all men (49% of the American population) and most women.  You end up adopting them as your family as you become more and more of a radical.

2.) Weakening Women Under the Guise of Empowering Them

This is one that really rubs me the wrong way.  You may see the title of this and start scratching your head, but let me explain.  A more specific way of saying “empowering” would be threatening women with claims they are giving into the patriarchy.  You want to lose weight?  Stop!  You’re giving into the patriarchy and female beauty standards.  You want marry a man?  Stop!  You’re giving into the patriarchy.  You want to take a shower daily and take care of your basic hygiene?  Stop!  You’re giving into the patriarchy.  The feminists are using this line of “Don’t give in to male standards. Don’t give in to the patriarchy,“ as a way of weakening women under the subtle guise of making them feel strong.

You might say, “This is ridiculous, who would be that stupid to fall for this?  Once they realize they are a fat, smelly shell of their potential, they will blame the movement.”  But this is the worst part; the feminist movement has figured out a way to evade all blame for women’s problems caused by their movement.  How, you ask?  By blaming it on society.  “Society decides you are fat!  Society decides you are smelly!  Society decides that you are not beautiful!” they will tell you.  Let this be a message to all feminists who has such great potential but were dragged into this movement and because a short-haired, fat, smelly, society-blaming feminist.  SOCIETY DOES NOT DECIDE WHO YOU BECOME.  YOU DO!  You have the power to decide your destiny, to choose your path.  DON’T LET FEMINISM DICTATE YOUR FUTURE.  Society does not choose who is fat, who smells like a dog, and who is beautiful.  All of that are thing that you decide.  Go on a diet.  Use soap in the shower.  Put on makeup.  Society is not telling you who you are and what you can become.  Feminism is.

3.) Disdain, Contempt, and Even Hate for Men

In 2014, the shampoo company Pantene ran a commercial that involved a series of situations there was a woman and a man and the woman said “sorry” to be polite.  These include; a woman interrupting a man’s presentation, woman interrupting someone in their office, woman not allowing a man enough space for him to comfortably sit down, mother interrupts to give him the baby so she can find something to eat, women not giving man enough space to sit at a board room table, woman waking man up by taking man’s covers, and two people start talking at the same time, followed by the title card, “Don’t be Sorry”.  The commercial goes through the same scenarios except with the women acting like passive-aggressive bitches instead of politely saying sorry like a normal person.  Obviously, this not that bad, at least compared to some other examples.

The in 2015 superbowl, phone service T-Mobile ran an ad starring prominent feminist Sarah Silverman.  In this ad, Sarah Silverman hands a couple a newborn child saying, “Sorry, it’s a boy;”  a line that sums up 3rd wave feminism.  If you think that feminists would conduct an apology for this ad and make sure this kind of thing does not happen again, you have not yet figured out 3rd wave feminism.  Almost immediately, feminists denied claims that this was a sign of supremacy. They countered the claims of supremacy by claiming that women are victims of sexism every day through, “treating threats to release women’s private information as a hoax… actually releasing women’s private photos… banning bodies on social media… paying them less for the same work… (this is) institutionalized oppression and misogyny,” (Salon.com, Jenny Kunter).

Let’s start with the “ paying them less for the same work”.  The irony is, in this commercial, which is basically feminist propaganda, that Chelsea Handler, the other woman in the commercial says, “I can talk from anywhere in my mansion.”  That along with the wage gap myth, which we will talk about and debunk later.

Let’s move on to the next ones.  “Banning bodies on social media” refers to instagram’s ban on pubic hair that was retracted soon after it was enacted.  

Threatening and even releasing nudes is truly as terrible thing to do, but it doesn’t equate to the “institutionalized oppression” that Jenny Kunter is claiming to be a victim of.

We can talk about these kinds of commercials all day, but you could still claim that the hatred of men is not written down.  Point your attention to the SCUM manifesto, the Society of Cutting Up Men, a book by feminist Valerie Solanas in 1967.  The SCUM manifesto argues that men have ruined the world so women have to fix it by eliminating the male gender.  This is surprising popular amongst feminists have been the basis of a number of murders.

Then trend has seeped into twitter, in the form of #killallmen.  It’s not like someone with any real power or influence would fall to this depth.  Oh wait, Hillary “I will say whatever I must to become president” Clinton.  Hillary Clinton apparently wants to be known as a feminist.  In 1998, then First-Lady Clinton gave a speech to a conference on domestic violence in San Salvador, El Salvador, where she claimed that, “Women have always been the primary victims of war… (because) women lose their husbands, fathers, and sons in combat.”  This is an example of a feminist completely dismissing the importance of a man’s life as if he were a computer or a machine.  This is the equivalent of saying men are the primary victims of childbirth when there are complications and the mother dies.  She claims that having the sole responsibility of raising children is more catastrophic than dying.

When a blog post called, “I Aborted my Baby- Because it was a Boy”, hit the web and went viral, everyone assumed it was written by a feminist.  After all, from what we have seen and heard from feminists, why wouldn’t we think that?  Feminists continued to go on their regular path of denying the level of sexism and credibility of this blog instead of asking themselves questions like, why are people automatically assuming it was us?  Is sexism our status quo?  How can we fix our reputation or change our ways?

3.)  The Feminist(s) that cried “Patriarchy!”

There’s nothing more annoying than a ginger, overweight, smelly, feminist crying patriarchy in a shrill voice, especially when the facts don’t add up.  Feminists enjoying yelling patriarchy, misogyny, and that the world in Men Vs. Women.  You add that opinion to the fact that women make up over 50% of the population if female (quickfacts.census.gov) and you get a feminist logic moment!  If this country was Male vs. Female, like the feminists claim, then Hillary Clinton would have shot through the Democratic primary in 2008 and walked right into the White House, or a woman would have become president years before that.  This of course did not happen.

Before we move forward on this topic, we should define our term.  Patriarchy means “a form of social organization where the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descendant in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe.”

This patriarchy just does not exist in our country or in any western country.  If you look at the statistics way more single moms than single dads.  This means that when there is a divorce, the children generally go to the mother, contrary to “the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe” part of the definition.

In terms of “girl power” or “woman power” there is no way we live in a patriarchy.  Women control a substantial 20% of congress and 20% of the senate.  The number of female CEO’s of fortune 500 companies has hit an all-time high.

On a monetary perspective, it is also a no-contest.  Women control 60% of all personal wealth and 51% of stocks in the US (according to Virginia Tech).  Women also manage the household finances, being the primary shopper in 75% of American families as of a 2009 study, contrary to the father being supreme.

Feminists, this is a huge reason why people cannot stand you.  You throw around phrases like patriarchy without even knowing what they mean.  Please, next time one of you want to scream, “Patriarchy!  Patriarchy!” learn the meaning of the damn word and bring some actual facts to back up your blank claim.

4.) Wage Gap Myth

How many times have you heard a feminist claim that women in this country get paid 65%, 67%, 73%, 75%, or 80% (honestly, the percentage changes every time I hear it) of a man for the same work?  This is, of course, a blatant lie.  The exact claim is that all women make 77% of a all men in the US overall, regardless of education, credentials, employer, risk, hours, or even specific job.

Well, let’s say that this was true and women were being paid an average 77% of men’s wages for the same work.  One, if I were a business owner I would never hire a men again if I knew that I could get away with paying a woman 77% for the same work.  Two, this would be illegal.  In every country in the western world there is a law banning unbalanced paid for the same work for the same hours.  In the US, it is mandated by the equal pay act, which was signed into law by John F. Kennedy in 1963.

However, it is an undeniable fact that as a whole women are getting paid an average 77% of men.  But, why?  According to the US Bureau of Labor, women are twice as likely to work part-time as men.  25% of women work part time.  Women are also 50% more likely to work in the public sector, which is typically offers lower pay to employees.  According to a recent survey, 19% of men worked 50 or more hours a week while only 7% of women did the same.  43% of women leave the workforce after having children, leaving them with no income therefore bringing down the average.

Men are also proved to more likely move into high-paying jobs.  For example, there are more males that pursue degrees in engineering and computer science than there are females.  There are more females who pursue degrees in education and social sciences than males.  The highest paying job in America today is a physician, with is dominated by men 2/1.  Only 17% of technology related jobs are females.

Now, you can’t blame it on capitalism, so I guess you are going to blame it on patriarchy.  “Oh, society is not letting women pursue their dreams.”  This brings me back to an earlier point; society does not dictate your life.  Society does not choose your major in college.  Society does not choose what colleges you choose to apply to.  Society does not decide where you look for work.  You do.  The patriarchy is not denying women the right to education so that they can keep women down.  In fact, women are 33% more likely to graduate college than men and have noticeably lower high school and college drop-out rates.

5.) Turning Human Issues into “Women’s Issues”

Here I will be specifically talking about the issues of abortion, rape, and sexual harassment.  Feminists have made a habit of blaming things on men, labeling them “women’s issues”, and disqualify you from having an opinion if you happen to have a penis.  The most prominent examples of this are abortion, rape, and sexual harassment.

Feminists like to pretend that there is an “institutionalized patriarchy” and that sexual harassment is perpetrated by men to keep women down.  This would be ignoring the facts which shows that 1 in 6 men have been or are being sexually harassed.  By claiming that this is a “women’s issue” and disqualified male opinions they are silencing 17% of men who actually have been victims of sexual harassment.

Rape is an issue that feminists have really pushed as a “woman’s issue”.  Feminists have repeatedly attempted changing the definition of rape to basically mean regretful decisions (which is a huge middle finger towards victims of violent rape, if you ask me) and have discredited their opposers by saying, “This is a women’s issue.  You are not qualified to have an opinion of women’s issues.”  Like sexual harassment, this hurts the significant number of male rape victims.

Feminists have started another lie called “rape culture”.  This claims that culture amongst the patriarchal men that encourages and rewards rape.  Obviously, this is ridiculous, especially combined with the fact that if you put the number of male rapists in the country over the number of men in the country you will get a decimal that is closer to zero than one.

Abortion is the biggest issue that feminists have shoved down people’s throats as a women’s issue.  Personally, I am pro-life, but I understand that it is a very complex issue and many of you probably have strong opinions.  However, if you think that men should not be allowed to have opinions on this issue, you are kidding yourself.  Abortion is as much as an issue for women as it is for the black community.  Abortion has been sold cheaply to blacks and has terminated over half of african american fetus's.  Many minorities have fallen victim similarly to abortion as the example of the black community.  If you think that these people should not be allowed to hold opinions on this issue, slap yourself.  Hard.  You deserve it.

6.) Male Feminists

I seriously can’t stand these people.  I really, really can’t.  As you have probably noticed already, feminists have a strong prejudice against men.  So, why do these men become feminists?  There are a multitude of rationales and reasons, but they basically boil down to three; they are more feminine than masculine so the movement appeals to them, men with guilt that they are sexist and use feminism to convince themselves that they are not sexist, and people who think they have “white guilt/male privilege” for really no good reason.

According to feminists, can men be real feminists?  On everydayfeminism.com there is an article titled, Men Should be Feminists, but Should They Call Themselves Feminists?  In this article, author Drew Bowling says, “In short, I’m skeptical of the legitimacy of men calling themselves feminists… In general, I think me could be useful to feminism… (because the are) vested in privilege… but men calling themselves feminists also makes me slightly nervous because I think a lot more accountability could be made of feminist men.”  Prominent feminist Emma Watson was bombarded by the feminist community for claiming that the “best feminists are men”.

So as you can see, feminists are not very comfortable with male feminists.  This is just one of the many backstabbing divisions of feminism, which brings me to my next point...

7.) Online Hate

It should come to no surprise to any of you that there is a multitude of stupid people on social media.  One of the many sects of these many stupid peoples are self revered revolutionaries/activists, which, based off of my experiences on social media, is made up mainly by feminists.  Feminists have used social media as a main weapon to spread their ideas.

Unfortunately, feminists have shifted over the years from using social media to spread their ideas but have gone on to do other things like; crying patriarchy.  The comes into form under the #everydaysexism project, which tries to catalog all women’s experiences with sexism with the hashtag #everydaysexism.  I’m an not saying that all of these should be treated like jokes, but every tweet about a woman getting molested when she was a kid there are ten or twenty more like this:

“#Googles algorithm shows prestigious job ads to men, but not to women #everdaysexism” - @1helenmc

“Hey buddy, I’m not an ornament.  If you don’t like how I look that’s your problem.  Grrrrrrr.  #everydaysexism” - @writeontime_

“Today’s street harasser said ‘c’mon you can at least smile’ in a growl that conveyed ‘how dare you not acknowledge me.’ #everydaysexism” @skinny

You can see where I am coming from.  These are the greatest examples I have ever seen of first world problems.  There are other movements too that try and bully men as a whole.  #whowillyouhelp is a hashtag campaign that was hijacked by feminism to paint men of all professions, races, and creeds as sex offenders.  It is important to note that all of the scenarios in #whowillyouhelp have the man as the offender and women as a victim.  As I have said before, this is not always the case.

When people point out to feminists that boys and men are victims of sex crimes as well, feminists fights back by attempting to bully them into submission.  This come to form in #maletears, #misandry, and of course, #killallmen.  Feel free to look any of these up on facebook, twitter, instagram, or tumblr.

The hashtag #killallmen was started back in 2013 and has no end in sight.  It was started as a joke to get a reaction of surprise from the strength of FEMINIST POWER!  This, of course, did not happen.  To feminists surprise, various men wrote back:

“Congrats feminists, you have officially become hate filled irrationalists,”

“(this is) childish posturing, whining, and identity politics,”

“Dear feminists… Guess how I know you are gay,”

Feminists have made the realization that on their own they are small minorities in their communities, but though the space of social media they can band together to become a powerful hate group.

8.) Objectifying Women and Fat Pride vs. Slut Pride and #Freethenipple

These are four big beliefs of the feminist movement, so let me explain them.  The idea of objectifying women claims that putting sexy women in commercials or thinking women are hot because of their bodies is the equivalent of treating them like objects.  Fat pride, as I explained before, is a way of the feminist movement absolving themselves from the blame of making women fat, by blaming it on society.  Slut pride is blaming the label “slut” on society.  #Freethenipple is a movement that pushes the social acceptance of women walking around shirtless.

There is no such thing as “objectifying women”.  A man can watch a car commercial that sports a model holding the beer and think  that the model is hot while still recognizing the woman’s rights as a human being.  Just because a man thinks a woman is hot because of her body does not mean that he is dismissing her her rights as a human being.

You should not be proud to be fat.  Being fat is extremely unhealthy.  Fat is not beautiful for a number of reasons.  Men do not want to date fat women because it will be a source of endless humor among his friends at his expense.  Men do not want to date fat women because it comes with other issues like lack of discipline that could potentially be passed on to their children.

You should not be proud to be labeled a slut.  Being with multiple partners is not healthy, both physically and mentally.  Mentally, it is better to be committed to one partner.  Physically, the more men you sleep with the larger your chance is to contract STD’s.

I don’t really care about the #Freethenipple movement.  Since I am a man, it does not really affect me.  Honestly, if you want to walk around shirtless, go for it.  I seriously couldn’t care less.

The thing is, the ideas of fat pride and objectifying women contradict slut pride and #Freethenipple.  Objectifying women and fat pride are about how there is no beauty standard and how women should not be treated like sex-objects.  Slut pride is glorifying something that is only a couple steps below selling yourself, like an object, for sex.  #Freethenipple is literally parades of women showing off their boobs to promote the idea of women regularly showing off their boobs.

This rift in ideology has created a huge amount of confusion.  I should be proud that I am a slut, right?  On shouldn’t I because I am objectifying myself and involuntarily oppressing fat women.

9.) The Idea of “White Feminists”

“Calling all white, straight, cis, feminists,” read the title of a feminist writing piece in a feminist information pamphlet, “It’s time to wake the fuck up.”  The idea of differentiating white, straight, and cisgender feminists (let’s call them white feminists for short) from the rest of the pack is an ideal that has not only been around since the dawn of third-wave feminists, but also an ideal that is intertwined with the core values of feminism.

Besides Planned Parenthood, fat models, and tumblr, feminists value victim status.  Many minority groups claim victim status to make themselves more important; whether that be Blacklivesmatter, who claim they are targeted by an unfriendly police force; or hispanic group Deportracism who claim that they are oppressed by presidential candidates with no political power.  These groups claim victim status to guilt people to listen to their demands and create a level of importance for themselves above all of the “non-victims”.  In fact, the whole movement of feminism is built around claiming victim status, using it to force people to hear their views, and then attempting to make themselves more important that the “non-victims.”  In the hierarchy of this system, if you are a white, male, straight, cisgender, christian then you are the equivalent of dirt.  If you are a female, black, lesbian, transgender, muslim, feminist then you are a god.

The whole idea of victim status has been one of the many, many cancers that have slowly degraded that noble first-wave feminism into the modern third-wave feminism.  Victim status has taught feminists this: the more minority groups you belong to, the more of a victim you are; the more of a victim you are the more power/voice you have.  This has caused transgender, gay, black, hispanic, muslim, etc. feminists have power over white, straight, cis, and especially male feminists.

This hierarchical system has heavily crippled the internal culture of feminism but has also posed a huge double standard.  Feminists preach nonstop that they wish to tear down the (fictional) hierarchical patriarchy while they practice their own, very real, hierarchical system of internal oppression.  This hierarchical system has created a dog eat dog world in the world of feminism.  If a lowly white, straight, cis, feminists tries to stand down a gay, transgender feminist’s ideas, the rest of the pack pounces on them with claims of homophobia and transphobia.

10.) Slacktivism

As I said before, feminists scream their loudest on instagram, twitter, and tumblr.  Many feminists sit on their overweight, unmarried asses and type away on their smartphones and computers making a “difference in the world”.

When I think of the phrase making a difference in the world I think of four people.  The first three were men; Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr.  These three men made a huge difference in the world.  They didn’t do it by making anonymous instagram accounts or screaming with their friends of tumblr, they gathered a mass of people and made their voices heard.

The fourth person was Susan B. Anthony.  Susan B. Anthony was a brilliant speech giver and embodies and rallied the first-wave feminist movement.  Susan B. Anthony traveled across the United States of America rallying women and men with her heartfelt speeches under the simple cause for women’s rights to vote.  Susan B. Anthony did not impose a hierarchy of status among her followers, she did not hate groups of people, and she did not spread lies to further her agenda and popularize her propaganda.  She gathered an army of American citizens, both male and female, that won women the right to vote soon after she died.

Feminists know that cannot compare to the glory days of Susan B. Anthony, or become the next Martin Luther King Jr.  They know that they cannot reach these ceilings for the following two main reasons.  One, there are not that many strong feminists.  It seems like it is 50-50 between feminists and the sane few but it is because in this day in age with the media, the shrillest scream gets the MSNBC microphone.  They know that if they step out of their homes and gather in a MLK-esque march on Washington, there will be only so many CNN camera angles before even the casual viewer at home will realize that this group is a slim minority.  

Two, today’s feminism is an extremist group.  Most people who don’t consider themselves either strong feminists or strong haters of the group think of themselves as feminists because they associate feminists with Susan B. Anthony and first-wave feminism rather than the fat, ugly beast it is.  If feminists publicly voice their views then thousands more will turn their backs on them.

For these reasons feminism has been confined to the social media.  Since it has, it has made fat, ugly, lazy women (and probably some men) even lazier by incentivise them to cling to computer screen under the guise of leading the feminist charge.

Wrap up

Hopefully this has shed some light on the dark, ugly, fat, lazy, grotesque, smelly, stenchy, large, bloated, overweight, whale-like, obese-- oh God; it has begun!  I’ve spent so long writing about feminists that I’m just continuing to write about feminists!  Anyway, I hope I have showed the uneducated (on the issue) why this group is who they are and I hope I have showed feminists why they are so hated.

President Obama is proud of 10 Republican Senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, joining in and supporting all Senate Democrats as our new Attorney general.

See how your State Senators voted.  http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00165

 U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00165

Vote Summary

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Grouped By Vote Position

Grouped by Home State

By: Juan Reynoso, WTP Activist  -  voteforamerica@gmail.com

Americans must realize that self-scrutiny is not treason. Self-examination is not disloyalty.

We seek the truth and let the people know. An informed citizenry is vital for the preservation of our democracy. Truth and knowledge diffused among the people are necessary for the preservation of our Democracy, rights, freedom and liberties. http://themoneygps.com/

Demand the teaching of our immigrant’s history in the schools.

http://www.pbs.org/latino-americans/en/mi-historia/

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-immigration-accountability-executive-action

Fellow Americans, 2015 must be the year to pass an immigration reform and stop the Washington politicians from using this issue as a tool to make political points at the expenses of the illegal immigrants. All immigrants legal and illegals want only one thing and that is; to be part of America the land of the free; as the millions of our fathers and their fathers before them. Our country was built by immigrants; we should never forget our roots and as Americans we should embrace all immigrants, welcome them and encourage them to do their best to become productive members of our communities. I assure you, that these immigrants care and want the same thing that you and I care and want; they want to be the best they can be to support their families and contribute to the socio economic of our country.

When it comes to the issue of immigration reform, there should be only one argument; how soon we can work on a system of immigration that forever would eliminate the means that promote illegal immigration. Democrats and Republicans, conservatives, liberals and independents must share the common goal of ending illegal immigration once and for all

The following are the essential points to implement an immigration reform:

REGISTRATION.

1- All illegal immigrants must registers with the immigration Dept. and use the H-1B Visa and use as the sponsor the USA. With this visa ID, they are able to work, go to school, start a business, purchase a home, car, married to a US citizen and do all legal matters as US citizens. This visa will be good for 3 years; during this time all applicants must go through an investigation. Data that must be collected for this investigation will be the basic FBI documentation for personal identification including the DNA of the applicant.

BORDER SECURITY ENFORCEMENT:

1. Illegal entry into the United States is a violation of our country’s sovereignty and should be a felony, border patrol, custom officers and immigration officers should be in charge of enforcing the law and all legislations regarding border security should be the duty of congress and enforce by Home Land Security. The border fence should be finish and monitor by digital electronic system. Man power to securing the border should be the responsibility of the federal government and the states should be able to sue the federal government for failing to meet their responsibility and demand restitution for money or damage done to citizens of the state or state government. 
2. Visa Tracking:  A full biometric visa entry-exit tracking system must be implemented and working at all land, sea, and airport entry points. This system must be working and tested before the issue of an immigration reform proposal. Also all violators of this visa tracking system, must be declare criminals and their picture make public offering rewards for the apprehension and deportation of the criminals. 

INTERIOR- ENFORCEMENT.

1. Workplace Enforcement:  E-Verify should be enforced to deterrence of violations of our labor laws. And prosecution of violations of the law must be enforced. Owners, CEOS, Managers and labor contractors should be prosecuted for violation of the laws.
2. ID verification should be enforcing to rent homes apartments and purchase any means of transportation including public transportation.
3. Immigration enforcement legislation must extend to the states; the power to uphold federal immigration laws it the duty of all enforcements officers of this country.  States will have the power to enforce the laws.  Those jurisdictions that undermine immigration laws should be removed. All sanctuary cities or any facilities that offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants will be in violation of our immigration laws.
4. No ITIN should be issue by the IRS to any illegal immigrant.
5. 14th Amendment section 1.  Guarantees citizenship for any person born in the United States No state shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. On the issue of the so call anchor babies, we must follow our constitution.
6. No illegal immigrant with children born in the US will benefit from welfare assistance given to their children
7. No illegal immigrant should get any medical benefits or entitlement to any social services.

US VISAS.

1. Congress must review our visa system to eradicate fraud and corruption in our government. Today we have thousands of immigrants with visitor visas getting an education at the expenses of the American tax payers, many are working and hundreds are criminals engage in drug and human trafficking.
2. Tourist and visitors visas should be limited to one month with proof of financial means for the time they will stay in our country. Violators of our visa system and criminals should be ban from legal entry into our country for no less than ten years.

IMMIGRATION REFORM IMPLEMENTATION.

1. The legalization process should be based on the results of the individual background check and only the applicants that pass this personal investigation will be given a permanent resident ID card.
2. All permanents residents should learn the English language and prepare themselves to become American citizens. They should learn American history, our constitution and our principles of citizenship.
3. The dual citizenship system must end, our country should be united by our language; we must be a country united by one language with diversity in cultural foods and religion.
4. We as Americans must recognize the importance of family union and must allow new citizens to petition for their immediate family members, Mother, Father Brothers and sisters that are not married and have no children. This will limit the issue of chain migration.
5. Five years after they become permanent residents all immigrants should be illegible to get   full citizenship.
6. Our first priority as Americans is to end the exploitation of foreign workers and protect the American people jobs and their economic and welfare, we must be very selective in granting immigration visas in the future, we must welcome a very limited number of people without education and make sure that they do not become welfare recipients.

Immigration reform and our US Constitution.

http://immigrationreform.com/?gclid=CPKuib_I18MCFYM9aQodIKYAWQ

US Immigration service.

http://www.uscitizenship.info/index.html?r=ga-cpc-imm_us-immigrant_visa_state_gov:m=e&gclid=CO3mlp_G18MCFQeKaQodkLkAQA

Directory of visas

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/general/all-visa-categories.html

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate.html

List of Non-immigrant visas

https://www.immigrationsupport.com/pdf/List%20of%20Non-immigrant%20visas%20and%20work%20authorization.pdf

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/qualify-nonimmigrant-temporary-visa-29727.html

http://www.cilsimmigration.com/american-visas-list.html

http://www.us-immigration.com/cart/category/us-visas.html

Let’s Pray for Peace and Justice in the World.

1 Peter 4:7-11

Father you made us a family, we all come from the root of Abraham believers of the scripture and the resurrection of dead.  You are the eternal God, in whose perfect kingdom no sword be drawn but the sword of righteousness, take away the arrogance and hatred which infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; unite us in bonds of love; give us the wisdom to work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth; give us hope that in time no strength known but the strength of love: So mightily spread abroad your Spirit, that all people Jews and the Arabs may be gathered under the banner of the Prince of Peace, as children of one Father, because both trace their roots to the great patriarch Abraham. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all; to whom be love, peace and glory, now and forever. Amen.

Let’s pray for our country 7-2-14        http://anticorruptionact.org/

 Father, we thank you for all your blessings, Help us to bring hope to countless that slip into eternity, they don’t know that you died to rescue them from their sin and that without you they are lost.

The Tea Party isn’t the only group of Americans being targeted by the IRS.  Listed below are 52 individuals who were convicted or charged by the Department of Justice for preparing fraudulent tax returns.  I believe the IRS is guilty of targeting black and Hispanic tax preparers while turning a blind eye to corporate giants.  My research showed that H&R Block didn’t have a single conviction even though they employ 100,000 tax preparers.    

DOJ Failed to Investigate IRS Fraud Charges

Last December I filed fraud charges against the Whistleblower Office for failing to investigate multi-million tax preparer fraud.  The Department of Justice refused to even acknowledge my complaint.  I finally asked Senator Flake to intervene on my behalf after 8 months.  In just days I received a letter from the DOJ informing me that they lacked jurisdiction to investigate violations of federal tax laws.  The DOJ said the decision to investigate tax fraud is vested solely with the IRS.

IRS Handpicks Tax Preparers to Face DOJ Conviction

The DOJ prosecuted 60+ tax preparers during the last 12 months. The DOJ gets their leads from the IRS. This means that the IRS handpicks tax preparers who face a DOJ conviction rate of 94%.  If the IRS is going to target small businessman for millions in fraud, then doesn’t the government have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers to hold large corporations accountable for causing the US Treasury to lose billions?

Racial Profiling Violates Civil Liberties

In 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v Armstrong that racial profiling is constitutional in the absence of data that similarly situated defendants of another race were disparately treated.  I’ve asked Senator Rubio and Congressman Issa to subpoena the IRS and demand all records regarding selection protocal that results in DOJ convictions.  Congress needs to identify what criteria the IRS utilized in selecting tax preparers for DOJ prosecution.

Tea Party Scandal is Small Potatoes Compared to IRS Racial Profiling

The news media is quick to criticize and toss Tea Party members under the bus.  Every American should embrace the fact that a massive IRS corruption was uncovered. The IRS was created to oversee tax collection and compliance.  However, the IRS has morphed into a powerful agency that lacks transparency, honesty and integrity.  They terrorize taxpayers of lower economic means who simply don’t have the money to hire a CPA or tax attorney to represent them from IRS mayhem.  My research shows over 75% of the tax preparers the IRS handed over to the DOJ for convictions were minorities. 

The bottom line is simple, if the Internal Revenue Service is going prosecute black and Hispanic tax preparers who’ve engaged in tax fraud, than they have a duty to prosecute white tax preparers committing tax fraud based on professional shortcomings instead of race.     

If Senator Rubio and Congressman Issa find that the IRS is guilty of profiling minorities then it’s time the Internal Revenue Service faces the same fate the government bestowed upon Arthur Andersen for the Enron debacle.  I’ve been a CPA over 30 years and I watched in amazement as 100,000 outstanding Arthur Andersen professionals lost their jobs as the result of a few bad apples.  In contrast, having closely worked with multiple layers of the IRS in the last three years, I will attest that the IRS has cases of bad apples sitting on pallets that would require multiple railroad cars to move. I believe it’s time for the IRS to go by the wayside just like vinyl records and VHS recorders. The best use for the IRS is to become an answer to a trivial pursuit question.

1. The U.S. Constitution provides in Article II, Section 4, thus: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

2. The Constitution does not state what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Nor can the Federal Judiciary do so since there is no right to appeal an impeachment to any of its courts. An impeachment is a political, not a judicial, decision, and so is the definition of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. At stake is not the impeached officer’s property, liberty, or life. Rather, We the People, the source of all political power, take back through our representatives in Congress the office that we gave the officer. Thus, whether the President commits an impeachable ‘High Crime or Misdemeanor’ when he lies to the People is a matter for the latter and their representatives to decide.

3. Had the Constitution provided for impeachment only for “High Crimes”, the conduct underlying the impeachment would have to attain a particularly conspicuous level of unacceptability to become a ‘High Crime’. But also “Misdemeanors” support an impeachment. Hence, the level of unacceptability of a certain conduct does not determine whether it is impeachable. Nor does it affect the punishment, for impeachment always leads to the officer being “removed from Office”.

4. An impeachment is in the nature of a recall, that is, the procedure under the federal Constitution for effectuating the principle, “the People giveth, and the People taketh away”. They are the masters in government of, by, and for them. Officers are public servants and as such are answerable to their masters, the People, who can impeach them.

5. Therefore, the impeachability of an officer who lies must be determined in light of:

a.         the circumstances evidencing that he knew that his statement was counterfactual so that his making it anyway was deceptive, a lie, and as a result, a betrayal of public trust on which his forfeiture of public office can be predicated;

b.         the motive for lying, and

c.         the consequences of the lie, even if unintended, for an officer who due to incompetence cannot foresee the consequences of his lie is also impeachable.

    A.      The circumstances evidencing knowledge of a counterfactual statement

6. Let’s make such determination concerning President Obama’s vouching to the American public for the honesty of his first nominee to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge Sotomayor(*>http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:65§1). The circumstances evidencing his knowledge that his statement was counterfactual are these:

*NOTE: All (parenthetical) and [bracketed] blue text is references to supporting passages and footnotes, respectively, found in the study, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. That study is in the file downloadable through the external link http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf. In the study and everything else in the file, the blue text represents active cross-referential internal links that facilitate jumping to supporting passages and footnotes to check them.

a.         The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico[^107a] had suspected her of concealing assets. Concealment of assets is a crime[^ol:5fn10] committed to evade taxes or launder money of its illegal source and bring it back with the appearance of being lawful so as to invest it openly without the risk of self-incrimination attached to investing dirty, unlawfully obtained money.

b.         The FBI must have investigated such suspicion of concealment of asset, for it could have derailed J. Sotomayor’s confirmation. Using its subpoena and search and seizure power, it must have compelled production of, and obtained, documents that even those three major news entities could not obtain employing only the means of lawful investigative journalism. Had the FBI found a satisfactory explanation that dispelled the suspicion, it would have given it to the President, who would have made it public to put the issue to rest and spare himself a major embarrassment, much worse than that experienced by P. Bush when Harriet Miers withdrew her name under criticism that she lacked the qualifications needed to be a justice.

          No such explanation was ever publicized. Far from it, these news entities dropped the issue inexplicably and simultaneously. Yet, each could have reasonably expected to win a Pulitzer Prize had it found the concealed assets of J. Sotomayor or led her or the President to withdraw her name, or even caused her to resign as a circuit judge, never mind be indicted for concealing assets. Was there a quid pro quo between the President and those entities?(jur:xlviii)

c.         J. Sotomayor filed “complete” financial statements with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in response to its two judicial nomination questionnaires and questions in letters. The Committee posted them on its website[^107b]. To avoid embarrassing surprise(cf. jur:93¶211), the FBI must have done its due diligence by checking them against the statements that she had submitted to the President while he was considering candidates for his nomination. It would have been cause for grave concern if she had submitted inconsistent statements. After tabulating the figures in the statements filed with the Senate, they lead to this conclusion:

Judge Sotomayor earned $3,773,824 since 1988 + received $381,775 in loans = $4,155,599 + her 1976-1987 earnings, yet disclosed assets worth only $543,903 thus leaving unaccounted for in her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee $3,611,696 - taxes and the cost of her reportedly modest living[^107c.i]

7. President Obama’s lie can be established or dispelled by circumstantial evidence, and also objectively, e.g., by his agreeing to release unredacted all the FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor.

     B.      The motive for lying

8.   The motive of the President to lie about J. Sotomayor’s honesty was to curry favor with those who were petitioning him to replace Retiring Justice Souter with a woman and the first Latina, and from whom he expected in return their support to pass through Congress the Obamacare bill. That was the central piece of his legislative agenda, the one in which he had a personal interest because its continued validity by the Supreme Court upholding its constitutionality would make him go down in history as the president who managed to pass universal health care while many others had failed trying to do so.

    C.      The consequences of lying

9.   The consequences of the President’s lying by vouching for J. Sotomayor’s honesty are substantially harmful and lasting. With respect to those who supported her confirmation for the Supreme Court, it constituted fraud in the inducement, for he told them a lie to induce them to support the confirmation of a person whom on his word they took for honest.

10. With respect to those petitioning for another women and the first Latina, it constituted fraud in the performance, for they could reasonably expect that out of a population of over 300 million people and the pool drawn from it of women and Latinas qualified to be justices, he would choose one who was also honest and would not disappoint and embarrass them by being exposed later on as dishonest.

11. The president heads the Executive Branch. His duty is to execute the bills of Congress enacted into law. His execution of Congress’s acts through his enforcement of the law is his function; it is not optional with him. His office carries neither discretionary power to enforce the law nor the power to exempt at will anybody from its enforcement. The president must enforce the law on everybody equally, as provided by law, including tax, financial, and criminal laws.

12. By failing to enforce those laws on J. Sotomayor, President Obama committed dereliction of duty. By so failing, he also compounded the crime because he knew of her concealment of assets, and should have known if instead of looking with willful blindness at NYT, WP, and Politico’s suspicion that she had concealed assets, and looking away with willful ignorance(jur:90§§b-c), he had diligently performed his duty to vet her properly.

13. Since Obamacare had not been passed by Congress yet, the President could not possibly have nominated J. Sotomayor for a justiceship because she happened to agree with its provisions, for nobody knew what the bill would look like in its final form, that is, if it were ever passed. Moreover, the Democrats have been criticized for having rushed Obamacare through Congress with almost no debate so that the members had barely any opportunity to read it. The fact that the bill ran well in excess of 1,000 pages made it all the more difficult for anybody to read it in its entirety Thus, it is reasonable to assume that she had not read it either.

14. By the President not enforcing the law on J. Sotomayor upon an explicit or implicit agreement that in exchange for nominating her to the Supreme Court she would support the constitutionality of Obamacare when, as expected, it came before the Court for review, he committed bribery. In that unlawful swap of benefits, the President abused his power of nomination to turn his nomination of her into the benefit that he gave. In exchange, he obtained the benefit of an agreement to prejudge Obamacare to be constitutional, whereby he intended to deprive the challenging party of its right to its day in court before a fair and impartial judge; and intended to obstruct justice. Since J. Sotomayor was a public officer, the President committed an act of corruption of a public officer.

15. To vouch for J. Sotomayor’s honesty, President Obama covered up her concealment of assets. Since that is a crime, id. >he became an accessory after the fact for the crime already committed. He also became an accessory before the fact for the crime that he knew she would continue to commit, for J. Sotomayor could not thereafter declare her concealed assets without her sudden and unexplainable possession of such assets incriminating her. Therefore, relative to her continuing crime of keeping assets concealed, the President incurs continuing accessorial liability.

16. Assets are concealed to evade taxes and launder money of their unlawful origin. When the President lied to cover up J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets, he abetted and continues to abet her evasion of taxes, which are collected for the common good. So he inflicted a financial injury in fact on the people and still inflicts a continuing financial injury in fact. By allowing her to engage in money laundering, he facilitated and continues to facilitate financial corruption.

17. A judge who breaks the law shows contempt for it and those whose interests it intends to protect. She cannot reasonably be expected to respect the law enough to apply it fairly and impartially. In fact, due to practical considerations, she cannot because a yet to be exposed law-breaking judge is impaired by a conflict of interests: She has a duty to apply the law, but her application of it can lead to investigations and the incrimination of third parties. They can expose her law-breaking and cause those parties to enter into a plea bargain whereby in exchange for leniency they provide information or testimony exposing the judge’s law-breaking.

18. The risk of exposure undermines her resolve to apply the law and renders her vulnerable to, and extortionable by, third parties. She owes a debt of survival to those who did not, or have agreed explicitly or implicitly not to, expose her. Her mutually dependent survival, assured through coordination(88§a) becomes her first concern; doing justice is downgraded to only a request of litigants. Her unfitness to discharge the duties of her office is foreseeable. Such foreseeability makes applicable the principle that a person is deemed to intend the reasonable consequences of his acts.

19. By the President nominating for a justiceship J. Sotomayor, whom he knew to be breaking the law by concealing assets, and by causing senators to shepherd her confirmation through Congress(78§6), he exercised power irresponsibly since he exercised power irresponsibly since he intentionally caused a person known to him to be unfit for office to be vested with it. He also intentionally and knowingly undermined the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, the Federal Judiciary, and the process of judicial confirmation.

20. By so doing, the President has intentionally and knowingly inflicted on the American people the dishonest service of J. Sotomayor. For her next 30 years or so on the Supreme Court, just as she helps shape the law of the land that she will hold others to obey, she will continue to break it and harm others so as to resolve her conflict of interests in favor of her survival(jur:xxxv), her peers(jur:71§4), and those who can expose a source(jur:66§§2-3) of assets to conceal and the whereabouts of her concealed assets.

    D.      Action that the readers, journalists, and We the People can take

21. The readers of this article may share it with journalists and the rest of the national public. Informed of its considerations at the start of the mid-term election campaign, the public may demand that all candidates and politicians ask the President to release unredacted all the FBI vetting reports on Justice Sotomayor. If they raise concerns about her asset-concealing or other law-breaking, then he had at least circumstantial evidence requiring that he not vouch for her honesty because to do so was counterfactual and knowingly deceptive: a lie. Given his motive for, and the consequences of, lying, We the People and our current and would-be representatives can determine whether his lie constitutes an impeachable ‘High Crime or Misdemeanor’.

22. Journalists can pursue an investigation(ol:66) guided by a proven devastating query(jur:4¶¶10-14) that can dominate the campaign: What did the President know[^23b] about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets and when did he know it?(ol:54)

Dare trigger history!(dcc:11)…and you may enter it.

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:70

www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-richard-cordero-esq/4b/8ba/50/

America meet “Obama’s social justice or better yet social injustice” a robin hood philosophy that circumvents the laws of our land attacking our freedoms and rights.  In the past five years, Obama has sold us a pig in a poke wrapped up in pretty ribbon with all of the Liberal bells and whistles.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that our beautiful America and American citizens are slowly becoming the property of “big Government.”   In five years Obama has changed the social landscape in our great Nation by redistributing our money, changing laws and picking and choosing who receives certain advantages and who are the recipients of certain disadvantages.     

 For 50 some odd years, a very small minority group has fought “God” Christianity, the Cross, memorials and a slew of other important things like our children and our children’s education.

 Everyone knows the group that is described above and each year their war on Christmas grows as they litter our streets, highways and public areas with billboards and signs in their feeble attempt to remove “God” from our Nation.  Every year a Liberal judge plays Robin Hood and gives them another slice of our God given freedoms.

Next comes Obama’s “social political justice” which merely means a selective process that buys votes and support for Barack Obama and the DEMS.  Obama chooses include the LGBT community and illegal aliens over African Americans - African Americans are the recipients of the disadvantages.  Selective is the keyword here – Obama perceives that he already has the African American votes in the bag so he turns on them chastising them when they express their grievances. 

Big daddy Obama told the African American community to “Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes.  Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying.”  But notice that the LGBT community has managed to get everything their little heart’s desire. 

This group of people are pretty savvy about the political process and they did two things; (1) They voted for Obama with strings attached – meaning Obama would have to pay them off just like he did with his big bundlers, and (2) They vetted him arming themselves with damaging information about Obama’s relationships and activities before he ran for office.

They forced Obama to flip flop on marriage – he retracted his statements that marriage was between a man and women.  But their wish list kept growing and unlike the majority of Americans, they made the Government work for them.

Obama gave them ““Don’t ask, Don’t tell” in the Military, which probably wasn’t the safest decision for our brave Military men and women, but that will be an issue debated later after we have a few more wars under our belt.

It’s a mystery why they haven’t quite figured how what caused the HIV /Aids epidemic, but they don’t have a clue or do they?  Anyway in order to continue their lifestyle they’ve asked for more money, lots more money from Obama in order to reduce the number of HIV infections via increased training and various support services. 

Obama with that favorite pen he keeps talking about gave them more hate crime laws, supported their civil unions and followed by more and more discrimination laws. That my friends is “Political Social  Injustice.”

Then along came the somewhat ugly face of what Obama calls social justice or economic disparity, which included Obamacare, Common Core, IRS, NSA and of course the not so famous  “Dream Act” which benefits about 20 ml. illegals – this was a mere ploy to purchase Hispanic Votes for the 2012 Presidential Election. Obama’s pen at work again, as he says with or without Congress.  

As is the President’s style he’s revised, changed amended and screwed around with the “Dream Act” to suit his fancy, but the bottom line is this – Obama has managed to give a safe haven to the illegals until  he gets his way on immigration. 

Obama’s State of the Union Address laid out his “social justice” plans for Americans in the next 3 years, which includes income inequality, more redistribution, raising minimum wage, climate change, further revisions of Obamacare and immigration changes - he threatens Congress and Americans that he will do this with or without them… 

As mentioned earlier Obama picks and chooses who receives certain advantages and who the recipients are of certain disadvantages (and that would be us – the taxpayers).  Obama’s  robin hood philosophy of social justice has in fact harmed all working Americans, our economy, or job growth, our children’s education and has stalled the “American Dream” diminishing our freedom and rights.    

The next time you hear Barack Obama speak of social justice, income equality or economic disparity grabbed your wallet and run, because he’s about to place one more costly burden on your shoulders. 

 “His Majesty” Obama has big plans for America, but like O’Reilly said to Geraldo Rivera, “I don’t think he has majesty! He’s not a king!” O’Reilly said, adding that he respects the office of the presidency but presidents still need to be held accountable.  O'Reilly, let's get one thing straight "accountable" to Obama is making sure that all hard working Americans contribute to his perverted social justice agenda - so far he's won that battle!

As Always,

Little Tboca

Congressman Issa,

Greetings Sir! I greatly respect your diligence investigating this travesty of government we currently have, yet I would like to make a couple of statements I feel pertinent at this juncture.

Late last week Mr. Holder made a statement the "Department of (in)Justice" was going to begin monitoring social media websites, and anyone found posting or writing (I quote) "inflammatory" comments concerning muslims/islam would be arrested on federal charges of violating muslims/islam civil rights....

Sir, first of all, it seems to me that anyone who adheres to a "religion" that openly promotes killing Christians, pedophilia and world domination - and commits these crimes here on U.S. soil as well as overseas... a "religion" that claims that anyone who "insults" their "prophet" must be killed.... has not earned any respect at all - and indeed, the act of Mr. Holder making this statement in the first place directly violates the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

Sir, a common citizen of this Nation would long ago be behind bars for the things Mr. Holder has already done - and the key thrown away to boot.

This act of attempting to overthrow 1st Amendment rights by fiat adds insult to injury.

Congressman Issa, I submit Mr. Holder has not only committed perjury before Congress - he has committed treason in attempting to legislate/regulate by fiat the Constitutional rights of all free citizens of this Nation.

I understand Congress must always have it's ducks in a row before acting - but how much longer must citizens wait before Justice is done? How many more citizens must suffer under this administration before Congress acts?

Bottom line Sir, and something I'm uncertain may have crossed your mind; Mr Obama is playing in a house of cards.... if those cards start falling down, their respective individual pieces arrested and jailed.... I firmly believe you won't be able to stop them talking....

I believe you will quickly discover all of the missing information you (and we) desire, uncovering all of the crimes, corruption, treason - because I do not believe any of them are going to be willing to take a bullet for Mr. Obama and suffer in silence.

Just some thoughts Sir. Please keep up the good work, Americans respect your diligence - but we do want action, not just words. We want these criminals arrested and behind bars - as this is exactly what would happen to any of us if we had done the same (or actually lesser) crimes....

Respectfully,

Aubrey Mason

San Antonio, Texas

The Honorable Congressman Smith                                         27 April 2013

The Honorable Senator Cornyn

The Honorable Senator Cruz

The Honorable Senator Paul

Gentlemen,

This morning on Face Book I discovered an atrocity I wanted to make you aware of.

The "Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee" (DLCC) is actively lying to Americans! This is absolutely DISGUSTING and I ask you all put an immediate stop to it!

They are claiming it is the "Right-Wing Extremists" who are dismantling Medicare - and the low information voters have no clue they are lying.... The DLCC fails to mention it was Mr. Obama who took $720 Billion dollars from Medicare to fund his "obamacare", they fail to mention it was this administration that took $2.6 Trillion dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund - and then Mr. Obama claimed on-camera that Social Security would be insolvent by 2017...

http://dlcc.wiredforchange.com/o/6377/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=6109

Gentlemen - these are lies, complete fabrications - and we are tired of it! Those that listen and vote in his favor are those who listen to his arguments - BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE NOT STANDING UP TOGETHER AND TELLING THE TRUTH!

I know you are Honest men and I apologize if my remarks offend you  - but folks... you MUST stand together and tell the truth LOUDLY as there are far too many Americans who feel their vote does not count, that they cannot make a difference, that it's too much trouble.... and as a result - they fail to vote in elections - and we have seen the results of that. Low voter turnout, voter apathy, have been reasons why the Democrats won seats and Conservatives did not.

We need to change that and #1 on that list of things to do is stand together and speak the truth LOUDLY! Senator Paul and Senator Cruz do this on a regular basis. Texan's need to hear the truth from their elected and I ask you to stand with these other two and demand accountability from the Democratic party for lying to Americans in their attempts to gather votes in their favor!

I ask that you engage your peers to do the same!

With all of these scandals now surrounding the White House, we need to bring Truth, Honesty and Justice back into our Government!

Respectfully,

Aubrey Mason

San Antonio, Texas

Conservatives have had nothing but one failure after another since 2008.

Each legal challenge has been met with either superior power, in terms of money spent in that particular fight, or simply, and unlawfully, ignored.

Given the fact that conservatives, apparently, have no senators (or elected officials in general), no justices, no law enforcement or even our own military who have taken a position opposing obama's faction and nearly maniacal grab for power over the body of the Constitution, of the service men and women who've died because of his utter disregard for American lives,  American Freedoms and the ideals that formerly made this country great, I ask:

Do American's have any choice's left, or are we set on an irreversible road to domestic servitude.

I would like to know where are our leaders.  I can think of none that have not been cowed by either obama and/or the republican party.  Do we have at least one leader willing to sacrifice his or her all for the sake of the American people.

I ask this in all honesty, because I see no general, no senator, no head of law enforcement and no judge (all those we foolishly thought were our leaders against tyranny) no one willing to go toe to toe with ANY of obama's minions, let alone obama himself.

It has been the rule for well over 200 years that "we the people" are the deciders of policy, that "we the people" are solely responsible for the governance of this country and it is "we the people" who are the ultimate arbitrators in this nation of right and wrong.  Yet I see no one.  Not one man, not one women who have publicly stated that they are willing to devote themselves wholeheartedly to freeing our country of a wanton despot, an obvious charlatan, a dedicated criminal and easily the most corrupt and lawless individual ever to call himself president.

Most Americans grew up believing literally that WE were the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave." 

These words ring hollow today in our America.

I see no Brave men or women willing to say We Are Free, and mean it.  I see no men or women willing to give more than platitudes.

How can we Americans claim any longer to be free if there is no single person brave enough to fight for the freedom so many millions of Americans have died for.

The wife of whoever that is in the whitehouse has said that she can finally say she is proud to be an American, I cannot agree with her, I can no longer say I am proud of my nationality.  Indeed, I am terribly ashamed, not of our country but of our people.  We have become gutless, we have become spineless, we have as a nation done things that I find reprehensible and we have accepted those actions as Americans.

Perhaps the idea of disgrace has been abandoned in the USA of the 21st century.  Perhaps the meaning of freedom has been changed to mean freedom to be subservient, or free to be taxed into poverty.  Maybe freedom now means free to remain alive at any cost to our honor, or fidelity or our individual liberty.

So again I ask: Freedom or Servitude, Do Americans have any choices left?

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

Read about the travesties of justice being endured by Orly Taitz, as she fights to have Obama declared ineligible and/or elected by means of fraudulent voting.

In the latest case, Orly Taitz and Obama's lawyers were told they would have twenty minutes each to present their cases, including any and all witnesses.   Twenty minutes!!

The next day, when Orly Taitz started to all a witness, the judge said, "No witnesses". When Dr. Taitz reminded the judge of his previous order, he simply repeated, "No witnesses".

Read how these cases are revealing the power of Obama.

Obama’s administration has produced the greatest ever reliance on the state in US history. Never have Americans had the option of being so dependent on welfare programs as today.

What is welfare dependence and what does it deliver to the despot or dictator. If a person becomes lost in the vacuum which is non-work, they lose a number of basic but fundamental freedoms. Life as a non worker is one of marginalization, ones sense of value is lessened, and you lose self confidence and independence. Your choices become increasingly limited as the financial trap is set. You don't get to choose your clothes as you can't afford. You can't choose your food as you can't afford and you don't drive the car you want as you can't afford. However, you can get welfare assisted clothing, food and even a mobile phone thanks to the great leader.  The great leader provides for you as you have no other choice. You don't have the freedom that comes with earning a living wage. 

What frightens a welfare slave? Well what frightens everyone? Having things taken away, no money, food, totally losing everything?  The strategic benefit for the despotic regime is that you provide the things. You control everything! You control fear! Someone disagrees with, you take away the things. You blame dissenters for the problems and the fact that no ambition can be fulfilled. They don't believe so they are anti-progressive, an enemy of everyone. After all if they succeed the great leader will not be able to give you things anymore. One day a citizen wakes to find they have no say, choice or chance.

When a person works and chooses their work destiny is based on their effort, their determination and inherent drive to succeed. America is about the chance to succeed without limits. You can drive a Bentley, wear Hugo Boss or eat at any restaurant you choose if only you work for it. That is not unfair. The successful did build that.

The nice liberal term of art for Socialism or Marxism is now social justice. Lets face it its redistribution by any other name. This holds “there should be no disparity in society between the rich or the poor, the lazy or productive”. Its utopianism at its most naive and simply results in mediocrity.  The famous comment from Soviet Workers “While they pretend to pay us we will pretend to work” defines its danger.

Conclusion, socialism isn't about social welfare, social care, social justice or even concern for your fellow man. Its a delivery model for power; its a methodology by which you make an underclass without power or hope. What socialism presumes is that a small elite of theoreticians know better than the majority and therefore, democracy doesn't work as the voters are just not competent. 

Our danger, once you reach the level when a majority of the populace is totally dependent on the benevolence of a great leader, and his bi weekly check. Then democracy fails and we become a dictatorship.

Obama and his key advisor's are socialists, and they do think they are the smartest in the room. We have a great leader in waiting.

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

Ever since the 2009 GM bailout by “progressive” big government ended the pensions of 20,000 retirees at Delphi auto parts manufacturing, the White House and the Department of Treasury have laid the blame on the steps of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Internal government emails have been obtained that show the U.S. Treasury Department, run by Timothy Geithner, was behind those termininations.  All 20,000 of the pensions seem to have been ended strictly for the reason that those retirees did not belong to labor unions.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/emails-geithner-treasury-drove-cutoff-of-non-union-delphi-workers-pensions/

Perhaps the National Labor Relations Board was too busy preparing to harass another private sector company planning to hire non-union workers to get involved.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder has yet to file any criminal charges against top Wall Street bankers with connections inside the Department of Justice or who had made political donations to the 2008 presidential campaign of the current White House occupant.

Over the years, both the Oval Office and Holder have talked tough, aggressively attacking big fat cat bankers, blaming their reckless speculation for the 2008 financial collapse.  The Government Accountability Institute has found that Holder still has not “filed a single criminal charge against any top executive of an elite financial institution.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/report-cronyism-political-donations-likely-behind-obama-holder-failure-to-charge-any-bankers-after-2008-financial-meltdown/

All talk no action.  Sound tough for the union organized OWS crowd, but do nothing to upset potential campaign donors.  The heck with credibility, the “progressive” Party Pravda will run interference for the re-election campaign.

Overseas, Iran has vowed it will not allow Assad to fall in Syria.

"Iran will never allow the resistance axis – of which Syria is an essential pillar – to break," said Saeed Jalili, Iran's Supreme National Security Council secretary.  The "axis of resistance" includes Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which are anti-Western and openly hostile towards Israel and the United States.

Assad reassured Jalili by saying: "The Syrian people and their government are determined to purge the country of terrorists and to fight the terrorists without respite.”

If Assad is overthrown, Iran will lose influence over Syria and a crucial link to Hezbollah.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9459321/Syria-Iran-vows-it-will-not-allow-Assad-to-fall.html

Could it be that Muslim Brotherhood influence over the White House has surreptitiously led to policies that support the creation of a regional Caliphate?  What other way is there to logically explain policies that support rebellions to overthrow some Middle Eastern dictators, but not support rebellions hostile to the Iranian regime or its allies?

With so much baggage for the White House to carry through the campaign, their “Priorities” are to have their “progressive” allies run misleading ads that attempt to tie Mitt Romney to death.

Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting the Oval Office is running a new ad that blames Mitt Romney for a family losing health insurance which contributed to a woman dying from cancer.

It apparently makes no difference to the “progressive” super PAC that Romney left Bain Capital years before the GST Steel bankruptcy in 2001.  In addition, the cancer casualty Ranae Soptic died in 2006, long after the GST plant had been closed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/priorities-ad-ties-mitt-romney-to-cancer-death/2012/08/07/d723d8c0-e084-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

In another move to distract attention away from the dismal economic performance of the White House, the Oval Office occupier was overheard whispering to a top fundraiser that GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus as his choice for Vice President.

http://drudgereport.com/flashgp.htm

The White House was more than happy to clutter the news cycle by dismissing the Drudge Report.  Anything to keep the pathetic economic record of the White House out of the headlines will suffice.

Press Secretary Jay Carney reminded reporters to “be mindful of your sources” when asked about the Petraeus rumor.  “I can say with absolute confidence, such an assertion has never been uttered by the president.  And again be mindful of your sources” said Carney.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-disses-drudge-report-be-mindful-of-your-sources/article/2504233

And so it goes for the most open, transparent White House in American history.  They are more than happy to talk about anything but their own record.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/white-house-talk-about-anything-but-our-record/

As a Senior Citizen, and having been raised at a time when patriotism was an important part of daily life. Remember when we started our school day with the Pledge of Allegiance,  I am continually surprised at how vitriolic the reaction from the left wing zombies when hearing or repeating that pledge!

But, I suppose that these days there are a LOT of things that surprise me. And not I might add, a good surprise.  So I thought that I would enumerate what I think are the top ten reasons we are where we are.  So, here are my......

                                        "Were We Asleep At The Wheel - Top Ten":

1. Ignoring the emergence of "new world order" as a term describing political thought.  (see Woodrow Wilson, "global justice" for a start)
2. Increasing expectations as to the roll of "government".
3. Increasing "public ownership" of private enterprise = socialism.
4. Not understanding that socialism is the precursor of Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) as a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order would would be packaged to appeal to the masses who didn't realize that it would not produce what it promised.
5. Not realizing that the fall away from God would foster envy and avarice to prevail in the social order.
6. Ignoring our increasing obsession with institutionalized snooping (to interest oneself in what is not one's concern) via television and mass media.
   
7. Not venerating education and integrity above everything else.
   
8. Thinking the "solution" to our problems was going to be easy.
   
9. Not teaching our CHILDREN about the importance of patriotism.
   
10. Ignoring our responsibility to VOTE!
    

I HOPE THAT WE CAN TURN THE TIDE...BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!!!!

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

"We The People's" authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from

Article V of the Constitution

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a “two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or  by a “constitutional convention” called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).  The process is called “Constitutional Convention”.

Constitutional Convention has only been used once in the entire history of this country.  I was astonished that it wasn’t congress that got the credit for ending “prohibition” but rather it was because of the united efforts of “We The People” through our collective state legislatures resulting in a forced joint resolution through the people’s right of Constitutional Convention.

What the Constitutional Convention does  is, if the President of the United States refuses to faithfully uphold his oath of office, just as President Obama did when he refused to enforce the“Defense of Marriage Act”(DOMA), and a U.S. Congress Committee fails to put forth an amendment in the  form of a joint resolution, just as the House Judiciary Committee has and is still doing to prevent a vote to amend the United States Constitution defining marriage to be the union between one man and one woman, the citizens of the United States can have their state legislatures  demand and force the U.S. Congress to do so through “Constitutional Convention” and bring forth a joint resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution and the United States President is powerless to do anything about it.

It means “We The People”, through “Constitutional Convention” could hold the U.S. Senate accountable to pass a budget by amending the U.S. Constitution preventing any further spending until it is done.

It means “We The People” through “Constitutional Convention” could establish the law of the land that no tax could be levied against the people without the ratification of (38 of 50) states of the union.

It means the people have a course of action to define and limit the scope of authority of any appointed or elected official.  The Supreme Court’s authority can be limited to the interpretation to the U.S. Constitution and any law or executive order would require the ratification of (38 of 50) states.

It means “We The People” could amend the Constitution to enhance the checks and balances of government  to allow the majority vote of either the House or Senate be sufficient cause for dismissal of any elected official or appointed official, including the Supreme Court Justices.

The Tea Party is in an excellent position to collaborate the state cooperation needed to make this course of action a reality for the American People.   

Will you help spear head the practice of "Constitutional convention" on behalf of “We The People”?  If the Tea Party of Each State were to coordinate efforts and topics of "Constitutional Convention" to each state legislature, "We The People" would not only have a greater voice but also would begin having a greater impact in Washington instead of just every four years or time of re-election

Please coordinate with your Tea Party commander and state representatives about“

your Constitutional Convention”  right, and process,  thank you.