News - Category '2016 Election'

Vattel, Mattel, Shmattel: Overruled by Constitution!

10 Feb : 05:29 Category: 2016 Election

Had to do it. Had to make sure you understand how meaningless Vattel is.

Article 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Please note the semicolon at the very end, not to be mistaken as a period...Continued:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...;”

Establish, per 1828 Websters:

1. To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently...

I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant. Genesis 17:7.

3. To enact or decree by authority and for permanence; to ordain; to appoint; as, to establish laws, regulations, institutions, rules, ordinances, etc...

8. To set up in the place of another and confirm.

Who go about to establish their own righteousness. Romans 10:3.” --

The point here is the power of a uniform Rule of Naturalization never existed in Congress prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Continental Congress of the Confederacy was virtually powerless, all it took was one state to reject any proposal and the proposal fails. I haven't reviewed this recently in the Federalist, yet seem to recall it was something explained in the first 10 of the Federalist Papers but I cannot recall exactly where at the time of writing this. That's fine as Hamilton provides a snippet here from Federalist 32:

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [The unratified Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: [1]where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; [2]where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; [3] and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT...These three cases of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government may be exemplified by the following instances...The third will be found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE. -- Typographic emphasis mine,

Notice the mention of States having this power being a problem? Now, often I hear, this has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizens, apparently the lack of comprehending the root of the words “Naturalization” and “Natural” is too confusing.

Let us turn to Madison, from Federalist 42, the paper explaining at its beginning how Art I, Sec 9 was placed in the Constitution to end slavery by 1808, apparently America's “uncaring white slave owner Founders” (as even I was taught) are a Progressive fiction of agenda imagination, however we'll be focusing on the latter part of this Federalist Paper:

The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions [Apparently the most Emmerich De Vattel's Law of Nations influenced instrument]. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” -- Typographical emphasis mine,

I hope you see what's coming...I don't care who was mentioned in the Constitution Convention nor how many times, as, in the end, the reality is: The text of the Constitution explains the objects and specific powers granted to government to achieve those objects, some exclusive, some shared, but authorized by ratification of the Constitution, and not existing as powers until then (much of that shared jurisdiction destroyed by the 17th Amendment which destroyed the influence of the residual Sovereignty of the States on the National Government in DC), and Our Founders articulated with intention to be so specific in the Constitution that the limits to the powers, and even the object entrusted to the National government are expressed by implication. Easily seen if one recognizes the directive language of the Constitution instead of accepting our Progressive education that “the people were granted rights from the Constitution” while the same Progressives argue the 2nd Amendment isn't on equal footing with the rest of the Bill of Rights, such is the Progressive way to destroy our knowledge and understanding of our unalienable Rights and replace them with an assertion of privileges by erroneous claims of rights granted from government as being violated by that same government... It'd be funny if it weren't such a mangled mindjob on us being carried on by those in government who believe their own lie, with exception of Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus.

Now to the first act, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” done by Congress, shortly after the Constitution was Ratified (1790), an act later repealed (Note that after reading the next 5 acts to do the very same thing that also were repealed have the same “beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” (I call the “Born Abroad” provision), I decided it was a waste to look further than 20 years forward from the first act to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” since that repetition of a particular clause is synonymous with “establish” and explains that Vattel, as asserted by all these folks claiming concern about where Ted Cruz was born (who did nothing about the situation when Obama was the subject of the question)...That Vattel was rejected by Congress in carrying out its new Constitutional Art I, Sec 8 power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Dare I say, when you consider what Madison said in Federalist 42, Congress intentionally defied the asserted principle of Vattel, apparently the principle used in the Articles of Confederation:

I'll just type the part that rejects what people assert Vattel demands, even though Vattel's work was never Ratified as law in America, nor recognized by some Resolution in Congress for nobly influencing the Constitution, and I'll likely surmise that this is because the Constitution explained the power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” for the first time in existence is, also for the first time, being vested in Congress after the Constitution is Ratified:

...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” -- Statutes-At-Large, 1790, pgs 103-104.

The act is Congress using this power for the first time and defining a natural born citizen as close in time as the phrase was used in the Constitution, whether repealed or not is meaningless to understanding the gravity of context of the term in the Constitution as used, and that Congress’ establishment of a uniform Rule of Naturalization is entirely tied to what is a Natural Born Citizen according to Congress passing an act defining the very same, asserting their new power by their first act in and using the very same language.

And as the provision has continued to be a part of act after act for at least 20 years thereafter, it is simply a unicorn's dream or Progressive fairy dust to think some book by Vattel binds the Congress, a book never ratified by the People and never subjected to the Declaration of Independence scrutinizing principle of the Consent of the Governed for its every word, every jot and every tittle; and never a part of Republican (representative) government in being ratified by the States, thus never of any greater meaning than a 3rd in weight reference at its very best, and a very far cry from a document over and above our Constitution.

So can we put this to rest once and for all in realizing that until Congress exercised the power, Vattel had no meaning, and when their first and continuing exercise of the power appears to intentionally defy Vattel, that Vattel is rendered by Congress, who alone has the power under the Constitution, entirely meaningless and nugatory in relation to natural born citizens?

What is more significant, more important for us to have done and hopefully to decide to do (which Donald Trump in his boasted buying of politicians appears to have failed to place on the top of his priority list even after making such a stink about Obama's birth certificate & illegitimacy) is to have a national yet objective, similar to the Congressional Research Service or Congressional Budget Office, “Presidential Candidate Packet Submission Review Board” that is entirely objective and will verify in fact the veracity and certainty of information provided by anyone running for President of the United States, and reporting as to what of a candidate's packet submission meets the Constitutional Standard, and what does not, for the voters to review and decide for themselves.

I became aware of this lack of anyone to carry out an objective presidential candidate packet review from a CRS memo released prior to Obama finally sharing a birth certificate with the American People, that I'll quote here:

Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate...[T]here is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.3

3. The Federal Election Commission is authorized by law to administer and seek compliance with the campaign finance provisions of federal law for candidates to federal office, and to administer and seek compliance with the provisions for public financing of the nomination and election of candidates for President, but has no duties or responsibilities with respect to judging or vetting qualifications or eligibility of candidates to federal office. 2 U.S.C. Section 437c.” [Do not think to shortcut the idea of having an objective body vet these packets, do not forget Lois Lerner worked for the Federal Election Commission in her past.]

Choice is simple: Jump up and down screaming “VATTEL SAYS...” or do something about the situation by making sure there's an objective body to vet candidates? The clarity that We the People haven't done the latter is fully expressed in those literally “exercising” the former.

As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Macro Focus: Politics

06 Feb : 21:28 Category: 2016 Election


Whining about someone else as a cheater, it's the Progressive mantra, “you have more than me because you took mine!”...Or... “You cheated that isn't fair!” all the while, like the leader of Black Lives Matter, working a political angle, looking for a chance to be the media event of the moment...

Donald Trump did this right after Iowa. Whine! Whine! Whine! (Google Trump's twitter feed for Feb 3-5, 2016 yourself, it'd make this article 10 pages to include that.)

When the fact is CNN and their illustrious crew of Progressive brain trusts asserted information as an exclusive with a tenor that suggested Ben Carson is leaving the race. Was the word “suspend” uttered? Nope, but citing that Carson's going home to “rest” after citing all the States Carson won't be going to, Jake Tapper saying “it's very unusual,” with his co-host responding, “if you want to signal to your supporters, you want it, that you're hungry for it, that you want them to get out and campaign, you've got to be out there doing it to, and he's [Ben Carson's] not out there, doing it, it's very unusual,” Progressive media and it's agitators carrying off a minute and a half of non-story entertainment at its finest.

Cruz and Rubio both sent out messages, tweets, etc., to their organization to promote their campaigns, though only Rubio used the “dropping out” phrase, in what he sent out (

Cruz apologizes to Ben Carson, Rubio, not so much. Cruz is reported as winner, while media after media focus on Marco Rubio as the big deal, who came in 3rd, and, of course, reporting what Donald Trump puts out there about Cruz as a cheater....While Marco Rubio remains failing to make any apology to Carson

Ben Carson, accepts Cruz's apology, then wants more to be done, but never says one word about Marco Rubio's communications.

Reality: This is politics. So let's look at everyone's claims a minute for their real value.

Donald Trump's comments are his normal media manipulation genius to deny the winner of Iowa. Ted Cruz, his due in the media, and yes Trump succeeded, but not alone...

Establishment darling, and dead from his efforts at Amnesty that he's reiterated he remains entirely for in each debate, Marco Rubio, promoted by Fox News to the point I no longer watch -- their establishment bias that appears to be all about making sure Charles Krauthammer isn't wrong, is so blatant and obvious they might as well make it skywriting with 1000 planes (the original and real chemtrails :p). Thus, Marco Rubio is the sneaky establishment candidate, getting free publicity from those who want the same government growth agenda that both parties continue and neither will cease from because Progressive Humanism has become accepted as normal. This is akin to how so many use the word “evolve” as though evolution is more than a theory, as though evolution is not a theory proven a fraud ( from the beginning (, but we're deemed unintelligent if we don't subscribe to it, yet it is a religious undertaking no one realizing this is the first of the Humanist Religious Political Correctness efforts ( and

Ben Carson, who was my second choice, recently took to dealing with the Cruz phenomena as an adult, and, but as of February 6, 2016, returns again to whining about Cruz. Dr. Carson apparently allowing his emotions to take over, upset that the other candidates would even think he'd leave the race, “...It disappoints me to think that they would think that I am that kind of person, that I would have hundreds if not thousands of volunteers working hard, college students working their hearts out, one even losing his life, and I'm gonna say 'Ahhh, you guys I'm outta here.” Political drama at its finest, reminding us one of his volunteers died, and of course noting he might have thousands of volunteers, but knows for sure he has hundreds, and of course “college students” had to be mentioned.

I reiterate, reality: This is politics.

Trump is upset his team didn't catch what was being said on CNN and do something about it before anyone else. Of course that gave him the chance to destroy Ted Cruz's momentum out of Iowa so opportunist Trump takes complete advantage of it, much like the irrelevant Alaska Governor needing to feel relevant again.

Rubio took advantage of Carson and moves on, like a typical establishment snake, he doesn't even apologize to Ben Carson and Ben Carson hasn't said a word about it, only attacking Ted Cruz. I am repeating this point because it is odd that Carson, the supposed outsider, is only attacking Cruz when Carson's supposed ethical standards are blind to Marco Rubio's contribution.

Conclusion: America's corporate media, which is a far cry from Ben Franklin's printing press, is informing us of what their Progressive, and usually Humanist, editors want us to see, to read, to hear. The bias against the only candidate who will promote the Constitution is overwhelming, yet the American sitting in their home watching a broadcast or Internet newsfeed is falling for every part of it, even from Ben Carson, according to the Marco Rubio cheerleading Fox News. It is no secret the American Media is at minimum left leaning, if not entirely Progressive, and usually Humanist as well (Humanism advocates a collectivist/socialist society), and the Progressive Media goal here was to make the entire leading GOP field seem like amateur hour, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump (alphabetical by last name) were all played by CNN and media in general, including how this all took off on social media, to where media's narrative is taking shape with a life of its own against all Republican candidates, Conservative or not.

Ted Cruz is the first American of Hispanic descent to win the Iowa Caucus, but you noticed no one making that a media issue, even if it would be powerful against the Progressive Democrats and their “we're for minorities” lie (1957 filibustering and stripping voting rights for Americans of African descent, former slaves or not, Senator Strom Thurmond a Democrat at the time,, and again Democrat Senator Robert Byrd filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

So here's the point: Progressive Establishment GOP, Progressive Democrat Machine, and the Progressive Media, will do anything to keep a Constitutional Conservative from being in the Oval Office, almost quietly working together to destroy the opportunity for We the People to win this election, keeping us from voting in someone that will assure us of an Executive Office Commander-In-Chief who will apply the Constitution to their decisions, who will humbly serve and not claim to be our Master, not someone mandating what we must buy (Obamacare) what we must bake if Christian and asked (without any forced baking of cakes for Humanist gays by Muslim bakeries).

You want to claim me full of it, want to tell me that Cruz is a snake cause of his wife's job at Goldman Sachs, want to tell me Cruz was for legalization, etc., then consider I know these things and the only thing I will directly rebut is the legalization. My reason is because DC relies on convincing drama, as that is how DC became so important to the People (when it should be something we wouldn't mind went bankrupt if it is trying to usurp the Constitution, which it has done in spades, all branches without us doing anything) and that many know it was Ted Cruz who destroyed Marco Rubio's amnesty bill, that, as Democratic Senator Chuck Shumer puts it, “has his [Rubio's] fingerprints all over it.”

For the rest of the claims against Cruz I submit for consideration, first an article that shows leadership and what happens when a Constitutional Conservative can work for a State's Executive Branch, Second a video of Ted Cruz's life that few may know of via article by Charles C. Johnson who worked for Conservative Mississippi State Senator, Chris McDaniel,

Lastly, it's a longer and more difficult thing to listen to but it's the SCOTUS argument of Medellin v. Texas where Ted Cruz argued against 2 advocates for Presidential authority to claim a memorandum to the Attorney General makes a treaty a law to be imposed on the States, and denies the United States Supreme Court any authority to review decisions of the World Court, and, Ted Cruz won, Note the case was reviewed in 2007 (SCOTUS 2008 term), meaning Ted Cruz was arguing against power asserted by President George Bush (POTUS 43), who we well know, though a very Christian man, was, to be generous, a “moderate Establishment Conservative.”

So many people complain about the banks and wealthy like a bunch of Socialists. So many think they've been dumbed down while voting for candidates on the basis of their personality and any semblance of agreement with rhetoric spewed by candidates on the campaign trail or in sound bites. This researcher, this American writing this article is asking you to remember we're Americans, and all of us are protected by the Constitution, so long as we have a government that remembers that, a government of representatives who care about the Constitution as well, not their party, not agendas, but objective governance to do what's right even for those who didn't vote for them because the Constitution dictates government's objects & powers, and the limits to these, boundaries these representatives of every office take an Oath to uphold, from township to National Government in DC, even before there was a 14th Amendment.

If your goal is Freedom, if you want as full an opportunity as possible in living your life as you see fit while assuring integrity of our economy and that foreign interests, ideas, and beliefs aren't influencing our lives, Ted Cruz has proven himself to be the President to do what the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus have been trying to do from mostly the House alone without much success for almost 8 years. It's not hard to guess the problem: Constitutional Conservatives are up against a Progressive Humanist establishment in both Political Parties. This establishment promotes Socialist agendas whose cherry on top of their cake of power is Barack Obama's Presidency. I only ask you to review the Ted Cruz links above and decide for yourself what you stand for, substance of America being the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, making sure the blood spilled for this nation from the beginning is not wasted, or falling for the media promoted minutiae of micro politics engineered to play with our emotions as great weight in comparison to what a candidate has actually done.

Ben Carson has become my 3rd favorite (replaced by Carly Fiorina as my 2nd) as Carson exploits what is, and has been, part and parcel to politics since this country began, as though Ben Carson is looking for some special political gain for himself by whining. Haven't we had enough of this “unfairness” whining over the last almost 8 years?

As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Galvanizing Public Support

10 Jan : 01:00 Category: 2016 Election

This will be about Presidential Primary Candidate Donald J. Trump, and, no, that he's not my first choice, and that yes, I may stay home if he's nominated (need more time to know if that will be the case or not).

One can easily point to Mr. Trump's Democrat history as meaningful. That may have significance in measuring Mr. Trump's views, and what he has to say. However, many of the things he has put forth, are an America, and an American Dream many of us hoped to grow up and live in. The appeal to the “dream” isn't an issue so long as we're objective enough to separate it from reality, to understand it is an appeal to an ideal and not a statement of what will absolutely and assuredly happen (such a belief would mean great opportunity for disappointment and deepening the divide amongst Americans, our American Union beyond the States).

What I am saying here is that Billionaire Donald Trump who I believe deserves every penny he has and praise for what he's accomplished and overcome in his life, that Mr. Trump is surely a man to be learned from for those things, but above all that Donald Trump is a marketing genius. So I hope I put to rest any idea of my having any sort of personal bias against him in the mind of anyone reading this, though I must point out it is a form of political correctness for me to explain my lack of any bias against Mr. Trump for any personal reason. I admire Donald Trump's achievements and his exceptional marketing skill as the traditional get-it-done American Way.

My issue is a simple one: I am a Conservative, which means I believe the government is bloated in myriad ways, including but not limited to money, power, assumption of authority, too much bureaucracy, and sure these are more than likely related, which, as a Conservative, demonstrates to me without any reservation that government is a synonym for corruption and corruption appears the sole gross national product of the National government. But bloated, corrupt, in comparison to what? Answer: The Constitution!

Yes I can re-cite numerous things about the Constitution and get lost in the history and document whose limitation of government is by express enumeration of powers along with the warnings of Hamilton to not have a Bill of Rights re-expressing existing limits on government, Hamilton's warning that people (conveniently including the Supreme Court) will mistakenly assume the Bill of Rights as rights granted from government to the people. However this article isn't about the Constitution and our Progressive Humanist educations that I've mentioned numerous times at (which I greatly appreciate McAfee expeditiously reviewing the site again and giving us an all clear,

This is about Donald Trump and a great need of him to establish to many of us (actually to the American People as a whole) that he has a significant knowledge of the Constitution and a personal knowledge of the limits of government, that he will promise to follow the Constitution and not assume SCOTUS the final unchecked voice of what the Constitution (as amended) means. I would be eager to promote Mr. Trump after his being able to express a more than general knowledge of our Granting the Constitution, granting the Terms and Conditions of having a national government system, State and National, called Federalism; that Mr. Trump at least understands America is a Constitutional Republic, though it would be exceptional if he understands the Compound Republic that America is; and that Mr. Trump well knows how the 14th Amendment and Sherman Anti-Trust Act have been the most significant tools to destroy Federalism, to destroy Freedom and Enterprise, i.e. Free Enterprise, Capitalism.

It would be after this showing of certain knowledge of the Constitution that I would then expect Mr. Trump to explain he no longer supports universal healthcare as a government initiative, or other government institutional method, and that he further ceases from carrying on the Progressive Humanist talking point of how some rich don't “pay their fair share” (as Mr. Trump has said in relation to his proposed tax on hedge fund managers), and no longer emphasize the rich owning politicians. Historically it is the government's encroachment on private/free enterprise, claiming everything produced, every service, subject to Interstate Commerce and the Commerce Clause as though the government is merely an Organized Crime Government Syndicate that legalizes stealing under the guise of a new means of “legit” government revenue with another tax, fee, and penalty “scheme,” easily comparable to protection money schemes. Of course, these government schemes are then challenged in court, and become the means of the Supreme Court expanding National Government jurisdiction into the states, and directly into our lives, our personal “environment,” and, government via political parties offers to minimize legal fees and avoid risk to the business (can't lose that employee tax revenue) by soliciting “donations” to their campaigns. Name someone with property who won't do everything they can to protect it from threat of loss, be it from natural disaster, theft by a hoodlum, or theft by what would otherwise be formally named scofflaws if they weren't the government leaders drafting the legislation and ignoring the Constitution.

To be clear, once the government puts its boot on the neck of any business (government is the one with the right of the use of force), these entities and their owners who were once freely engaging in a free market, then find themselves in a bidding war to gain protection from the law through politicians elected to office, politicians offering favors to stay in office – Might as well be Rome! Sure these businesses know the politician will be back for more next year (the “campaign contribution” is like blood in the water for sharks in politician form), sure they know the politician will invite them to galas and other functions that will boost their business' activities and capabilities...And the politician will then ask for more money the following year with a greater leverage by more intimate knowledge of the business' relationships and how they came about. Thus these American Free Enterprise Capitalist Entrepreneurs and Industry Magnates whose ambition and genius is to be admired, find themselves in the unenviable position of competing to donate enough to politicians to protect themselves from government's lead boot because government wants it that way.

Understand, a few findings by a bureaucracy that fines you, (such as the SEC, EPA, the dreaded IRS, though easily shooed away as personal threats) if you continue to buck government's unconstitutional, and thereby unlawful, trespass, then government uses these findings with the Secretary of State of your State of Incorporation to get your charter suspended. Of course this is if they don't pursue you as a “person of interest” or terrorist to then quietly “escort” you to an interrogation site via NSA, CIA, etc.

The “Wealthy,” being used as a noun describing a group of people everyone is so worried about, is a term of art to invoke jealousy and prejudice, never putting forth that “wealth” as property, by title and interest in holding, is by laws and lawful processes, and that these are held by legal “persons” according to the 14th Amendment's wardship of former slaves, as that is how business entities as legal persons are treated. Every legal vehicle an American uses to protect their property is eventually placed within the confines of the “American Legal Organized Crime to Suppress Capitalism Revenue Generation Regime of Government Subjugation of the People” by the 90%+ Progressive Humanist-leaning American BAR Association and its BAR licensees across the country, but that's how the 14th Amendment “person” works.

As you can probably pick up, I am not a keen fan of government control of anything but the specific objects entrusted to them by the Constitution, to be cared for by the limited enumeration of powers under Article I, Section 8. Anyone running for office who isn't fully cognizant and willing to respect our Constitution of written Terms and Conditions of government that, by our ratification brought government into existence, and is not ready to enforce the Constitution by adherence to it, is not going to serve America on America's terms, but on their own.

Yes, we've lived under a horrific socialist agenda for way too long, the peak of which, since Jimmy Carter, has been by Barack Obama, and we want it to stop, want our Individual Liberty to cease being sacrificed for some Utopian fiction, such as universal healthcare. And please don't cite socialist, subject (slave) citizen nations with high personal taxes at the expense of lower corporate taxes to steal America's Industrial magnates, making specious claims of “working universal healthcare” as justification, for that is only affirming the fiction of universal healthcare and acknowledging the Socialist Terrorism & Tyranny of America and all People across the world that's been going on for far too long.

When I see Mr. Trump speak with the same deliberate and passionate tenor about Our Constitution and our Individual Liberty, expressing with the same conviction, that he - understanding the “insurance policy” to guarantee our Freedom is a Constitution revered by those serving, that it is an Honor for us to entrust anyone to serve, and that the Constitution must be complied with to assure objective government of, by and for the People – would then be rewarded with an avalanche of Conservative votes, from Democrats, Republicans and Independents with little if any remaining reservations.

To those thinking the world is about to explode and I am focusing on the wrong thing, please understand that the reason we're exposed to any of this is a government who failed to act solely within the limits of the Constitution, and that until we fix this it's a perpetual cycle of destruction, death, and hate. We're aiding and abetting this cycle by failing to elect Honorable well informed Americans to serve, not lead, not to Master us under a subjective agenda, but serve by their Oath as their Bond to We the People as their Master, at least until they leave office.

As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

America's Sovereign Challenge

14 Dec : 16:51 Category: 2016 Election

I love the lack of PC of Donald Trump, his promoted ideas are as American as you can expect, but...

He speaks to controlling the Internet, the letter “i” there capitalized to recognize it as a separate jurisdiction, something not a part of Congressional Authority or some public property.

I submit to you to consider, that every good negotiator I've met uses words with more than one meaning, words that are meant to convey what the other person wants to hear while they may not necessarily be saying what we think they are saying.

Obama did this to America once via Liberals who follow blindly, examples...


Or let's try Occupy folks,

So, now, consider please, as you consider these people: What if someone does this to what is now, in our review of these examples and laughing at them, the voice of sobriety, the patriotic Americans, the Conservatives (those who understand government is to act in accordance with the limits of the Constitution and never to act beyond these limits as then it is a government of oppression, Tyrannical and will never again cease trespass on Individual Liberty)? Apologies, but had to define Conservative since many think it's just carrying on nostalgic traditions, a liquidating of the meaning, purpose, and weight of America's Founding that began the end of Feudalism; liquidating of the Principles of the Declaration of Independence as effectuated by the Constitution's Enumerated (limited) Powers granted to government by Article I, Section 8 alone through our ratification (Consent of the Governed),

Oh, and my apology is for demonstrating the Divine Spine of the American People, our resilience in the face of adversity. I know many want to believe Mr. Trump, and I don't blame them for wanting a hero after Obama's failure to deliver one, save for the Progressive Left and their goal of destroying America. But, I must explain what I am laying out here because it is a moral imperative for America to have a Constitutionally wise President who isn't placating us by appeasing statements (i.e. “red meat”) that we want and long to hear. I mean, isn't that exactly what Barack Obama did? Who voted for the first black President on the grounds he'd declare war in the name of climate change against all who remember science isn't here to prove anything is true but to prove what hypotheses are false? Well I guess you voted for Obama to rewrite the purpose of our institutions and their history as well (see,

Have I yet documented how we too easily follow our emotions, fall in the trap of what we want to believe versus what's actually occurring? Well then, let's see:

First, consider the woman in the first video link above, and see if there's a mirror there representing you. I say this because, it is no secret why they passed Obamacare without reading it, knowing it would fail:

Weigh whether Healthcare is an entitlement or a Right. That's the debate being framed by the two “frontrunners” Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump via the Progressive media, as Obamacare is meant to be affirming a “right to healthcare”, while Donald Trump has said “healthcare is an entitlement.” Tell me who will win that debate as it is framed right now, which, in both cases assumes the worst of the oxymorons one could ever hear regarding money: “government savings.”

Understand that the “savings” is a fairy tale of mis-management by government right now.

Doctors get 40-60% of their bill paid by government generally. Of course, many doctors have discounts if you pay cash, but that's at their discretion. With government running healthcare, even before Obamacare, the difference for the doctor was that he got paid same day for cash as he gave service to the patient. Government generally strings doctors along at least 90 days and usually 180 or even more before paying them 40-60% on the bill – it’s called ‘cascading’ as they downgrade each ‘service’ going down the bill and can go to 80% of the amount, which is why the ‘usual and customary’ amount for service is hiked in the first place and why docs can give cash discounts. What does the doctor do with that situation? They raise the price and often are screwing up your medical records, not to make them inaccurate but because some bureaucrat rejected the payment as submitted for the last 6 months and the doctor, who just wants to get paid, to cover their costs of office, staff, etc, and receive their desired profit from what is often a laborious education, keeps re-submitting the bill to get the bureaucrat to sign-off on it. Remember: The bureaucrat signs-off on it eventually, meaning they know that this is the game and this is the government's method of negotiating the bill with a doctor. Of course, now with the Obamacare electronic medical records mandate government blames the doctors... Er... “Healthcare Providers” for errors in medical records, (that's government taking a stand against doctors to uphold the law for insurance companies while never doing anything about government and/or insurance bureaucrats who created the situation).


Setting aside that Donald Trump wants to control the Internet like China or other country's governments... I guess I should mention North Korea here, and, as Hillary Clinton wants to control the Internet, as well as the Government wanting it to become a tax generator... Ummm...

One last thing. We're erroneously hearing about Gun Control over San Bernardino. Well, consider how absolute the 2nd Amendment is, its language not limiting “infringement” to any branch of government but denying all government, as ratified by us and the States (capital “S” denoting the governments of the States):

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -- 2nd Amendment language from original Bill of Rights,

Compare and contrast to the record of Gun Control, originating in the Dixiecrat South over fear of “negroes” with guns, and explaining the NRA's existence with little effort,

Yet what makes that so interesting is what happened under FDR in 1938, The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 began the firearm dealer licensing system.” Everyone understanding this? The Federal Government's desire for more revenue was their entire purpose and means of getting involved with firearm ownership, but not directly, instead through a backdoor of claiming and creating a jurisdiction by imposing a national licensing program on gun dealers. Gun Control has never had a place in our Society, our American Culture and, as with so many things done since the 14th Amendment, government is all about the money... Can anyone say Obamacare? Especially as a tax enforced by the IRS isn't it all about the money? And while we all know Mr. Trump has said he's for the lawful right of citizens to own a gun, where's the recognition it's not up to the government at all but is something even the Supreme Court of the United States isn't given any authority to make any determinations on by the very language of the 2nd Amendment?

Point being that the Right to Bear Arms is no different than the Right to Self-Defense, and trusts you to know your use of a weapon, to know when to use it or not, and self-responsibility is the point to it all. Yet, eventually, licensing schemes for government's revenues, usually riding on the coattails of SCOTUS whose claimed authority is their word for their claim and of no constitutional authority at all, because it cannot by assertion violate the Constitution, which the 2nd Amendment is the Constitution as an Amendment:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” -- Emphasis mine,

Which means: The Constitution must be upheld, pursuant to the enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8) and the “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” added to it (i.e. 2nd Amendment, pursuant to the preamble of the Bill of Rights, ). So SCOTUS can't violate the Constitution to claim, well, anything about it, period!

But hey, let's talk to the Progressives in Silicon Valley, California and Bellevue, Washington to determine controlling the Internet... To me this is an omen of things to come when a man who claims to be Conservative, doesn't honor the Constitution and wants to get Progressive advice to solve the problem.

May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

P.S. Never forget they still have Clinton's Echelon right now, and if interested, here's the “UKUSA” agreement they're talking about (wonder what constitutional power the President made this agreement under), which 1956 amendment to, incidentally, created the NSA, Choose wisely, deliberately, in 2016.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

We Are All Neo

10 Sep : 01:42 Category: 2016 Election

From Matrix:

Neo: “Why do my eyes hurt?”

Morpheus: “Because you've never used them before.”

What we're seeing today has been happening for a long time. Kim Davis is the posterchild for victims of government corruption. The trouble is in identifying the corrupting force, the easy and honest answer is “power.”

Since the 14th Amendment, and coercion of the Civil War Legislatures, made those who had been slaves into citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government as their legal guardian, what's been missed is why this idea of birthright citizenship persists beyond its intention to affect those who were slaves (Explained here,

Remember the cause of government (its righteous purpose and intention in the eyes and minds of those who do not read laws and vote on them based on political party alone) is power, identical to the corrupting force. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is proving true, and is our history since at least the 14th Amendment. A county clerk put in jail for standing by their Oath, protecting and upholding the Constitution, is corruption at its finest (the 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution as that is what it was “amending”). News reporters going to jail for “not revealing their source” is identical in government overstepping the boundaries of the 1st Amendment.

Let's reference properly:

[1]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [2]or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [3]or abridging the freedom of speech, [4]or of the press; [5]or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Recent well known incidents of Government's Violation:

1) “Religious Humanism,”

2) Kim Davis (amongst many others),

3) Kim Davis, Ibid, and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Youtube video maker blamed for Benghazi attack, (Note, his implied sentence violation, “...under the terms of his probation, Nakoula was banned from using computers and the Internet for 5 years without prior approval.”)

4) James Rosen, e-mail confiscated (comment: You'd think they'd have acted this fast with Hillary's Server), and Also Reporter Judith Miller,, as well as the Associated Press in whole,

5) IRS’ failing to process tax-exempt status applications of Tea Party and other Conservative groups, abusing administrative powers to stonewall redress of grievance for this violation of our use of legal means to assert our lawful right to peaceably assemble, in person or by funding, illustrated by, and later,

Understand that, according to the rules of birthright citizenship in the application of the equal protection clause, every single American is treated as “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in direct violation not only of direct prohibitions (i.e. “Congress shall make no law...”) but also the retention of powers to the States, which is why the State has innate police power, and, as another example, is the one who issues marriage licenses, á la the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it [,the Constitution,] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 14th Amendment, by its language and intention, is to enforce the Bill of Rights’ limits imposed upon national government against the States on behalf of former slaves as wards of the National Government. When you extend this through birthright citizenship, it is an assumption of the National Government that we're all wards “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” our rights to be determined and prioritized, to be dictated, and controlled, by the National Government. No slave not wanting to be a slave was trying to trade their local Master for a National one in D.C., nor were they seeking to have the Freedom to act, which they so dearly wanted, liquidated as everyone is deemed a ward of the National Government via birthright citizenship. Notice it is that “jurisdiction thereof” who regulates, manipulates, and Tyrannically controls every aspect of the existence of life to the point of exhaustion, yes, destroying the very right of action the slave wanted to have in Freedom and Individual Liberty.

I've often referred to a book, the origin of the movie Matrix, called Simulacra & Simulation by Jean Baudrillard, I cite this book because Baudrillard, who is a Socialist, cites the problem well, but wrongfully blames the solution (Capitalism) as the cause.

In truth, it is belief in governments, in people, the idea of “false prophets,” that is the cause. Be it the unicorns and fairies of the Kool-Aid KKK Progressive Dixiecrat Plantation Class, or the industrial magnate and corporate hierarchy beholden to government, and whatever in-between, these are people, with their own self-interest, with their own means of manipulation, and their own desire for achievement within their lifetimes, irrespective of all other interests outside of their own if they can hold power over others. It is from this that the worker's union is a big stock investor, some 6 to 7 trillion of the Stock Market in the hands of pension funds, union and otherwise “institutional investors”; established pursuant to some model, a created, fictional future of “retirement,” as though a permanent fixture of existence, to eventually be politically claimed as some form of right; it is from this that Jeb Bush runs for President, as well as the reason Barack Obama ran for President.

Self-interest in relation to power is natural, and even when self-interest is denied by one in power this doesn't deny it for the remainder, especially amongst those leading in the “community” or in government, which is a collective body. It is clear that no matter how much they speak of collective action and “social justice,” nor how much passion and intensity they put into speeches to elevate these terms into the realm of emotion and belief, they remain, as leaders, in the midst of their own self-interest, placating by appeasement those who look to them to solve their problems, those who shirk self-responsibility to be dependent on the leader's self-interest taking care of them; followers with a self-imposed blindness their dependence and willingness to lie to themselves and others only rivaling followers of a cult.

Yet, all the while, these leaders, their political goals and purpose of power, rely on your acceptance of being a Ward of the National Government, of assuming that someone else defines your rights, your duties, “who is paying their fair share” or not, who should be gouged in the name of government, who should be persecuted, prosecuted, and penalized by the violent authority of government, and who should be pardoned on the sole grounds of surrendering Freedom for political beliefs built around the wardship of the Individual who “can't fight City Hall.”

At what point do we realize we have assimilated lies said to us to build a prison for our mind, to keep us willing to accept control over our lives? When do we admit that we're a conquered people, turned from comprehending, let alone appreciating, the civilized means and order of our Written Constitution as an instrument of enforcement over government? No! Instead we wait for the next handout, the next rule that says what we can't or can do, or gives us a “tax allowance” to keep more of what we earned by our labor. Scanning the Web with our phone, tablet, or other PC, looking for and rationalizing that we've found that niche space to operate freely (be it saying whatever we want on social media, or exploring an entirely fictional virtual world somewhere), we settle for what sense of Freedom we can get because the object of our Freedom, our Individual Liberty, is so diminished that we are overwhelmed with the idea of the effort we must put forth. Through this we are completely put off by how few we can find that understand 1/10th of what we do, and/or have made a regular effort to know or learn that what we're conserving as Conservatives is Freedom and Individual Liberty as the hoped first choice that is always available for every American!

Maybe now you understand why I don't care about taxes, but I do care about the size of government, about government's spending beyond the objects that government is limited to by the Constitution. And how, when we let this happen, when we let government do as it pleases, as we have done for at least 3 generations, that we are allowing our Freedom and Individual Liberty to be diminished, that we are alienating our unalienable Rights by lack of care for them and the responsibility they entail – Our Rights are unalienable by action, not because the Declaration of Independence says so!

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

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Hillary Clinton's General Intent

19 Aug : 08:28 Category: 2016 Election

First, I would not for a moment assume I know the mind of Progressive and faithful to her well documented cheating husband, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has, by staying with Bill and hiding behind his former Presidency in inference to why her email server is safe, has probably done more as a role model of failure for feminist causes than most women in America. I mean, to think they were “broke” after leaving the White House begs the question, “then why did she stay with Bill?”...Yeah, very difficult to fathom there is a sentient being inside Hillary Clinton's body, unless “channeling” the blind loyalty of a 1950's housewife.

No, instead this is a Matrix-like discussion, such as this one between Morpheus and Neo before Neo downs the red pill, italic emphasis of most pertinent parts to “general intent”:

Morpheus: “I imagine that, right now, you're feeling a bit like Alice [in Wonderland], tumbling down the rabbit hole?

Neo: “You could say that.”

Morpheus: “I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he's expecting to wake up. Ironically this is not far from the truth....Do you believe in fate Neo?

Neo: “No.

Morpheus: “Why not?”

Neo: “Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.

Morpheus: “I know exactly what you mean....Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me....Do you know what I am talking about?”

Neo: “Matrix?”

Morpheus: “Do you want to know what it is?”

Neo: (*nods affirmatively/yes*)

Morpheus: “The Matrix [a scheme of general intent laws governing your life] is everywhere, it is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: “What truth?”

Morpheus: “That you are a slave Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch, a prison for your mind.

This back and forth is at around the 26-minute mark into Matrix on DVD if you're interested in hearing the dialog for yourself.

So now to correlating the legality depicted so well by actors Laurence Fishburne and Keanu Reeves in portraying what is essentially the Wachowski Brothers screen adaptation of the book Simulacra & Simulation by Jean Baudrillard (, which I strongly recommend one read). An aspect of the book is the explanation of a force existing and affecting our lives by absence.

What is general intent? Well it would seem it is something entirely reserved to the States, as to if it exists or not, at least according to those scholarly in the law,,, and as some examples. Nolo Press is well known for their legal self-help guides and, in my 30 years of knowledge of them, have been very accurate of details often overlooked by many a legal scholar.

What must be understood is that absence is an existence of its own, meaning here that where the States are presumed vested with a legal authority, as with general intent crimes, the absence of any actual delegation creates a vacuum, a double and shadow of its existence in counterparts. The shadow is subject to, albeit different, ever-changing rules as it becomes observable and allows the observers to claim the rules it operates by. This is how a vacuum becomes filled, by views entirely biased by the role of observer of something to then formulate, hypothesize, and presume the void filled by what the observer is certain of. This is how scholarly education persists in being a blind eye upholder of the status quo by the continued recognition of absence as a filled void, an object and assigning it powers, thereby applying rules that create a something no matter how fictional. And this may well be right and intended because we have to consider the ramifications of the definition of general intent as an existing relevant object to be authored by national government on its own terms and claims of authority:

Most crimes require general intent, meaning that the prosecution must prove only that the accused meant to do an act prohibited by law. Whether the defendant intended the act’s result is irrelevant.” --

Contrast this to the Constitution's purpose to limit government, at least according to the Federalist papers via Madison dealing with an objection to the Constitution's provision, “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay for the common defence and general welfare of the United States”:

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.” -- Emphasis mine,

Let us apply this general intent principle, that it seems State legislatures have easily found is to be applied to the individual citizen by whatever the legislature defines as a rightful pursuit of State revenues, to government's delegated authority via the Constitution. Let us appreciate and understand the Constitution establishes the general intent of those seeking office, defines these candidate's criteria to determine their rightful intention, that it is by the Constitution's terms the candidates must intend to uphold the principles of Freedom and Individual Liberty as known and appreciated by the People, that the Constitution thereby is a statement of our Will, best described by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence as “the consent of the governed.”

Thus it is clear that 18 USC § 1924 states a specific intent crime, and I express this to stake a claim on behalf of the American People for what general intent means at the national level, and that it must start with the laws governing those who represent us, from the bureaucratic, even contracted, Statistician whose data interpretation is being used by Congress to justify an expense/tax, to the President of the United States proclaiming “what we need” as though the office of President doesn't place its holder in a position of servitude stripped of any claims to a 1st person voice of the authority of the American people, stripped of being just any American living out their private life. We must make it clear that every office holder, be it elected or appointed must be subject to accountability to We the People for their actions, and what other than supporting the Constitution's intention could the Criminal Code of the United States be meant to carry out? Here's the text:

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.”

As I said, I am staking a claim on the use of the 18 USC code as a general intent enforcement of the Constitution, for when the Congress created the arguendo “loopholes” in this, with these phrases, “without authority” and “and with the intent...” the law, in the first phrase, exonerates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. President Obama, by Executive Order, made former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton one of the people who defines what is or is not classified information, probably with a group of criteria, but she is authorized.

However, and this is Hillary Clinton's problem, the fact her server was not within the government's security system (an absence) made it automatically an unauthorized location as Hillary Clinton is not authorized to certify a location as secure, and she has already admitted intent to remove the documents to an unauthorized location. The trouble remains there is an “and” between the authority and the removal, which, arguably, joins the intention to a rightful authority even if the site was not secure... Yet former CIA director David Patraeus had the same, if not greater, authority regarding classification of information, but pleads guilty (

I ask you, do you see how the same standard of law applied to you and I; how we live our lives (CFL bulbs, “smart meters,” Obamacare, etc.) how we are required to have a license and permit for everything we do; if we pay enough taxes; if we can build or develop or have a business on a piece of land that we own; is not the same application of law (by general intent) when they, government actors, act in the name of government with our tax dollars in a manner that could even place National Security at risk – that the laws governing their actions contain escape clauses (specific intent) that their legislative promulgation makes sure that, in governing our actions, we are denied by general intent? (Example, California Drivers License requirements,

It is this reversal of the purpose of government, as carried out by the political parties in their carrying on the life of a noble class, proclaiming from on high, “We know better than you do what you want” that has led to Donald Trump leading the polls for the Republican Nomination; that Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and my choice Constitutional Conservative Ted Cruz are rising in the polls. We the People are tired of being subjected to a government of political party elitists whose acts in “promulgating” legislation demonstrate a deliberate contempt for the Will of the People and an organized-crime-like appreciation of government's actions to assert the force of law as their license to steal. Done while never assuring the general intent of those in government is to serve the people and not party nor succumb to the corrupting influence of government power. Instead the law fails to bind these government actors to conscience as is caused by fear of the force of law being imposed on them with 10 times the force it is imposed on non-office holding Americans for having committed an act irrespective of results, the government actor's general intent. While some Americans contemplate armed revolution as an option, their point is to assure there is a fear in government actors that compels their loyalty to abide by our will and will aid in assuring that only those who appreciate the Honor of subservience to the Will of the People, to the Constitution, apply for the job of representing us, of being our voice for government to pursue what we've employed government for.

So, as government gained its authority from our ratification of the Constitution in order for Congress to pass 18 USC § 1924, the specific intentions and joinder of issues loopholes embedded in the law are void abinitio (void from the beginning, nugatory). Those in government who work for us, who tax us to pay for their paychecks, their benefits packages, their vacations and bureaucrat conventions, etc. cannot build in loopholes to protect themselves; they cannot direct intention nor bind intention and authority as some scapegoat because their authority to act solely derives from us, and it is our general intent application of the Constitution upon government that governs, even governing the Supreme Court itself and the entire Federal Judiciary that was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 by an act of the Legislature and not the Constitution.

As long as government claims a general intent power it must be applied first to application of all laws imposed upon government, and then, using the limits of the Constitution, to pursue any application whatsoever upon the American People. That those in government, the government actors and their parties, have not done this, especially in recent memory of the last 3 or 4 generations of Americans, is irrelevant to the reality of the Sovereign Authority of the American People (see Justice James Wilson,

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

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Hillary Clinton "Knew or Should Have Known"

12 May : 20:33 Category: 2016 Election

As I reflect on how Freedom has been assaulted, I look to the Civil Rights Act's abuse, and in that is this key phrase, which well applies to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In a civil rights case, that key phrase, “knew or should have known” is usually said, and I am paraphrasing from memory, thus, “Plaintiff states and thereby alleges Police Officer John Doe, acted under color of authority [badge] and color of law [use of probable cause to assume use of force] and knew or should have known he carried out the acts prohibited under of 42 USC 1983, and thereby violated the Plaintiff's rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments as applied to the States by and through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

As I am not a lawyer I am sure I did a poor job in legal expression, but I hope this highlights the use of the phrase because I see this fact, of “knew or should have known,” all too easily when looking at what happened in Benghazi, Libya.

The reality here is that, while the White House and Secretary Clinton, resting on Susan Rice's and CBS Chairman David Rhodes’ ( brother and White House aide Ben Rhodes talking point advice, laid the blame on a YouTube trailer for a movie that didn't even exist yet… a trailer that had been on YouTube for 6 months previously. There is a forgotten right that the Obama Administration, including Secretary Clinton, have fully and completely trespassed upon: The Right of the Survivors, their right to bring a claim on behalf of their deceased. Now, mind you, I don't go in for this civil rights stuff, but there's no relevance to that here as this is about Secretary Hillary Clinton who worked at the Rose Law Firm as an attorney, had worked on Watergate in pursuing President Nixon, and her boss, an attorney, who had worked on Civil Rights cases for ACORN, President Barack Obama, (see and

So here's the dilemma/headline no media will ever print: “Obama Administration Ignores Rights of Survivors of September 11, 2012 Benghazi Attack.”

The families all have a right to make a posthumous claim on behalf of their loved ones, claims that will require discovery and information be made available to the court to determine the liability of the U.S. Government and those who... Wait for it... Knew or should have known that there were security issues in Benghazi, Libya, issues that could result in the death or injury of an American Ambassador and, by extension, should members of the CIA Annex be expected to aid the Ambassador if there were trouble, those that knew or should have known if CIA support would be a workable solution. This of course would include if other options were or were not available but were never pursued prior to the Benghazi attack. What Secretary Clinton and President Obama knew or should of known is exacerbated by the date of the attack, a September 11th anniversary in 2012.

Of course the “kingpin” of liability here would be Barack Obama as he is in charge of those below him, be it the Secretary of State or the CIA director, or the U.S. Military who had the ability to fly drones for 6 hours over the assault taking video footage, but had no ability, it appears, to send up a drone that would be able to disable heavy arms siege fire and lend aid to the former military now CIA who disobeyed orders to stand down risking their lives to help Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. Yes, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were painting targets on these heavy arms locations but, as we know now, only to be ignored by those watching the very drone footage overhead, President Obama, Secretary Clinton, etc.

But the point of the question is, what is it former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama knew or should have known between their receipt of documented reports of security concerns in Benghazi and the September 11, 2012 attack? Thanks to former Secretary Clinton we'll never know because of her abuse of this little catchphrase.

You see, and I may be rusty at this, but it appears to me that Hillary Rodham Clinton knew or should have known there is a Benghazi investigation, as she knew or should have known of previous investigations, especially as she'd been called as a witness to then proclaim “What difference does it make” with the full absence and reckless abandon of any care or concern for the survivors of the 4 fallen Americans in Benghazi. A callous and blatant disregard that is only further punctuated by the gross negligence of Hillary Clinton and, I submit likely too, her husband former President William Jefferson Clinton, who owned her email server, the one from which Hillary erased 30,000+ emails, emails that would otherwise be forced by a court to be produced in a Civil Rights Case brought by the survivors in an effort to show what Secretary Clinton or anyone else she contacted knew or should have known regarding Benghazi. I would be remiss to ignore that there were others injured in Benghazi too. Those who had to be evacuated and escaped also were injured by the same gross negligence and lack of exercising discretion and due care with information that their superiors, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama knew or should have known... But it was all a YouTube video's fault...

Thank you Ben Rhodes for wrongfully, but successfully, deflecting the severe weight of the death of 4 Americans that appears to be by the proximate cause of gross negligence by those that put them in harm’s way, your boss that these Benghazi dead trusted to aid them in remaining alive and unharmed. Of course, Mr. Rhodes, you're in politics with powerful family members in the media so compassion isn't something we expect of you, nor caring one iota about the truth. I am sure it's rationalized, “these people knew what they were getting into when they went” as though, when the Commander-in-Chief and his officers such as Secretary Clinton assign them a post, the assigned person has any significant say about it or is to presume it is American policy that, “they'll leave me abandoned there to die?” Mr. Rhodes, your actions, though well effective at covering the White House's hindquarters due primarily to a media your brother is in significant position to influence (in charge of the network Sharyl Attkisson had to quit working for), are shameful acts of absolute neglect for those who died in the name of America and their families, people who served country and acted without hesitation on orders of your boss. Yes Mr. Rhodes, you've mistreated the families of the dead who deserve answers, and anything else due from the United States government for their dutiful service of their relative. I believe 3 of the 4 (it may have only been 2) who died in Benghazi served in the military, so you have also sent American Veterans a loud statement of what you, your boss Barack Obama, and the Progressive movement of the Democratic Party feel toward our American Heroes, both those now in the field such as the 4 who were abandoned to die in Benghazi, and those who've survived since World War I, who have watched government spend more money on illegal aliens, on lawbreakers, than will ever be spent on American Heroes, a government of politicians whose speeches and press secretaries will proclaim Veterans as “blood and treasure” but is nothing more – absolutely nothing more – than lip service!

Hillary Clinton in 2016 is just more of everything I explain above, and if you think Obama's Presidency is above the law (due to the Progressive cruelty of religious exaltation of ideology, party, and agenda over all else), believe me, Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama on steroids. And, might I add, this same abuse of the nation and its people, to treat heroes as mere offspring of peasants, as cannon-fodder with posthumous duty to never embarrass the State (King), is the historic reality, the legacy, of every form of centralized nationalization of power, from Tribe to Communism, “force” by Elitist Principals under the banner “Leader” are always the rule.

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

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

The Racist Tea Party Agenda

29 Jan : 13:55 Category: 2016 Election

The media rumblings begin, as the GOP contenders go to Iowa, and I am here to affirm with absolute certainty that the Conservative Tea Party is racist and has a racist agenda.

The Tea Party believes all of mankind has a right to their pride, pride in their Faith, pride in their Freedom, and pride in their rights, especially the right of ownership of private property and the
Freedom to do as they please with what their worthiness of their hire will afford.

The Tea Party is absolutely American ethnocentric, we believe in American Superiority because of the exceptional quality of Individual Liberty and how this is paramount to every Individual's Life, as well as an innate authority of every American to command over their own Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. There is no seeking or singling out particular individuals of a particular ethnic background, or color, income, or anything else but that an Individual stands for America and American values. The Tea Party will not deny themselves an American view by a biased pursuit of members as that would, instead, be pursuing the foreign Tribal/Feudal view of division of America, which is best epitomized by America's opponents, the Progressives, and their divisive Class Warfare battlecry. We're Americans and welcome Americans, of all ethnicities and creeds irrespective of skin color, though I would certainly want to have a serious conversation with a muslim Tea Party person.

I'd want to make sure a muslim Tea party person understands that all government must be limited as America's Founders intended, and that they further understand this means there is an enforcement of these limits on government. Surely the vote serves that purpose but the whole point of the Constitution being the fundamental Law of America, and the law of limited government, means we understand it is our Individual Rights by God that are superior to any government, and surely superior to any method of politicking to use government to thwart these rights. The Constitution is our measuring stick to know when government has exceeded our Individual Rights by government exceeding the limits placed on them by the Constitution; that when these limits are violated it is our Right and our Duty to then act in whatever manner is necessary to stop the oppression that naturally occurs by exceeding these limits, as that was the point in placing these limits on government and having the Constitution as our written measuring stick to compare to government's actions. It is we who constitute the government as “constituents,” so that the use of the Constitution is our exclusive dominion as Individuals in Freedom, that we require this authority so that we each can assert our Individual ability from our mind to advance mankind, by our invention, our creations, and what we produce from these faculties given to each of us by God and therefore at our sole and entire discretion alone. And, to be sure, whether we sell our ideas or not is a matter for the owners and creators, the innovators, the capitalists, and of course Americans’ sole discretion as well as that being the Constitution's point in having been ratified into existence: To govern American government in assurance of Individual Liberty.

I'd explain that sharia law has no place in appreciating Individual Liberty, as the True Peace from our Creator is not in looking for how to restrict our fellow man, that we did not place specific objects and powers to achieve those objects for the purpose of being taken up as a government right of force to be used to oppress Individuals for being Individual; that we were not constituting a Collective to act according to majority rule based on political parties and ideologies but, instead, a government to assure protection of the smallest minority, the Individual, via assuring Individual Liberty.

I'd go to great pains to make absolutely certain they understand that an individual, even with witnesses, who takes up a complaint against another individual does not transfer the issue to a collective body guided by their religious laws for judgment and assuming these to be superior to Individual Liberty, but instead their complaint, if of any merit in the first place, is to achieve a hearing of both sides’ views so the body can ascertain if any use of power is justified, with all deliberation based upon whether it is right to assert the oppressive character of government power upon and against the Individual (i.e. “Is it Constitutional?”), or to finally determine the entire petition was a waste of time and even an effort to fool the holder(s) of these powers to wrongfully oppress another – Which can only occur when there's an instrument explaining to government its specific objects, powers, and thereby limits, and cannot happen in an arbitrary setting where the judge assumes all power is theirs alone, especially when they have been in that position for a very long time.

And, lastly, I’d explain that America's Founders' Goal of placing limits on government is to assure Individual Liberty and not to assure government power, that the Constitution is the written instrument of the specific enumerated objects and powers of government for the United States of America and, that inherently means that these are narrow and limited powers never to be assumed broad and general by government; that the Constitution is written down to assure neither government nor the People, especially those serving in office, forget government's very limited role as an American Institution whose powers are “not to exceed” these limits, that it is an American obligation to appreciate government as a tool of specific objects and powers, and that doing otherwise sacrifices everyone's Faith, Freedom, and Rights.

As a Tea Party member myself, I can tell you the above is the very Racist Tea Party Agenda, a pro-mankind agenda by being pro-American, by being pro-Freedom, pro-Private Property Rights, and thereby, of course, pro-Capitalism, for nothing else assures all can rise to the top, by their own measure and by the measure of those looking in from the outside, if the latter can get passed their jealousy of America's Individual Liberty. It is America’s resolute certainty that Individual Liberty has and continues to achieve American Superiority, a Liberty that, from America's Founding, will not settle for assurances of survival by government's hand, what Progressives continue to ignore (by intention or not) even as they learn by Obamacare alone that the average amount in “leveling the playing field” is more costly, yet was imposed irrespective of denying Individuals their Liberty of Choice.

It is by this Tea Party Racist Agenda that Tea Party Americans stand to obstruct the Progressive agenda of imposing a hierarchy upon We the People of America, because we know the same will be done to all of mankind over time. The Progressive goal is to establish a status quo of class division and a regressive return to the Feudal Caste System with their (“Noble”) Party Government running everything, a Subjective Tyrannical Rule that Our American Constitution sets forth, in the most objective manner, as having no place in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, America.

Thank you for reading and sharing this, God Bless,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item