ChangingWind.Org

Slavery, as a negotiated clause of the Constitution at the time of founding a nation, being an allowed institution subject to prohibition in 20 years makes sense, as it gives each state and its inhabitants the chance to adjust to a new way of life. But this was not the crux of Lincoln's efforts nor the real cause of the Civil War, the slavery issue was one of many, best illustrated by the National Bank Act of 1863, where the National Government decided to fund the Civil War with paper they printed themselves, one could say, “Civil War Quantitative Easing” (yeah it's been going on that long, a good 50 years before the Federal Reserve even existed, and part of the National Government's encroachment upon the States), http://www.let.rug.nl/.

Let's take a candid look at the 14th Amendment regarding freed slaves:

“Section 1.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

And now the words of the Senator credited with drafting the 13th Amendment that ended slavery, words that explain his winning argument for wording of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

“[Jacob Meritt] Howard also participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Howard said: "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States [as is the case of every foreigner in the United States to this day, as it is also with any American living abroad], but will include very other class of person."

“Despite his intention, the amendment has since been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to every person born in the United States.”

Note I am not confused and laying out the lack of any foundation for anchor babies and immigration. But, stunningly, one will find that the reason no one will accept the facts of the purpose of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is that the 14th Amendment then sticks with the point and purpose of the entire germane and original Constitution as well as the first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights, of terms and conditions for government to assert authority that are consistent with the Constitution, and to declare all areas absolutely off-limits, such as the Second Amendment does): An Amendment limiting the powers of the National Government in D.C.!

Here's a proper interpretation, using the above as a guide:

“[The 14th Amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons [specifically freed slaves].

See, when we apply the actual intention of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment we find Government Amended the Constitution to create a ward of the State for Government to protect, in the same way Obama, without any right whatsoever, made 5 million people dependent on Government in a Chicago patronage style “amnesty.” We of course also discover that, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is Government's claim upon the freed slaves, a claim of their existence being “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as property that will receive subjective specific protections provided to them by the government.

This goes against Freedom in every way, not just for those made a ward of the State, but also of those who haven't been made wards. This confuses our laws, our acts, our activities. This makes the facts meaningless, irrelevant, and the ability to learn from history to better our future is lost.

We have a government that claims it is run by the Parties (Democracy) and not the Constitution, (Republic), where the Constitution is used only when expedient to a political party's agenda in election, and is discarded for Party agenda when governing the nation, subjective Political Party Agenda and Ideology paramount and superseding the Constitution. No one is free in this situation, as the limits imposed on government are thrown out the door for what can be sold for politics, the exact situation Our Founders wrote the Constitution to assure wouldn't happen.

About “Slavery”...

A person subjected to another's whim, their children born as possessions of another, people wrongfully treated as livestock, bred to be larger, to be stronger, women used as surrogates for sex, raped, and often delivering a progeny that a Master resents.

Tell me what I don't understand about slavery, as every race, even sects of religions have been subjected to it. I'll mention islam to get it out of the way, though its gift of virgins admit it fails to recognize itself as a spiritual Faith, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.279, however their brainwashing has led to Sunni and Shiite fighting and enslaving each other for centuries. But let's talk about the White Slave Trade, of the Irish, http://www.globalresearch.ca/. Irish slavery is so well forgotten by those trying to racialize and Americanize slavery that an author is writing a book about it, http://rhettaakamatsu.com/irishslaves.htm. Should we look at the Chinese, and why, after World War II and before Mao killed 50 million people (who wouldn't be Communist slaves), the people accepted slavery to a government of their own nationality as opposed to the Japanese as their Masters? http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/02/.

So now, let's talk about “solutions.” Would a new Master end one’s slavery? Answer: No. So why would anyone who is against slavery agree to the terms stated in 14^th Amendment Section 1 of the Constitution? I mean, what could be worse than not just a Master, but a Master with full coercive power, the power of imprisonment & sentencing to death?... The power of drafting you into an army for a war you don't agree with?... The power to take your property because of a mistake the IRS refuses to hear the explanation that someone else used your social security number to buy a house, sell it, and make a hefty profit on which the IRS now says you owe taxes? Can you see how this doesn't explain voting for big government, a government that costs more, a government that taxes us to the point our labor is slavery almost no matter what our rate of pay is?... Ya think this might be why there's a lot of illegal gang and drug business (unreported income) going on?

But this is what happens when government leaves its legitimate perch and purpose: Objective function, according to the Constitution, to assure protection of the smallest minority, the Individual -- this is what Liberty means. This explains Freedom is assured by those who Constituted, We the People, and to which we are the descendant as “Constituents” regardless of color, religious belief, etc. as Americans. And all it takes is our embrace of America, of American culture, of Capitalism to appreciate our Individual Private Property Rights; appreciate that our control of our destiny is only safe when it is in our hands to decide, and not by another's “handouts,” government's intentional lie to obscure the truth that those giving something for free are exploiting our weakness (see, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDomkBtJC7Q), even if only for a moment in ours or our nation's existence. Government, like any other Master, is quite a bit like a drug dealer, inviting someone to a party to “try out this stuff,” never imbibing themselves with it, but watching their prospective mark become an absolute addict in a few weeks, leeching the addict of every dime they have in a few weeks. A new payment plan is proposed by the addict - the drug and dependence are so intense - slavery in prostitution or some other abuse to pay for the drug and maintain the addiction. What must be said: This is what, “No Justice! No Peace” means, for the peace is no less the peace of a Chinese slave who appreciated a meal and their wage of access to the opium den.

Ain't it grand to see how easily we are duped, we are sucked into an addiction, to slavery, by what's “free?”

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

The moment a President issues a proclamation and America amends its Constitution, deeming classes and an ethnicity of people as wards of the State, and, a Civil War is claimed as though caused entirely by this, is the moment America's national government corruption sees daylight.

Call me racist, call me anything you want, if reason is responded to with such emotional defenselessness, it is at that point the reason is affirmed true.

So let's dig in....

James Madison wrote so eloquently in 1788:

“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.” he continues...

“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 [slavery] 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!” -- Emphasis mine. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html

This is the clause in the Constitution Madison is referring to:

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight [1808], but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”-- http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

What I just cited is James Madison explaining what the Constitutional Convention did by this clause in the Constitution, that the Convention agreed to end slavery and that this is why this clause even exists in the Constitution.

Now for the emotional part, James Madison used phrases that all you folks who came to racist assumptions about Our Founders should be falling all over yourselves to ask forgiveness for being wrong about, such as “unfortunate Africans” and “European brethren,” phrases that absolutely contradict the public education depicted “callous and uncaring white slave owning American Founders.” Remember that Madison said these things to aid in getting the People of America to ratify the Constitution in 1788. Let that sink in, please. Let your mind appreciate that more than a majority of America's Founders (reference to Members of the Constitutional Convention) and the American People (or Madison would not have made an emotional heartfelt plea this way) were against slavery when the Constitution was passed. This is the unabashed appreciation for the Federalist Papers and their purpose, for the anti-Federalist Papers and their contribution, and for the depth of thought and consideration made by Our Founders in the course of the Constitutional Convention.

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

As I write this Obama came on the television, the man who goes against the Constitution to cause #Shamnesty, slavery by patronage of 5 million illegal aliens who will now be dependent on government by what government grants them. Obama is the beginning of the situation.

You see Obama's on the television regarding the Ferguson Missouri verdict, his opening comment laughable, if not so cynically arrogant, “We are a nation of laws.” To then explain how America needs another reform, “to reform the criminal justice system.”

Apparently President Obama didn't actually see the Ferguson Grand Jury decision presentation by Prosecutor Robert McCulloch explaining a key fact that had been misreported from the beginning as to why Darren Wilson had confronted Michael Brown.

Officer Wilson was on a call and received a radio broadcast explaining a robbery, that the suspect had stolen some cigars from a nearby convenience store. We had all seen the video but all accounts ahead of time said Officer Wilson has no idea Michael Brown had stolen those cigars from that convenience store. Well Officer Wilson decided to head toward that convenience store and another police report came in, that the offender, “had a red hat and yellow socks,” and while driving Officer Wilson sees 2 people in the middle of the street, one carrying a handful of cigars and wearing a red hat and yellow socks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE

What many will not accept is that police are very organized. You see these radio calls are to alert officers to act, called “hot pursuit” when a crime has just occurred and they are looking for the suspect. Officer Wilson found Michael Brown in a position that you'd think Michael Brown would have avoided having just stole these items from a local convenience store, a crime against his community, let alone the stealing of private property and ignoring the private property rights of the store he stole them from.

Michael Brown decides to fix his mistake, but not by confessing and agreeing to return the cigars, hoping for the officer's leniency not to arrest him. No, instead, Michael Brown attempts physical confrontation with a police officer. This is the moment Michael Brown agreed he's a menace to the community, a scofflaw and with an arrogance only rivaled by President Obama, that Michael Brown fully intends to defy the Officer's orders, to deny a man his peaceful existence to do his job as a Police Officer and earn his pay, a decision Michael Brown made based on his initial decision to steal.

While Progressives will belittle “trickle-down economics” under Reagan, Michael Brown and the protesting mobs prove Progressives have perfected Trickle Down Lawlessness under Obama, and, by President Obama's comments, he further proves he does not care about the facts.

In the Michael Brown case, it is proven without any doubt, that there is nothing wrong with the criminal justice system, there is no need for reform; just like healthcare needed no reform, a few changes to achieve what the people actually wanted, but not government reform and a take over; just like Immigration didn't need an executive action reform, but does need legislation that achieves what the American People, especially those who waited years, even decades to be US citizens, want.

But a verdict in Ferguson, Missouri, that the Dictator in the Oval Office disagrees with, irrespective of the facts of an arrogant thief having defied the police who were acting entirely with probable cause to stop the thief in the street, President Obama seeks community organizing reform to fix it. Michael Brown shows what he thought about community intervention by how he treated the store clerk/owner in the video now didn't he?

Barack Obama is at the top of the Lawlessness food chain, and as his political popularity has eroded, out of desperation, Obama has chosen to exploit the death of Michael Brown for the sake of politics whether there is any merit to doing so or not. Making Obama's first statement, “that we are a nation of laws” a meaningless gesture of pure arrogant and defiant sarcasm, a contempt for the American Justice System as it is. I don't agree with every bit of our justice system, but I also know one must not steal from another, use force and intimidation to deny them their rightful pay for what I took, to then flaunt the theft walking down the street with the items in hand, taunting police and the community, “Just try to stop me.” But what do we expect criminals to think when the Government is not obeying the law, even before Obama's immigration “Executive Action?”

As I've said before, Michael Browns death was by big government, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.278.

I pray Michael Brown's family finds peace over this tragedy so many are exploiting for themselves.

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

P.S. Normally I'd have what I wrote edited, so if this was difficult or awkward to read, my apologies, I just felt I had to post this as soon as possible as someone has to rebut the President's exploitation of Ferguson as a “crisis not to go to waste” with the fact that tragedies need to end, the families deserve to suffer as little as possible, not to be exploited and have their tragedy prolonged by politicians (or “Reverends” for that matter) and their need for a photo op.

As was once true of those wanting to chase opportunity to, “go west young man,” so the Internet has been, as its capitalized name indicates, a new frontier, vast, uncontrolled, almost entirely free of government's encroachment, and certainly filled with every type of individual. Apparently, we all like and want Freedom.

It is no secret that most using the web are simply individuals browsing, listening to music, playing a game, or watching a movie, while many businesses pay for higher amounts of bandwidth for video conferencing and virtual shared workspaces. Obviously I am an old computer person, who may not be up with the latest lingo on these things, but the idea has been there since the beginning. The first software development business I started with 4 other partners, was based on a game editor, and eventually we became the marketers for one of the first games that 2 people could play across their Hayes 300-1200 baud modem from their home (before the Internet existed). And, naturally, I envisioned a potential for a game that can be in every convenience store and people pay a quarter (which was the going rate for a game in a convenience store at that time) to play against other players for 10 minutes, and able to win extensions of play time, knowing we would have to devise a server to do so. Oh, the infancy of the idea of Massively Multi-player Online (MMO technology), though I certainly was not its inventor, just the systems person who drew schematic after schematic for idea after idea before they had a name let alone an acronym. Now I recognize that once a stable (standard) networking environment is established, there are those who will do all they can for their own self-interest as opposed to, instead of in conjunction with, others’ self-interest in the same industry and field, self-interest that includes doing wrong, where the least worthy businesses seek to make government their silent partner because government will solicit them to do so (in one form or another).

I've read the erroneous assumption that Internet Service Providers are a “natural monopoly” and, therefore should be a utility, mostly due to the idea that Internet access is as necessary as sewage disposal. Of course, this assumption included praise of government making its arbitrary and capricious rules, to which businesses like Comcast (but somehow not Netflix) are beholden, http://stratechery.com/2014/netflix-net-neutrality/.

In the end, Net Neutrality is just another layer of anti-Capitalism and a Communist China styled takeover of the Internet. Netflix is portrayed as the victim, Comcast as the villain, and the government as the “neutral arbiter of what is best for the Internet,” a domain not owned by anyone.

One could say, “Well, if it's entirely free then Comcast is the villain.” No, this isn't the case because the Internet, as a domain is something we access for a cost that we volunteer to pay. And just like we have to be willing to pay so, too, must the ISP be willing to pay, with investor money (who they would be a fiduciary to), their own money, or a government program (as was put in the failed stimulus bill to assure broadband to every small town in America). The last of these is where the government, and political parties who believe in government control over the Internet, believe they'll gain public sentiment for Net Neutrality/Government's takeover and control of the Internet.

No one, especially government, cares about the Capitalist (Private Property Rights) component of investors and the businesses that use their money. You see, not long ago Comcast announced a merger with Time Warner, http://corporate.comcast.com/. CNN (I believe associated with Time Warner) explains the blow by blow, but note it is in 2010, 3 years before the Comcast merger announcement http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/. I am pleasantly surprised at an article explaining the costs to Comcast, and that helps explain the request by the content deliverer for Netflix to Comcast was 50% more bandwidth, Netflix content bandwidth jumping from 20% to 30%, meaning that other uses by Comcast customers, would be less efficient and have slower delivery, and significantly lag. Comcast would be the one getting beat-up by customers, and therefore would be forced to invest in new equipment with the cost coming out of their pocket because Netflix, a Mark Cuban company, wants a free ride on ISP's dimes.

Understand that cable companies, like anyone else who has to do construction of anything, has to get permits and assure proper legal use of easements, since cable companies are usually given a chartered monopoly by the local City, via an ordinance. This is how they have an easement to work on lines etc. Note that permits required might be required from County, and State as well as the City government agencies, this usually takes a year or more, but can take as many as 3 or more years. And usually the process includes legal fees for attorneys involved, and any environmental impact studies, as well as 3rd party liability insurance, all adding to time-to-live delays and could render the effort a waste – And this is the most important point of everything I've written thus far....

What must be said: Technology gets cheaper over time.

There are regular contests to determine the highest prime number, http://www.mersenne.org/.

Why is the highest prime number important? It is prime numbers that are used to encrypt and decrypt all those bits in our computers and throughout the Internet, and, therefore, are the ways we end up with faster processors, faster memory access times, higher and higher storage on hard drives, to name a few uses (I remember when a 5 Megabyte drive was insanely expensive, and today we're talking 3+ Terabyte drives). Primes are how we squeeze larger amounts of information into smaller spaces, how IBM has regularly broken record after record in bits it can write to 1 inch square of hard drive substrate. This same tech is why we can go from MFM (8 bit tech) to today’s Serial ATA (SATA 64 bit) drives, and why we have keychain “thumb drive” device storage of 256 gigabytes and more.

And it is this same prime number encryption that will increase the speed of the Internet, so long as we get a modem that can process the encryption and decryption fast enough to not diminish returns, explaining ADSL, ADSL2, etc. (A very detailed explanation getting into the decryption and encryption, http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1277268)

This, also, is why your encrypted files on your computer are decryptable by ANY government agency, as they can use the much higher prime number key that the drive was originally formatted in to decrypt all data, as the higher prime would control.

All of this is to exploit binary (bit) exponential mathematics.

The Binary for 32,768 is 0000000000000001,

and for 65,535, 11111111||11111111 accumulating all 16 bits

The 24th bit represents 8,388,608” for a total of 16,711,680.

The 32nd bit represents 2,147,483,248, for a total of 4,278,190,080.

The 64th bit represents 9,223,372,036,854,780,000.

Large-scale base encryptions are 2048 bits, done in ways well beyond my mathematical education and/or comprehension. But to have 64 1s represent 18,374,686,479,671,600,000 is far more efficient for a processor to calculate than the original base 10 value.

I wrote much more than I expected to illustrate this because it helps understand how the highest prime number that can be decrypted and encrypted by a machine at speeds faster than the blink of an eye is how computers have more storage, more speed, and more bandwidth on the Internet – They are “computers” after all.

One may think that the sooner someone employs a higher prime number in the technology we'll have an instant increase, they'd be right except for the speed of the technology has outpaced, until recently, the return on investment on the hardware that a business like Comcast has invested in. They may find creative ways to deal with that but the fact is it'll still take that wonderful permit time to get the new hardware installed, so the company may have to wait for 2 or 3 iterations of a new higher prime number before making the investment, so they can assure paying for what they had (not wasting the customer or their investor's money) and buy something that will outlast its cost when deployed in their network, including customer modem and street level device upgrades.

The base value for communications across a wire is the basic “Tariff” value telephone companies must guarantee, 2400 baud. In the days of “56k modems” we were using compression (prime numbers) to put more data through, encrypted-to-decrypted, to get higher bandwidth. Until Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) there were no higher speeds on a copper wire, and even now the much higher 20 megabit speeds are a challenge, as opposed to all fiber optic cable (synthetic polar bear hair), which naturally has a higher base baud rate, and therefore, a greater benefit from higher prime numbers.

Moot is what all this renders Net Neutrality, as the prime number encryption technology is being used wired and wireless, and there is no longer a local ISP monopoly on access, or soon the ones granted by Cities will be meaningless, however, let us hope the businesses jump 4 or 5 iterations, I'll explain...

I am no fan of Comcast, though you might have thought I am. If I recall correctly Comcast was the first American company to seek foreign “cap” models, and put a cap on bandwidth use, and I don't believe in that because there are “aggregation” methods similar to telephone aggregation which is how we ended up with the old 5 cent a minute calling cards. How it works is a company can sell the non-peak excess bandwidth they have here cheaply to a company elsewhere, say in Australia, New Zealand, or another more broadband limited country. These sales would offset any used “excess bandwidth” built into their system during peak time. The idea of any ISP having bandwidth caps seems more like they are coming up with a way to assure business customers bandwidth that may never be used and is therefore just wasted and is just plain wrong. A company like Comcast could exchange bandwidth with a company elsewhere for their unused bandwidth as well making each have to spend less on infrastructure until the investment is most advantageous for their company. So, to me, Comcast brought this on themselves by having bandwidth caps, however, that doesn't grant Netflix a license to exacerbate the situation, so I write.

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

I've heard Liberals expressing a lie, that the Minimum Wage laws passed November 4th represent Liberal ideas being passed on the same day that the Republicans took 9 seats in the Senate and won governorships across the country.

Here's the spin going on: That if you're for a Minimum Wage you're a Liberal and believe in big government.

Now, this is true, in part, when we are speaking to the idea of a National Minimum Wage. A Minimum Wage required by the National Government is Progressivism at its finest. There is no Interstate Commerce relationship, no fort, arsenal, or magazine (as in munitions depot) involved, yet those who misread, misstate, misteach, misunderstand, and often all with open and notorious Progressive intention to misrepresent, the Constitution for the United States of America, will claim there is some right of the National Government to set wages in the States.

Now, as to how Minimum Wage is not some great Liberal idea, let's look at States and their sovereignty.

Each State competes with other States, for jobs, for businesses to locate in their State, and to essentially assure each State has their own unique character. As such you have 4 States whose electorate on Nov 4, 2014 set a Minimum Wage in their state, each one at a different amount as their respective State Minimum Wage.

So now let's consider the effect. If I live in a State with a Federal Minimum Wage, which is lower than in another State (thus this is a State's Rights Issue), I might move to the State with the higher wage, though I might look at their tax rate, and if they have property taxes, or for that matter if they have any income tax at all!

Minimum Wage as a State issue, where it is meant to be, is where the States regain a portion of their sovereignty through their competitiveness, which will breed ingenuity, and invention in State government.

Now if one considers the National Minimum Wage, who is America competing with? Is it so America can have a higher Minimum Wage? Really? $10.50/hr is $420/wk, $21,840 per year. What country would you move from to the United States to earn this amount? The dollar is worth half to England, about the same as Australia, and is worth less than the Canadian dollar! That about does it for the English speaking free western countries. The point being that this isn't enough, even without it being taxed much, if at all, by the State and Federal government, and they'd likely qualify for an Obamacare subsidy, meaning they'd be getting a higher raise than the $10.50 an hour, more like $11.50 to $12.50 an hour.

However, my numbers are wrong in light of Obamacare, as most of these same workers would be working a 30 hour work week (as though this is the larger point of Obamacare, to make the work week shorter, that whole European leisure time thing), so it's more like $315/wk, $16,380, and thus even less appealing to a foreigner, but worse still, assuring less tax revenues to the government, as this amount would be even less likely taxed, if at all, and that Obamacare subsidy (where you and I pay for their insurance premium) even more likely to occur.

The point, I hope is well illustrated, that the Minimum Wage as a National Political Talking Point, is just that, and only that. It has no place in the National Government at all, nothing good for America is taking place, and, in fact, this makes those unemployment numbers all the worse. For now, our government needs, since the income tax is a Progressive tax, even more people employed by at least 25%, likely 50%. This makes me wonder if this is why Obama and the Progressives decided to push raising the Minimum Wage in the first place, to try to shore up the National Government's tax revenues since Obamacare is causing part-time employment. Interesting to see how the two may be related, isn't it? How the Cloward and Piven strategy comes to the surface, whether intended or not?

Funny how what we were told isn't true... AGAIN!

But what do we expect from those who call eugenics “a woman's right to choose” under the facade of abortion (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/), or ignore the productive banker descendant of an African Slave to claim the Civil Rights Act necessary, (see http://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=242), and ignore the 1957 Civil Rights Act, passed by the Republican Party, (see http://history.house.gov/), or who have told us Our American Founders were, “just a bunch of rich white uncaring slaveholders,” (see Federalist 38, where ending slavery is listed as a reason to pass the Constitution, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_38.html and Federalist 42, where Madison explains regret for the 20 year delay to end slavery, Article I, Section 9, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html), and have taught us sacrifice and charity are synonyms while teaching us how bad banks are, so we draw the conclusion of insatiable greed, irrespective of the United States government taking the profits of the Federal Reserve, a private institution (see 12 USC 289, http://law.justia.com/codes/ and to see privacy of Fed 12 USC 284, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/VI/284)?

Surely there's more, but I figured I'd keep the list short and show how often this spin of the truth, subtle as it may seem, is the Progressive constant.

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

P.S. If you voted on November 4, 2014 to limit the long arm of Uncle Sam, I urge you to share this with your Congressman, Senator, Governor and State Legislature. It's time the National Government in Washington, D.C. got out of the business of destroying State's Rights and cease from disturbing the relationship of businesses to their local and State governments.

I find too many want to underestimate this situation and have little appreciation for the seriousness of it, which I've found many do see but marginalize any answers too pursuant to the rubric of media's promoted “issues.” A stifled America with Progressive Archie Bunker at the helm while “Meathead” Rob Reiner explains true Communism, these are the images of character portrayals of stereotypes deemed accurate by Hollywood. Carroll O'Connor playing the role of a working class blindly patriotic to their country irrespective of O’Connor’s real life socialist ideology and beliefs making it impossible for him to appreciate America's principles that are the foundation for such patriotism (see, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005279/bio and search for “liberal” twice in a row), Archie eventually acts out some irony that shows he's had a change of heart, a backslide from his patriotism that he may never verbally admit. Such is the story and its theme as impressed, burned, and imprinted on the picture tube and an audience enthralled with the depiction as though some sort of realistic anything, which the youthful portion of the audience mirrors as reality. And from that time show after show written to appeal to the “middle class” carries these elements, to which I must now defer to a famous and well-known author and conservative activist to explain.

“Prior to the American Revolution, through centuries of feudalism and monarchy, the interests of the rich lay in the expropriation, enslavement, and misery of the rest of the people. A society, therefore, where the interests of the rich require general freedom, unrestricted productiveness, and the protection of individual rights, that should have been hailed as an ideal system by anyone whose goal is man's well-being.

“But that is not the collectivists' goal.

“A similar criticism is voiced by collectivist ideologists about the American Civil War. The North, they claim disparagingly, was motivated, not by self-sacrificial concern for the plight of slaves, but by the “selfish” economic interests of capitalism – which requires a free labor market.

“This last clause is true. Capitalism cannot work with slave labor. It was the agrarian, feudal South that maintained slavery. It was the industrial, capitalistic North that wiped it out – as capitalism wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized world of the nineteenth century.

“What greater virtue can one ascribe to a social system that the fact that it leaves no possibility for any man to serve his own interests by enslaving other men? What nobler system could be desired by anyone whose goal is man's well-being?

“But that is not the collectivists' goal.

“Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest [at the time of this article] demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man's well-being is not their goal.

“The “under-developed” nations are an alleged problem to the world. Most of them are destitute. Some, like Brazil, loot (or nationalize) the property of foreign investors; others, like the Congo,

slaughter foreigners, including women and children; after which all of them [these countries] scream for foreign help, for technicians and money. It is only the indecency of altruistic doctrines that permits them to hope to get away with it.

“If those nations were taught to establish capitalism, with full protection of property rights, their problems would vanish. Men who could afford it, would invest private capital in the development of natural resources, expecting to earn profits. They would bring the technicians, the funds, the civilizing influence, and the employment which those nations need. Everyone would profit, at no one's expense or sacrifice.

“But this would be “selfish” and, therefore, evil – according to the altruists' code. Instead, they prefer to seize men's earnings – through taxation – and pour them down any foreign drain, and watch our own economic growth slow down year by year.

“Next time you refuse yourself some necessity you can't afford or some small luxury which would have made the difference between pleasure and drudgery – ask yourself what part of your money has gone to pay for a crumbling road in Cambodia [important at time of this article] or for the support of those “selfless” little altruists of the Peace Corps, who play the role of big shots in the jungle, at taxpayers' expense.

“Altruism is not a doctrine of love, but of hatred for man.

“Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end – sacrifice as a way of life. It is Man's independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy [bold & italic emphasis mine].

“Observe the snarling, hysterical hatred with which they greet any suggestion that sacrifice is not necessary, that a non-sacrificial society is possible to men, that it is the only society able to achieve man's well-being.

“If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants – you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them.” - Excerpt from Los Angeles Times article by Ayn Rand, 1962.

To which I find necessity to summarize in parody of the shows essentially playing on and originating from the space race between the Soviet Union and America, “Freedom, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Progressive cruise ship Utopia, to seek out new unicorns and new fairy civilizations, to boldly go where every dictatorial tyranny in history has forever gone before!” Spoken in perfect Captain Ahab/Socialist Patrick Stewart fashion.

I bolded the sacrifice paragraph because Progressivism, the collectivist central-government-will-help-you fiction tale, is a literal effort to take us back, before Christ.

As a Christian, and as America remains a Christian nation demographically for the most part, we know Jesus Christ was the last sacrifice, the last lamb; we know the Kingdom of God is at hand; we know our treasure is in Heaven, to which God is thereby declaring so too would be any sacrifice (by inference since treasure and sacrifice are opposites) if Christ had not been the last sacrifice! Yet we sit and argue the issues the media tells us are important. We aren't paying attention to our individual, our neighbor's all the way up to our nation's departure from the principles, the founding principles of this nation, the exception that makes America exceptional!

These principles, that we have so far left behind as anything more than a litany, are the same ones that led to Our Founders' departure from what is described by Ayn Rand in the first paragraph above, and the very tyrannical oppression she so well described is what will return without capitalism, irrespective of the Progressive self-named branding as “the new Utopia by sacrifice to those who assume to impose Utopia on you by force for your own good” -- a World's “Dear Leader.”

So many of you loved the movie Atlas Shrugged, well it's time to recognize that Ayn Rand wrote novels to help educate people on the ideology, epistemology, and overall appreciation of capitalism as a synonym for Freedom, which it is. By article, paper, book and finally movie, I've appreciated Ayn Rand's view that one who cannot own and dispose of their own property as they see fit, who cannot operate their lives under objective laws, laws that assure no one (including government) can take their property from them by force, is also no longer a person in Freedom. If government oppresses the people every 5 years, are they free? Does that change if it's 50 years, or 100? Rather, it is certain evidence of the state of Freedom and also a certain illustration of American government oppression as a matter of fact.

And while you, the unprincipled, blame the corporations, claiming “government and corporations are the same people,” the result is an ever-growing government (expense) and tax rates in conversion of private property to government's use as their (government) solution for your blame of a segment of America's private property holders, those evil corporations and their evil private property investors including union pension funds. Such is the way of government's justification for controlling our use of our own property – from local permits based on “uniform” laws to our National Government crossing the boundaries of the four corners of the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights as well, irrespective of the agreement each member of our government proactively agreed to by their Oath of Office and are bound by their Oath of Office, an oath breached by government every time its power of force (by expectation, complacency, or in fact) violates a limit imposed by the Constitution.

But what do we expect of a government who sees that their Master, We the People, has lost all semblance of knowledge of the Principles of America's founding, of why America is a nation that guarantees Freedom, where government is the tool to assure Individual Liberty by objective acts in support of these solely original & exceptional American Principles? It is in this that, “America is a nation of laws and not men” and not in pursuance of subjective party agendas and ideologies entirely inconsistent with the one-and-only Law of the Land: our Written Constitution for the United States of America.

....Wait, nevermind. We have to discuss something trivial to show how easily our NEA Progressive educations, with their mental and psychological triggers that we've come to know from such an education in the “truant officer” enforced school setting, are still effective mechanisms to get us to accept every march away from America's foundation of Freedom and toward a Progressive Collectivist Tyranny over every aspect of our lives worldwide.

I must say in sarcasm, whatever you do, memorize whatever statistical information you have so you can interject it as objection to any actual solutions, while having none to offer, in saving our country... No, actually, in saving our culture, one of Individual Liberty, Freedom, ingenuity, and the genius responsible for 90% of the actual progress of the entire race of mankind, our proud American economic system of Capitalism, though ever becoming more and more mixed due to “conservatives” pumping the same America Killing Jim Jones Cultist Liberal Kool-Aid down our throats, just more slowly, yet still marching in the same direction toward a Progressive tyranny by an all-powerful Central Government.

A simple illustration of America's affect in freeing the world is in naming the feudal tyrannical Crowned Heads ruling the world today and compare that to 1500 (1492 when Columbus arrived). This decline in feudalism is the direct result of America's revolution and original Constitutional design genius of making the people their own lawgiver through the republican principle of representative government (for the first time in history, an exceptional feat) with the power of the purse and imposition of taxes, powers solely residing in the House of Representatives. It is this message, the one of government that is the servant of the people, that brought so many to America, knowing they could seek out their own opportunity and attain their own Freedom as an objective government-protected certainty.

And now back to the unprincipled meaningless banter over media promoted and government endorsed political party fund-raiser talking-point “issues” that achieve nothing but reinforcement of those good old NEA triggers as our nation marches Left...Left...Left, Left, Left, Uncle Same now a one-legged slave soldier determined to make oppression work as a tool to free mankind...

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

There are times you know when you've discovered a great pair of hands to deeply untangle history, and in my absence, waiting for an inspiration to write from Christ, I reappear with what He gave me.

I was reading Federalist 45 and kept reading a sentence in a paragraph that doesn't lack reason but somehow I was feeling clouded about:

“... We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?...” -- http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html

And then it hit me, the “Old World” is the world before our nation which is the first to use the republican principle of representation, where the People, and not some Caesar or some appointee of some sort, are the Lawgiver. Article I of the Constitution is primarily about the powers of Congress, which is a balance between the representatives of the People (House) and the representatives of the State Governments (Senate).

The House is the sole origin of “Bills for raising the Revenue” (Art I, Sec 7) because it would be We the People asking to pay a tax for something, a particular purpose to which our servant government would enact legislation to achieve our will. This balance (prior to the 17th Amendment) was to insure the National Government couldn't be used by either of these parties, the People or the States, to undermine each other. The Senate's “advice and consent” is to aid the passage of a bill, not rewrite it or block it if the House doesn't agree, as “advice” is a statement of what can be changed to achieve “consent” where the Senate passes the House Bill to raise Revenue, meaning where the State Governments agree with the Will of the People and will submit why not if they don't so the Legislation can be reworked. A system to assure the People control their taxes and not the States or a government just looking to take money from the People, oppressive tyrannical government.

Now the point to this is that the “New World” is the United States of America. And, in fact, the “New World Order” is our founding documents, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and our written Constitution for the United States of America.

Why is this so important? Because this nation, a nation established on Individual Liberty and Freedom, unalienable Rights and that the People are the Sovereign Power, is what these documents explain is the New World Order. America is what changed thousands, tens-of-thousands, of years of people in some sort of subject servitude, assumed a “people made for kings” worldwide. Wars were fought over resources, not just to establish commercial relations, but to actually take the land, take the oil, take the people, all as the spoils of war for a Crown's will, a will that told us their will is ours and should we disagree, the rack, dungeons and other misery would befall us until we comply or die. Subjects in servitude to a Crown without any right of our own, that is the Old World Order of Feudalism, the ultimate expansion of Tribal right, of a collective society, a community organized by a Crown and their minion nobles, their wealth usually gained by patronage or bribery, and never the right of a peasant subject – an oppressive tyranny that the New World Order of America alone began to unravel.

This clears up something very important because the conspiracy folks want to run around claiming it's a conspiracy of the Illuminati, which I submit is an argument against leaving the Old World behind, that all this conspiracy talk is mere propaganda to marginalize the New World Order that America alone represents as the pioneers of Republican government. This Sovereignty of the People, of the Citizens, of the Constituents who Constituted America is appealing to people in countries around the world and why those who wish for Freedom legally come here as it is easier than trying to change their homeland, and yet, a remainder in their nation of origin desire to be the same “We the People...” in their own country, to do what we did so their nation lives in Freedom.

This epiphany has proven to me that all this conspiracy stuff is an ineffective and diluting insanity, likely propped up by those who want to destroy the American will to get us to believe in mysterious organizations running the world. I find it obviously directed from somewhere when the Italian term Illuminati shows up in the Catholic Encyclopedia as the scribes who would translate biblical text, and were awarded “illumination of the first character in their work” (the enlarged and ornate “O” in “Once upon a time” from older fairytale books offered as an illustration). This Catholic Church Encyclopedia definition is the entire meaning of Illuminati.

So, while conspiracy theories are promoted and people fear “Agenda 21,” as though they elected the U.N. to office as a supreme ruler over them, acquiescing to any assumption of power the U.N. erroneously claims by fearing their actions; and people buy books and listen to talk shows, youtube videos, etc., becoming enthralled with the conspiracy and spouting it all as facts proving some point, the reality is they have no control over another person's anything except through the force of government, and our remedy entirely lies with holding those who took an Oath to uphold the Constitution accountable, by elections and more, whatever civil course it takes to enforce the Constitution and our Sovereign authority over our government. Anything else is allowing the fear of boogie men who have been defined for media sensation and the self-aggrandizement of their promoters to rule our lives.

See, while none of these so-called Conspiracies exist there does remain those who want to destroy America, who hate this country for how it was founded, maybe in the interest of those Old World Order families who lost so much in the founding of America, in the establishment of a New World Order. Who knows, but these destroyers who will not move to a country that has the very government they wish America to be in destroying her (and we should ask why is that? For the answer reveals it is because they just want to destroy America and don't care about being Communists or Socialists, etc., it's all about hating America for them) will exploit our every abdication of our right and authority, using government to force whatever will destroy America, for they view the New World Order as a wrong, as though Freedom and Individual Liberty represented by the fruits of one's labor and their means of protecting it are a digression of mankind.

This is what is revealed when you realize America is the New World, and our means of Freedom the New World Order through Republican Government, by a written Constitution to achieve the Consent of the Governed referenced in the Declaration of Independence when ratified by the People; that also Constitutes our Will, our terms and conditions for the existence of a national government; that is to be violated under penalty of Amendment and enforcement of Our Will, even by again revolting against tyrannical and oppressive government that is our acknowledged Duty and our Right as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the true document forming the Union by Apostolic Pledge:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

This is what our Heroes of our wars fight for. This is the New World Order that the Progressive movement in all its claims of inclusiveness, efficiency, and promises of what they'll give you if you believe in what they promote wants to destroy, and replace with a regression, a reversion back to the Old World Order of centralized power, of those who rule by a claimed right, a right they'll present today in their use of technology to show their superiority, be it the technology of psychology, of intelligence gathering, or of propaganda, they'll use all and more to assure that people will come to a point in their lives of willingness to submit to being a victim that needs government, the centralized Old World Order to save you, to be your Master as you choose dependence over Independence!

Thank you for reading and sharing this, God Bless,

Toddy Littman

Here they go again, the very same collectivist manipulators whose ability to agree, to have a consensus amongst themselves and use the force of government (history shows the majority of governments agreed with and kept slavery a form of industry since before the time of Socrates), to tell us a long drawn out fable, irrespective of the true climate change: people are no longer willing to accept stupid.

You won't find me pushing the “I'm right, you're wrong,” or, “they're stupid” position. Yeah, in my solid belief people have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, an unalienable Right to the solace of their own mind, body and Soul, I am very hesitant to take the absolutist argument route.

However, as a Conservative who knows climate change is a constant called “the weather,” I will recognize the extreme weather as something to review that historically this isn't anything new. But, if something comes to the forefront in the course of the whole Global Warming investigation, irrespective of Global Warm... Er... Climate Change being a fraud, that reveals much that's ignored, much that's apparently not useful to using the narrative's governmental purpose as an excuse for limiting our freedom by further intrusion into our lives, but proves there truly is a great threat to the existence of mankind, I am going to take this stand.

You see, to deny extreme weather may be a foolish thing. In the whole of our Solar System, our true environment since the Sun is an important part of the continued existence of life on this planet, we have not had much capability to have in-depth knowledge of neighboring planets.

This is why the corruption by President Obama, Liberal EPA spending, University, Union, and Business predatory use of scientific grant money in patronage to achieve a slavery to environmentalism – the funding meant to cause a Democratic consensus in the scientific community's body politic – has brought a clarity to me of what all these agenda seekers, whose agenda apparently is more important than mankind, have intentionally ignored.

We'll start with this article about Mars “Mars is Melting” is the title, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm. Note that this is from NASA, yes, those scientists we pay to make such discoveries and analyses have come to announce the fact of this article's title. Now, I don't know about you, but when I see 2 planets in one Solar System are having climate issues, I'd tend to believe it's very unlikely (due to our lack of any regular travel, population, or activities on Mars) that anything man is doing on Earth is causing any sort of climate change on Mars or otherwise, but we haven't enough data to begin to claim we've paid attention to Mars that long. However, this is the beginning of this very short, factual, scientific story, to which I have no need to quote the article's contents, the title speaks for itself, and it is NASA after all.

So to end our torrid short drama of facts that began with saying the fable of climate change and its agenda-driven authors are seeking slavery by promoting what they know is wrong, goes now to a 3rd planet. Yes a 3rd planet in our Solar System affected by climate change, Jupiter, “Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking,” http://phys.org/news146328763.html. Fascinating isn't it that a scientist at Liberal Berkeley is being ignored. But maybe the Sun's light and the atmosphere around it aren't important to life on Earth, as that would be rather necessary for it not to be a part of the Earth's environment right? But, au contraire, as the great fable that Obama's politicos sensationalize as a “report” to achieve changing the subject from the Obama “Stonewall, Lie, and Spy on the American People” Administration being uncovered for these very things, we come to the grand power grab and lie after healthcare: Global Warm... er... Climate Change, AGAIN!

I say lie because.... Well, you ever heard of the Heliosphere? It's essentially a level of atmosphere around the Sun that helps protect our planet, Mars, Jupiter, and the other planets in our Solar System from Cosmic Rays, (Cosmic Rays are explained here, http://www.nscl.msu.edu/files/PAN%20cosmic%20ray%20articles.pdf, and, no, I did not read the whole thing in detail, however it is here for reference and is comprehensive to defining Cosmic Rays and the history of their study, so it's a good read for the far more scientific minded than myself.)

The Heliosphere is produced by the Solar Wind, that has been losing pressure, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/, which, of course, has correlative affect of Cosmic Rays reaching a 50 year high, http://www.space.com/7349-cosmic-rays-hit-50-year-high.html – Be ready for more correlations to come!

I want to share this article, that naturally, and probably, due to the likely source of the research grant for it deriving from funds featuring a proposal with the words “global warming” in it, makes every effort to relate cosmic rays with chlorofluorocarbons (“CFCs”) while yet explaining much of their assumptions remain unexplained, and ignoring the Heliosphere in their supposed “analysis,” http://physics.aps.org/story/v8/st8.

So, here we are with 2 planets in our Solar System with known extreme changes to their climate – polar caps melting & a massive hurricane shrinking – with obvious correlative that they both lack using the words “climate change” in their report (and that does correlate with them likely not being funded by climate change advocates as these reports do directly evidence the extreme weather notion is not terrestrial to the Earth alone) with perfect shameful Liberal hypocrisy in ignoring that wonderful Berkeley scientist and this fact: 3 planets in total in our Solar System show climate change.

Add in that they have known and studied Cosmic Rays in relation to CFCs, while studies on the Solar Wind and Cosmic Rays show likely changes in our Sun, and all of this, all of it, occurring during the very same time period that man is being blamed for extreme weather and government is, naturally, jumping through every hoop to embrace this idea, of course, for the government expansion and revenue generation it may provide to government and no other reason. Does this blaming of man at any level make sense in light of other planets in our Solar System being affected, heated as their polar caps melt, or a supposed hurricane suddenly shrinking as it is on Jupiter? Does this make sense in light of the knowledge of the Heliosphere and Cosmic Ray relationship?

Too bad I'm not done, let's go one more in the about 2 pages I am writing here regarding the ignored group of true environmental variables of the Cosmic Ray variety, “Cosmic Explosion Blinds NASA Satellite,” http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cosmic-Explosion-Blinds-NASA-Satellite-147704.shtml. Note that this Cosmic Explosion of a Gamma Burst, they surmise was from 5 billion years away.

Thus we can conclude delicacy is the state of our existence, of our planet's persistence in a universe of untold and unknown possibility, to which we are lacking even a “pion's” worth of knowledge amongst all of mankind (pions, small particles first detected in Cosmic Rays, http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/pion.html ). This renders it impossible for any definitive method to conclude extreme weather is caused by mankind. Observationalists will say “it is scientific observation,” ignoring the formula of assumptions predicated on variables to the exclusion of the unknown that is the entirety of that observation, and to the ignorance of every scientific observation I've just cited, to blindly ignore that we can and, by “science,” fool ourselves into claiming as fact whatever we want to believe, for whatever self-interest, politically or financially that we'll gain, simply by assuming and rationalizing (limiting) our view to the context of those self-interested beliefs – which appears to be what this article has well illustrated about the so-called scientific community and climate change scientists.

When science loses its objectivity, and government's interest is to exploit that departure for government's purposes, science and the bureaucracies that use it are a means to slavery for sake of their funding – because politicians & their parties want to keep their seats of power and exploit the bureaucracy.

I'm just glad Russia's President Vladimir Putin is invading the Ukraine because of his passionate concern over extreme weather and to force them to adhere to climate change standards.... Alas, I digress.

Thank you for reading and sharing this, God Bless,

Toddy Littman

As the political parties and their agendas are the means to an end, a justified means as Democrat begets Liberal who begets Communist, and as Conservative begets Republican which begets Progressive Lite, the People are stuck with a society without the objectivity required for any semblance of governance, self or otherwise. “Objectivity,” politically, has become a game of wordplay where the object is to keep the subject something other than the entirely one-sided view that government knows best.

Case in point: Obamacare.

We've heard them say it over and over again, “Obamacare is the Law of the Land.” Anyone else get the memo that Obamacare is Constitutional Amendment 28? Yeah, I didn't think that happened either, those Amendment things are pretty obvious as they require quite a bit to be done:

“Article. V.

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

Yeah it's a high hurdle, one that one party having super majorities in both houses of Congress can't accomplish either, you know those first 2 years of Obama's Presidency when they passed Obamacare but didn't increase minimum wage (the big divisive White House whine of 2014), or address immigration reform, nor balance the budget and create a downward government expense trajectory by efficiency, transparency, and all the other empty promises of Barack Obama.... But they did pass Obamacare, a mere Legislative enactment subject to likely repeal as The Affordable Care Act was entirely a partisan enactment without one single opposing party vote. I'm sure glad Al Qaeda is on the run or Obama'd be a total failure, well, save that he'll be “flexible” with Putin after the 2012 elections.... Anyone else wondering if that was about the Ukraine and Crimea? At least we're not leading from behind and Putin knows not to violate the border of a Sovereign state that was once the possession of the Communist Soviet Union and take part of the country. No, I am not trying to emphasize anything nor set forth one “smidgen” of sarcasm, that's just not something I know how to do (some things are just irresistible, though obviously saving the lives of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods wasn't one of them for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and/or David Petraeus. But hey, if that's what it takes to get a Christian arrested for exercising their Free Speech by making a youtube video trailer who are we to question the government, right?)

Luckily, I didn't digress or this article would be a complete waste of time. You see, all of these things brought up go to the same Democratic Party/Barack Obama issues: partisan agenda and politics of power.

For Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, their sole party's most government power expanding effort has been to have government be the source of and creator of a right, and Obamacare is the enactment of the U.S. Government granting healthcare as a right by mandating purchase of insurance coverage (that's the scheme of the thing).

However, and this is the point of all of this, there was this person Iran chose to send to the United States as their U.N. Ambassador, Hamid Aboutalebi, who it appears had some involvement with the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis that occurred under the former worst President of the United States Jimmy Carter, and this led to something very rare indeed: A unanimous, absolutely bi-partisan and fast-tracked piece of legislation that is summarized as banning access to the United States by barring issuance of a visa “to any nominee to the United Nations deemed to have engaged in terrorist activity.” I repeat and emphasize this act unanimously passed both houses of Congress! (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/)

Now, if it isn't clear yet, Constitutional Amendments need a larger than majority vote to be amendments to the Constitution, both by Congress, 2/3, and when Amended by the States alone or in approving an Amendment proposed by the national Government, 3/4 (38 would be needed today to Amend the Constitution).

Obamacare was passed solely by a partyline vote, and though there were Democrat supermajorities in both Houses at the time, these were not passed according to the threshold to Amend the Constitution (or I am sure we would have had “The Obamacare Rights of Fairness Amendment” instead).

So now, in reviewing the vote count for this legislation to ban Hamid Aboutalebi, it was passed by a greater threshold than a Constitutional Amendment requires, a unanimous passage with 0 against threshold by both the House and Senate, the entire Congress, yet, Barack Obama doesn't for an instant see this obvious criteria to what makes the Constitution alone the Law of the Land, the Article V threshold being achieved and surpassed as a showing that the object of the Amendment's purpose is something well beyond party politics and ideological difference.

How, other than political gamesmanship, does Barack Obama miss the absolute clarity to a piece of legislation having nothing to do with the government borrowing, spending, taxing, and/or expanding, having received unanimous approval by the entire Congress, a certainty that the threshold of being “Law of the Land” has been surpassed, and though not an Amendment, the unanimity assures none would argue with the mandatory and non-discretionary enforcement of this law by the public servant in the Executive Branch, the President of the United States? By Barack Obama, the Progressive Community Organizer from Chicago, making sure that Barack Obama has the final say, even if the entirety of both parties agree to something:

“Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our nation,” Mr. Obama said.

“But he said presidents also have a duty to defend their constitutional turf — in this case, the right to decide who is accepted as an ambassador.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/18/.

United as is possible is what a unanimous vote states, a certain assurance to the office holder of the Executive Branch who is to enforce the law that the legislation is, as written, self-executing and intended to be enforced as an unequivocal statement of the Will of the People, of America, to be regarded with no less power than the Constitution itself, easily affectionately it could be referred to as the “Law of the Land” as neither the political parties nor the people are in dispute over the law.... Which begs the question: We cannot say the same for Obamcare now, can we? No, but the label... oh yes, they'll put the label “Law of the Land” on Obamacare. And the President, well there's no advisory to Obamacare, by a signing Statement. Instead he unilaterally just changes the regulations to accommodate the latest regulatory scheme to replace whatever legislative (and likely constitutional) scheme they can't make work according to the express terms of the law as passed by the Democratic Party alone. You see the lack of any sense to government, by tautology and holding partisan agendas in higher esteem than the unanimity of the political parties, as though a disdain of even this most rare occasion of the members of Congress carrying out their Constitutional Role as a united voice of the People as a whole?

Maybe this will better illustrate this, using the whole idea of “Progressive logic” we'll apply the same method used for the IRS “Progressive Income Tax.” Okay, so if there is any measure by which Obamacare can be called the Law of the Land, the Article V Standard of the Constitution (3/4 of the States' approval required) would be an exponential increase in import, the “tax” of a Constitutional Amendment as the Law of the Land, which, thus applied again to an act of Congress specific to the Constitutional Requirement of National Defense, Foreign Commerce, and the concise meaning of “general Welfare” that barring issuance of a Visa to those who are and remain a threat to the United States is, we are witnessing another exponential increase of import to the supreme power in weight of authority of the Ted Cruz law barring Visas due solely to the lack of any opposition amongst those who do the legislating, and to which there is no margin for question, rebuke, or discretion whatsoever by those charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States (the whole point of an “Executive Branch” is not as a second guessing, over-mind conscience as to whether the representatives of the people, who it takes quite a bit to get to agree unanimously on anything, really mean what they passed without any objection amongst themselves as a body. There is no greater authority than the People whose voice is their representatives when the volume of their voice is as one voice – unanimous. There is no power in the Executive Branch to pick and choose what is done by the representatives of the People and providing that their Will is to be ignored or “advisory,” particularly when unanimous, unless, of course, we're saying the most wealthy can legitimately decide only to pay the taxes they want to pay (in staying with the IRS Progressive Income Tax illustration).

You see, though the President has certain powers regarding objects within the sphere of the Executive Branch according to the Constitution (the United Nations didn't exist in 1789), if you look closely at the news articles, Hamid Aboutalebi is being nominated to be Iran's Ambassador to the U.N., not the United States of America. The need for a Visa is a technicality so this Ambassador can travel to New York when required for United Nations Business. Don't get me wrong, I am glad Ted Cruz sponsored a bill in the Senate to effectively ban issuance of a visa to nominees of rogue nations with questionable history and intention who have intimately associated with our enemies – terrorists – a bill that was expeditiously taken up by the House and on President Barack Obama's desk in record breaking time. But to what discretion – loss of power paranoia – is Barack Obama acting up with a tantrum as though being denied any powers regarding receiving Ambassadors? I mean, is Barack Obama also President of the U.N. or is this the overactive political meddlesome imagination of a narcissistic Community Organizer who tried to hide that from us by naming his dog “B.O.?”

I bet you're glad I didn't digress again, phew, it was a close one!

Thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

The 5th Amendment is intended as a limit on government. So, when a government employee asserts not testifying on the grounds of this as a privilege or right, it is as though the Constitution “granted” a right to the People by the Constitution, which, by their assertion is actually an immediate statement of the entire public spectacle of the Congressional hearings on the IRS misconduct as a dog and pony show by all who fail to appreciate the directive, and informative, language of the 5th Amendment.

First, why I say without any reservation that the 5th Amendment is a limit on government and not a grant of rights from We the People, is that it is pure comedy to think we'd be granting ourselves limited rights by our ratification of the Constitution, which, in fact, is what instituted the government with its limited rights and powers to specific objects in the National sphere. This is what “We the Posterity” are required to know -- American People who appreciate the Founders intent and purpose of the Constitution, “Constituents” today, and anyone not appreciating Our Founders purposes for the Constitution has no capacity to be a Constituent (i.e. Those not naturalized and having learned the Constitution as a matter of their civic duty to uphold as a Constituent).

Using the actual statement of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights I submit this original intent and purpose, and the irrefutable evidence the Bill of Rights repeat and further elucidate the limits of the rights of government and their limitations in relation to the American People, the terms and conditions of the consent of the governed to institute a national government. (Note all emphasis is mine, though it may not display on some sites where this is posted):

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.

And now the 5th Amendment itself:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Note that the limitation of government compulsion of a witness to testify against themselves is specifically reserved for “any criminal case” which means the government isn't limited in scope of compulsion of a citizen to testify in a hearing of one of the houses of Congress, or in any other civil investigative matter (as even administrative hearings are civil matters, and not criminal matters).

So, to help appreciate the perversion that's been done to this limit on government we must first recognize this fact, that there is no statement to suggest in any way that this limit on government is a privilege or grant of some right to the people, (It is most notable how there is no “declaratory statement” of something like, “the following right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself is hereby granted by this Fifth Amendment to the Constitution” or anything similar in the preamble to the Bill of Rights.) especially one that would require a Citizen to voice/assert such right for such limit to be imposed on the government. It appears a theater is created by a person making the assertion of their right, versus asserting that the government has no right to ask, that it is limited by the 5th Amendment from pursuing them any further. But see, then the lawyers haven't anything to argue about, and the government no ambiguity it must overcome, to then use the very Supreme Court created by the Constitution to expand government. No, instead the citizen disavows the Constitution's imposed limit on government in exchange for testifying to the legal fiction of some “Constitutional Right” or as a privilege asserted according to the Government's interpretation of the document executed by the People to form the government on the Peoples' terms to assure the legitimacy of American government (see “consent of the governed” in Declaration of Independence, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html).

The Constitution (as the 5th Amendment is part of the Constitution itself as a ratified Amendment), the only Law of the Land in fact, specifically dictates to government “No person shall.... nor shall,...” etc. Shall is a commandment, that when preceded by “no person,” “nor,” or some other object, the shall is to apply as a mandatory prohibitive, it is a Constitutional commandment upon the institution being constituted to express without any uncertainty those things that are absolutely forbidden to be done, with particulars/criteria for imposition of this limit, such as “in any criminal case,” stated thereafter, which naturally also explains this to the institution being constituted when these acts of government, such as compelling testimony, are not prohibited.

With the prevailing belief, the perversion of our Constitution as though granting rights to the people explained, I now take you to Lois Lerner's “I invoke my 5th Amendment right” on advice of her counsel. I hope you all send a copy of this to Darrell Issa for the first thing he must do is declare “these hearings are an exercise in American civics and the civil process of government, that, though the testimony presented can be used by the Justice Department if they were to pursue a prosecution of Lois Lerner or to subpoena her to testify in prosecution of someone else, this hearing is not a criminal case, and, that she has one more chance to testify before the committee in the interest of the public good and general Welfare” or, Mr. Issa should continue, “I will hold her in contempt of court by using the judicial civil process of the Federal District Court personally to gain her testimony.”

This would mean Eric Holder isn't going after her for criminal contempt of Congress, and that she could be subject to being held in jail until she is willing to testify in a courtroom. Mr. Issa should move for a Lis Pendens against all of Lois Lerner's assets and forms of income as they are all subject to lien and being frozen, justified thus: “Miss Lerner's funds appear to have been commingled with activities she herself has decided she cannot speak about without fear of criminal prosecution, and, according to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, as well as the well established doctrine of Fraud Vitiates from U.S. v. Throckmorton, her income derived as a government employee of the IRS, a department of the United States Treasury, may have all been derived from these corrupt and illegal activities during her tenure at the IRS, including, but not limited to, those funds in her retirement and pension accounts, as well as any personal investments she has made. This would also include her residence and/or any premises for which she has used these funds to pay to occupy. I am compelled to seek that this court freeze her assets as she hasn't indicated there was no other information sharing during the course of her employment that did not lead to illicit gains from insider trading, or using her knowledge of the tax code and pending IRS investigations and cases to determine what investments she would pursue and what investments she would avoid including in her investment portfolio. Any of these is possible until Miss Lerner has cleared up the specifics of her activities relating to targeting specific groups and their individual members who, so far, proved to all be American Citizens and did nothing in violation of the law but were penalized in asserting their elective and political franchise rights. Thus, Miss Lerner’s entirety of wealth falls under suspicion of corruption and I have no choice but to assume a general application of the law until such time as Lois Lerner testifies to the specifics necessary to make specific application of the law, which, by her testimony, she may demonstrate she is not a party to, but that, without reasonable testimony or evidence that has been thoroughly investigated and reviewed by myself and the House Oversight Committee I have no choice as a Congressman, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and, as a public officer who cannot let a crime be committed in my presence, but to pursue Lois Lerner's Assets and sources of income in a civil court case in hopes of attaining her testimony, testimony that I hope includes evidence that will clear her of any wrongdoing or shows she had little choice in the matter. In fact, I would be glad to find that Lois Lerner is a victim of the situation that she's already admitted occurring as part of an apology for wrongdoing she later claims she didn't do as this whole investigation was initiated by Lois Lerner carrying on a public 3rd party discloser that waives all of her 5th Amendment protections in regard to the issue she was apologizing for, and in fact shows Lois Lerner went to great lengths to expose apparently for the positive public relations purposes of such an apology from the IRS, that however remains a direct admission by Lois Lerner through that 3rd party disclosure of questionable and suspicious activities that actually occurred when she was employed by the IRS and representing the United States Treasury.”

Long and probably a bit verbose? Perhaps, but to the point, and not letting another Obama agitator get away with using their government badge, their “shield,” as a means of avoidance for being held accountable for corruption that's transpired and that this government employee is, at minimum, a witness to.

You see the perversion? A government employee asserting the 5th Amendment to limit, to even obstruct, the government's ability to intrude into their life, while, when they were an IRS employee they authorized and appear to have been part of a scheme to ignore the 5th Amendment limit on government in relation to 501 (c) (4) applicants who, as directed by law, were voluntarily applying for recognition to assure they could legally participate in America's political process. Lerner's plea of the 5th Amendment is a perfect Alinsky mockery of America's system of government.

To emphasize, just imagine if you asserted the 5th Amendment to not file a tax return, as the 1040 says right over where you sign, as a form of agreement and considered your declaration by signature:

“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.” -- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

Continuing the emphasis, that last part is a legal disclaimer inserted by the IRS to hold tax filing preparers harmless from audit for doing another person's return, setting up the IRS presumption that the preparer only used the taxpayer's information that they had knowledge of (i.e. provided by the taxpayer), “ Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.” Whatever you tell them is all they are responsible for, and any omissions, the common prosecution is for failing to state amounts of income subject to tax, by your signature you're liable but the preparer is not unless you can prove you told them and can prove they failed to include the amount (Of course such disclosure to the preparer is a 3rd party disclosure and deemed a waiver to your assertion any 5th Amendment “right” protection, in government's interpretation of it).

Lois Lerner's 5th Amendment Right, the one the rest of us don't have when it comes to filing our taxes or applying for a 501 (c) (4) recognition, would also not result in our receiving paid leave from our job – we're treated worse than an IRS officer who violated the most well established boundaries of IRS limits and we're not even a part of a scandal to use the IRS to deny some Americans, Constituents, their unalienable Right of political franchise!

Am I the only one that can see this abuse of the People's desire to do what's right being doubly exploited by the very means of government excusing government actors who have a desire to do what's wrong, and that it appears the rest of those in government want them to get away with it to set a precedent against the people that only leaves us with less gumption to assert our rightful power as the Sovereign Authority (see Founder & Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/)?

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman