Let us return to January 21st in 2010, the day the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Elections Commission) ruling was published. I will set forth, in pertinent part, portions of this U.S. Supreme Court decision that appear particularly relevant to the ongoing IRS scandal:
“[Quick facts of the case.] In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party's Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating Section 441b [ of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002], it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) Section 441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary; and (2) BCRA's disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA Sections 2201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads. The District Court denied Citizens United a preliminary injunction and granted appellee Federal Elections Commission (FEC) summary judgment.
“1. Because the question whether Section 441b applies to Hillary cannot be resolved on other, narrower grounds without chilling political speech this Court must consider the continuing effect of speech suppression ....
“(a) [Referenced but not included for brevity as this point was found unsustainable by the Supreme Court and leading to “(b)” directly below.]
“(b) Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment's meaning and purpose. Citizens United did not waive this challenge to Austin [another case, citation omitted for brevity] when it stipulated to dismissing the facial challenge below, since (1) even if such a challenge could be waived, this Court may reconsider Austin and Section 441b's facial validity here because the District Court “passed upon” the issue [case citation omitted], (2) throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its right to free speech; and (3) the parties cannot enter into a stipulation that prevents the Court from considering remedies necessary to resolve a claim that has been preserved. Because Citizen United's narrower arguments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider Section 441b's facial validity. Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by Section 441b's corporate expenditure ban. This conclusion is further supported by the following: (1) the uncertainty caused by the Government's litigating position; (2) substantial time would be required to clarify Section 441b's application on the points raised by the Government's position in order to avoid any chilling effect cause by an improper interpretation; and (3) because speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, any speech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled. The regulatory scheme at issue may not be a prior restraint in the strict sense. However, given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavy cost of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus function as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit. The ongoing chill on speech makes it necessary to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute that chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated” -- http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
I cite these portions of the Citizens United case to show why President Obama said the following on January 27th, 2010 in his State of the Union Address (where Justice Samuel Alito in the audience mouths “not true” during the “Applause”):
“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”
These lines of the Citizens United decision connect the Benghazi, IRS and AP stories each as scandals:
“...given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavy cost of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus function as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit. The ongoing chill on speech makes it necessary to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute that chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated”
-- Benghazi: a Coptic Christian, who violated his probation but was ignored for such violation, rightly or wrongly by the court (though the idea someone could sign away their Freedom of Expression seems unlikely to apply to an unalienable Right), is still in jail. However, after being blamed by the Obama Administration as creating or initiating the cause of death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, & Glen Doherty, this man was taken in by the highest optics possible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXqWPAlT7qg; that link demonstrating how the AP tale is a repetition of the White House’ Benghazi story, how it was taken up internationally as true, and worldwide media regurgitating the responsibility for the protests on September 11, 2012 being the youtube trailer for the unfinished video made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an exercise of Free Speech being chilled by a government sponsored lie originated during a political campaign. Consider, regarding Nakoula Basseley, “ the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavy cost of defending against FEC enforcement...” which is what has happened to him now that the power and personnel of the U.S. Government was put in motion to bring to light his violation of probation; apparently establishing the idea that one must “ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak” or be subjected to this type of heavy-handed National Government interference in our lives and the local criminal justice system as well.
-- AP: Where 2 months of phone records are taken up from reporters without any explanation but “national security interest,” later explained as a “balance,” to controlling leaks of national security secrets. Yet everyone acknowledges this is unprecedented, while Attorney General Holder who knows nothing of the case or paperwork as he recused himself, tells us he is sure it was all done to the exact requirements and specifications of the Department of Justice that he heads.
-- And then we have the IRS, who somehow, according to the Inspector General's Report, “.... used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention... Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] reviewed as of December 17th, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than 3 years and crossing two election cycles)...
“More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the case began in earnest. Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g. lists of past and future donors). The IRS later informed some organizations that they did not need to provide previously requested information....” -- http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
Unable to seek out donors and complete their political organization on time, the speech of these Tea Party organizations (and others though I merely used the highlights for brevity) was, as the U.S. Supreme Court puts it, “chilled.”
Understand that this IRS Inspector General report, showing that applicants were waiting more than 3 years for their 501 (c) (4) exemption to be granted, coincidentally shows this IRS targeting practice started about the time Citizens United had finished their last argument (September 9, 2009) and the U.S. Supreme Court had determined but not published their ruling.
Thus, I submit to any and all who read this, that there appears to have been a leak of the final U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, months before the opinion was published. Otherwise, President Obama's grandstanding criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court, if he wasn't apprised of the decision by a leak, set the tone of the IRS, from the Commissioner on down, as to devising a means to offset what the President saw as the negative outcome of the Citizens United decision. President Obama reminds us regularly that he is the President, the leader of the executive branch, and for whom the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and all those under him work. Therefore the entire blame and requirement of accountability rests with President Obama, whether he knew about the IRS targeting of Tea Party and Conservative groups or not doesn't matter.
Make emphatic note that in each of the above scandals this is about the power of government in affecting speech, seeking to be the arbiters of rightful and wrongful use of our Freedom of Expression whether we want them to or not.
No matter who is targeted, be it Tea Party Conservatives, the Press being probed for leaking national security secrets, or a voter and taxpayer, who affords the authority and cost of Ambassador Chris Stevens to represent the interests of the United States abroad and yet is denied knowing the reason for his and 3 other American's deaths and is instead being told an untrue story about a video, we must, in all sobriety, recognize these scandals appear to demonstrate that our government has made an actual effort to perpetuate and subject us to, as the Supreme Court put it, “the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.”
I thank you for reading and hope you send this to every Congressman and Senator you can, for an assault on the First Amendment of this magnitude is a coup against We the People and the self-government by representation that is informed by our Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression. For this American, there is no “balance” or “balanced approach” to limit my exercise of my unalienable Rights from God.
There's this idea of “welfare” that we've known through our generations, one that has been promoted by great leftist Progressives since Woodrow Wilson.
Some Historical Truths, Background:
You see, money has always had a cost attached to it. That cost in pre-modern financial systems was servitude and slavery, an entire denial of freedom and property rights, better known as the Feudal System.
The cost eventually became just an interest rate with the advent of the United States of America, where everyone is to be treated equally, even Our Founders seeking to end slavery by passing the Constitution (See Federalist 42 discussing Article I, Section 9, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html, which I mention often because it is an actual record of history demonstrating a genuine due care and proactive position of Our Founders to end slavery some 70 years before the Civil War.).
Money was once held by very few, Noble classes, whose relationship was either by patronage (the trading of favors, “Soprano” mafia style) or self-proclaimed blood lines, the “blue blood” principle, both resulting in a rich class of power who manages a poor subject class. Those who were “well-to-do” and received “homage” (“respect money”), or a peasant could find themselves hanging from the gallows as a victim of public spectacle, oversaw, ascertained the preservation of mankind by an elitist notion of preservation of their heirs – centralized power such as is in Cuba, North Korea, and virtually every Communist Country that recent history has shown results in hereditary dictatorships as a modern day example of the very same oppression, the “absolute power corrupts absolutely” principle.
The “Dark Ages” weren't followed by “The Age of Enlightenment,” because they didn't engender something significant.
The Dark Ages were a time when books were in libraries kept by these well-to-do and/or the Church (often a Noble was a Bishop as well, some 80% of the time). Now when I say “library” do not see the image of the modern library where people walk in and check out a book. No, in the Dark Ages the books were chained to the shelf and the reader had to often stand with the heavy volume reading it by candlelight, and then only if they were a student of either the church or the Noble Classes whose family paid the owner of the library for the privilege to be educated.
Modern Progressive Dilemma:
While the Federal Reserve Act caused the Federal Reserve to exist (as it would not exist without an Act of Congress, even if the Act was passed according to a very sparse attendance of Congress on December 23, 1913), the reality is that it would not be an act without being signed into law by then President Woodrow Wilson.
His Colonel House was instrumental in assuring a Progressive agenda.
Please make sure you understand clearly that the Federal Reserve Act is an act done in promoting the Progressive agenda.
First, the purpose of the Federal Reserve Act is to have distinct regions (that now overlay the Federal Circuits of the court system with the same boundaries), each run by an autonomous body with membership based entirely on each member's investment in the capital stock to capitalize the regional central bank. These member banks are guaranteed 6% per annum (year) profit on their capital stock owned in their Federal Reserve Regional Bank. The single dollars still show the seal with the letter of a particular federal reserve bank in black, those are the regional banks, 12 distinct letters today representing each location.
Now, the way the Federal Reserve Bank runs is to have a zeroing of accounts occur every day at midnight eastern time (where the Federal Reserve of New York is located, the time designation due to the heavy financial activity of the New York Stock Exchange and international commerce that it manages). The zeroing of these accounts is by “redistribution of wealth” principles. A profitable bank will have its profits transferred to the bank that lost money, at least as a bookkeeping entry for the region, and if that region cannot settle its accounts, then the regional banks balance the losses from profitable banks in another region.
You see, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the presumption was that the loss in one area or region would be because the money moved to another area or region, foreign banks were prohibited from involvement; even foreign ownership in an American bank was prohibited. To illustrate, Bank of America was originally an 8-bank chain in the San Francisco Bay area. If you look at the history of this bank ala Moody's hardbound editions from the 1930's that can often be found in the local public library, you'll discover that an insurance company, Transamerica, once owned (if not to this day, haven't looked recently) a large share in Bank of America. Well, this was to use a genuine loophole in the Federal Reserve Act, for Transamerica was, at that time, 100% owned by the Bank of Italy, and was named “Transamerica” to express its function for the Bank of Italy as a 100% American incorporated insurance company.
Eventually, foreign banks were allowed to invest directly in American banks, and the issues of money being taken out of America were exacerbated (in gold at the time of Transamerica being used for the purpose of owning Bank of America which was decades before the Federal Reserve Act was amended to allow direct “foreign capital” to invest in American banks.).
One could easily see this as the Progressive agenda by the mere shift to foreign investment in our banking system. What may be missed is that the reason we had this closed system, the Federal Reserve System, created in the first place because of an uproar over the Agricultural Depression of 1907 (another “crisis not to go to waste”), where farmers were upset they had to pay 7% interest on their loans after a bad crop due to harsh weather. The banks carried on business according to the law, and protecting their investors and depositors, would foreclose on these farmers when they failed to make payments. This would mean less food was produced because bankers are not farmers.
“Welfare” in the form of a banking system that is nationalized, centralized, and affords all profits above that 6% per annum that the banks receive to go to the United States Treasury is how the Federal Reserve Act is the first prong of Progressive, Fascist and/or Communist economic, political, and government structures, which opens up the closed financial system of the United States to foreign influence by losses of both gold and currency to nations abroad.
At first blush it is alarming that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his entire family, who were in America on the grounds of asylum, appear to have been put immediately on welfare, while the mother is accused of shoplifting and the brothers appear to have been affording their suspected terrorist plot by continuing these public welfare benefits (establishing that Welfare Reform is a National Security Issue). And yet, what I've just illustrated above is that foreign influence has been receiving American aid to destroy America, for instance, terrorizing us with the 1929 stock market crash, aided and abetted by our National Government!
This doesn't mean the Federal Reserve Act idea is bad in and of itself, for it originally prohibited foreign investment, but whether it was necessary or not, whether the Federal Reserve System was something that the Government wanted for itself, and thereby is a direct violation of the Constitution, is why I bring this up. Obamacare and the Federal Reserve Act may share this attribute of merely being acts of an agenda, of an ideological purpose and intention.
I urge you to read this Amendment to the Federal Reserve Act where, finally, the relationship of the other 94% of the profits of the Federal Reserve to the United States Treasury is publicized:
12 United States Code Section 289
“(1) In general
“The Federal reserve banks shall transfer from the surplus funds
of such banks to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System for transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit
in the general fund of the Treasury, a total amount of
$3,752,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
“(2) Allocated by Fed
Of the total amount required to be paid by the Federal reserve
banks under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2000, the Board shall
determine the amount each such bank shall pay in such fiscal
“(3) Replenishment of surplus fund prohibited
During fiscal year 2000, no Federal reserve bank may replenish
such bank's surplus fund by the amount of any transfer by such
bank under paragraph (1).” -- See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/289 to read the full text.
Ask yourself why lawsuits didn't fly and make headlines every day after this amendment was passed, for you'll find that the Federal Reserve has questioned the “homage” the United States Government wants from them, but, due to no federal statute existing to challenge the government-taking, they could do nothing. However, now, with this Amendment they can seek an administrative remedy within the Federal Reserve System. This may help explain the more public denouncing of the Federal Reserve over the last decade as well with the banks bucking the United States Government's socialized economic principle of taking 94% of the profit of the Federal Reserve System into the United States Treasury.
So now, I submit to you that this is a continuation of the Dark Ages and oppressive government by the United States government that is inconsistent with the foundations of our country, with Our Founder's purpose and intention in We the People establishing government, defining “general Welfare” as our sense of our government, of our pride in self-government that is uplifted by a government acting according to Our Written Constitution, and thereby we'd be more productive, industrious, and an even more prosperous nation.
As per usual (most of the time), my apologies for the length of this, but I found it necessary for accuracy, and thank you for reading,
Paul Ryan was accurate in fact, regarding the Janesville, Wisconsin GM plant, Mitt Romney's team better back him up 100%.
First to the historical facts, footnotes omitted:
“On February 13, 2008, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama stated, "This can be America’s future. I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you’ve made – how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you’re churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President."
“Fuel prices, the related slow sales of SUVs, and the economy affected the Janesville plant. In April 2008, GM announced that the plant would cut back full-time production to a single shift. Combined with an ongoing employee buy-out program, layoffs totaled around 750 jobs in July 2008.
“During GM's 2008 annual shareholder meeting on June 3, 2008, CEO Rick Wagoner announced that the Janesville assembly plant would close by 2010, along with three other GM factories, and could close sooner if the market dictated. The cutbacks announced, along with other changes, were expected to save the North American division $1 billion per year starting in 2010.
“GM extended its annual summer shutdown an additional two weeks and planned another ten weeks of shutdown for the remainder of 2008 because of excess inventories of SUVs made at the plant....
“...In October 2008, GM announced Janesville Assembly would be largely idled December 23, 2008 when production of SUVs would end. On December 23, workers gathered at a ceremony to take photos with a banner reading "Last Vehicle off the Janesville Assembly Line". The last vehicle was sold in a raffle benefiting the United Way.” (see, Janesville GM Assembly Plant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janesville_GM_Assembly_Plant)
A few points must be highlighted:
First, it is a reality that GM banked on SUV sales and therefore had larger than expected inventories. Once the 2007 recession hit, the company saw the Janesville plant as a means to save money.
Second, George Bush took part of the bank bailout funds and committed them to the auto bailout, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html. Please make note of this as this article progresses.
Now to the basic hypothesis, that Barack Obama knew the plant was in trouble in 2008. I submit that GM's lobbyists for corporate welfare were already asking the government for aid and assistance even before the 2007 recession, and that this is how Senator Obama, running for President in 2008, already knew the plant was in trouble. Our Senators would tell the lobbyists that the company had to make some significant changes to make sure that the giving of money to a corporation like GM didn't have a negative political backlash, Janesville just a piece in the “staging” of GM's corporate welfare push. This is just the beginning of this story too, and believe me I am doing all I can to keep this short as possible.
Let's make sure everyone knows the actual date the Janesville, Wisconsin GM Plant was closed, April 23rd 2009. Yeah, Obama was already President of the United States, and the $787 billion “stimulus” already allocated elsewhere, as well as George Bush's 17 billion to GM gone, by the time the Janesville GM plant was closed. Now remember what Obama said to those employees, “...The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.”
Clearly President Obama lost that “fight” if there was one at all, which at this point in time I doubt because GM still owns the plant. Must have been a real brawler to hand GM all this money, and use the U.S. Treasury to make risky stock investments that can't be paid back until this stock is $55 per share.
No, wait, it wasn't a brawler at all.
According to Wikipedia, GM filed for bankruptcy June 1, 2009. On July 10, 2009 a new company emerges out of New York, not Detroit, “NGMCO.” General Motors Website has it a bit different, claiming the judge approved the sale on July 5, 2009.
Remember: GM still owns Janesville. What I mean is that they have an idle plant, of 4.8 million square feet on 250 acres just sitting there doing nothing for the last 3 years, while taking money from the American people. See, if I were a home owner today that didn't pay the bank for the $200k loan that I had on my house, well I'd be told by the IRS that the 200k is income for the year I defaulted, and then they would be wanting the taxes paid on that 200k of income. How is it this doesn't apply to GM? Sure, there is no mortgage paperwork directly in hand for the plant, but GM was given money from us while they hold properties dormant that can be sold?
Please, think about this carefully. GM has Janesville “decommissioned,” a sort of “rainy day fund” for General Motors if they ever become successful again. Now ask yourself what rainy day fund you have, has it reached its pre-2007 height? And if you don't have one, ask very carefully why Obama and his people helped save GM knowing that this plant was not an operational facility, that the asset was given over to “NGMCO” out of New York (Now “General Motors Company”) without being an open and working facility, just a dormant 250 acres of land. Now ask yourself if GM has more of these, as it likely does, worldwide for that matter.
Now this takes us to the real reason for the GM fraud committed on the taxpayers to bail it out, that it wasn't about General Motors at all, but the giving away of some of the company to the unions who helped Obama get elected, same GM article as above as it shows the stock ownership breakdown.
And let us be clear that even the local union doesn't see the plant re-opening ever again.
Suffice it to say that the Janesville GM Plant was officially closed on April 23 2009, and decommissioned thereafter. What is further evident is that President Obama did nothing to make sure the employees he spoke to in February of 2008 still had their jobs. President Obama did nothing to make sure that a fraud was not perpetrated on the bankruptcy court in the transfer of the Janesville GM Plant to the “New GM.”
This article before you is to illustrate that “Chicago style” fraud is the synonym to “Change we can believe in,” and “Forward” a term to illustrate ignoring the past and all its wrongs, hoping the American People don't mind being the ones taken advantage of. Obama's recent rant against “tax-cuts” makes this obvious.
Obama's DNC speech further admitted this failure to see the U.S. Treasury as the American people's money, or to act in a manner consistent with the fiduciary role of government in spending that money wisely (let us not forget the illegal loan subordination to the shareholders of Solyndra, either). No, instead President Obama assumes a right of continuing to spend borrowed money on the ever-expanding social programs that we can only afford by more borrowing as it is. This is Obama's future platform and it is solely because the American People forget it is our taxes that constitute the U.S. Treasury and pay the debts our “leaders” get us into. Today, more than ever before, we're being placed in bondage to our creditors with every dollar the government borrows. And what must be said is that Tax-Cuts are necessary for the simple fact they are a recognition of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, government's lessening grip on the American People's private property.
So please cease from voting for President Liar, President Corporate-Welfare, President Sell-Out, President Enslavement-Of-Every-American and stay the hell home if you can't vote for Mitt Romney, for you, your children and grandchildren do not deserve slavery to our creditors just because we have a President who can't comprehend that money borrowed for war is to no longer be spent after the war is over, and that bloated social programs need streamlining, or spending on them is just throwing good money after bad.
If you can't comprehend this, please be a good Progressive and see a therapist for treatment for narcissism, for that's the ailment that would make the current generation not care at all for the generations of the future.
Thank you for reading,
P.S. Anyone blaming Bush for the 2007 recession needs to comprehend that union leaders wanted Obama in so badly they destroyed America's economy through artificially inflating fuel prices, the unions taking on the role as speculators buying the oil futures and chasing the price to $150 a barrel, which shows that union leaders have no allegiance to America, save to destroy it, hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf.
First, I must thank you, Stenny Hoyer, for your role in illegally passing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately called “Obamacare”), (Please see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.121).
In the same way Americans do not appreciate the fact that one man, Harry Reid, can filibuster the 438 members of the House (fail to take up passed bills) and stop the flow of the entire U.S. Government, you sir, single-handedly decided to push Obamacare through the House, knowing full well the Senate version had revenue generating (taxation) provisions that the House had never reviewed... Or maybe you just took Nancy Pelosi's advice:
The best part of this comment is, “...away from the fog of the controversy.” This statement is the epitome of unconscionable action by government in representation as a menace over the people. The House and its Committees are the exercise of the fiduciary role of government representatives as our servants. It is a form of Treason to claim to have passed a law “away from the debate and debating floor,” particularly without having read it. A theatre of wordplay that said one single thing we remembered in 2010 and will remember even more strongly in 2012: “We Democrats have a super-majority and Obama won, our agenda is all we need to pass this bill, as there is no power in the opposition to bring any challenge to anything we want to do. So don't read the bill, just pass it and we'll foist this on the American People in our sworn duty to each other and a political party agenda. Let the courts decide legitimacy and rights issues, we're going to force through an illegitimate process that can be used from now until we destroy Individual Liberty.” This message is what many Americans heard loud and clear.
Yes, you sir, with the aid of Speaker Pelosi, were the key to the new unconscionable standard of bill passage while claiming “democracy” as our form of government and fallacious talking point statements were made about the grass roots movement known as the Tea Party. How does it feel Stenny Hoyer to be the sole person to assure Obamacare, as received from the Senate, was not properly reviewed by the House, are you proud of the fact you willfully failed to enforce those provisions of Our Written Constitution of 1789 designating exclusive power over revenue generation in the Peoples' House? Surely a destructive act to Our American Republic, but you sir, also, by this act, destroyed all semblance of any legitimacy in you or your party's claims of “Our Democracy.” I'll bet you even made sure to shake out the last drop on Our Constitution after urinating on it!
And of course, as already referenced, we arrive at Nancy Pelosi, the woman who made Stenny Hoyer famous as the deliberate denier of Constitutional Process in his former position as Majority Leader of a “Congress of the Unconscionable” by her own words as heard above. What could be more important to dictatorial government than the representatives of it voting on legislation they never read, never had a conscious knowledge of, only to have the courts, tell a Citizen brought up on charges under that law, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse!”? A certain act of Treason it is for our representatives to vote on laws they've never read.
Now that Obamacare is deemed “passed,” irrespective of it being nugatory by the process to the President's unconscionable signature failing to pass Constitutional Muster, in that 26 States are suing the Federal Government over the mandate in it, the DOJ is making the specious argument it “is a Constitutional Power under the Commerce Clause, and thereby a rightful tax.” In fact, Stenny Hoyer's failure to designate Obamacare a tax, according to record of how Obamacare was passed (House Rules establish this is out-of-order, and that this rule is done to enforce Article I, Section 7, Clause I), and thereby failing to cause the Ways and Means review required, is denial of the mandate having any authority or enforceability as a tax. Thus this failure by Stenny Hoyer to abide by Constitutional Process, denies any legitimacy to the claims made by the DOJ.
Thus, due to the unread, thereby undebated, and therefore undiscussed, Contraception mandate in Obamacare, 7 states today have taken up a new lawsuit over this Contraception mandate. I am going to reference this to a comedian, the late George Carlin. He would discuss, in his various routines on words, how so many are “institutionalization” from terms that have actual heartfelt meaning. For our example it's the actual heartfelt meaning of “religious liberty” that is being institutionalized into “contraception” through the coercive force of government (the Church acceptance of the “accommodation” would be to agree to this conversion). Carlin's example, to help comprehend your flagrant violation of our Individual Liberty, is “shell-shocked” became “post-traumatic stress disorder.” The former terms, in both cases, a state of reality entirely within the Individual's right and capacity to affect; the latter, a means of government encroachment through assuming legislative authority to define them as events subject to the jurisdiction of the ruling classes, the “ruling institutions,” within the boundaries of government's desire to be the dictator of definition and the protocols associated over all they define. This is so because there is little, if any, difference in governance, between Politicians or the American Medical Association, or whatever other guild/union that government gives a special interest and/or quasi-government authority to – the persistent expansion of government and its influence through bureaucratization with little if any accountability.
Further, this is why the House Rules were started by Thomas Jefferson in the first place, as they were rules to give means to enforce the provisions of the Constitution within the House as a body of the National Government, that both you, Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer, as the leadership of the House at the time, made every effort to violate and evade. It is clear you knew or should have known that the party in power, that you control, would not do anything about your indiscretions couched in “official capacity” as though a “hoodie-footie” of immunity for your actions in derogation of your Oath of Office to We The People. This renders the “passage” of Obamacare a consistent effort to marginalize the American People, a consistent failure to uphold your agreement to respect and Honor we who put you in a position of trust by your election to office. Our Powers are not yours so long as Our Written Constitution isn't amended by us to give them to you, no matter how much legislation or what number of bureaucracies you create.
Of course the $500,000,000,000 being stripped from Medicare, is a good thing to those of us who comprehend the limits of Article I, Section 8, the list of enumerated, and rightful powers to the exclusion of all General Powers, (see paragraph 5 here, http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres17.html). However, your bill, Obamacare, (once again remember it was “passed” while unread) depletes this Medicare money for the sole purpose of creating the appearance of budget neutrality, when in fact it divests seniors of what they've actually paid for and results in a redistribution of this money to include the 30+ million Americans added to the healthcare rolls, who are now, like all Americans, forced to buy healthcare irrespective of the illegal, unconstitutional, process of “passage,” of the Obamacare mandate. That “fog of controversy” in referencing the rightful debate floor of Congress, that Stenny Hoyer denied to the Ways & Means Committee as well, has ended up being a ruse to bypass Our Written Constitution. The purpose is to effectuate a Supreme Court decision after the fact, in abuse of the 3rd branch of government their decision to be treated as an affirmation of Obamacare as a “law” and circumvent the fact it already is invalidated by the Constitution itself!
Article 6, Section 2, provides how the Constitution, without aid of the U.S. Supreme Court, invalidates all acts of every single branch of government, including the U.S. Supreme Court, when in violation of the exact language of the Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States [said “Authority, being what is said prior to the semi-colon], shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” -- Constitution For The United States of America, as ratified, 1789, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Thus the Constitution itself, by this self-executing clause, only recognizes those things in pursuance of the Constitution, following the limits of it, as having the legitimacy of “the consent of the governed,” as required by the Declaration of Independence in test of a government's legitimate authority. This is also the test of “good behavior,” the Constitution the means of testing the validity of all acts of government, those without deference to it, clearly not acts in good behavior by any government actor in their representative capacity of voluntary servitude.
So, I think it's high time to follow Our Written Constitution and believe in the Honor of the men who wanted to abolish slavery by 1808 through passage of the Constitution, and have a heavy heart over the fact they could not do so before that. Yes, this is part of Our Founders’ wisdom, which our government-funded indoctrination masquerading as education has ignored, particularly that Our Written Constitution should be Ours and Our Government’s guiding light to the certain truth of Obamacare as an absolutely heinous act of Treason against the Government. It is we who are the Sovereign Power of America. We are a nation entirely based on the Rule Of Law in self-Government. The Exceptional character of America, of Freedom and Individual Liberty is that our power and use of our property is exercised as we see fit and at our sole discretion and it is this Exceptional Character that vests in every American:
I give you James Madison from Federalist 42:
“THE SECOND class of powers, lodged in the general government, consists of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, to wit: to make treaties; to send and receive ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to regulate foreign commerce, including a power to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations....
“The regulation of foreign commerce, having fallen within several views which have been taken of this subject, has been too fully discussed to need additional proofs here of its being properly submitted to the federal administration. It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!” -- Paragraphs 1 & 3 respectively, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html
Thus it is clear to this American that violation of the Constitution is the means to continue slavery, in the same way violation of the Constitutional limit is where government effectuates a rebellion against the People, particularly when done in direct violation of fiduciary requirement imposed upon our representatives in government by their sworn Oath of Office, an Oath no less important than one taken by anyone in our armed forces and that our elected representatives should actually take more seriously.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration and the Constitution, knew who the Sovereign is, how that's the most important principle to America, her people and Government, that this is Our unalienable Right to self-Government, an internal absolute power of the People alone:
“'Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigor through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem expedient.' -- James Wilson, Founding Father, Lectures on Law: Volume 1 Chapter 1 page 17.” -- as quoted from http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/
However, you Nancy Pelosi, Stenny Hoyer, Harry Reid, and of course the illustrious Dear Leader, President Barack Hussein Obama, set aside the meaning and intention of Our Founders of Freedom for all on this continent, for all of us of all ethnicities and beliefs to have the protection of Limited Government, to instead divide us, to use powers not granted to force us, coerce us, and divest us of all of our rightful property, including our Property In Rights, (see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.96).
So it is with great pride over America and Our Founders, over our Military and their taking their Oath of Office seriously, that I thank you representatives and members of Progressive Government for having proven once again that your thirst for power knows no bounds, that to you We The People are merely a resource to be managed, a means of creation of special interests through your divisiveness as a tool to force Our American Republic to be a democracy in appearance, while in fact to facilitate the historically oppressive nature of centralized power and government; a truth that has been reinforced by Obama's Policies and rhetoric over the last 3 years. Be proud of yourselves for you've reinforced a 230 year old truth to the world, that Individual Liberty is the sole means of Sovereignty, of Right, of Peace and Tranquility, of Wealth, of Honor, for anyone throughout the entire world (see http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/africa-is-making-itself-rich-despite-the-west).
Thank you for reading,
A little notation I made to the WBEZ radio site where Barack Obama says the court didn't do enough http://www.wbez.org/jandrews/2008/10/barack-obamas-radio-days-2/7912. I edited in some commas, and Obama's name when it would aid in clarity (I've written a lot since then that hopefully helps), things I tend to miss/overlook when editing in a tiny comment window.
“The 12,000 businesses needing $250,000 each to expand versus,
“4 million people in the entire nation getting $750 each (single under 200k get 500 bucks, families under 250k get 1000 bucks, I averaged)
“Nationally 40% of the population doesn't pay income taxes due to threshold being raised per the Consumer Price Index.
“Ask how much 750 or 1000 dollars a year will help you alone, granted this amount could be a significant help.
“Then ask how much 3 billion dollars would do being lent to those 12,000 businesses across the country who are above the $250k revenue threshold Senator Obama has proposed, businesses that want to expand and add jobs, pay more of the same taxes they already pay, but, are having to recalculate the risk of expansion due to the contingency of higher taxes in the future.
“In numbers of people 4 million seems like quite a bit, yet this ends up being an arbitrary cash infusion and not concentrated, based on not just what the recipients do with the funds but when -- essentially an economic stimulus package. The numbers I used above are what 3% of $100 billion dollars would accomplish when taken from one individual or class, and given to another.
“If the billionaires this applies to had a choice and were required to spend this money they'd be deciding between making an investment they will do all they can to assure makes a profit, and contributing to a group who will likely spend it in a variety of ways that are least efficient in relation to their benefit to our economy.
“In reality the wealthy pass the tax increase on to the consumer, they always have, and since the money was taken from them, they'll just get it back with an added profit by price increases. As much as people believe in the Obama proposal to take from the wealthy and give to others it is clear this support is due to personal whims and overall bias against the wealthy. This is a mistaken envy in light of capitalism being a system that anyone can become wealthy in.
“This emotional [Obama] response appears to be irrespective of the benefits derived from investment use by the wealthy which benefits the economy by providing funds for expansion of business which, by competition, [helps in] keeping prices down. Of course the wealthy do not try to fool us into believing they will sit still as though in a vacuum -- They did not become as wealthy as they are sitting in a vacuum.
“I submit that those of wealth who support Barack Obama do so because they will be able to play even greater financial games that benefit themselves more than anyone else, and maybe even at the expense of the American People -- their revenge on us for their losing elections based on our independent will.
“600 million dollars is nothing to spend to win an election when the value of the handful of people at the table who surround Barack Obama is 500 billion dollars. And if you think Barack Obama hasn't made them some promises, and/or that these billionaires such as Warren Buffet and George Soros haven't placed their assets long ago outside the United States Government's reach, you are the exact fool that Obama and his wealthy politburo have counted on.
“Understand that any sense of alarm by conservatives may not be due to what liberals believe it is because liberals are so certain a power shift is good, they may be surprised how many conservatives agree a power shift is good, but, not into the hands of a puppet of people who are so wealthy and longed for financial collapse to buy enough interest in businesses they could not afford before. Now the fact some of them have criminal backgrounds and defy other nation's governments, or [just] buy them, does not help sway those who care to trust Barack Obama or his judgment.
“Please realize many conservatives are unhappy with George Bush and, due to the 2 party system, find themselves stuck not wanting to throw their vote away, but knowing they cannot vote for a man who can surround himself with the world's richest people because history has shown these people always surround those they can control. Some time look up Brown Brothers Harriman where you'll find Bush Senior, Ford Motor company and a host of others were a funding mechanism of the NAZI war machine, here are internet references to it http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bushnazidealingscontinueduntil1951.htm I am sorry I do not have my copy of the report that I went to the Library of Congress to get and make a copy of available to me right now.
“The point is that these men of Wealth and Power were more than happy to fund the NAZI party, for racial reasons, which is another way of saying "dominant political power." Adolf Hitler could have won the war if not for the resources of the world applied against he and these men. But that was at a time that we recognized unity as Americans, something we don't have anymore and why a similar "cabal" surround and feed Barack Obama's ambition to likely get away with whatever they intend irrespective of Barack Obama's idealism.
“For all the hype that liberals have against the wealthy, they appear to remain blind to wealthy liberals who often became wealthy off the backs of a nation's people. George Soros in particular made over 1.1 billion dollars in virtually 1 day when breaking the bank of England, and it is estimated that this profit is around 24 British pounds taken from each member of the entire population of England and was the cause of tax increases.
“If you think for one moment Soros' support for Barack Obama, his organization of the Democratic Alliance, and consistent interest in buying elections ($15 million he spent alone on John Kerry hoping to win in 2004) is in your best interest, you clearly are only as informed as Barack Obama wants you to be.
“I know that when you combine that kind of man (George Soros) with Mayor Daley and his political union machine to then add in Warren Buffet who understands these things but must maintain his $130,000 a share Berkshire Hathaway, which is dependent on Institutional Investors (unions) and others like George Soros, you certainly will have a winning team, but, not due to the best interests of the American people.
“But of course, my lack of education as a conservative because I state the well documented truth about George Soros, convicted of inside trading in France, who defies even their Supreme Court -- his conviction upheld in every French Court -- and wants to take his issue up to the International Courts, means I am acting on hype. If you happen to actually look into Mr. Soros you'll also find his discussion of how he manipulated the Thai Bhat but presents a plausible explanation, irrespective of proof to the contrary. Additionally, if you can take off your "environment over the life of humans" bullydom glasses, please look into Rosia Montana in Romania. You'll run across a letter where George Soros tells this poor village of a gold mine, that George Soros single-handedly ended the development of, knowing full well the village would own 20% of the mine, where Mr. Soros informs these people, "the berries and mushrooms you pick to eat, sell those, as they will be worth more than the gold in that mine ever will be to you." Of course the mine was closed on claims by George Soros "Open Society Institute" of mining techniques that hurt the environment, and, his support for this was a CEO of the mining company that has a previous criminal conviction -- talk about guilt by association!
“But these are the benefits of Soros being the man who was able to co-sign for 20 million dollars of funding from the World Bank to Romania after donating 125 million to their government -- Yes trust the choice George Soros supports, brilliant!
“Understand too, that for all the claims about lobbyists in McCain’s camp, in 26 years Senator McCain took only $20,000 from FreddieMac and FannieMae. Senator Obama in less than 2 years time had taken $111,000 from them, lobby money that they received from us as a government-funded private institution. Also Senator McCain has taken absolutely no earmarks, though they account for a small portion of the budget, they do remain a politician using money that doesn't need to be paid back to the government to wield political influence in exchange for favors. Senator Obama's earmarks that he listed himself during the primary of $740 milion [sic] dollars is quite a bit of influence at our expense for one candidate, 3 times more than the "bridge to nowhere" and a much broader influence in Illinois due to population density than Alaska.
“Understand this list of things I have brought up above is not exhaustive.
“If you cannot see how actions speak louder than words I am sorry, but when I look at all of these things taken together it appears those supporting Obama do not realize who the people are behind the curtain controlling their Wizard of Oz.
“Thanks for reading,
“Toto (the curtain puller, at least in spirit).
“P.S. I would have cited links but knowing that you'll only knee-jerk to rebut with an argument in misdirection or re-direction anyway, I felt omission is warranted. Yet I felt it important to you liberals who hate conservatives solely for being conservative that I include the link regarding Bush Senior, so you get a better idea that my voice speaking out is in the interest of what's best for my country and not for me alone. I just wish you guys would do your research, would look for the truth, instead of looking for what appeals to your personal self-interest, then I believe our differences in philosophy wouldn't matter because we'd both know when danger to our nation is in front of us and stand together to defend America. However, if this KGB agent is telling the truth, there is likely nothing that can be done [UPDATE: New Link follows, erased original] http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov ”
In the comment thread, there's a brief exchange with a “Brian” that I found interesting, his post, at the time, he presumed a rebuttal. You be the judge in light of what we know about Obama, if he is abiding by the tenor of the cited statement or merely showing the dictatorial power of the Presidency to right what Obama admittedly shows by his words he believes is a wrong:
“'One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, that's a wealth issue and something and we can't get into.' -- Emphasis mine, http://www.wbez.org/jandrews/2008/10/barack-obamas-radio-days-2/7912.
As you can see from what President Obama has chosen to focus on with stimulus money and seeking more stimulus to protect classes of jobs that all feature being under the “union label,” and particularly teachers' jobs, his view is to use the Presidency to bypass Brian's rebuttal point, where Obama noted this “major issue...being “redistribution.” Thus, again, what appeared at the time a rebuttal has proven otherwise by the actual working record of Barack Hussein Obama. And, in truth, Obama's statement suggests that the redistribution issue was created by a judgment on behalf of the issue of racism, as though the court had a duty to bind these together. I haven't looked up the case cited, however, if the Court actually said what Barack Obama claims in the WBEZ interview, then, I'd dare say, he's given us a case citation to put an end to social spending as the medium of redistribution, and a nail in the coffin of this abusive government practice for purposes of government financial gain through artificially induced (community organizer agitated) fictional societal controversies – a series of contrived logics derived from facts of no consequence, except under the idea of finding a question that plays on others and the hardships of living one’s own life responsibly, a question brought in a manner that results in jealousy and resentment to play upon an individual's inner fear. This is in like manner to the breaking of a soldier, however, much more expedient, as it leverages the person's life choices against their own internal resentments and self-doubt.
Thank you for reading,
Rant & Record Of Obama's Science Of Agenda By Incompetence
The folly of President Obama is well documented, the most astounding first in history of a man, whose actions to politicize the debt ceiling (by failing to raise it when his party controlled both chambers of Congress), resulted in America having a lowered credit rating for the first time in history.
Of course, Barack Obama waiting until the last minute to tell John Boehner on July 22, 2011, “I'd like an additional 400 billion,” inserted into a deal already standing at 800 billion in revenues, leading to Boehner walking out, was just one more of the necessary acts of feigned seriousness, fashioned for press consumption to disseminate to a people in despair as “fundamental transformation” infiltrates the psyche with images of Hugo Chavez running America.
All of this a perfect agitation by our Progressive-Terrorist-In-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and his minions, who have no idea they are following the lead of Bill Ayers, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ. Barack Obama might know, if he had a moment of objectivity within the stunning gray matter, claimed to be of such high intelligence, he can confuse his grandfather and uncle when first making political points in 2008, http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/05/obama-repeats-auschwitz-gaffe-on-memorial-day/; or in stunning repeat performances of the former Harvard Law Review President, Barack Obama demonstrating his natural-born knowledge of the English Language and being educated in America, October 26, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1DO388jsf8 & February 4, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0.
I could go on but, his economic programs of “nudging” the people to capitulate to being ruled and abandon their own self-government, and the disastrous conditions this has caused worldwide, well, the minions on Wall Street and elsewhere, show the result of Obama's tactics to get elected, the notable similarity illustrated here from 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=P36x8rTb3jI.
Real Solution: National Government Must Cut Current Actual Spending Immediately
Cut Current Spending. This cannot be said enough, and I submit that Thomas Jefferson well knew the meaning of the “general Welfare clause” when he said the following in his 2nd Inaugural Address.
Jefferson starts by explaining how taxation works in America, all emphasis hereinafter, unless otherwise noted, is mine:
“The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a taxgatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the Government, to fulfill contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts as places at a short day their final redemption...”
Jefferson then addresses the fact that many in Congress wanted him to open the national treasury to spend upon items that were objects solely within the province of the States:
“...and that redemption once effected the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition of it among the States and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution, be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State. In time of war, if injustice by ourselves or others must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be by increased population and consumption, and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burthening them with the debts of the past. War will then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement.”
I am of absolute certainty that the man who penned the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who helped frame the Constitution, and was speaking at the inaugural address of his second term to serve in the office of President Of The United States, was well aware that there is no general Welfare clause, that his requirement of an amendment to the Constitution for the government to spend on these things expresses what is wrong with Washington today, as such amendment has never been introduced, let alone made to Our Written Constitution.
We do not need new tax plans. We do not need to be thinking over how to pay back the debt we've incurred, for, it was incurred erroneously and wrongfully, by those who assume an immunity for their actions that doesn't exist.
I submit that, once removed from office, they should have this debt charged upon them by a Constitutional amendment, and that those we borrowed from, snookered as a Bernie Madoff patron, should be told to collect it from him, from all who went to all this trouble to escalate the debt in their perverse need to agitate others, people who cannot be content and appreciate happiness, who assume something must be fixed when few are complaining, and often their complaints are merely complaints derived from their own desire to pursue laziness. Laziness is an apparent virtue according to union employment where “doing enough not to get fired until you get tenure” is the goal of ones lifetime, and that the teachers subject to such employment principles through the National Education Association and other teachers’ unions, are daily held to submit toor become unemployed, and unemployable with their teaching credential. The reason being that unions have a State granted monopoly on who can teach, and taking dues from those who aren't even in the union, and also making sure they are the first to go should a union teacher need that job.
What stability is there in this? What life lesson, based on the life led by a teacher, is being taken into the classroom?
Many often cite Mayer Amshel Rothschild regarding money:
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws” -- http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/
Let us apply that similarly to education of a nation of free people:
“Permit me to issue and control the education of a nation and I care not who makes its laws”
Yet few care about this aspect, of State deficits based on public employee union benefit contracts made when the economy was in better condition, and States could issue tax guaranteed bonds to pay for the escalated benefits they promised, apparently seeming to want to give some sort of “education reparations” in redistribution of the private wealth of citizens to educators via “Education Bonds” (see http://www.allbusiness.com/glossaries/full-faith-credit/4951086-1.html.) A great example out of California, to comprehend how this is entirely out of hand at the State level, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.107.
Now, To Liquidate The $600,000,000,000,000 In Derivatives
Anyone unfamiliar with “depreciation,” please read the first couple paragraphs here, http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=137026,00.html.
Essentially “toxic assets,” these bundles of derivatives and mortgage-backed securities, have so many contractual problems due to legal fictions and legal vehicle manipulation that the default or other undermined legality of the initiating paper (loan) placed them in legal limbo, unable to be bought, sold or maneuvered, except by painstaking review of every single document, at a cost of $1500/hr and up for the lawyers to do this work.
This stifled an ingenious bank system that was created to pay for the loans government requires banks to make through the Community Reinvestment Act and other government regulations, required loans for no money down, no interest, no proof of repayment, and even no proof of citizenship. Banks have a legal fiduciary duty to their bond and shareholders, that is only 2nd to the duty to their depositors, but are altogether one duty to make sure not to lend out the depositors' money and place at risk of the investors' investment.
However, due to the number of defaults caused by institutional investors and their first time union investment in crude oil futures in 2007, that chased the price up to $150 a barrel (see http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf) , and left people without enough to pay their mortgage, we had a “financial meltdown.”
I see no reason, since they are merely paper contracts and aren't being paid for, to not temporarily allow these “toxic assets” to be included as property subject to IRS depreciation schedules, though this won't go over well with “Tax-The-Rich” Obama, OWS, or many Ron Paul supporters, this will allow the banks to depreciate the value of these toxic assets by 20% per year, and post this against their profits for the same year, or 25% per year, should they want to accelerate extinguishing these assets permanently.
This would cause the banks to not have to hoard what money they can get, preparing for this $600 Trillion market to fail, and that, more than anything, would thaw credit worldwide. Of course this goes against the designs and plans of Bill Ayers, and his surrogate Barack Obama, and would mean America wouldn't fail; that a world order of socialist “Utopia,” paved by a road of oppression, gulags, and old food, won't happen; that Individual Liberty will not be replaced by collectivism that is soon supplanted by elitist despotism and mass murder when boredom sets in, but that's the nature of what is denied when America persists, and continues, as a free nation.
By these two simple measures, We The People again Occupy Main Street: 1) national spending is brought within its Constitutional Limits and thereby government is brought within the confines of the Constitution, no longer using money as a means of dependence and slavery; 2) State governments regain areas of their control and opportunities for revenue that they possessed when joining the union “on equal footing” with the original 13 colonies; 3) Our economy is loaded with banks looking for investment opportunity, looking for places to put their newly available credit to foster growth, jobs, and more investment; 4) The grip of government over how we live our lives is returned to Constitutional limits through Capitalism, that Christian use of Private Property Ownership in Individual Liberty to assure a self-governing society, communities that need no national intrusion to take care of themselves.
This is what happens when the Sovereign, the American People, flex their muscle through the pursuit of opportunities and invention that we can take full advantage. We again look to the future as an opportunity in and of itself, hoping soon to know once more that tomorrow will be a better day, because the encroachment of government and its need for a collective mass in subservience to rule over, and the manipulations thereby, are over.
Thank you for reading,
It is crucial that we understand that jobs, our debt, and anything viewed as part of the “economic crisis” is being used by Progressives, particularly the Progressive-Terrorist-In-Chief Barack Obama, to force the creation of a new Civil Right subject to government protection: unemployment.
Further, Americans must comprehend how this act is being used to empower illegal aliens as well, that illegal aliens are not exempt from enforcing the unemployment protections of the American Jobs Act.
Through reading what I have of the American Jobs Act it is clear to me that Obama is trying to make unemployment a Civil Right, and a new means of entitlement, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.181.2. That unemployment benefits have been extended to 99 weeks, and were sold to us on the idea that “not extending these benefits takes money out of local economies,” is Progressive packaging of unemployment as a boon to the economy, where we pay out 100% but revenue from those amounts will be the taxation of where the money is spent, which is a persistent curve of diminishing returns, particularly when one considers how all the money is not spent in legitimate uses.
In relation to civil cases, such as enforcement of not being prejudiced by unemployment, the 99 weeks, and all other benefits applied for, are government records that will be used in the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Using unemployment as a criteria of prejudice to trigger 1964 Civil Rights Act protections and provide the plaintiff standing to bring a lawsuit, is a significant issue relating to illegal aliens as well. I have yet to meet an illegal alien currently employed and submitting a resume with their employment history, as having these is evidence of a crime, committed both by the illegal alien and their former employers, as well as civil liability for unpaid taxes, both at the State and National Government levels.
So now, imagine illegal aliens suing our American businesses, and even being able to go to a U.S. Attorney to have a Governor arrested for enforcing their State's immigration laws (see section 375 subsection (d)), on the grounds that “requesting records of past employment (which would come up with a Social Security Number/eVerify) violates the American Jobs Act as such records are an attempt to establish the current unemployment of the applicant to prejudice them from employment.”
An illegal alien coming to America from any country generally has no employment records to share (there is a reason they left their country without expatriating), and thus, by all appearances, the illegal alien is technically "unemployed" at the time of applying. This is how Progressives play the game, technicalities in favor of some long drawn-out legal argument by their favorite Civil Rights "branch of government," the ACLU (ACLU does receive some public funding). A slow procession toward their goals (more on the ACLU's goals below).
A perfect illustration is the case Lawyer Obama was employed by ACORN to bring, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.104
The Blaze decided to say that the concern over the AJA State Sovereignty issue is an overreaction, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-you%E2%80%99re-not-hearing-about-the-new-jobs-bill-it-overrides-state%E2%80%99s-rights/?corder=desc#comments, and I tend to agree. But the overreaching affect of the provisions in the AJA, irrespective of the fact that an Act of Congress cannot abrogate a Constitutional Protection, remains intact. The reason being that it is government who hears and enforces, government who carries on the governing function, thus the recognition of what is or isn't true is assumed, and entirely, up to government, as brought before government courts as the institution to carry on these events. There is no question that, at this time, we cannot count on Our Government to respect the Constitution according to what this document means to We The People, cannot believe for an instant that there is a reasonableness in government that would, for even a moment, accurately conclude that an Act of Congress cannot abrogate a Constitutional Provision. And it is clear to me Government knows the courts won't rule in favor of the Constitution, in the fact Congress regularly puts such clauses in acts “giving money” to the States as a “string attached” -- The AJA string is the broadest I've seen, as it includes money “for any” programs and not just those to facilitate the AJA. Therefore, the threat to National Sovereignty, as Liberal appointed judges uphold a Civil Rights case brought by the ACLU on behalf of an illegal alien, is a legitimate concern, and in no way an overreaction.
As the article about Obama's ACORN case illustrates, Progressives bring the case on Civil Rights grounds, but settlement is based on something else, and the grounds of the settlement was the whole purpose in filing the case. The initial Civil Rights issue under which they filed the case was legitimate if pursued, at least according to the Civil Rights Act, so I am not saying it wasn't (though the Civil Rights Act seems to be merely a tool for Progressive and government power expansion). What I am saying is that the Civil Rights claim was done solely to achieve the settled outcome, a means to use race as the legal vehicle for standing to sue, and thereby, to force an institution to conduct private business differently -- Legal leverage.
The same will be true if unemployment is legislated into being treated as a Civil Right through the AJA, which is exactly what this act does. There is no exemption of illegal aliens from being able to enforce it. The icing on the cake of destroying State Sovereignty is to assure enforcement by the National Government of whatever they wish to do with this act, particularly as the State Sovereignty waiver is a matter of standard legislative procedure. This is particularly true with any act, such as the AJA, throughout which are made countless amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As written, the AJA neuters the States while legalizing the National Government's direct oppression of private citizens who own businesses. Unemployment is now going to be a tool to hinder the use of private property, to force businesses to employ people solely on the basis of them being unemployed, an unspoken but effectuated socialism, redistribution, social justice, etc. This, to me, explains well why Obama has only now, after 3 years, focused on jobs, using them to agitate and force capitulation. Unemployment is a problem, and, though it could go up by forcing employers to hire anyone, or they get sued and end up going out of business, this bill destroys the whole point of looking for qualified people to hire, mocking the idea of qualifications and subjecting the owner of the money, property being paid to hire and pay, as the lesser liability to what a lawsuit could bring. The American Jobs Act destroys American Businesses, and ANY private sector job creation in the future.
This is not an overreaction. This is a legal researcher who worked on Civil Rights cases back in his California existence expressing the very way these laws are viewed and used by lawyers when they want to promote a particular agenda. The ACLU certainly qualifies in this regard, and has a record of doing these things in the past, along with holding to communist principles, which should alone disqualify the ACLU from being public funded:
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself . . . I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” -- Roger Baldwin, Founder of the ACLU, per http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/24/aclu-vs-religious-liberty/
Let's add to this the Congressional report in 1931, merely 11 years after the ACLU comes into being:
“The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists” -- Ibid.
The overall lack of actually reviewing the AJA, likely due to being basically overwhelmed by all that Barack Obama and the Progressive democrats have done to destroy America, seems to have led to have affected even The Blaze Staff, to carry on cursory reviews substantiated by one person's opinion about the issue, instead of a thoroughly researched and considered review. At least this is obvious to me when considering the ACLU's origins, history, and its use of the Civil Rights Act to effectuate communist goals.
Thank you for reading,
Many may recall Van Jones discussion of “top down,” “bottom up,” and “inside out.” The identical extremism of President Obama is what brought about the Tea Party. That extremism is best illustrated by Obama's economic plan as he's proposed it, featuring, the American Jobs Act, with provisions that establish this act as “The Illegal Alien & Unemployed Civil Rights Act,” http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.181.2 and then, as part of his “balanced approach,” followed by a new “alternative minimum tax,” better known as the “AMT,” for a class of citizens that this President, and apparently most Americans, don't believe are subject to the 5th Amendment limit of the Constitution “…; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
This prompts a necessity to comprehend what the President is saying, versus what the Constitution says, and what Our Government, thereby, has not been empowered to do.
The President, an advocate for a “Progressive tax,” and “taxing those who can afford it,” has unequivocally demonstrated that he views the people as a resource to be tapped when government is spending beyond its means, assuming that if there's just a little more money to afford the debts taken on by government that we'll be fine and the economy will be rescued.
Now, when we compare this to Founder James Madison's uncontested view of property and “property in rights,” we discover a completely different view:
“If there be a government then which prides itself on maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which out to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
“Private Property Rights” are the issue in all taxation, and, according to the legal maxim of “equal protection under the law,” that the United States of America is responsible for having started in ending serfdom, which led to ending slavery as an institution of Civil Society, and this is why Our Founders did not design to have some Sovereign Crown or Central Government. The premise of Feudal Society is that all belongs to a Central Government, that they own all and the rest of society are merely vassals of the Sovereign's Will, who carry on our activities solely at the Pleasure of the Central Government, usually a Single Crown Head. Instead America has numerous millionaires and billionaires on the basis of decentralizing property ownership and opportunity.
This is what Our Written Constitution accomplishes in comparison to those nations without one, whose Parliament claims “a constitution” based on the party in power, based on “democracy.”
Our People first threw off the bonds of a Crown by invocation of God, and that Our Unalienable Rights come from God, and thereby we are Sovereign by God's Hand. And it was this power that we used to institute a Federal Government after we were free. This is why we formed a limited Government, without any entitlement to take our private property at their pleasure, who must give “just compensation” at every taking of Private Property.
Taxation is an exchange of this description. There was no income tax until the 16th Amendment, which We The People didn't write nor ask for, but instead Government carried out for its own purposes. And, even then, the due process requirements of the 4th Amendment brought about the existence of the IRS, though a poor steward of due process which needs significant reform.
What Our President is addressing, and duping, millions of Americans over with the “Buffett Rule,” this “millionaire and billionaire AMT,” is the call by millions of Americans for a “flat,” “fair,” “retail,” “consumption,” etc. tax. What these taxing systems lack is the wisdom of Our Founders, and Barack Obama is well aware of this, exploiting an ease by which he can bring people to jealousy of others who have more than them through simple rhetoric.
In the way the American Jobs Act is “Bottom up” pressure, this new Buffett Rule is the “Top Down” pressure. To illustrate, the growing poor population derives from those coming “down from” the middle class, but the growing number of poor means the total number is “rising” or “bottom up.” Adding a new tax to whatever the government claims is “the rich,” is a means to bring people of wealth down into the middle class, making the numbers of people who have wealth a lesser population, which is “top down” and erodes the sense of opportunity and ambition that would lead one out of the middle class, which leads to frustration over immobility, lack of opportunity, and a sense of stagnation, turning the middle class “inside out.” This proposal by Obama is emotionally charged due to the variety of things he's slipping into the legislation, while chanting “pass this bill” and reminding us of “urgency” to “not let a crisis go to waste.”
To simplify this article, I'll just state that the issue of the Buffett Rule is Barack Obama exploiting our lack of comprehension of the importance of private property, shredding again Our Written Constitution, in the name of “democracy.”
Further, however, what I've illustrated above is that Barack Obama's views toward wealth and property are extremist, that America has already voted an Extremist into office, and the damage done during the almost 2 years he had super majorities in Congress, could last for decades. John McCain was a Progressive as well as President Obama, though I am not sure Senator McCain was the Communist-leaning Progressive that Barack Obama is, again as illustrated above by Obama's own views. We missed this aspect of Obama due to 2 things, 1) a media that wanted to see the first African-American president as their story, let alone being consistent with their politics, and 2, because our public and private school educations failed to teach us these Founding Principles of Property (and much more) that Our Founders were well aware of, to even amend the Constitution to assure clarity thereof.
This is important because the Progressives, via the Democratic Party in 2008, articulated that they are going to rely on this lack of education and emotional issues of prejudice to gain and hold power enough to fundamentally transform America away from the nation Our Founders intended, and using “Civil Rights” as their wedge tool – assuring a means of judicial procedure and remedy for illegal aliens, the unemployed, and terrorists because they are illegally in the United States, unemployed, and terrorists, respectively – while persistently ignoring the limits of the National Government as articulated in the 4th and 5th Amendments in regard to protecting Americans and their Private Property Rights, particularly those who are, or seek to be, “the rich.”
Therefore, the Democratic Party has chosen to be ruled by the extremist left, and every time this nation has been on the winning side of Freedom, Individual Liberty, and Wealth, we have had an “extremist” conservative in office. I submit to you that we have a duty, an obligation at this time to decimate the capacity of the democratic party by electing the first woman President, and that, strategically, Michele Bachmann is the candidate to support to assure we do not hear the following rhetorical lie in 2016 that will be the Progressive battle cry no matter who wins in 2012:
“The Democratic Party has always been the party for all colors & all minorities, striving to bring social justice to America and all of our lives. Barack Obama made great strides in bringing this about, and it was the Democratic Party that brought America the first African-American President, which is a great stride in ending racism in America, enough that we can shift our focus. This election it will be the Democratic Party who once again brings you a first, the first woman President, to bring social justice to the gender gap.”
We have to comprehend what gave democrats the edge in the 2008 election: The potential first African-American and first Woman President were battling it out in their primaries for almost 2 years. This appeal to the emotion of the American voter to the “firsting” of such a historic event is what brought the Democrats troops out in 2008, and why we hear potentials of primary challengers for Obama, whose luster in this regard has long ago been spent. Conservatives need to be the ones electing the first Woman President to the White House, if, for no other reason, than to at least significantly negate the sense of entitlement of the Democratic Party to be the ones to do so after Barack Hussein Obama. I believe it'll be much bigger than that if we, Conservatives and the Tea Party, were to elect the first woman President of the United States of America.
It is time to put an end to this Democratic Party regurgitation and constant re-litigation of our nation's form of government, long settled by our having a Written Constitution that instituted a compound republic known as Federalism. Progressives, Liberals, Socialists, & Communists, etc., need to live with it if they plan to stay in America, to integrate into the society as founded and embrace the ideology of Individual Liberty and Freedom instead of trying destroy it by changes that assure a despotic National “Nanny State Leveraging” Government, often the same type of government their ancestors were fleeing from in coming to America. It's a very simple and honest premise: Leave if you don't like our Constitutional Republic. Accept that you will probably have to fight a Dictator in another nation to achieve your goals of being the Dictator yourselves, and that's just the way it is. America, and the American people, are tired of being exploited as your easy way to achieve what you would have to fight to do anywhere else.
Thank you for reading,
P.S. I normally have the luxury of a scholarly author as my editorial second set of eyes, to assist me in not carrying on as a grammatical Oaf, but am unable to access A.Dru Kristenev at this time and apologize for my grammatical errors.
Okay, so I go to the White House web link for the “American Jobs Act,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/american-jobs-act.pdf (Please try to get a copy of the act, as when I posted this to the website, the indentation and such is lost). A friend pointed out that section 376 mentions that States lose their Sovereign Immunity under this section, and it appears this is true. First the relevant text, and please note that all emphasis hereinafter is mine (I'll be noting to you what I am drawing from this in Quick Summaries, with a final Conclusion at the end. If you wish to skip down to that, that's fine):
“SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY.
(a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act.
(b) Waiver of State Immunity-
(1) IN GENERAL-
(A) WAIVER- A State's receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act.
(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph, the term `program or activity' has the meaning given the term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).
Here's a link to 42 USC 2000d-4a, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00002000---d004a.html, which defines program or activity, in relevant portions:
“For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “program or activity” and the term “program” mean all of the operations of—
(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;”
And also....(I am trying to keep this as easy as possible, believe me):
“any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.” is said uncapitalized, and not as another sentence, but as an extension of the actual citation of the general section itself, unindented.
And now, continuing section 376 in the “American Jobs Act:”
“ (2) EFFECTIVE DATE- With respect to a particular program or activity, paragraph (1) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day, after the date of enactment of this Act, on which a State first receives or uses Federal financial assistance for that program or activity.”
First Quick Summary
Essentially, according to subsection 2, of Section 376, of the American Jobs Act, cited above, States who have received, according to subsection 1 (A), Federal Financial Assistance from the National Government for “any program or activity of a State” will immediately be subject to this section of the American Jobs Act, where State Sovereign Immunity is waived, “after the date of enactment of this Act.”
Again continuing section 376:
“(c) Remedies Against State Officials- An official of a State may be sued in the official capacity of the official by any employee or applicant for employment who has complied with the applicable procedures of this Act, for relief that is authorized under this Act.
“(d) Remedies Against the United States and the States- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in an action or administrative proceeding against the United States or a State for a violation of this Act, remedies (including remedies at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies would be available against a non-governmental entity.”
Cumulative Second Quick Summary
An officer of the State of Arizona, for instance, is subject to lawsuit, according to subsection “c” above, on the basis of their State taking Federal Financial Assistance for any program. The same officer can be subject to criminal penalties, “including remedies at law and in equity”) and has no immunity, under subsection “d.”
So now we must know what this section is relating to, explain what a “violation of this act” is, and this is defined quite a bit more, so I'll post what gives the gist of it, from Section 374:
“SEC. 374. PROHIBITED ACTS.
(a) Employers- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to--
(1) publish in print, on the Internet, or in any other medium, an advertisement or announcement for an employee for any job that includes-
(A) any provision stating or indicating that an individual's status as unemployed disqualifies the individual for any employment opportunity; or
(B) any provision stating or indicating that an employer will not consider or hire an individual for any employment opportunity based on that individual's status as unemployed; or
(2) fail or refuse to consider for employment, or fail or refuse to hire, an individual as an employee because of the individual's status as unemployed;
(3) direct or request that an employment agency take an individual's status as unemployed into account to disqualify an applicant for consideration, screening, or referral for employment as an employee. ”
So a State, nor any other employer, may use the current employment status of the employee as any criteria for their employment, and that includes the State Government as well (You'll notice no waiver of Federal Sovereign Immunity).
Now, what's a really fun thing to do when reading the document, press and hold the “Ctrl” key (“clover” key on Macs I believe), then tap the “F” key, and the search menu pops up in acrobat reader. Type in “Citizen,” “Illegal,” “Alien,” and “undocumented.” Isn't it fascinating that there's no provision to make sure those who are in this country illegally, and have no record of employment, and thus would only show up as unemployed, due to their illegal hiring even when they have worked, are not exempt from being able to impose the above legal provisions of this act.
And this is without mentioning how from section 371 to 376, the American Jobs Act, treats the States as vassals of the Federal Government, Noble Houses, whose Financial situation is to be exploited for the sake of the President of the United States' National Government & Political goals.
Abhorrent entirely to American government, ignoring entirely Our Constitution, except to make specific reference to losing ancient immunities that took an act of a Constitutional Amendment to secure, being assumed able to be undermined by a mere statutory act of Congress, while our nation and people are under economic duress.
Persistence it is to “never let a crisis go to waste,” our Illustrious leader puts out a plan in an appearance of moving toward bipartisanship, while assaulting the very fabric of American Government once more. The entire Democratic Party, at this point, is merely a charade, a feigned patriotism, a feigned concern for the American People, anything to be able to pass legislation that destroys the foundation of the American Republic.
Imagine illegal aliens going to a U.S. Attorney to file charges against Governor Brewer, or any other Governor who has signed an immigration law, on the grounds that the law was used to demonstrate that the applicant was unemployed, and unemployable, due to not being legally in the United States of America. The ACLU would grab these up by the bunch, suing every State, eventually with a class action lawsuit, totally breaking the bank. And that's just using illegal aliens.
Lawyers, at least this used to be the case, were required to do 2 pro bono (“for the public good” and thereby the client isn't charged) cases every year. I can see them grabbing every case where someone was unemployed and applied for a job, to make it into “how the poor are being kept poor,” and using this legislation as a “Worker's Civil Rights Act” (just look at how many times reference to the “Civil Rights Act of 1964” is found when searching the American Jobs Act.).
The American Jobs Act is a set-up, is something that is antecedent to the formation of this “Politburo” super Congress, and therefore should not be given ANY consideration in how or what they cut, either.
By the American Jobs Act, what you are witnessing, is that 4th Quarter “Hail Mary” football pass in trying to finally destroy the structure, as well as liquidate the body politic, of America and our individual resources to fight back, being carried on by the “Progressive-Terrorist-In-Chief,” to leverage our desire for jobs against our desire to keep our Freedom, hoping we'll be so desperate that we'll choose not to keep what is left of the check and balance power of the States.
As much as people need employment, I, for one, do not believe that sacrificing our form of government over a Progressive-created economic crisis, what appears to be the true purpose of the “American Jobs Act,” is in the best interest of America, and that we must weather this storm as best we can until we can remove Barack “Hugo Chavez Jr.” Obama from office.
Thank you for reading,
You think you're of the middle class? Let's make sure we understand that the “middle class” is the private property owner, and that is why Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, and Communism, are abhorrent and against the United States of America, that their institution, by “redistribution of wealth” to government to decide distributions & equalities, to purchase political favor and votes, is merely taking history full circle in an effort to return mankind as a whole to subject servitude and slavery.
First let's show Trumpka's Agreement (AFL/CIO) with the rest of what I am about to lay out here, this is the last paragraph of what Trumpka said:
“…we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That’s a long-term job, but one we should start now.” -- http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/09/27/trumka-working-class-anger-fueled-by-rights-deeply-dishonest-message/
Today, September 5, 2011, “Labor” Day, Progressive Terrorist President, Obama, the Oracle of TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States) demonstrated an Academy Award winning performance speaking in Detroit. His lie, about labor unions “...helped us build the largest middle class in history.” Utterly and entirely untrue.
Communism, in an effort to create an appearance of a broad base of support, describes the middle class as being from all walks of life and as the make-up of their “Proletariat.” Yet, in the end, it is equated to “bourgeoisie” (boo-jwah-zee) by Karl Marx, whose manifesto is the crux of the union movement, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html, and says these disparaging things about the middle class that, it is claimed, Marx found so precious (All emphasis mine hereafter):
“The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.”
“Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.”
“The lower strata of the middle class—the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants—all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.” [Warren Buffett, Soros, Oprah, Wall Street, et al, anyone?]
“Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.”
All of the above are part of Marx's history lesson, and under the section “I” entitled, “BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS,” where Marx demonstrates his hatred for private property and lack of comprehension, in the political link of property ownership to ruling a nation, that it is in private ownership that the people rule their government, and in government ownership, it is by the absence of private ownership (including control of property rights) that the people are enslaved.
I strongly suggest everyone read Section “II” entitled, “PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS,” to understand how little Marx understood about America being the first, and only, nation, to diffuse the wealth. Wealth was once considered “social power” due to wealth being the means by which a Crown would be chosen. Our Founders sought to make wealth a non-social power, to do all that could be done to institute a government according to enumerated, specific, and certain, (not general) powers, in an effort to not allow centralization of government and a return to rule under, and subject to, some Sovereign Crown or the Parliament of a “democracy.”
Marx demonstrates his lack of comprehension of how the bourgeois, particularly in the American form under freedom and capitalism, is the demonstration of the success of Our Founders' grand experiment in divesting wealth -- their effort to eradicate the idea of centralizing property ownership as a grant of authority and power over people's lives, an excuse to destroy Individual Liberty -- from under the hindquarters of some government, and instead directly into the hands of the people to direct their own lives through their own private property to use at their pleasure:
“You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”
Marx couldn't comprehend that freedom is something we work for, that our private property is a demonstration of individual liberty and authority over government instead of under it. All an American Citizen has to do is work hard and seize opportunity, ingenious or merely by happenstance, in productivity for their own self-interest, that this earns them the authority over government by unalienable Right of their Creator to be of the Sovereign Power of America (see James Wilson, http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/quoting-the-founders/james-wilson-signatory-to-declaration-of-independence-the-us-constitution/):
“Divestiture” of all aspects of property ownership, of property rights, and the whole idea of owning property from some central crown or government who “is the Sovereign of the Realm,” to the people as Sovereigns of Our Own Realm, was the goal of Our Founders because history, since before the Hammurabi Code, has proven that centralized power is directly related to centralized wealth & property; that the Crowns of History were chosen, of societies from Asian Emperors to the European Nations, by who had the largest share of land holdings. And with this sense of power came atrocity, came enslavement of the people, as a subject in servitude, “peonage” and peasantry, all synonyms to slavery. This is the history of centralized property in its power relation (and note today that government-asserted control, “regulation,” over property they do not own, yet under threat of “fine or imprisonment,” is claiming ownership by proxy in utter disrespect for private property rights, an act of Communism).
We need to remember the grand inventions of despotic rule “the rack,” “dungeons,” and threat of physical injury by the “guillotine,” or being “drawn and quartered,” as well as much more (see Discipline & Punish by Michel Foucault, pages 3-6), as these are the instruments whose design alone speaks to the oppressive history of centralized power, whether in the hands of one Crown, or a “democratic parliament,” as it was in England when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence.
You can surely see the “full circle” now of what Communism is asking for: a return to despotic government by “voluntary servitude,” which was never outlawed (see 13th Amendment to The United States Constitution regarding, “...involuntary servitude” as what is prohibited. Political calls for Government's intervention and control, accomplished by majority rule, is for our people to allow democracy to unseat our Republic, and “volunteer” for slavery, for servitude at Government's hand, as our Master, Landlord, and Ruler, at Government's Pleasure, and not Our own.)
Marx, of course, addresses his appreciation of “democracy” under IV, “POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES,” as, by appearances at the time, at least it seems this may have explained Marx's support, democracy was viewed as an access to government, irrespective of the capacity for majority rule to be abused due to it being a “parliamentary” (2 party) system, and the majority party rarely leaving power, as well as these Parliaments being “installed” side by side to the continued existence of a Crown who also continues to hold the property they held while in power:
“In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
“Finally, they [Communists] labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.”
Maybe we should pick a day to call “Right To Work Day” and change the name of “Labor Day” to “Communist Day?”
Thank you for reading,
P.S. If you'd like to know more about the meaning of “property” according to Our Founders, James Madison explains it well, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.96.