But, if humans are still evolving, especially in intelligence, as some scientists state, then in a purely simplistic, anecdotal, and basic Darwinian approach, it could be presumed, for example, that the difference between a Harvard educated lawyer vis-a-vis the crew of gentlemen who pick-up and dispose of your garbage every Wednesday, and disregarding extraneous factors such as family wealth, societal positions, affirmative action, etc., is the result of natural selection of intelligence. And I do apologize if I have offended any garbage collectors by mentioning their vocation in the same sentence as Harvard lawyers.

Every once in a while, something so dramatic, so scientifically astonishing comes along that it gives purist Darwinians and their natural selection theorem great pause and discomfort. But this stupefaction does lend much more credence to Kropotkin’s cooperation theory as a survival mechanism in human societies. In layman’s terms, large groups of stupid people can survive with the aid of mutual cooperation, thus eliminating their abysmal chances of competing and surviving on their own.

Now along comes Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who slipped through the evolutionary stupid net, and is the poster child for Kropotkin’s cooperation theory.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Congresswoman from Florida, and the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, has singlehandedly confirmed Kropotkin’s survival by cooperation as a scientific fact rather than theory. Schultz was elected by the majority of a league of humans who share the same defective cerebral traits and characteristics that would not be conducive for individual survival, and a large league of politicians who anointed her to the current position as their leader, who also share the same defective cerebral traits.

A list of the manifestations of Debbie’s defective and individually unsurvivable cerebral shortcomings:

• Senior citizens will die under Paul Ryan’s budget;
• Federal judges should be appointed based on their ability to feel people’s pain rather than their judicial qualifications;
• At the peak of the Obama-extended recession, she stated that the economy was turning around as GDP, unemployment, foreclosures, and every other economic indicator demonstrated that the economy was tanking;
• She has stated that she represents one of the largest African-American Jewish gay populations in the U.S., which happens to be in south Florida;
• She stated that her Florida district will be covered in salt water if we don’t stop global warming now;
• She blamed the Democrats for being soundly thrashed from the local to federal levels in the 2010 election cycle by “not articulating their accomplishments, to the voters” [sic];
• Regarding Obama’s $1 billion dollar stimulus package that was needed to prevent the jobless rate from rising above 8%, and thus promptly rising to over 10%, she stated, “The mantra that the Recovery Act did not work is such baloney.”

For the sake of brevity, the list was judiciously forced into truncation, as its bounds are mathematically incapable of being determined, and the need to focus on the current state of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is scientifically imperative. Ensuing is an excerpt of Debbie Wasserman Schultz being interviewed by Gretchen Carlson regarding the current state of the record-breaking string of 34 months of unemployment over 8% since 1948. Debbie was gasping for breath during the interview, as she had been jumping and jumping, leaping and leaping, and trying her best to reach the bottom rung of the intelligence food chain ladder:

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he (Obama) took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It’s continuing to drop. He’s been focused on…

Carlson: It’s higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn’t work for you anymore, though, because…

Carlson: It’s not my narrative. I’m just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn’t…

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What’s happened since President Obama took office…

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it’s dropping. You just said it’s been increasing and that’s not true.

This exchange is the unfortunate result of always staring above from the bottom of the intellectual food chain. Now if Debbie had a fully functional and evolutionary updated cerebral apparatus between her ears, this is what she would have said:

As you know, Gretchen, Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. The number of unemployed Americans on that fateful date was 7.8%. The number of people with jobs on that fateful day, in thousands, was 133,563.

Then our President, Barack Obama, proceeded to grift this nation of cowards, with no discernible evidence, demanding that he needed to pass a $1 billion dollar stimulus package to prevent unemployment from cresting 8%. This stimulus package was passed, then the unemployment rate accelerated to 10%, dragging his stimulus package with it.

Just last month, the beguiled government calculus for determining the unemployment rate presented to the uninformed public, and my league of evolutionary challenged liberals, led to the good news that the unemployment rate dropped from 9% to 8.6%, despite setting a record high joblessness length of 41 straight weeks. An integral part of the government’s calculus is to dissever the workers who quit looking for jobs, and those whose unemployment benefits have run their course. Now Gretchen, of course any non-progressive or liberal knows that the undeniable unemployment rate is around 16%, but when you can manufacture a mathematical calculus that does not count 315,000 workers who gave up looking for work, or those whose unemployment benefits have run their course, of course you can get an 8.6% unemployment rate. In fact, Gretchen, I am not surprised that the Obama administration did not come up with an unemployment rate of 1.7% considering the endless opportunities of eliminating certain factions of the unemployed.

Keep in mind Gretchen, that this November, this past November of 2011, almost three years since Obama took office, the number of Americans employed is, in thousands, 131,708–a drop from 133,563 employed on the day Obama was inaugurated. Gretchen, can you reconcile that number with the claim by Obama that the unemployment rate has dropped? I can’t. Or from another angle, the number of Americans not in the labor force when Obama took office was, in thousands, 80,554, and the number currently not in the labor force, in thousands, 86,558.

Barack Obama and the Democrats’ policies are adding about 100,000 jobs per month; the United States currently has 13.3 million unemployed. Now here is the math, Gretchen: At the current trajectory of adding jobs, it would take 11 years to employee the 13.3 million jobless Americans, and this would have to include the impossibility that nothing changes, and something always changes. Also, Obama and the Democrats are the proud owners of GDP growth of 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, 1.3% in the second quarter, and 1.8% in the third quarter. Now Gretchen, as you know, it takes a GDP growth rate of a minimum of 3% to keep unemployment from trending up, and a minimum of a 125,000 newly created jobs per month just to keep pace with our population growth. Obama and the Democrats will need at least a GDP growth rate of 5% to have a significant impact on the unemployment rate. When Obama is overcome with jubilation, and dancing about on Pennsylvania Avenue about his increase of 100,000 jobs, keep in mind that 100,000 jobs does not even keep up with our population growth. With an average GDP growth rate of 3.28 since 1947, our economy needs at least a 3-3.5% GDP growth rate to be healthy, and Obama and the Democrats’ policies are producing an average GDP growth rate under 2%, well you do the math.

Remember also, Gretchen, that two quarters of negative GDP growth rate is technically a recession, but the impact of a recession starts with several quarters of a slowing GDP growth rate. Barack Obama and the Democrats’ policies have caused the GDP growth rate to decline from a high of 3.5% in 2010 to a consistent and steady drop for the past six quarters.

Wow, Gretchen, where is your shredder? I’m shredding my official Democratic Party membership card now, live on the air.

Of course this is all silly, as we know that Debbie does not have a fully functional and evolutionary updated cerebral apparatus between her ears. But if she did, she might want to ponder this question: Was the country better off under Bush’s recession with unemployment at 7.8%, or Obama’s miraculous recovery with an unemployment rate of 9.0%?

There is one important accolade I must bestow upon Debbie Wasserman Schultz: however intellectually defective she may be, however far down the intellectual food chain she is, she can comfortably look over her shoulder and know that the Republican Party, and its presidential primary process is several steps behind her, showing characteristics of prokaryotes.

The draft:

What do Alger Hiss, Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, and Scooter Libby have in common? They were all amateurishly convicted of perjury. Perjury can be defined several ways, but its marrow is thus: willfully giving false testimony, oath, or affirmation, written or spoken, regarding material matters before a judicial or legal inquiry. The ambiguity of certain words in this definition are pivotal in circumventing the culpability of fabrication. “Willfully…false…oath…affirmation…written…spoken…regarding…material matters…before…judicial…legal…a… or…inquiry,” are words that can have significantly different meanings to different people depending on interpretation and state of mind. My motto is: “Actus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea,” meaning “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.” This book will give you the tools to cleanse your mind of perceivable guilt, completely erase the appearance of guilt, and project a clear conscience to your adversaries, thus making you immune to perjury conviction(s).

Remember, it’s only perjury if you are convicted.

With my simple five-step system, I will show you how to virtually eliminate the possibility of being prosecuted for perjury, and guarantee an acquittal in the rare event you are tried for perjury. Knock on wood.

This five-step system is not for the squeamish. You will be lying, everyone will know you are lying, you will know that everyone knows you are lying, everyone will know that you know that everyone knows that you are lying, but that is irrelevant if they can’t prove you are lying. I will give you the tools to not be distracted by bothersome interrogations, and to not let the finger pointing and name calling ruin your day. Just believe, believe you are not lying.

As of this writing, I am being subjected to hearing after hearing by Congress, and daily harassment by right-wingers regarding Operation Fast and Furious, the operation that I was never aware existed at least in my mind. Naturally these fanatical doctrinaires are attempting to use the hundreds of emails, memos, conversations, witnesses, etc., to demonstrate that I was aware of the full scale of the operation. But with the employment of my five-step system, I have, quite frankly, convinced myself that I have never heard the words “Operation Fast and Furious” until the past couple of weeks.

The five-steps you will learn from this book are…

1. A Simple Misunderstanding. Regardless of how simple and direct a question you are asked, there is no law against misunderstanding the question, and answering the question with an answer that would apply to another question you have created in your mind. I will show you how I turned the tables with an answer to a different question that I feel should have been asked.

2. State of Mind. Your state of mind when answering a question will determine if your answer is an intentional lie. You will learn to control your state of mind, and with this, confuse your interrogators by dismantling any prejudiced definition of perjury that may adversely affect you.

3. Blame it on Bush. This is the genius stratagem created by the Democratic Party, and is still the preferred default by Barack Obama for his failed polices three years after Bush left office.

4. Can’t Read Everything. Who has the time? I’m an important person, you’re an important person, should we be expected to read every single memo, email, briefing, etc. that comes across our desks each day?

5. The Nuclear Option. This is perhaps the most powerful, but can take a decade or more to implement. I started seriously implementing this tactic during the Clinton administration. You will need at least a ten-year trail of unadulterated incompetence. If you can make yourself appear too stupid to do your job, then the natural assumption would be that you are too stupid to create a sophisticated web of deceit.

Step One: A Simple Misunderstanding

No matter what the question, how straightforward, or how simple, your answer can’t incriminate you if you obviously misunderstood the question, and in fact, were answering another question that you created in your mind.

Take for example when Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked me the following question under oath:

ISSA: This program, as you know – and the President’s been asked about it, you’ve been asked about it – allowed for weapons to be sold to straw purchasers, and ultimately, many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals. When did you first know about the program, officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?

Me: I’m not sure of the exact date but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.

Now this was on May 3, 2011, but there is myriad documented evidence that show I was well aware of Fast and Furious at least ten months prior to this question. Now this may seem like a slam-dunk case of me committing perjury, but not if I was answering a different question. In my mind, I was answering a completely different question than the one posed by Issa. The Justice Department,  of which I am the leader, is on record stating my apparent perjury regarding the emails and memos associating me with Operation Fast and Furious was a simple misunderstanding of the question. In my mind, I thought Issa was asking about Operation Fast and Furious, not the flawed tactics of Fast and Furious of giving 2000 weapons to dangerous Mexican drug cartels that were ultimately used in crimes and murders on both sides of the border. There is a difference. He really should have been more clear and I would not have answered the question incorrectly. It also does not hurt matters to always be out of the loop on what is happening within your own department.

Step Two: State of Mind

Back in February, I sent a letter to Congress explaining that Operation Fast and Furious did not let guns “walk” into Mexico. It never happened as far as my mind is concerned. Walking guns. Where did they think I was going with that? After the “evidence” started piling-up “implicating” me and the Department of Justice of “purposely” allowing 2000 guns to go directly into the hands of murderous Mexican drug cartels, which produced a string of dead Mexican and US citizens, and a murdered Border Patrol agent, it would seem like an open and shut case. But not so fast. I have taken the unprecedented step of withdrawing that letter, making that letter of perjured denial irrelevant.

Now when Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked me, “What are you going to do to clean up this mess?,” as truthfully as my state of mind would allow, I said, “Well, first let me make something very clear: nobody in the Justice Department has lied. Nobody.”

Then when he asked why I withdrew the letter, I said, “The letter was withdrawn because the information in there was inaccurate.” Inaccuracy is not equal with lying, even if the inaccurate statements were intentional and meant to mislead.

Then Sensenbrenner starting splitting hairs with his next question:“Tell me what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?” This is when I got all legal on him, and bewildered him with my state of mind answer:

Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie. The information that was provided by the February 4^th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.

Did I have a requisite intent of lying when I lied? When you start “gleaning” and “interact with people” who you “thought” because of their “position” to have the “information,” it can become very confusing and really affects your state of mind.

Step Three: Blame it on Bush

Listen: Blaming everything on Bush has served Obama and the Democratic Party very well for many years, and still has another 10-15 years of life left in it.

In a letter that I sent to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I pulled the “recollection” card. I stated, “I have no recollection of knowing about ‘Fast and Furious’ or of hearing its name prior to the public controversy about it.” This allowed me to then pull the self-investigation card, which will derail the train of thought of the most steadfast inquirer, and give credence to bizarre and vague answers: “I have not spoken at length on this subject out of deference to the review being conducted at my request.”

Of course this was a setup for the money maker: “It has become clear that the flawed tactics employed in Fast and Furious were not limited to that operation and were actually employed in an investigation conducted during the prior administration (Bush’s fault).” I was making a not-so-veiled reference to Bush’s Operation Wide Receiver. Even though Operation Wide Receiver was the surveillance of the illegal transfer of goods, then the arrest of all parties involved as soon as the crime was consummated, Bush still had something to do with those 2000 guns “walking” through Operation Fast and Furious.

Step Four: Can’t Read Them All

You’re a busy person, I’m a busy person, who has time to read all their emails, memos, and daily briefings? I certainly don’t. When I filed the lawsuit against the state of Arizona regarding its immigration bill SB1070, I publicly admitted that I never attempted to read the ten-page bill, I filed the lawsuit just because. Of course there are myriad paper trails that show I was inundated with emails, memos, and daily briefings regarding Fast and Furious. That doesn’t mean I read them. Who has the time? Unless someone actually saw me read anything regarding Fast and Furious, there is no irrefutable proof that I actually read any of the plethora of communications I received about putting thousands of guns in the hands of violent Mexican Drug Cartels, and the death and destruction it caused. I just never got around to reading all of them. It’s a matter of prioritizing things, and reading the important emails, memos, and daily briefings will always take precedence over distractions such as Fast and Furious. If you didn’t read it, you’re not responsible.

Step Five: Nuclear Option

The Nuclear Option is a little trickier than the others, and much more complex. It works in conjunction with steps one through four. But it takes an enormous amount of forethought and long-range planning. I started my Nuclear Option back in 2001. You have to cultivate a history of being so incompetent that it is hard to tell if you are lying, too stupid to run your department, or just too damn incompetent to orchestrate a sophisticated string of lies.

As Deputy Attorney General, I “recommended” that Marc Rich circumvent standard procedure and protocol to be granted a presidential pardon directly from Bill Clinton. In his last days of office, Clinton pardoned Rich for making oil deals with Iran with the Ayatollah Khomeini, and evading $48 million in US taxes. Rich was also on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, and even made the Justice Department’s  Most Wanted International Fugitive list. Can a higher level of incompetence be demonstrated?

I also recommended that Clinton grant clemency to 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, who were serving time in prison for acts of terrorism, bombings, bank robberies, and a sundry of other crimes against the United States. The FBI and federal prosecutors were saying no, no, no, but Clinton and I granted clemency against their whining opposition. Another fine feather in the incompetence cap.

There were numerous other selfish acts of unadulterated incompetence that are too bountiful for me to recall leading up to the time I was confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States. Shortly after being confirmed, to set in action the Nuclear Option for situations such as Operation Fast and Furious, I called the United States a “nation of cowards.” There was a lot of squawking about that one from the cowards.

I then proceeded to drop all the charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating white voters at a voting booth with clubs and threats of violence and generally making them feel that they would be clubbed like baby seals if they voted for John McCain at a black-only poll.

Once it looked like the whole gun walking thing was going to be a big stink, I decided it was time to up the stakes. I always wanted to be a king, and now I decided to play one and see how that would go over with this nation of cowards. I decided I would determine what federal laws were constitutional and which ones were not rather than deferring to the Supreme Court. The Defense of Marriage Act was the first one to get the constitutional axe. I just refused to defend it. I then decided to hound Gibson Guitars to hell and back for no reason at all– raiding their warehouses, taking their inventory, interrupting their production of guitars, job losses, losing money, etc. I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but I’m pretty sure I have initiated a lawsuit against every state in the union for legal justifications I’m not really sure exist.

There is a positive collateral bonus from demonstrating this level of incompetence for an entire career, as Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, half the Supreme Court, Hilda Solis, Barack Obama, especially Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and too many more to name, can attest to: the opportunities within the Democratic Party are virtually limitless.

Does the person described above seem remotely capable of a labyrinth of sophisticated perjury? Of course not, but rather the thoughts of how did this person ever graduate school, much less law school, and how was he continually promoted with such a record of incompetence? Well, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never keep me from advancing in the Democratic Party.

It is all too obvious that I have lied and misled pretty much as far back as I can remember, and have been an abysmal failure as Attorney General, but I’m still here, and that is what counts. Guns need to be controlled, and what better way to help that legislation along than to put a couple thousand weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and let the mayhem begin. Sure it was a political ploy of creating artificially created gun crimes that would never have happened if not for me, and will backfire on my underlings and cost them their careers, but whose fault is that? It’s theirs for not using my five-step method, but you, dear reader, can be shielded from each and every instance of perjury you commit with this book.

One of the intents of the Constitution was the protection of certain rights, but without the supplement of the Bill of Rights as a more specific enumeration protecting certain rights, the Constitution would not have been ratified. What is not included in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is the right to occupy public or private property, the disregard of local laws and ordinances, and most certainly the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes best explained the boundaries and limits of rights: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

The very name Occupy Wall Street, and this arbitrary and pedestrious league of misfits’ very purpose for existence, belies constitutional protection. The very action of occupying and setting up permanent encampments on public and private property, violating local ordinances and regulations, replete with myriad felonies, wholesale disregard for public safety, the blatant violation of the rights of others, is simply not reconcilable with the 1st Amendment’s…Congress shall make no law respecting…or abridging the freedom of speech…the right of the people peaceably to assemble….

The right to freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble were never intended to be absolute, and the Supreme Court has likewise never ruled either as an absolute right. In Hague v. C.I.O. (1939), the Supreme Court made clear that streets and sidewalks were in fact public forums, and thus protected. In 1937, the Jersey City Mayor, Frank Hague, under the guise of a 1930 city ordinance forbidding the gatherings of groups that advocated obstruction of the government by unlawful means, ordered the police department to shut down a meeting at the Committee for Industrial Organization, and to seize all materials. C.I.O. sued, arguing that the ordinance violated the 1st Amendment’s freedom of assembly.

The Supreme Court, by virtue of the 1st and 14th Amendments, struck down laws and ordinances requiring permits for speech and assemblies on streets, parks, and other public forums as discriminatory, as it was up to the discretion of the government who would or would not be granted a permit.

On July 8, 1939, in a much more subdued and benign exercise of the their 1st Amendment rights than the Occupy Wall Street’s boisterous assault upon cities across the U.S., 68 Jehovah’s Witnesses marched through the town of Manchester, New Hampshire carrying signs and blocking foot traffic on public sidewalks. This was in violation of a New Hampshire statute requiring a license for parades and processions. All 68 were convicted in municipal court for violating the state statute. The Jehovah’s Witnesses sued the state of New Hampshire for violating their freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. In the resulting Supreme Court case, Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), the court ruled that even though the government cannot regulate the content of speech or the right to peaceably assemble, the government can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on these 1st Amendment rights for public safety concerns. After Cox v. New Hampshire, governments were allowed, by requiring the acquisition of permits, to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the use of public property.

Forty-five years later, the right of the government to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on public property was reaffirmed with Clark v. Community for Creative Non-violence (1984). As with the Occupy Wall Street philistines, to bring attention to the homeless, the C.C.N.V. wanted to “occupy” Lafayette Park and the Washington, D.C. Mall by setting up tent encampments. The Park Service granted the C.C.N.V. a permit to demonstrate and to setup a few symbolic tents, but denied their request to make an all-encompassing encampment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Park Service regulation did not violate the 1st Amendment rights of C.C.N.V. The court also made clear that even expression is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and reaffirmed that the government can regulate speech and assembly with permits, fees, and imposing restrictions on time, place, and manner to ensure public safety and to protect the rights of others.

The Occupy Wall Street and its incarnation’s fundamental animus–when one can be discerned–are contrary to 70+ years of Supreme Court precedent regarding 1st Amendment rights. The movement has purposely blocked sidewalk traffic, street traffic, damaged local businesses and other forms of commerce, blocked access to commercial and residential buildings, and nurtured disease, crime, and the systematic violation of the rights of businesses and residences in their immediate area. It would take an implausible stretch of the imagination to believe that these acts would be protected forms of speech, expression, or peaceable assembly by established 1st Amendment standards. This group of intellectual, moral, and wayward vagabonds setting up permanent encampments on public property, straining the limits of their immediate ecological, societal, and economical environments, is exactly what it appears to be: a group of intellectual, moral, and wayward vagabonds living on public property, and through unadulterated ignorance, they actually believe that their 1st Amendment rights protect the infringement upon the rights of others, destruction of their immediate environment, commission of economic terrorism, rape, sexual assault, theft, drug dealing, drug use, prostitution, pimping underage girls, urinating and defecating on public and private property, and public fornication.

What is astonishing on multi-levels regarding the cities being occupied is the deliberate and voluntary lack of mandated action by the representative leaders to enforce each city’s laws and ordinances without prejudice. Each city has its own group of legislators, be it commissioners, councilmen, or mayors who are elected to create legislation but also to enforce the laws and ordinances of their city uniformly.

What is not astonishing is the paradox of Occupy Wall Street’s perambulatory anarchy and chaos—which by its very definition, seeks the elimination of laws, rights, and governmental and court enforcement—and their instantaneous wailing and writhing about in their excrement and urine saturated, apocryphal sanctuaries regarding the violation of their 1st Amendment rights. But as with all fraudulent movements coveting desultory demands, unsystematic protests devoid of substance, constructive ideas, or a plausible reason to exist, Occupy Wall Street is rapidly etiolating under the most unceremonious of conditions: a dramatic drop in a relevancy that never existed, the exodus of the liberal media and its ephemeral infatuation, and like vultures over dried bones, the calculated disassociation by liberal politicians once political expediency ceased to exist.

It is entirely plausible that with its micro-existence, its inanimate legitimacy, and its annulling impact, in one year’s time, Occupy Wall Street’s impact never breached the azoic phase, and thus the question could be asked: did the movement ever really exist, or was it just a spontaneous and promiscuous occurrence of rapes, murders, arrests, prostitution, and drugs, mired in feces and urine?

Let us apply the smell test to sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain.

Why Now

Herman Cain has a very storied past pregnant with professional accomplishments spanning forty years. In chronological order, no one has claimed sexual harassment against Herman Cain starting with the Department of the Navy, Coca-Cola Company, Pillsbury, Burger King, Godfather’s Pizza, or the Department of the Treasury. To believe his accusers, Cain would have started his sexual harassment pursuits in 1996, and ending in 1999, at the age of 41, only 3 years out of 42 years in business, and all the claims are conspicuously linked to the city of Chicago and Barack Obama. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Chicago

Chicago: the headquarters of the Democratic Party Crime Syndicate and arguably the most corrupt city in America. Herman Cain is not from Chicago, nor has he ever lived in Chicago. All of Cain’s accusers have ties to Chicago or the Obama administration–which was created in Chicago. Sheila O’Grady is from Chicago; David Axelrod is from Chicago; Barack Obama is from Chicago; his chief of staff William Daley is from Chicago; William Daley’s father was the mayor of Chicago; his brother, Richard M. Daley, was the mayor of Chicago; and Obama’s ex-chief of staff Rahm Emanuel–known as the Godfather–is currently Mayor of Chicago. The Illinois Restaurant Association is located in Chicago. Sheila O’Grady is David Axelrod’s friend. Sheila O’Grady is the former chief of staff of former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, and she is currently president of the Illinois Restaurant Association; the Illinois Restaurant Association has an extremely close working relationship with the National Restaurant Association where the sexual harassment settlements against Herman Cain are housed. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

 The Attorney

Gloria Allred’s primary professional mission is to garner as much media attention as possible for herself. The timing of Gloria Allred’s entering the Herman Cain fray with a client claiming Herman Cain was sexually inappropriate is no coincidence, and has the blueprint of a Chicago political hit that fits the historical modus operandi of David Axelrod. Two things happen when Gloria Allred takes a case: 1) Allred and her client are seeking publicity: Allred a continuation of hers, and her clients seeking to, in some manner, cash in on their 15 minutes of infamy. 2) Allred’s clients’ credibility can be presumptively dismissed. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Sharon Bialek Wants to Put a Face to the Charges

Sharon Bialek lives in Chicago. Chicago has a population of 2.7 million. Sharon Bialek lived at 505 North Lake Shore Drive. David Axelrod lived at 505 Lake Shore Drive. Same building. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Sharon Bialek felt compelled to speak publicly “on behalf of all women who are sexually harassed in the workforce but do not come out because of retaliation or public humiliation.” She was so “embarrassed” by what Cain did, she never went public with it. This overwhelming drive of being compelled to come forward only took fourteen short years to come to fruition, and remarkably she was not that compelled when Cain was just campaigning for president, but the overwhelming drive of being compelled only came after he surged ahead in the polls and became a viable candidate. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Reading awkwardly from a script at her press conference, Bialek’s “embarrassment” was miraculously replaced with a giggling and giddy camera occupier, and appeared to be having a good time with the attention. Bialek bantered with reporters and said regarding her hair, “I just got it done.” In fact, Sharon Bialek’s “embarrassment” was such a distant crippling shame, Allred already had Bialek scheduled for a talk show tour the following day with CNN, “Good Morning America” at ABC, “The Early Show” at CBS, and the “Today” show at NBC. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Sharon Bialek reached out to Herman Cain after being fired from the National Restaurant Association. She was summarily terminated for making false sexual harassment claims against her supervisor. She had a reputation as someone with a loathsome character at the National Restaurant Association, according to her coworkers. A few remarks from her coworkers regarding her character: “I remember her as a time-waster, and rabble-rouser…if she didn’t get her way she cried about sexual harassment…she was trouble with a capital…etc.” Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

During their investigation of Sharon Bialek, the New York Post interviewed some of her personal friends in Chicago:

She has a very infectious personality. It’s easy to see how she won Cain over. But the reality of her situation is — she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about the money. Adding that she was from a middle-income family but lives in a posh house while running from bill collectors, the source said: Most of her jobs ended in termination. It’s always the employer’s fault, not hers. This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.

A strange and bizarre non sequitur chain of events occurred prior to Cain’s assault on Bialek: Sharon Bialek made arrangements to meet Herman Cain in D.C., a man she met once, flew to Washington D.C., booked a room two blocks from the White House–which she states was upgraded to a suite by Cain–she and Cain then had drinks in the hotel lobby, they drove to dinner in his car, and it was after all this transpired, sometime during the dinner Cain was finally curious enough to ask her, “Why are you here?” Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Sharon Bialek’s memory is unparalleled, and a contravention. Bialek seems to be afflicted with creditor dementia regarding anyone or entity with whom she owes money, but has an extraordinary memory regarding what she wore on a particular day fourteen years ago. She remembers that she wore a black pleated skirt, a suit jacket, and a blouse; she also remembers that Cain wore a suit with his shirt open. These are all secured in her extremely selective memory, but what is not secured in her memory is corroborating evidence that she even went to Washington D.C., stayed at a particular hotel, had drinks at a particular hotel bar, or dined at a particular restaurant. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Herman Cain was a speaker at a Tea Party gathering in Schaumburg, Illinois Sept. 30-Oct. 1. According to eyewitness, WIND radio co-host Amy Jacobson, who was there to get a photo with Cain, was bum-rushed by Bialek, who beat her to Cain. Jacobson stated that Bialek “cornered him” and was very “flirtatious,” quite a contrast to the description of Bialek’s confrontation of the man who allegedly sexually assaulted her. Bialek embraced Cain and whispered in his ear, and they talked for 2-3 minutes. But according to Bialek, she wanted to go there to “see if he was going to be man enough to own up to what he had done some fourteen years ago.” She said she confronted him, and “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me.” Herman Cain denies ever knowing Bialek. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

The Legal and Credit

Sharon Bialek’s past and present of dodging creditors, filing multiple bankruptcies, dodging taxes, and filing false sexual harassment claims is as contemptible as Herman Cain’s is admirable. In the ample and overstuffed baggage from her past, Bialek can boast of current federal and state tax liens resulting from unpaid taxes, filing bankruptcy in 1991 and 2001–coincidentally the exact amount of time, ten years, between bankruptcies that the law allows–lawsuits attempting to collect back rent, myriad of credit card companies stiffed, attorney fees, a personal loan from then boyfriend William Conchita for the amount of $4500, eviction from her home by Broadacre Management for nonpayment of rent, and a paternity suit by the executive she claimed was the father of her son. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Current Source of Income and Current Fiancé

According to Allred, Bialek has not had a job outside the home in about two years. Bialek, according to her and her fiancé, Mark Harwood, live very comfortably in a five bedroom suburban home. Harwood was in a “bit of shock” after hearing for the first time about the Cain allegations. Harwood denies Bialek has any current money problems and stated that he supports her financially so she can be a stay-at-home-mom for her thirteen-year-old-son. Even though an entire brigade of jilted creditors is in hot pursuit of Bialek for nonpayment, she has no money problems. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

To further diminish the nonexistent credibility of Bialek and Harwood, Mark Harwood wants to come clean and retract 100% of what he said. Bialek and Harwood were engaged last year, but are not currently, and Bialek, in fact, does not live with Harwood in the comfortable five bedroom suburban house. In his new revelation, he does not support her financially even though he stated he did so she could stay home in his five bedroom suburban home. As incredulous as this sounds, Harwood said, “I’ve never supported her financially in the four years that we were together.” Even more incredulous than that, Harwood is unemployed, and according to court filings in his ongoing divorce, his ex-wife’s attorney stated that Harwood is preparing to file for bankruptcy. Bialek was subpoenaed in the divorce case, but she was a no show for the deposition. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

The Other Public Accuser

Serial complaint filer Karen Kraushaar, currently employed in the Obama administration’s Treasury Department, filed a sexual harassment complaint against Cain at the National Restaurant Association after Cain mentioned that Kraushaar was the same height as his wife. According to the attorney representing the National Restaurant Association, the remark about being the same height as his wife was the most serious claim that she made against him, “the one she was most upset about.” The National Restaurant Association, along with the EEOC, found that Kraushaar’s allegations were not credible, but in these instances, settling for a few thousand dollars is much cheaper than litigation. Three short years later, Kraushaar filed another claim against the Immigration and Naturalization Service for being exposed to a sexually oriented email and not being allowed to work from home. What she wanted for these debilitating and humiliating offenses was thousands of dollars in back pay, the reinstatement of the leave she used after a car accident, promotion, and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

 Gloria Allred’s Last Gasp for Relevancy

Who brokered the union between a broke and bankrupt Sharon Bialek and the ambulance chasing, attention seeking, face for tort reform Gloria Allred? This is a very interesting question considering there could never be any impropriety with the connection between Allred and her intimate connections to the Democratic Party Crime Syndicate. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Allred’s hopes of orchestrating a concert with the ensemble of Herman Cain’s knavish accusers together upon one stage, reminiscing on camera about the old days of being sexual harassed by Cain, with myriad media outlets capturing her genius and splendor, seems to have died a sudden death; the fatal malady being the surfacing of the accusers’ questionable motives and their unscrupulous histories of employing these questionable motives. But Allred attempted one last Hail Mary via Jay Zimmerman. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Allred, in a dramatic change of venue, which mirrors her faith in this caper, held a news conference at the Holiday Inn in Shreveport, Louisiana with Jay Zimmerman, in stark contrast to her news conference with Bialek at the New York Friar’s Club. Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Bear in mind, this is not the ex-fiancé from whom Bialek stole $4500. Zimmerman lost a lawsuit to Stratford Medical Center, but before judgment was entered, he sold his assets from Stratford Pediatric to Central DuPage Hospital for $333,333. Zimmerman promptly lost all the money gambling. Zimmerman then joined the Bankruptcy club with Bialek. But he made two statements that could quite possibly be the smoking gun: obviously coached by Allred, Zuckerman could not possibly be lying, as he stated that he is a registered Republican. He also stated, and Allred is presenting this as irrefutable proof that Herman Cain must have committed some type of sexual malfeasance against her client Bialek, that he and Bialek did indeed meet Herman Cain fourteen years ago at a function. Allred is working with a bag of nothing at this juncture, other than showcasing a short meet and greet fourteen years ago between Cain and Bialek, and that Zimmerman, the bankrupt thief, is a Republican. Cain says he does not remember Bialek, but what high-profile person who literally meets thousands of people a year would remember some off-chance greeting fourteen years ago unless a measurable impression was made? Conclusion: Fails the smell test.

Sexual harassment is an extremely serious issue, and should be dealt with expeditiously and with the full force of available law. But the tragedy with serial sexual complaint filers such as Gloria Allred, Sharon Bialek, and Karen Kraushaar, who use sexual harassment as a secondary source of income and fame, is when something such as this is in the headlines, the first impression is a roll of the eyes, and an instant dismissal unless irrefutable and substantiated facts are presented. The real victims are the women who are actually subjected to sexual harassment, and have to first scale this dunghill of doubt that the likes of Allred et al. have forced real victims to overcome before proceeding with justice.

It took a world-class teleprompter reader, the most intelligent President ever, and the greatest uniter in the history of the universe to make manifest the similarities between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street syndicate. Barack Obama’s teleprompter connected the affiliation of an ever-increasing pack of feral vagabonds and a well-organized and civil political movement with the insight and aplomb of a Greek Sophist: “I understand the frustrations being expressed in those protests. In some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party.”

But Obama is not alone with his affection regarding the Occupy Wall Street syndicate and its annihilative swath of destruction of city parks, local businesses, local homeowners, and general civility. Like maggots to rotting flesh, the various cankers of the Democratic Party have scampered to be the first to endorse the Occupy Wall Street syndicate. No organized or unorganized dynamism of unadulterated imbecility and chaos would be legitimate without an endorsement from Nancy Pelosi. Then there are the endorsements of the usual suspects of anarchy, chaos, and American degeneration: American Nazi Party, the Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and a hodgepodge of Democratic politicians grasping for the opportunity of political expediency at the expense of decency.

Where might this assemblage of intellectually deplete vagrants have procured their foundation and moral and intellectual compass? The Matriarch of Mayhem, the Beelzebub of Communism, the Pedagogue of Obtuseness at Harvard Law, and the Democratic Senate candidate from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Warren claims responsibility for the spawning of Occupy Wall Street: “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do.”

The participators in Occupy Wall Street are a formidable lot, as they represent 99% of the 300,000,000 people of these United States, or 297,000,000 to be exact. For an equitable and balanced postulation of what is representative of the Occupy Wall Street syndicate, and by proxy 99% of the United States, and thus representative of the Tea Party per our President, an exact and accurate calculus must be employed.

Since the genetic make-up of Occupy Wall Street is liberal, the employment of the Democrat’s litmus test for determining what represents the make-up of a conservative group is imperative. Example: All Tea Party members are serial racists if one sign supporting racism could found at a rally of thousands; the lack of racial diversity at a Tea Party rally is empirical evidence of institutional racism; and when three members of an audience of 3,500 boo a gay soldier for asking about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at a Republican debate, the entire audience of 3,500 are irrefutably anti-gay and anti-military.

Without further ado, I present 15 things I have learned about the Tea Party from Occupy Wall Street:

1. The Tea Party and 99% of America will sell you heroin, crack, cocaine, marijuana, and any other illegal narcotic of your pleasure. 

Channing Kehoe, Occupier, spoke of the drugs, sexual assaults, and rapes among the occupiers in Zuccotti Park: “We’re trying to figure out what to do about the drugs.” A multitasking felon selling drugs and creating mayhem beyond the allowable level of mayhem at Occupy Wall Street was arrested for selling cocaine and punching a couple of women. A tent invader and Occupier, Garfield Leslie, was arrested for trying to sell baggies of cocaine to the occupants of a tent he decided to occupy at Occupy Wall Street. At Occupy Boston, two occupiers were arrested by undercover police for selling them heroin.

An interview of one of the Occupy Wall Street lamsters from the New York Post:

“I got warrants. I’m running from the law,” boasted Dave, 24, a scrawny, unshaven miscreant in filthy clothes from Stamford, Conn. “I’m not even supposed to be here, but it’s as good a spot as any to hide.”

Wanted for burglary, the drug-addled fugitive said some of his hard-partying pals clued him in that the protest was a good place to be fed, get wasted, and crash.

“I’ve been smoking and drinking in here for eight days now,” said Dave, booze on his breath and his eyes bloodshot as he lay sprawled on a tattered sheet of cardboard. “I need to get some methadone. Every day, I wake up, and I’m f–ked up.”

Dave Park from Stamford was arrested Monday by New York City police on charges of allegedly groping a woman at the protests, according to the New York Post.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

2. The Tea Party and 99% of America are racist.

The Tea Party’s lack of racial diversity and the perceived element of racism at the Tea Party rallies is empirical evidence all involved are racists. With just a perfunctory observation of video and photos of the illiberal pasty white Occupy Wall Street xenophobes, racism is conclusively rampant within their ranks.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

4. The Tea Party and 99% of America will shoot a white bitch.

At Occupy Oakland, KGO-TV reporter Amy Hollyfield, white bitch, was threatened by a rare and spontaneous racially diverse pistoleer, with assumed accomplices, who threatened, “We shoot white bitches like you around here.” Reported by various Bay Area news outlets, Occupy Oakland had descended into rat-infested squalor with complaints of vandalism, public urination, sexual harassment, sex in public, and of course the shooting of white bitches.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

5. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will smell your girlfriend’s, wife’s, or sister’s feet if the aromatic appendage is exposed, and toast their olfactory exploits with a snifter of urine.

At Occupy Toronto (apparently they are part of the 99% also), a man was arrested for smelling a woman’s feet without invitation. Then, after a cursory groping of the Occupied woman, he invited all to toast his exploits by throwing back a shot of urine.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

6. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will rape your wife, sister, girlfriend, or young daughter if forced to share an Occupied tent.

A 19-year-old Occupy Cleveland protester was raped in her tent after being directed by the overseers of Occupy Cleveland to allow cohabitation of her tent with a strange man calling himself “Leland.” Also, a 24-year-old convicted sex offender, and representative of 99% of Americans, was arrested for raping a 14-year-old girl at Occupy Dallas.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

7. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will rob you blind if given half a chance.

Something so bizarre it rivals H.G. Wells’ imagination has happened within the confines of the Occupy Wall Street colonization. An unsavory gang of fellow protestors, who are representative of 99% of America, have been stealing cameras, laptop computers, mobile phones, food, and piles of cash. Nan Terrie, 18, kitchen worker/legal-team juggler stated, “Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment. I had my Mac stolen — that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

8. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans filled local jails during the Tea Party rallies.

Occupy gangsters are being arrested in ever increasing numbers in each city they are menacing as their behavior is increasingly becoming more aggressive, and clashes against local law enforcement have reached riot levels in Oakland.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

9. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will poop and urinate on your doorstep, then taunt you as you leave for work.

The arrogant and productive members of society living near Occupy Wall Street, the gainfully employed, homeowners, who eschew the colonizing of public parks, are greeted with urine and feces on their doorsteps each morning, then harangued as they leave for work. Catherine Hughes, conventional human, lives one block from Zuccotti Park: “They are defecating on our doorsteps. A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids.” James Fernandez, gainfully employed, stated, “The protesters taunt people who are on their way to work.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

10. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans will shoot to kill any government agent who violates their rights.

Copies of an Occupy assassin’s manifesto encouraging occupiers to kill police were distributed to the anarchists at Occupy Phoenix as they colonized Cesar Chavez Park, according to a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputy. The assassin’s manifesto encouraged the killing of any government agent who violates their rights for the following breeches: illegal search and seizure, sobriety and border checkpoints, airport security, and various other human rights violations.

And to the northeast, a young female agent of civility occupying Grand Rapids held a sign proclaiming, “The Only Good Cop Is A Dead Cop.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

11. The Tea Party and 99% of America will pimp your adolescent daughter out for prostitution.

At Occupy New Hampshire, Justina Jensen, Occupier and pimp, was charged with felony prostitution. Jensen met her promising teenage employee, “Jewel,” wandering the Occupy encampment. Occupier Justina, aka “Remy,” made arrangements with “Mad Mike” via the internets to “come have fun with four beautiful ladies “for $150. Unfortunately, “Mad Mike” was an undercover police officer, “Jewel” is sixteen years old, and Occupier Justina is incarcerated.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

 12. The Tea Party and 99% of America have created their own 1% within the 99%.

The 1% of the 99% now have their very own Big Bankers controlling the 99% of the 99%’s money. Occupy Wall Street’s Finance Committee, aka Occupy Big Banker, has tyrannical control of $500,000 of the 99% of the 99%’s money, and the cash continues to roll in. But as Big Bankers often do, Occupy Big Banker has an innate reluctance to share the wealth. Tempers are erupting from the 99% of the 99%. The drummers are in a high state of agitation because they can’t get funds from the Occupy Big Bank to replace their drums that were stolen by the other 99% of the 99%. The drummers are threatening to splinter off into a yet calculated percent of the 99%. Bryan Smith, Occupier, had not so kind words for the Occupy Big Bank: “F–k finance. I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction and demands to see the movement’s books. We need to know how much money we really have and where it’s going. The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request — so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items — and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama

13. The Jesus of the Tea Party and 99% of Americans would support the Occupy Wall Street occupation.

“What would Jesus think of Occupy Wall Street?” Lisa Miller of the Washington Post asked herself. “Jesus would have sympathy, I think, with the campers’ efforts to keep a small space sanitary in the absence of modern plumbing. Thus, he might have sympathy for the various causes espoused by the campers (end hydrofracking, tax the rich, support the unions, cap executive pay).”

Marisa Egerstrom, a graduate student at Harvard University, stated that if the Jesus of history could wander the precincts held by the occupiers and witnessed the rapes, smelling of feet, stealing, child prostitution, money changers, drug dealing, killing of police, pooping and urinating on doorsteps, booing of the employed, racism, and anti-Semitism, “He’d see his people. I think he would be pretty pleased.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama

14. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans want the Jews run out of America.

Patricia McAllister, anti-Semite and Occupier, an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District, stated, “I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government . . . they need to be run out of this country.”

An Occupier who represents 99% of America chanted, “Jews control Wall Street,” while holding a sign that read, “Hitler’s Bankers – Wall St.” One Jewish passerby sporting a yarmulke was shouted at, “You’re a bum, Jew. Jewish money controls American politics. Gaza Supports The Occupation of Wall Street.”

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

15. The Tea Party and 99% of Americans are infected with STDs.

Nearby health clinics have standing room only with protesters being tested for STDs and HIV after copious sexual congress with anything willing, and according to arrest records, anything unwilling, to partake in the swapping of viruses and various bacteria. Occupiers manning the medical tent doled out $15 to $20 so those challenged with infected plumbing could be treated at nearby clinics for low income chaste challenged patrons.

This is supported by the American Nazi Party, Communist Party U.S.A., the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

I cannot speak with experience as one of the 99%, as I am of the 1% elitist these 99% so vehemently want to destroy. I am a member of the 1% by virtue of the defining criteria of what constitutes a member of the 99%: I unfortunately missed the fortuitous opportunity of merchandising heroin, crack, cocaine, marijuana, and various other felonious pharmaceuticals; I am pretty certain I am not a racist; to the best of my recollection, have never, nor do I intend to shoot a white bitch; I have never partaken in the sniffing of a strange or known woman’s feet for gratification, and have certainly never toasted such an adventure with a glass of urine; I generally avoid raping; I can’t recollect ever robbing anyone; I have never had the pleasure of occupying a jail; if at all possible, I generally try to abstain from pooping on strangers’ doorsteps; I am not in a habit of jeering the employed as they trek to work; the thought of shooting a police officer when asked to show my driver’s license and insurance at a traffic stop has never really crossed my mind; I have never considered pimping adolescent girls as a vocation; I’ve never really put much thought into running all the Jews out of America; I generally do not become infected with STDs from wanton sex with unproductive strangers as a form of recreation; and I am pretty certain that the Jesus of the Bible would not approve of the aforementioned human retrogression.

I am also disqualified from the 99% club due to the severity of my handicap of believing that if someone has more than me, if I want what they have, I should work harder and smarter to achieve it. But these Occupiers would rather expend their energy with gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands about their station in life, and devising communistic methods of taking from those who have what they are either too lazy or incapable of accomplishing on their own.

Contemporary American liberals, and their luminary Barack Obama, possess such repugnance for the Founding Fathers, their founding principles, and anyone in league with them, that they will change facts to conform to their antipodal reality, or attempt to alter approbated reality to conform to the facts they have already mutated to conform to their reality, and on and on while traveling down their well-worn psychotic path.

What level of depravity does the Office of the President need to reach to dispossess itself of the slightest particle of respect? Whatever level that may be, Barack Obama breached it his first six months in office.

This country has endured Presidents of explicitly unacceptable character, dishonorable morality, indiscriminate ignorance, and eradicative designs on the Constitution. Barack Obama has governed as if the list was his compass.

Barack Obama, in the ensuing enumeration, supplies more evidence supporting his divorce from reality. But what should be investigated is whether or not he has actually ever participated in orthodox reality. His youth and college years were spent in a drug induced artificial reality. He was coddled and afforded entrance to universities he was not academically qualified to attend, an artificial reality starkly contrasted with individuals who were forced to rely on merit, labor, and self-reliance for entrance. He has been elected to three public offices: he was Senator of the state of Illinois from 1997-2004, but had a notorious reputation for either being absent or voting present, and he also never stopped campaigning, hardly the reality of a statesman; he was a U.S Senator from 2005 until 2008, conducting himself as he did in the Illinois Senate, but spent more time campaigning; he was elected President in 2008, has been absent or voted present on each critical situation, and has been in either a perpetual campaign or vacation mode since being elected, a continuation of existing in a faux reality. The calculus of predicting the results of electing a President with no discernible skills, a vacuous record of accomplishments, alienation from orthodox reality, and a well-established reputation as a subverter of our founding principles would be a basal mathematical calculation.

Just last week, at a fundraiser in San Jose, California, Barack Obama’s phantom lucidity created three tortured distortions of reality about the Republican debates:

• “You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. It’s true.”
• “You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have healthcare.”
• “And booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay.”

He polished off the three aberrations with the statement, “That’s not reflective of who we are,” which is a true statement because the statements did not happen in a generally accepted reality. Barack Obama either does not know that his statements are baseless–which is a case for being unenlightened–or knows they are blatant lies–which is the case for being a garden-variety liar.

An investigation is warranted for each of the three benighted and fork-tongued statements emanating from Obama’s teleprompter.

Rick Perry is the recipient of the first fantastical hallucination: “You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. It’s true.” Obama is stating as fact that Texas’ wildfires are the result of global warming, Rick Perry is denying the apocryphal science regarding man-made global warming, and thus Rick Perry has caused Texas to burn because he does not believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Let’s examine the facts regarding the Texas wildfires. The wildfires were the largest and most destructive in Texas’ history. Wildfires are the result of drought conditions. Through the month of July, Texas was in a 10-month drought, and it was these conditions that caused the scope of the wildfires. So to follow Obama’s logic, global warming caused the 10-month drought in Texas, which in turn caused the unprecedented wildfires. Since the use of fossil fuels and the plethora of other man-made global warming whatnots are infinity greater now than in the early 20th century, anthropogenic global warming would have to be considered relatively new–but this is all dependent on the make and model of the foil hat one wears. So let’s contrast Texas’ 10-month drought to a time starting about 82 years ago.

The infamous Dust Bowl drought lasted from 1930 until 1936, and until 1940 in some areas, which caused a 10-year ecological devastation. From 1950 to 1957, Texas experienced a severe seven-year drought that spread to New Mexico, then spread to the Central Plains, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states. Two hundred of Texas’ 245 counties were declared disaster areas.

And what good are severe droughts and severe dry periods without devastating fires?

• 1871 Wisconsin: 2,500 lives were lost and four million acres burned.
• 1889 Seattle, Washington: fires destroyed 64 acres of the city and killed two people.
• 1894 Minnesota: forest fires destroyed over 160,000 acres and 6 towns, killing 600.
• 1902 Washington and Oregon: fires destroyed one million acres and killed 38.
• 1910 Idaho and Montana: fires destroyed three million acres of woods and killed 85 people.
• 1947 Maine: forest fires destroyed 206,000 acres of Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park, killing 16.
• 1956 California: fires destroyed 40,000 acres in Cleveland National Forest and killed 11.

Barack Obama used the tragedy of the devastating Texas wildfires to try to belittle a potential political opponent for the purpose of raising a few dollars at a liberal political fundraiser. The contrast between Obama and any legitimate leader of this country is that a true leader would acknowledge that not only is Texas Perry’s state, but Texas, being a bonafide card-carrying member of the United States, is the President’s state also.

The recipient of the second bizarre decoding of reality is Ron Paul:”You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have healthcare.” Obama distorted reality with Paul’s actual answer during a Republican debate. The transcript:

WOLF BLITZER (Debate Moderator): Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-Texas): Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced –

BLITZER:But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL:That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody –

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No.

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

Perhaps it was Chris Mathews of MSNBC that started this liberal meme directly after Paul said a society should not let someone die for lack of funds: “Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance.”And perhaps Obama just took it and ran with it, which is problematic on many levels. Either way, the statements by these two liberal minds underscore liberals’ pathological inability to absorb and process facts.

For Obama’s third defamation of reality, “And booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay,” it is rather hard to pin who the intended recipient was, though it was intended for those in league with the Founding Fathers.

During a Republican debate in Orlando, Florida, a question was asked to the Republican field via video message from Iraq by Stephen Hill, a gay soldier. Hill asked if they would seek to undermine the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” if elected President. There were boos. The liberal press’  headlines the next day: Republican Audience Erupted in Boos and Jeers. Tea Party Audience Booed a Gay Soldier. The Night that Republicans Booed a Soldier. Audience Boos Gay Soldier.

The audience: 3,500 registered Florida GOP delegates. Two, and at the most, three people were responsible for the booing out of an audience of 3,500. The United States Senate has 100 members. One member would comprise .01 of the Senate. Would it be a fair assumption to state that the actions of one member are representative of the entire Senate? If one member of the Senate commits a felony, can the entire Senate be considered felonious? Before answering yes, please disregard all extraneous reasons. The three people that booed at the debate represented .000857 of the audience. It is apparent that in the reality in which Barack Obama and the left subsist, this is a representative percentage, but not quite so in the reality most people are forced to battle with each day.

Obama’s summation of his three fantastical statements, “That’s not reflective of who we are,” sums up the reason for the pummeling the Democrats took in the 2010 elections: it was a referendum of Barack Obama, and because he is actually “not reflective of who we are.”

In my generosity, I placed the blame on Obama’s inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality as an acute psychological disorder, which may or may not be covered under ObamaCare. But Herman Cain may have made a more accurate diagnosis: “Can I be blunt? That’s a lie. You’re not supposed to call the president a liar. Well if you’re not supposed to call the president a liar, he shouldn’t tell a lie.”

Liberalism in the United States has been subjugated to the omnipresent wrath of degeneration. It has digressed to the point that liberal policies can only lead a learned person to the conclusion that the malignant ideology, philosophy, and cerebral deficiencies of this league of mountebanks is patently indistinguishable from any organized group bent on destroying the fundamentals of this country.

Barack Obama has a jobs plan. There are two irrefutable components that are guaranteed to be its foundation before ever being presented: raising taxes on the rich is a panacea, and calculated numerical projections subordinate to mathematical theorems presented by a committee of honey badgers.

Obama did not disappoint.

Obama’s prelude to fatuity: “It’s only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share.” Interestingly, the dictionary defines “everyone” as this: pronoun, every person; everybody. This would include everyone who has an income to “pay their fair share.” Yet to Obama and liberals, “everyone” refers only to the taxpayers who shoulder more than their share of taxes. But in the fantastical world of 21st century liberalism, “everyone” means everyone except one half of the workforce in this country who pay naught federal income tax, yet are the primary beneficiaries of government handouts (money taken from the other half that do pay taxes) to the approximate total of $40 billion per year.

But before elaborating on Obama’s computative poppycock, it would be a breach of erudite protocol and everything sacrosanct in American politics to put pen to paper regarding the unadulterated duplicity of liberal policies, math, ideology, and economics, without at least a perfunctory reference or nugget of wisdom from Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi has made what could quite possibly be the most imbecilic utterances by an organism with the ability to speak regarding job creation and stimulating the economy:

• Unemployment benefits “injects demand into the economy.”
• Unemployment benefits “is a job creator.”
• “Unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, return $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance.”
• It creates jobs to help reduce the deficit.
• “This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating.”
• Unemployment insurance “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator.”
• “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.”

Pelosi’s stupefied economic theorems, and Obama’s as well, can be summarized in their entirety with one simple anecdotal sentence: You are jobless, broke, I give you $5 for a Happy Meal, and by the power of bewitchment, I will receive $10, perhaps delivered by a brilliant white unicorn.

Barack Obama has done something completely out of character for one who regurgitates pseudo-intellectual ideas offered up from the screen of a teleprompter: he actually charged someone with deciphering his deficit reduction plan and transcribing it to paper. It is understandable why he has not presented another grand idea on paper since this past February, as his budget for 2012 was rejected by the Senate 97-0, with contempt.

Barack Obama’s grand jobs plan purports to reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over a period of ten years, and add jobs aplenty. Adhering strictly to liberal math, liberal daydreaming, and liberalism’s crippling fiscal incompetence of understanding debt, deficit, and egregious spending, Obama’s plan is a dizzying and fantastical array of the continued infliction of his toxic fiscal ideology upon the American economy by crippling the only class of citizens who have the capacity to inject capital into the economy, create businesses, and ultimately create jobs. There is one absolute truth regarding the federal government that one should always remember when a politician is panhandling for money to create jobs: The federal government has never created one utilitarian job, but can destroy jobs faster than the private sector can create them. No U.S. President has created one utilitarian job; they merely implemented mechanisms that lessened the burdens on American businesses so they could create jobs.

Now, about that $3 trillion deficit reduction enchanting artifice. The liberal’s magical math is decomposing around Obama’s teleprompter. His jobs plan reduces the deficit in the proximity of nothing. Brewing in Obama’s jobs plan cauldron is a concoction of mathematical conjuration that would rival the outermost boundaries of schizophrenia. The ingredients: An inconsequential measure of $1.2 trillion of discretionary spending that was already included in the debt ceiling circus, a dash of $1.1 trillion from the Iraq and Afghanistan draw-downs that has already been accounted for in his presumed budget, one very large shovel-ready shovel heaping of $1.5 trillion in tax increases, and an unmeasured amount of new spending. Boil until indistinguishable from fantasy. When done, the American people will be served an ample helping of about 92% in tax increases, with a small side of about 8% in actual spending cuts.

To better understand liberal magic math, and to give some relevance to Pelosi’s economic hypothesis about unemployment benefits actually being one of the best ways to stimulate the economy, Obama’s synced hypothesis should be contemplated.

A few weeks ago, Jay Carney was asked the following question by the Wall Street Journal:”I understand why extending unemployment insurance provides relief to people who need it, but how does that create jobs?” Keep in mind, the teleprompter is Obama’s mind, and Carney his mouth; he responded, “Oh, well, uh, it is by, uh, I would expect a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam.”

He then relied on the patented Pelosi approach with a meandering and intellectually impoverished declaration:

There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance. It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it, they’re going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually.

Carney was able to cap it off with irrefutable evidence that reality has become inaccessible to Obama with three supernatural statements:

1) He stated that Obama wants the benefits extended “as we continue to emerge from this recession.” 2) This is only one item of a “variety of things to grow the economy and create jobs.” 3) And, “This is one thing that economists of all stripes agree will directly affect growth, a half-percentage point I believe, economists believe is the payroll tax cut.”

The fundamental problem regarding the relationship between redistribution of wealth and its stimulating effect on the economy by Obama, Pelosi, liberals, et al., is one conspicuous question: Where does the funding of unemployment benefits come from, and what is the cost of the government’s involvement? The antithetical logic of liberalism’s magic math does not account for the money taken out of the economy to fund the unemployed, and the exorbitant cost for that money to pass through the plundering hands of bureaucrats.

Before the unemployment magic math can be made manifest, a cursory reconnaissance of the “cash for clunkers” program is in order. Unemployment insurance is a government program, and to have a government program, you need forms, lots of forms. The “cash for clunkers” program, being a government program, needed forms. Forms 1070, 1071, 1073, and 1075 to be exact. Now being a government program, it needed staff to manage these four forms, so staff was acquired, in this case about 78 employees equating to 160,353 hours of billable work to manage these forms. This equated to $150,000 per form to be managed. This beget more forms, which beget more workers, which beget…well you get the picture. The program was sold to the public at a cost of between $3,500 and $4,500 per rebate. The actual cost of the program, according to automotive consumer researcher Edmunds.com, was an additional $24,000 per car sold.

With much calculating, calculus, addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication, it is safe to assume that the federal government wastes about 40% of every dollar it absconds.

We now can proceed with unemployment magical math.

Logic would dictate that if the average employee makes $23.09 per hour (average weekly salary), equating to $923.60 per week, and unemployment benefits average $295 per week, losing one third of one’s salary may not be quite as stimulating as Obama would like you to believe.

In the fantastical world of Barack Obama, if $100 is taken from a taxpayer, then said $100 is given to an unemployed non-taxpayer, the economy has been stimulated by $100, and one or perhaps three jobs have been created. This is the crowning achievement of Barack Obama’s magical economics. But when the kaleidoscope is removed, and the formula is viewed from the grim spectacles of reality, the numbers seem to careen in another direction.

In the genuineness of reality, mathematics, and economics, Obama’s fantastical math is actually this: Mr. Taxpayer is planning to go to the mall and stimulate the economy while quenching some hedonistic shopping by spending $200. But Barack Obama annexes $100 from Mr. Taxpayer, the $100 is filtered through the United States federal government, and $60 is handed to Mr. Unemployed non-taxpayer. The economy has been stimulated by $120, not the intended $200. Mr. Taxpayer lost $100 he would have spent, $40 of it was sucked into the abyss of the federal government never to be seen again, and the remaining $60 was taken out of the economy to start with, so cannot be counted as additional stimulation. We are left with one person still unemployed, one person out $100, and the economy out $40. That is the difference between real math and magic math.

Temporary unemployment benefits are what they are: an expense paid for a reasonable amount of time to those who lost their jobs until they can become employed again. It is not a stimulus program, it does not create jobs, and it has a negative rather than a positive impact on the economy, but is the price we pay as a society. The hijacking of the unemployment program for political expediency by Barack Obama and the liberals, and then lying about how it benefits the economy, destroys what little honor and integrity is created by temporarily helping a fellow citizen in a time of need.

But then again, there is always hope that Obama’s magical math may work. If Barack Obama comes charging down Pennsylvania Avenue, mounted upon the back of brilliant white unicorn, with teleprompter in tow upon the back of a magical llama, that quite possibly could be a game changer; and in this fairytale, increasing borrowing will reduce the debt, the more jobs lost, the more the economy is stimulated, and taking every possible penny from the job creators will encourage them to create more jobs.

For the entirety of his first two years, he tried to work with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Sure they colluded, then circumvented the Constitution and congressional protocol and made ObamaCare law without a vote in the Senate. But what the do-nothing Congress did not do was pass a budget in 2010, legalize gay marriage, grant amnesty to all illegal aliens, increase business regulations 100 fold, and significantly raise taxes on the wealthy–all things important to the progressive agenda. Is it no wonder federal spending was out of control, and Obama was forced to almost double the federal deficit; he did not have a budget to guide him. He can’t be faulted for that. Anyway, I could go on and on about how the Democratic Party controlled Congress and the White House, but accomplished nothing, but that would distract from the personal email I received from Barack Obama, and my courteous and counseled reply. He called me “friend.”

From: Barack Obama

Subject: Frustrated
Date: August 31, 2011 10:51:52 PM EDT
To: admin Office

Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

Friend–

Today I asked for a joint session of Congress where I will lay out a clear plan to get Americans back to work.

Next week, I will deliver the details of the plan and call on lawmakers to pass it.

Whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them.

But both you and I can pressure them to do the right thing. We can send the message that the American people are playing by the rules and meeting their responsibilities—and it’s time for our leaders in Congress to meet theirs.

And we must hold them accountable if they don’t.

So I’m asking you to stand with me in calling on Congress to step up and take action on jobs:
http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

No matter how things go in the weeks and months ahead, this will be an important challenge for our organization.

It’s been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.
I know that you’re frustrated by that. I am, too.

That’s why I’m putting forward a set of bipartisan proposals to help grow the economy and create jobs—that means strengthening our small businesses, giving needed breaks to middle-class families, while taking responsible steps to bring down our deficit.

I’m asking lawmakers to look past short-term politics and take action on that plan. But we’ve got to do this together.

I will deliver this message to Congress next week, but I’m asking you to stand alongside me today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

More to come,
Barack

After much cogitation, contemplation, and serious thinking, here is my reply directly to President Obama:

From: Jim Byrd

Subject: Very Frustrated
Date: September 02, 2011 11:59:59 PM EDT
To: Barack Hussein Obama

Reply-To: info@jimbyrd.com

Friend–

I am sure your job creation speech and proposition will be absolutely spectacular. How could it not? You have had two years and eight months to perfect it and address the unemployment issue. I understand that great things and great ideas take time to ruminate until fruition, especially within a great mind such as yours. I am certain that most Americans will not understand your logic, as it will certainly be “beyond their pay grade,” just as many are incapable of understanding your profound logic that the only way to reduce our national debt is to double what we borrow. Genius. But pay no mind to them, Mr. President.

I am still confused about the brouhaha that erupted regarding your wanting to save the country, slash unemployment by half, and showcase your job building prowess on television to the American people during a joint session of Congress next Wednesday at coincidentally the exact time of the Republican presidential debate. Coincidences are funny things, aren’t they? You told Congress that you are showing up with teleprompter and television cameras in tow to address Congress next Wednesday, and that should be the end of it. The lack of respect from the Republicans is appalling, don’t you agree?

These Republicans and Tea Partiers are gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands about some silly archaic precedent that needs to be followed before you can address a joint session of Congress. Something about the House of Representatives and the Senate being required to adopt a concurrent resolution to allow a joint session of Congress to receive the President. I have never heard of such a thing, and I am sure neither have you, especially since you served in the Senate. You have to be invited? You are the President, you should be able to just tell them when you will be there, then show up. Just last month while seeking Hispanic votes, you told La Raza, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.” So just do it. And so what if Congress has three hours of voting scheduled on their first day back starting at 6:30. They should come back a day early and take care of that business. After all, you cut short your latest vacation to take control of Hurricane Irene. Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

I also hope that Congress will do the job they were elected to do as do you. So far the Republicans have been doing exactly what they were elected to do: keep taxes low, reduce the debt, try and reduce government regulations so businesses can create jobs, and a sundry of other nefarious things the Tea Party is demanding of them. It is the Republicans doing the dirty work of the Tea Party and the vast majority of the American people who elected them in an unprecedented sweep in the 2010 elections that is thwarting your ability to lead this nation down a nuanced and understandingly sustained delayed path to prosperity.

You are correct, “it has been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.” What has it been, 25 days or so since they left for their summer recess? That is far too long to not focus on what the American people overwhelmingly elected them to focus on in the 2010 elections. You should be able to call them back. If I were you, I would have called both John Boehner and Harry Reid from the fairways of Martha’s Vineyard and demanded they return to Washington, D.C. and focus.

We all look forward to your bipartisan proposal to finally grow this economy and create many jobs. But please do not make the same mistake as with your last stimulus package. In the sage words of uber-Keynesian and Nobel Prize for Economics winner Paul Krugman regarding your trifling $800 billion stimulus package, “I’d like to see it bigger. I understand that there’s difficulty in actually spending that much money, and I–they’re also afraid of the–of the T word. They’re afraid of a trillion dollar for the two-year number.” Well, since there was not much difficulty in spending that $800 billion, and fast, please think on a grander scale next time around.

I have a few suggestions for you if you decide to implement another stimulus package:

Remember that stimulus grant you gave to the Nevada Clark County Urban Forestry Revitalization Project? The one where you were going to revitalize urban neighborhoods in Clark County with trees, plants, and whatnots. And don’t forget the green-industry training as well. Well, you only gave them $500,000 to plant some trees to stimulate their economy, and it resulted in only 1.72 jobs. Can 1.72 be considered plural? I’ll have to check on that. Imagine if you had spent $1 billion in Clark County. That would be 2000 jobs created. I am sure that is plural, but I am not so sure what the county would look like with a billion dollars’ worth of trees and such. I will check with a landscaper and get back with you.

Remember your $2.4 billion to advance car batteries? Johnson Controls, Inc. in Holland, Michigan got $300 million of that stimulus money. It created 150 jobs. Now that is getting closer to spectacular. Only $2,000,000 per job created. Imagine if it was $300 billion. That is 150,000 jobs that you would have created. But keep in mind the rule of economies of scale. I am sure that if you spent $300 billion, the cost per job would drop to at the most $1,650,000 per job. I am sure you will agree that is quite the bargain.

Remember the $500 million you gave to Solyndra for some “shovel ready” jobs producing solar panels? Well, as you may know, they filed bankruptcy and the stimulus money actually produced 1,100 employees who just lost their jobs. But this is a double positive for you. I am working on an algorithm that will calculate the exact dollar amount that the layoff of 1,100 employees will stimulate the economy and create jobs. The serendipity of the possibilities of a positive economic impact from these 1,100 layoffs is almost immeasurable. Hear me out:

Your very own Nancy Pelosi enumerated the benefits of unemployment insurance:

“It injects demand into the economy… is a job creator. This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent.”

And your very own Press Secretary, Jay Carney, said, “There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance.”

And don’t forget what your very own Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, just recently stated regarding food stamps: “Food Stamps have contributed to job growth in the private sector for 17 consecutive months and serve as a form of economic stimulus, and having people on food stamps acts as a stimulus, creating $1.84 for every dollar spent.”

And you have said yourself, “It’s probably the biggest boost that we can give an economy because those folks are most likely to spend the money with businesses, and that gives them customers.”

So the stimulating effect of the 1,100 unemployed Solyndra workers if they file for unemployment benefits and Food Stamps, according to your calculations, could be the equivalent of 10,000 jobs. Be sure to mention that in your speech. That will knock them over.

So in conclusion, I am anticipating your speech next Wednesday, I mean Thursday now, right? I will certainly have my DVR programmed to record your speech in its entirety, as I, along with most of the nation, and members of Congress, will be watching the NFL’s opening night with the Saints vs. the Packers. You have already created a mini economic stimulus of sorts, as there was a run on smart phones and ear-buds at the Georgetown Best Buy by congressional members. Although I am certain it was not for the purpose of video streaming the NFL game during your speech.

More to come,

Jim

There are myriad differences that differentiate and separate countries, nations, and societies. The adherence to the rule of law is one of the primary instruments that protects nations from the subjugation of anarchy, and ultimately a vacuum devoid of civility. Also antithetical to the rule of law is the rule of man. There are various examples of nations led by the rule of men rather than the rule of law: Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-il, Mao Tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Saddam Hussein. A society must have laws that are obeyed by everyone, spanning from the leader to the lowliest citizen. Under the rule of law, a society can prevail; without adherence to the rule of law, anarchy will prevail.

Searching for the categorically correct words to best characterize Barack Obama and his lawless performance as President of these United States is a simple venture, actually. By simply using the calculus of the aggregate of the preponderance of the prevarications caused by the pathological infirmity that prohibits Obama from telling the truth, even under the most benign circumstances, and the blatant and malevolent disregard of the foundational principles of this country, the United States Constitution, and the rule of law, several characterizations come to mind. With an abundance of empirical and substantive evidence from his rhetoric, actions, and policies, “racketeer,” “scofflaw,” and “malefactor” are the most generous and humane descriptions available. For Barack Obama, when compared to the first president of this country, “indecent” is a well-suited characterization as well.

Barack Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that what he cannot accomplish legally, he will circumvent with mechanisms of subterfuge. This has been Obama’s default modus operandi if he cannot have his way. Obama has refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, an active federal law, has decided to enforce the Cap and Trade Act, which is not a law, as it has never been approved by Congress, and has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the fundamentals of this non-existent law. These laws were either created or repealed by the Executive Branch by calculated lawlessness and empirical fiat. Obama has implemented the Dream Act via the same dictatorial mechanics. The Dream Act is not a law and should not be enacted by Obama’s criminal savoir-faire. There are myriad federal immigration laws that Obama is legally compelled to enforce, yet he has by executive order ratified the Dream Act, and circumvented and disregarded existing legitimate laws.

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act) was first proposed in the legislation during the 107th Congress in 2001-2003, tried again in the 108th Congress in 2003-2005, tried again in the 109th Congress in 2005-2007, tried again in the 110th Congress in 2007-2009, and tried again in the 112th Congress in 2011-2013. It was never in the remotest danger of passing.

For ten years this preposterous act has been defeated. There is one reason the DREAM Act has been so persistently pushed by each Congress: is it is pregnant with progressive politics, ideology, and is a quantifiable vote purchasing mechanism for the Left.

The fundamentals of the DREAM Act for illegal aliens are thus:

• Must have entered the United States before the age of 16 (i.e., 15 and younger)
• Must have been present in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years prior to enactment of the bill
• Must have graduated from a United States high school, or have obtained a GED, or have been accepted into an institution of higher education (i.e., college/university)
• Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application
• Have registered with the Selective Service if male
• Must have good moral character

The first two provisions listed would be problematic to ascertain their validity, which would cause dubiety and void the next three provisions, but it is the very last and fractionally subjective provision that is a self-fulfilling prophecy for bad character: discounting an anemic defense of moral relativism, possessing a “good moral character” and breaking the law by living in this country unlawfully, using fake documents to gain employment and access to public services, is mutually exclusive of a “good moral character.”

Obama cryptically tried to cloak his passing the DREAM Act, in direct violation of the rule of law, and with lawless abandon, by executive fiat on a Friday afternoon news dump.

There is something eerily familiar between Obama’s directive to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the DREAM Act.

The dictator-esque directive that usurped the rule of law and rewrote the rules of deporting an illegal alien now considers…

• The circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States
• Whether they are in high school or college
• Whether they have served or are serving in the military
• Particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child
• The person’s pursuit of education
• Whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military

Barack Obama has given prosecutorial discretion to I.C.E. agents to determine whether or not to deport an illegal alien. The only provision missing from the detained is a sworn affidavit attesting that he/she will vote for the Democratic Party if ever granted citizenship.

Perspective: This is the equivalent of a mayor of Anycity, U.S.A. granting the municipal police department the ability to determine if they want to arrest a perpetrator committing felony A, B, or C. They could be required to ask them a few innocuous questions about high school diplomas, whether their dad served in the military, how long they have lived here, and lastly, ask them if they are of good moral character, then release them back into society at their discretion. Complete prosecutorial discretion in the field, which under U.S. law is reserved for prosecuting attorneys, violates the very core of the rule of law.

Prosecutorial discretion is also mathematically incoherent. Roughly 7,500 people cross our borders each day. The Border Patrol has 20 sectors, with 9 on the southern borders. If they could stop and interrogate just these 7,500 illegals per day, that would be 7,500 hundred prosecutorial discretion decisions made each day primarily in just 9 sectors for an agency with approximately 20,000 agents covering the entire country. This does not take into consideration the approximate 20,000,000 living here illegally. Obama’s executive order is not only breaching the rule of law, but dismisses the mathematical and logical fact that any form of immigration law is completely inconsequential without securing the borders first.

To complement Obama’s confidence-game with the rule of law, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin brings a refreshing and moronic take on the Constitution. Durbin said the following during a speech at a congressional hearing to a room, apparently full of youthful illegal aliens, after asking the young scofflaws to stand if they were undocumented: “When I look around this room, I see America’s future, our doctors, our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our scientists, our soldiers, our congressmen, our senators, and maybe our president.”

Unfortunately for the under-uneducated Durbin, and the rest of the educationally challenged liberals in Congress, the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, states, No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4, states, The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason and bribery are serious criminal offenses, and should naturally be cause for impeachment, but “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not criminal offenses, nor do they exist anywhere in the U.S. criminal code. This impeachable political offense was intended to keep those of higher office morally in line. These “high crimes and misdemeanors” can only be committed by an occupant of a high office and position in the government. Abusing one’s power and violating one’s oath of office is the epitome of high crime.

Perjury was the proven charge against Bill Clinton by the House of Representatives that caused his impeachment. But periurus or perjury had a much broader meaning than its current meaning of lying under oath, as did Clinton. When the founders wrote the Constitution, perjury meant also a violation of one’s oath of office.

From the 1890 An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis: periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. This definition of perjury during the founding era would be cause for impeachment, especially if chronic, as it is directly related to those of higher office and status, who have an obligation to uphold the oath they took. Barack Obama does not need to be sworn in to commit perjury, as he took the oath of the presidency: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

High crimes and misdemeanors is an extraordinarily vast and ambiguous dominion ruled by obvious breeches. This may seem a daunting, burdensome, and unattainable task for a 21st century U.S. President, and this extraordinary standard may seem archaic and incomprehensible, but the moral, honorable, and dignified manner of the founders’ conduct and substance set the standard, and it was their moral and principled foundations that set the measure for the “high crimes and misdemeanors clause.” Barack Obama is bound by his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and be honorable and truthful in his conduct, and most importantly, to respect and abide by the rule of law. Barack Obama’s responsibility, as defined by the Constitution, is to execute this country’s laws, not adjudicate the laws he disagrees with from the Oval Office.

If the Congress faithfully abided by the Constitution’s meaning and intent of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause, Barack Obama would have been bounced out of the White House a long time ago, and sent back to Chicago’s iniquitous political abyss.

The greatness of this country, and the core of its exceptionalism, is adhering to the rule of law. Almost the entirety of this country’s shortcomings, failures, setbacks, digressions, and transgressions can be attributed to two things: violating the rule of law, and twisting and forcing meanings from the Constitution that do not exist.

The remedy would be to follow the rule of law: Congress faithfully writes the laws within the parameters of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, the Executive Branch signs or vetoes the laws presented by Congress, and dutifully executes the laws, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the laws.