The Sketch Effect

An artist sketches a young subject. During the session, the artist engages in conversation with the subject, observes the subject’s mannerisms, and develops a sense of the subject’s personality and characteristics. The finished work not only encompasses the physical exactness of the subject, but includes the artist’s incorporation of the subject’s characteristics as well.

The original sketch is passed along to another artist to be duplicated. The second artist renders his sketch based upon the first sketch, but, without the use of the original characteristics of the original subject, the artist then incorporates his depiction of what he believes the subject’s personality should be into the sketch. This process is repeated until the tenth artist completes the sketch.

When the original sketch is compared to the tenth sketch, the similarities are abstract and transcendent, and the tenth sketch has taken on the aura of a caricature of the original subject. Yet when the tenth artist is asked to sketch the original subject under the same circumstances as the first artist, without knowledge of who the subject is, the sketch completed by the tenth artist of the original subject has only a vague similarity to the tenth artist’s first sketch.

The Sketch Effect is an allegorical depiction of the erosion of the authoritative meaning of the Constitution and the perpetual reinterpretation of the original intent by agenda and ideological driven law schools, lawyers, judges, and the Supreme Court. The legal education one receives from contemporary law schools, including elite law schools, is an obedient reverence for case law. The student examines, studies, and contemplates contaminated judicial decisions that are detached from and lacking relevance to the original meaning of the Constitution; these decisions are historically bereft, and are accepted as the Supreme Law of the land by virtue of courts circumventing the legislative process. By possessing legal knowledge generally antipodal to the founders’ intentions in the form of selectively beneficial case law taught by ideologically driven law professors, the fledgling jurisprudent is ill-equipped to discern the constitutionality of a legal ruling, a law, or a statute within the context of the Constitution. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, et al., have become an assembly line of law school diploma mills that have produced constitutional anarchists such as the Clintons, Barack Obama, current Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, the perpetually benighted ACLU, along with the vast majority of federal judges who are unequivocally unqualified to administer constitutional law under any circumstance. Though these schools are generally ranked as the best law schools in the nation, the honor is gratuitously extolled by an incestuous hierarchy, intellectually incapacitated by their antithetic ideology counter to the original meaning of the Constitution.

This league of lawyers, universities, judges, and Supreme Court possess the perfect paradigm integral for creating defective law, and then the continued perpetuation under the guise of stare decisis.

The Left assails the Constitution time and again to dismantle settled law, unsuitable to their taste, until they find themselves arguing, serendipitously, before a majority of Supreme Court justices obedient to their ideologies, this in direct rebellion to the principles of stare decisis, or settled law. Once the matter has been adjudicated to their satisfaction, they will then cling to stare decisis as if it were the instrument of eternal life, using it to bludgeon into submission anyone who dares challenge the law legislated from the bench.

The foundation of the Constitution is based on Natural Law (God’s law), and the expounding disquisitions of Blackstone, Locke, Montesquieu, and others, along with the basis for our constitutional structure, dating back more than 1700 years. Our system has the capability of being self-correcting each time the system circles back to a more qualified set of jurists whose loyalties lie with the Constitution and their oath of office, but the preposterous intellection that being shackled to bad law by virtue of its length of time on the books is absurd, and quite frankly, un-American.

Judges fall under two categories today–liberal and conservative. These two descriptions are better suited to summarize the political tableau of the United States than to summarize its judges. The terms liberal and conservative are problematic for veraciously describing judges–especially Supreme Court justices. The terms liberal and conservative cannot accurately be used to assay the constitutional disposition of any sitting judge or law professor.

The term liberal does not describe the reason a school of law will expound self-serving case law to further ideology at the desecration of this country’s founding charter. The term liberal does not accurately describe the reason a judge will flagrantly adjudicate contrary to the Constitution, use contaminated case law, or the reason attorneys will passionately pursue cases in such a manner as to pervert the Constitution if the outcome is favorable to their ideologies. In contrast, the term conservative does not best describe why judges will adjudicate, to the best of their knowledge, based on the original intent of the Constitution, rather than rely on case law that may or may not be constitutional. More definitive descriptions instead of liberal or conservative judges could be reached by supplanting the term liberal with constitutional anarchist and conservative with constructionist. The only concessionary middle ground would be the application of the Constitution, adjusted for unforeseen advancements in society, but keeping the fundamental meaning intact. Justice O’Connor, before her retirement, and currently Justice Kennedy, were, and are, considered swing voters on the Supreme Court, sometimes ruling as constructionists and sometimes ruling as constitutional anarchists; the two cannot be reconciled and re-packaged as moderate. Neither label would apply because they are capricious jurists and will vote for an ideology, or in Kennedy’s case, suffer the allegiance of stare decisis.

Kennedy sided with O’Connor, upholding Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by reaffirming abortion is a right under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. O’Connor created a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion in Stenberg v. Carhart. Since Kennedy stated that he would probably not overrule Roe v. Wade because of precedent, even though he has indicated he is opposed to Roe v. Wade from a constitutionality perspective, he would let it stand because it has become settled law.

Without delving into the Supreme Court’s original intent or Marshall’s redefining of the court’s role regarding judicial review, and the Supreme Court as the omnipresent mediator of the Constitution, of the generally accepted protocol for the Supreme Court to accept or reject a case, the most fundamental principle of that acceptance is as simple as discerning whether it is a federal or state issue, which if the court had been guided by the Constitution instead of ideology, politics, and at times, prosaic arrogance, such perpetually and malignantly defective laws such as Roe v. Wade, etc., would have been summarily remanded back to the states to exercise their rights under the Constitution to adjudicate their own state laws.

Indulge in a moment of fantasy and imagine Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Steven Breyer, Barack Obama, Warren Burger, Thurgood Marshall, and the ACLU transported back in time, with the purpose of arguing before Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison the merits of why the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in a courthouse or at any government building within the United States, the separation of church and state, why war memorials on government land are unconstitutional, why the government has the right to force all Americans to purchase insurance, or any other law on the books outside the limited parameters of Congress’s enumerated powers under the guise of the Commerce Clause. The hilarity of the dialogue and arguments between this gaggle of constitutional anarchists and the court would be bountiful. To even speculate the outcome would be an exercise in futility. These 21st century legal impotents would be remarkably ill-equipped, armed only with their ideology about what the Constitution should have meant or said, wielding irrelevant case law to argue their perverse interpretation of what these men meant when crafting the Constitution. This to a congregation of American paladins whose primary school education surpassed the entirety and quality of their own advanced law degrees. What would this collection of constitutional recalcitrants, who swore an oath to defend the Constitution, say to James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, who stated, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” This decorous and intellectually commanding gathering of the founders, who would have opened the meeting with a prayer, would not have the comportment to tolerate their inane nonsense more than a few moments–even with the waving around of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, or the case law that, 150 years later, determined what Jefferson meant, and its noxious perpetuity as a result of settled law.

William F. Buckley said regarding Harvard, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” One could enlist the first 400 people of the Boston telephone directory, put them in an environment for one year in which they only studied, without supervision or influence, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, Polybius’ The Rise of the Roman Empire, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws and Science of Politics, and the United States Constitution, along with its amendments, the debates, the minutes of the authors, and the Federalist Papers. After one year of study, void of exposure to any constitutional case law, any random nine would be better equipped and qualified, notwithstanding the idiosyncratic nuances and elephantine U.S. legal system protocol, to sit on the Supreme Court than the entire staff of either Yale or Harvard law school, or the majority of Supreme Court justices that sat on that bench during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Have you tested yourself many times, succeeded, and then felt as if you have crested the pinnacle of all available challenges?

You scaled Everest so many times it became monotonous; so you scaled Annapurna, the number one rated peak in the world. It has been attempted 130 times, with 53 deaths–a 41% fatality rate. You survived. Does scaling mountains seem passé and banal? You find it increasingly harder to elevate your adrenaline to a satisfying level. Being chased by 1300 pounds of raging death on hooves at the festival of San Fermin Pamplona–the running of the bulls–has become repetitious. Base-jumping, boring. Punching through grade 6 hydraulics down the Futaleufu, redundant. Skydiving, boring 20 years ago.

Do you need to walk lock step with death to feel alive?

Kiplinger has the anecdote for the venom of apathy. Kiplinger has a storied history calculating the probability of death at specific places, situations, and activities with their unparalleled actuary competence, and are responsible for formulating the complex algorithm for the probable death index (PDI). Kiplinger made national headlines for the first time during the early stages of the Obama presidency. Dick Cheney had a secreted bunker to protect the life of the vice president in the event of catastrophe, which was so covert and clandestine it was the standard of 0.0 on the Kiplinger PDI. After Joe Biden decided it would be a grand idea to tell whomever would listen at the Gridiron Club dinner that the bunker was underneath the old U.S. Naval Observatory, the bunker’s Kiplinger index was raised to 1.9 post-haste.

Kiplinger has now added adventure promotion to their repertoire. They will be offering only the most extreme of escapades imaginable. All of their packages will have a minimum 5.5 PDI. So without further delay, Kiplinger presents the top four most dangerous adventures, based on PDI, available to the most seasoned and discriminating swashbuckling egotist.

4. Somalia. Perhaps what the doctor ordered is a seaworthy adventure that would rival any exploit of Captain Jack Sparrow. Navigating through the majestic seas of Somalia, you will be circumscribed by some of the most august beaches in the world, and of course the usual fare of bloodthirsty and contemporary pirates.

Just the jolt of the wheels touching down at the always American-friendly Aden International Airport in Yemen is enough to elevate your adrenalin to near noxious levels. You can expect to have your head adorned with a custom-made personalized hood as you are whisked away to the nearest port to board your private luxury 140′ Westship Yacht; then, you will promptly glide into the Gulf of Aden stealthily skimming along approximately 10 kilometers off the coast of Somalia. Your yacht will fly the inconspicuous flag of the United States of America, with an equally sized flag replicating the American $100 bill. If you have survived to the Horn of Africa, let the lure of the azure waters of Somalia’s bewitching coast invite you in for a swim. But don’t be alarmed by the ensuing bleeding of the mouth, unusual blistering of the skin, and labored breathing that locals also suffer from their refreshing swims, as your exposure to the toxic waste dumped in the area is more likely than not treatable by the on-board physician.

Just the idea of skimming the coast of a country whose economic foundation consists of pirating and ransom, and has a perpetual lock on last place by Transparency International as the most corrupt country in the world–much to the chagrin of Mexico–should be enough to enjoy your adrenalin operating at optimum levels for hours on end.

Once you have “made a hit” (attracted the attention of barbaric pirates), when a small fleet of motorized fishing boats, appointed with AK-47s and RPGs, start charging towards your vessel at break-neck speed–and considering the country is primary Muslim, this would not be a good time to lose your head–remain calm, this is the thrill you purchased. Even though your antagonized adversaries will be adorned with military-grade automatic weapons, rocket launchers, knives, and machetes, you will be armed with the President of the United States’ weapon of choice for your defense: a sharp tongue with an unlimited arsenal of nonsensical phrases and talking points to defend putting yourself in a ridiculously indefensible and obtuse situation. And, as an added defense mechanism, you can always blame George Bush.

Somalia only ranks 5.4 on the PDI since by purchasing an exit with the same ease that an American politician can purchase their way into office, you too can buy your way out of this fantastic adventure with the $25 million personal ransom bond you are required to procure from Lloyd’s of London, and the $125 million insurance policy covering the yacht. Barring the accidental discharging of a weapon, the uncontrollable urge to hack off an infidel’s head, or the intervention of the U.S. State Department, the chances of your leaving intact with these wonderful memories to share with your grandchildren are almost 50%.

Equipment: Westship yacht lease with $125 million insurance policy, personal insurance policy of $25 million, on-board interpreter to negotiate immediate release of yacht and all persons on-board, and physician trained in chemical burns, toxic waste contamination, and treating bullet wounds.

Price: $$$$$

3. Mexico. Endearingly contiguous to four American states–Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California–is the remarkably challenging country of Mexico. Mexico enjoys an identical foundational government to the United States’ four branches of government: the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the iniquitous criminal gang branch. The primary aspect that makes Mexico’s governmental structure and the United States so efficient is their incorporation of the criminal gang branch into their respective legislative branches, thus making one cohesive and nocuous unit.

Lace up your best shoes (running shoes preferred), and experience the wanton violence of Mexico by simply walking across the border and joining Kiplinger’s Downtown Walking Tour. Kiplinger suggests disregarding the State Department’s warning to exercise “extreme caution” when visiting any border town, and the banning of all diplomats from cross-border travel should also be considered bureaucratic folly.

Kiplinger suggests traveling to El Paso, Texas, then strolling across the border to the oasis of Ciudad Juárez. You will be greeted with an arid, yet quite comfortable year-round climate in this Chihuahuan desert paradise, along with a rich history dating back to the Spaniard’s serendipitous visitations circa the 1500s. In sharp contrast to Washington, D.C., the city of Juárez boasts the highest literacy rate in Mexico at 97.3 %, with most people aged 15 and above enjoying the ability to read and write. Once the prosaic historical sites have been consumed–you are here for adventure, not culture, right?–you can explore and hopefully participate in the essence of contemporary Mexico.

The first leg of the tour will be a ditch/vacant lot scavenger hunt. There will be wonderful door prizes for the first to spot a decaying body, perhaps from one of the infamous sexual homicides of women, perhaps from an ordinary run-of-the-mill drug related murder, or perhaps the fresh remains of the local chief of police. In addition to murders and decapitations, you can look forward to enjoying a breathtaking view of world-class kidnappings. Keep your ears at the ready, as the next scream could be a sexual assault or a stabbing, or perhaps just a perfunctory dismembering. If during the tour you become confused by the array of decapitated heads haphazardly adorning the streets, fret not, and just continue moving along; you will more than likely be able to participate in a game of match the heads with their respective bodies within a matter of blocks. Perhaps you could talk your guide into visiting the city dump, and if you are lucky, find a dump made just for human bodies, just like the city of Monterrey has. Monterrey has the record of 51 bodies just this past week. Can Juárez beat that? Can you help?

As the day ebbs to a close, for the finale, you can expect one or two closing events: You may witness an oppressive and heavily armed drug cartel challenge the federal soldiers and law enforcement with grenades, AK-47s, and a sundry of other military grade weapons and explosives. Or, you may witness the orchestrated assassinations performed by prison inmates from a nearby Mexican prison, supplied with vehicles and weapons by compassionate guards and prison wardens, complete with day passes to perform mass executions, war, and various other necessary errands of the cartels. It’s tough to choose a winner here.

But do not judge Mexico’s wanton violence, nor blame the culture of the country, and do not thank this most hospitable country for your adventure, as Mexico’s president Felipe Calderon has so astutely pointed out, “The origin of our violence problem begins with the fact that Mexico is located next to the country that has the highest levels of drug consumption in the world. It is as if our neighbor were the biggest drug addict in the world.” Please give credit where credit is due–the United States Federal Government–so before exiting Mexico, turn north, and salute the United States for making this world-class adventure possible.

Mexico ranks 8.7 on the PDI, as the probability of death or maiming is only from being caught in crossfire, looking ransom worthy, stray bullets, standing too close to a carelessly tossed grenade, or making eye contact with local law enforcement without a pocket full of tips for their efforts.

Equipment: Jogging shoes, sunscreen, personal water supply, bribe money, and myriad documents validating that you do not work for the U.S. Government, Border Patrol, law enforcement, etc.

Price: $¢

2. Detroit. Time for the great American urban adventure, Detroit. You could test your mettle against  Everest’s North Face, hunt man-eaters in wilds of Africa with bow and arrow, challenge grade 6 white water rapids, or any other natural cataclysm provided by Mother Nature, but never before have you been able to test your survival prowess in a God forsaken post-apocalyptic world. A world that would rival the myriad visions flashing through St. John’s mind as he was authoring Revelations. Where a simple trip to the 7-11 will require you to employ every survival skill acquired during a lifetime of adventure, advanced military training, and walking the streets of Dearborn with a bible in your hand, just to return intact.

Once your armored personal carrier’s security platoon comes to a screeching halt just inside the city limits of Detroit, and you are unceremoniously dumped out as the platoon makes a hasty retreat for safer ground, your post-apocalyptic adventure has begun. Detroit has not always been an adventure seeker’s paradise, as it was once one of the wealthiest cities in the country. Before falling victim to liberal policies and labor unions and becoming America’s Baghdad on the Lake, it was the global epitome of industrial might, boasting the highest median income in the country. But that was then, and this is now, so enjoy.

You can expect to be greeted by a barren urban landscape turned into a decimated wasteland the size of San Francisco. As you attempt to negotiate your way through the 40,000 abandoned houses, the wild Detroit savanna of 100,000 vacant lots, and the decaying and rotting structures that were the symbols of manufacturing might, you will be greeted by discarded syringes striking your ankles, gangs, robbers, crackheads, addle headed junkies, and wanton souls wandering the streets, all to give you the challenge of your life. Your AK-47, full military gear, and steel-toed boots will give you a fighting chance of evening the odds, somewhat.

To what or whom should you give thanks for turning one of the most powerful cities in the world into an adventure seeker’s medley? Atomic bomb? Earthquake? Volcanic eruption on the scale of Pompeii? None of the above. Credit can be bestowed upon decades of liberal policies that siphoned the capital and soul out of Detroit. And a big shout-out goes to FDR for forcing the nation’s mightiest city to be subjected to the UAW, and thus starting the slow, agonizing spiral of corporate death. Honorable mentions go to OSHA, environmental laws, federal tax rate of 35%, the ever preposterously dimwitted teachers unions, Washington, D.C., entitlements, crime, drugs, and counterproductive civil rights laws for the wholesale dissipation of humanity and industry of the greater Detroit area. If not for these high-principled and honorable entities, your Detroit trip would be as boring as a trip to Anytown, USA.

Detroit ranks 9.2 on the PDI for obvious reasons, with the 0.8 chance that you survive attributed to Lady Luck.

Equipment: AK-47, combat gear, steel-toed boots, Hazmat suit, .45 automatic, 2 hand grenades, night vision goggles, and a TerraFix 406 GPS emergency beacon.

Price: $$$

1. Arizona. The number one destination and the most imposing, omnipotent, and dangerous reservation for the death defying expeditionist is the 118,000 acre Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona. Nestled against the Mexican border, this idyllic paradise where families in days of yore could expect days filled with hiking, camping, and breathtaking panoramic views of flowing grasslands and mountains, teaming with pronghorns, black bear, falcons, quail, and a sundry of Mother Nature’s fascinating creatures. What the unsuspecting family unit can expect to encounter now are bloodthirsty drug lords, illegal immigrants, human traffickers, marijuana farmers, slave traders, cheap-labor traffickers, and a manifold of terrorists, all of which fall under one collective label by liberal politicians: undocumented democrats.

Unfortunately, the entirety of the 118,000 acres are not suitable for the type of adventure that would garner the number one position as the most dangerous place in the world for an adventure, as our federal government has only surrendered about 3,500 acres of our sovereign rights to our undomesticated rogue neighbors to the south, thus creating the American Fallujah.

This uncivilized and villainous piece of paradise has been closed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the genteel citizenry of the United States, and has been restricted to unfettered access by illegal aliens. Even though this piece of expatriated paradise is off limits to U.S. passport carrying individuals, the Border Patrol has been restricted by the Environmental Protection Agency from entering the area unless on foot or horseback. So in colloquial terminology: the coast is clear. But be advised of one major deterrent: the Border Patrol can submit, in writing, a request to the Interior of Agriculture to enter the area on an appropriate vehicle, then wait 90 days for an answer. So bear that in mind for extended stays.

Do not underestimate this pristine piece of American perdition, as you will need to bring your A Game if you expect to survive guaranteed encounters with armed banditos wielding AK-47s, Russian SKSs, and an unlimited selection of other military grade weapons, sophisticated booby traps, beautifully cultivated marijuana farms (protected by highly trained militia), millions of pounds of human waste and trash, and the occasional bear.

No need to be burdened with the weight of unnecessary and expensive navigational equipment, as negotiating the vastness of this simple piece of purgatory is as easy as following the trail of human heads and disassociated bodies, as they will be your guide for egress and ingress of this enchanting land of dubious dominion.

Arizona was ranked at 8.5, but since Barack Obama and the Justice Department have focused their energy on green-lighting drug cartels operating unregulated within the Great State of Arizona, Kiplinger has been compelled to raise the PDI of Arizona’s National Forests to 9.8, with the remaining areas of Arizona a 9.4.

Equipment: Same as Detroit, plus a couple of rabbit feet.

Price $$$

As Kiplinger has discovered through years of assessments, despite Mother Nature’s wrath and wacky sense of humor in creating a myriad of unattainable natural creations and random acts of God, there is no comparison to the magnitude of danger, devastation, destruction, and human suffering that man can create to be challenged by rugged individuals for sport. So after another couple of years with Obama in the White House and the Democratic led Congress, you can rest assured that Kiplinger will be canvassing the North American continent, and the world, for more unparalleled adventures for next year’s annual catalog of rankings.

Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, describes one of the tactics for battle regarding the enemy: “If you are much weaker, evade them.” How can any comedian, humorist, or satirist assail, with the expectation of a well-received zinger, when they are the weaker opponents? How do you satirize someone who has manifested into a continuous exercise of self-parody? Obama has emerged as a headline grabbing, non-stop burlesque routine. His self-parody routine is not limited to just his antics, but his entire administration is an ensemble of harlequin jesters, and even encompasses the Apostle of Iniquity, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

There are two primary reasons humorists and satirists don’t spend much time deliberating Obama. First, they will always be behind the eight ball. As sure as they are putting the finishing touches on a paramount quip, a headline news story regarding Obama will surely appear, and preempt their pursuit. Example: Perhaps one was working on a satirical piece regarding Obama and his apologetic disposition to the Muslim world, then mid-script, this actual headline appears: Barack Obama re-Directs NASA Away From Space To Reach Out To The Muslim World. How do you follow that on stage? Especially with the fear a second headline appearing: Obama To Present Leaders Of The Muslim World With Pearl Handled Box Cutters. Second, with Obama’s pathological obsession and defense of Islam, one would have to be wary of ending up, as have Salman Rushdie, Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist depicting Muhammad), or Geert Wilders (Dutch Politician who is not particularly fond of Islam), on the to-do list of infidels who need to be emancipated from their heads with a knife by a peaceful and loving agent of Islam.

For brevity’s sake, only Obama’s mandating NASA to reach-out to the Muslim world will be autopsied at this time, as the voluminous requirement to examine the entirety of Obama’s and his cabinet’s self-parodied aberrations in his first two years would be both time and cerebrally prohibitive.

Barack Obama directed the new NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, to abate NASA’s Constellation program, which would have put our astronauts back on the moon, and he has asked, as was the Enterprise, NASA to go where no man has gone before: to a peaceful, fruitful, and beneficial relationship with the Muslim world. Obama believes, according to Bolden, that a better interaction with the Muslim world will advance our space travel. “It is a matter of trying to reach out and get the best of all worlds, if you will, and there is much to be gained by drawing in the contributions that are possible from the Muslim nations,” said Bolden. Bolden made the declaration while in the Middle East to Al Jazeera news agency.

Two questions instantly assailed my already gyrating speculations: why is the head of NASA in the Middle East on the behalf of Obama, and why is he being interviewed by Al Jazeera, the voice of terrorism?

Obama wants to help other countries start space programs, and he especially wants to partner with Indonesia. Bolden stated, “We really like Indonesia because the State Department, the Department of Education (and) other agencies in the U.S. are reaching out to Indonesia as the largest Muslim nation in the world.” This is an interesting statement regarding Obama’s stance on Indonesia considering the official position of the State Department seems to contradict his disposition: Due to the possibility of terrorist attacks directed against American or other Western citizens and interests, the Department of State urges American citizens to evaluate carefully the risks of travel to Indonesia. Yes, Indonesia is precisely the kind of country upon which we should be bestowing state-of-the-art rocket skills. Just imagine the wonderful possibilities if a nuclear Iran had the capability of launching a rocket thousands of miles with pinpoint accuracy.

The Obama machine’s modus operandi has attached itself to Bolden like a tick. Once the NASA/Muslim connection gained traction, professional prevaricator Robert Gibbs stated that Bolden was wrong about Obama directing NASA to reach-out to the Muslim world. Awkwardly for Obama, it is his and Gibbs’ word, both of which are currency with no value, against the esteemed career and character of Charles Bolden, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro, and Rep. Pete Olson, the ranking Republican on the Space and Aeronautics House Subcommittee.

Shapiro, in a written statement, stated Obama, “…wants NASA to engage with the world’s best scientists and engineers as we work together to push the boundaries of exploration.” A large section of the world’s best scientists and engineers have been working effortlessly, at the behest of some empire that Obama adores, to devise a method of blowing the United States from the face of the earth, or at least into a nice state of submission. Exactly the type of partners in which all countries should invest. Islam’s greatest contribution to the civilized world in the past 30 years has been the perfection of roadside bombs, car bombs, and suicide bombers. I think the United States had enough of Islam’s own reaching out on September 11, 2001.

Olson confirmed that Obama told him last June that reaching out to the Muslim world would be NASA’s new objective. Olson said, “He confirmed it to me.” Olson believes, regardless of what Obama or Robert Gibbs says, that was NASA’s objective until the “uproar” became viral; i.e., this caused Obama to duck for shelter, and called for the official bus to be brought forth for the Bolden throwing-under ceremony.

Charles Bolden has now been relegated to a very crowded place: under Obama’s bus.

With less than two years in office, Obama has displayed bizarre and pathological patronage for Islam and the Muslim world at the expense of the U.S. economy, America’s national security, and American sanctity. Asking NASA to reach out to the Muslim world is akin to Kennedy asking NASA to reach out to the U.S.S.R on May 25, 1961. During his speech at Cairo University last year–which was pregnant with unadulterated lies and anecdotes about the history and accomplishments of Islam–Obama stated the following: “The U.S. and Islam share common goals of justice and tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” This being said about the peaceful religion that hacks off heads for sport, stones women and children to death, and relegates females to a status subordinate to farm animals, in the name of peace and harmony, of course.

So the question is not should NASA reach out to the Muslim world, but who will reach out for the American people to this analogous facsimile of the Muslim world residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Just like their insect cousins the cicadas, every couple of years some intellectual infirmed with delusions of grandeur, armed with self-anointed enlightenment measurably superior to the profoundly educated Founding Fathers, will emerge from his or her burrow to denigrate, then call, for the sake of humanity, for a simple majority democratic vote, then for the systematic dismantling of the Electoral College.

The chimera of said insectum will proclaim, in defense of majority democratic vote, superior general literacy, knowledge of history, economics, government, and a better aptitude of the Constitution than its authors; but to levy such claims, said chimera must possess a most intimate analysis of Polybius, Macedonia, Rome, Montesquieu, and Locke, then summarily reject, in the name of their ideological egesta, the indubitable value of the subsidizing influence on the erudite architects of this country. The current league of malcontents and heretics of the Constitution and the Electoral College are huddled at the National Popular Vote.

The proponents of a living rather than a static Constitution believe that a governing document written over 200 years ago could not possibly possess relevance for contemporary society that is rapidly succumbing to the debauchery of the Democratic Party’s licentious character. The electoral voting system was not a provisional clause of the Constitution lying in wait until some virtuously challenged, banal intellectual could cry “eureka,” then implement a system that has succumbed to its own cannibalistic philosophy for millenniums. Their argument is pregnant with irrelevance, ignorance, and deceit. The Constitution’s fundamentals and influences can be traced back 2500 years, hardly relegating the 200-year-old governing document’s structure obsolete and outdated.

The tutelarian luminaries who constructed this country’s jurisdictional blueprint during the Constitutional Convention debated electing the president by direct popular vote, and also by congressional selection. The idea of popular vote was summarily rejected because the more populous states and their political, economic, and ideological persuasions could elect a president with little to no influence of the less populous states, and a congressional appointment of a president was antithetical to the separation of powers. The compromise between the two was the Electoral College. An electoral voting system and representative form of government was not a genuine political system circa the Constitutional Convention; it was modeled after the Centuriate Assembly of the Roman Republic, thus the language of Article II Section I of the Constitution regarding the electoral system.

Four presidents on the losing end of the popular vote have been elected since the ratification of the Constitution: John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson in 1824 (without a clear winner, the House of Representatives decided the outcome), Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden in 1876, Benjamin Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland in 1888, and George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000.

These four electoral anomalies demonstrate the meticulous craftsmanship of the equitable structure of the Constitution and the Electoral College.

To the naysayers of the Electoral College and the proponents who believe that a popular vote for president is the only fair and equitable method, a guileless example should manifest the necessity of avoiding a popular election at the peril of fairness and equity: California, as of 2009, has a population of 36,961,664 citizens. The population of the twelve most contiguous states to California — Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Washington — have a combined population of 30,512,485. This demographic doppelganger is representative of the original thirteen colonies and the similar difficulties the architects of the Constitution faced. California has the capability of electing the president, thus rendering the other twelve states irrelevant if the election were a popular majority vote. Considering that the politics, ideologies, and morals of California are in the aggregate, with my special ability to discount the argument of moral relativism, licentiously profound, and the politics, ideologies, and morals of the more rural states of Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc. are, in the aggregate, much more conservative and morally enduring. This inequitable amalgamation does not a “these united states” make.

Let us revisit the constitutional saboteurs at National Popular Vote. The website is plush with information and opinions, adroitly structured with images of the Declaration of Independence, the Presidential Seal, and a rendering of men who were responsible for founding this country. It is replete with political endorsements of politicians whose voting records and ideologies would cause them unease sharing a Happy Meal with Thomas Jefferson, thus rendering Karl Marx a more suitable dining companion; and of course, prominently displayed, the obligatory “donate here” button. After performing a perfunctory autopsy on their lifeless exposé that proudly displayed a New York Times editorial denouncing the Electoral College, and as with all baseless endeavors, once the veneer is pierced, National Popular Vote is exposed as an illiterate exposition of the Constitution and American history, burdened with rudimentary contradictions and deceit.

Their argument:

The Electoral College was established by the nation’s founders in part to appease slave-owning states. It is based indirectly on population, and slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. Each state now gets as many electoral votes as it has representatives in Congress.

This duplicitous analysis of the reason for the Electoral College and the purpose for the counting of only three-fifths of certain peoples for representation in Congress is as pathetic as it is comical. The reason for the structure of the Electoral College system was expounded upon in a preceding paragraph, and needs no further annotating, but the audacity of the antipodal definition for counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a favor to the slave owning states is intellectually and morally felonious.

What this subordinated publication is referring to is the Three-Fifths Compromise, which can be found in Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution: …their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The contradiction and prevarication of the statement is apparent even to the dilettante historian, as common sense and a cursory perusal of a primary school history book would establish the peremptory conclusion that slave states would have, and did want, all inhabitants, including slaves, to be counted as whole persons to increase their number of representatives in Congress, thus increasing their political and ideological leverage. The anti-slave states would have, and did want, only free inhabitants counted, and did not want slaves counted for congressional representation, thus increasing their political and ideological leverage. The resulting conciliation was the Three-Fifths Comprise.

The artifice of the National Popular Vote’s end-run around the Constitution consists simply of causing enough states to change their election laws to a system of waiting until the popular vote is calculated, then ceremoniously bestowing the entirety of their electoral votes for the popular vote winner. There exists three major flaws with their scam: 1) It defeats the sprit of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution regarding the use of electorates to cast votes for the presidency, 2) their scam is to circumvent a necessary constitutional amendment, which would be impossible to pass, to elect the president by popular vote, and 3) the states that actually buy into their contrivance would be removing themselves from any influence regarding the presidential election as their votes would support a president already elected by the other states, thus rendering the will of their own citizens irrelevant. Their preposterous assumption is that the Constitution only mentions using electorates, and does not specifically mention the Electoral College, so it is well within a state’s rights to cast all their electoral votes for the popular winner, and this would lay firmly within the confines of the intention of the Constitution; but it does not, it violates the spirit and intentions of the Constitution.

The implication of the National Popular Vote and their ilk is that this country was founded as a democracy. That is categorically counterfactual. This country was not founded as a democracy, but as a republic, and the only form of government guaranteed in the Constitution in Article VI, Section 4, is a republican form of government.

Socrates describes in The Republic the perfect city ruled by a philosopher-king under a political system of aristocracy. The aristocracy will degenerate into four inferior forms of government: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Each government will pass through each stage. Democracy adjoins tyranny with a border as accessible as the U.S. and Mexico border; Plato realized, as does the Democratic Party of America, that the walk is as short and unencumbered to emigrate from Mexico as it is to emigrate from democracy to tyranny. Socrates also expounded the insignificant differences between democracy and anarchy. Our current Democratic led Congress and the Obama administration seem to be conflicted and confused as to whether they are a Socrates-style democracy or tyranny. The method used to pass the health care reform bill was unadulterated tyranny, and Obama’s signature was an absolute endorsement of tyranny. Barack Obama, with his unrestrained arrogance and unsophisticated pompousness, seems to possess a pathological hankering to be regarded as a philosopher-king, but Socrates defined philosophers as those who knew they were ignorant, but would become wise — which leaves a momentous chasm between Barack Obama’s severe limitations as a leader and his leaving his introspection to his demagogues. These Electoral College apostates, the Democratic led Congress, and Barack Obama share one absolute, indistinguishable bond: a uniform political DNA.

Does the Electoral College cast the American voter, on the whole, as a myopic Pollyanna? Absolutely, especially when coupled with the fact that the Founding Fathers feared what would happen if there was direct election for the Presidency. They feared, and rightly so, that a silver tongued mountebank would cause the plebeians, the intellectual defects, the morally challenged, and the ignorant to swoon and faint on command, then march, in a catatonic stupor, to the voting booth to make good on their spellbound allegiance. To minimize the chances of this apocalyptic event occurring, the founders devised the Electoral College. Because of the prophetic design of the Founding Fathers, this event was averted until November of 1932, then again in November of 2008. In retrospect, it was a hard lesson learned in 1932, and an even harder lesson currently being taught, and hopefully will not be repeated in the foreseeable future, as is evidenced with the unquestionable movement back in the direction of the intent of the Founders of this country.

I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be; and I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.

Just reporting Obama’s unrestrained conviction to indecency, with headlines shrieking, in various stages of paraphrase for sensationalism — Obama to Kick Some Ass. Ass-Kicker in Chief. Obama says ready to ‘kick some ass’–has dragged all who report his antics to his level of philistine chic, and obligates one to pull on galoshes, then wade into the journalistic sewer, thus the ascribed title.

Obama’s ridiculously infantile bluster, haphazardly directed at obscure windmills, sans the mettle and fortitude to bring to fruition, does not a stalwart champion make. Obama’s statements, “…so I know whose ass to kick… plug the damn hole… so I can’t dive down there and plug the hole. I can’t suck it up with a straw…” is an international embarrassment. To be clear, Obama’s juvenile bravado towards BP regarding their culpability for the oil spill in the Gulf is manufactured, false, and is the equivalent of a prepubescent pimple-faced tyke threatening citizens of the internet under the guise of “Brutus” as his mother is screaming at him to clean-up his room and quit annoying people.

BP is directed by CEO Tony Hayward. Obama stated he would have fired Tony Hayward if he were in charge, but in a perpetual display of corporate ignorance, the CEO would be the one in charge of the company. An odd statement considering that Obama has not spoken to BP’s CEO. His bizarre explanation: “Here’s the reason. Because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions.” The same sentiments are being rumbled about Obama’s failure as a leader regarding the BP oil spill, “if 66% of Americans who disapprove of Obama were in charge of this country, Obama would be unceremoniously fired.”  Obama had finally had enough and scheduled a 20 minute meeting with the CEO of BP today–that equates to 20 seconds for each day that Obama has abstained from action while dialoging the gulf oil disaster.

Obama’s problem with his braggadocio regarding his toughness, resolve, action, etc. is that the standard for a United States President was set long ago. Seven predecessors have set the standard for a tough-as-nails President, with their ass-kicking prowess tempered by their character, morality, wisdom, courage, and foresight, which Obama is detrimentally lacking in all departments:

George Washington. Washington, without one word of bravado uttered from his lips, kicked Britain’s posterior with a ragtag, under-fed, under-clothed, under-armed, under-trained, and loosely assembled Continental Army. Washington had a legendary temper, but did not inappropriately display it for political effect. Thomas Jefferson described Washington’s volatile aptitude as such, stating he “was naturally irritable,” and when his temper “broke its bonds, he was most tremendous in his wrath.” George Washington’s morals, courage, toughness, and wisdom, when compared to Obama’s and the Left’s, are beyond reproach.

Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson set the standard for dealing with Islamic adversarials with the Tripolitan War. He adhered strictly to the Constitution’s intention of a very limited government. He and James Madison set the standard for educated, wise, intelligent, and tough Presidents.

Andrew Jackson. Known as Old Hickory, Jackson was a national hero for defeating the British in the War of 1812, and was as tough as old hickory, thus the moniker. To say that Jackson was a duelist would be quite the understatement. He participated in and survived 13 duels. His duels were fought over honor, something that has been lost on American leaders. Richard Lawrence attempted to assassinate Jackson, pulled a pistol and fired point-blank, the pistol misfired, he pulled another, it misfired. President Jackson summarily proceeded to beat Lawrence senseless with his cane, superseding any action by others. Later in life, Jackson lamented about unaccomplished deeds in his life: “I have only two regrets: I didn’t shoot Henry Clay and I didn’t hang John C. Calhoun.” Henry Clay ran a dirty campaign against Jackson, and John Calhoun was Jackson’s Vice President. Jackson carried a bullet lodged near his heart throughout his life from taking the first shot in a duel, then calmly aiming and dispatching his opponent. Disregarding his many distractions, Jackson was the epitome of a tough President.

Teddy Roosevelt. While speaking at a campaign event, Roosevelt was shot in the chest; he concluded that since he wasn’t coughing blood, the bullet had not sufficiently penetrated his chest, thus sparing a fatal wound to his lung. So he finished his speech with blood seeping through his shirt. After Roosevelt died in his sleep, a friend of his stated, “Death had to take him sleeping, for if Roosevelt had been awake there would have been a fight.” When the United States engaged in the Spanish-American War in 1898, Roosevelt quit his position from the Navy Department. Not out of protest of the war, cowardice, or to make some ridiculous statement, but to assist in forming the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, or better known as “The Rough Riders.” Then he proceeded to Cuba to kick some ass. Roosevelt coined the phrase “speak softly and carry a big stick,” which he practiced, as opposed to the current president, who seems to carry a big mouth sans stick.

Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s contribution to the established standards was his being the last United States President to try to adhere to the standards.

Aaron Burr. Burr deserves honorable mention. As a sitting Vice President, Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel over being personally impugned by Hamilton for employing the same character attacking tactics Democrats use today. Burr is mentioned because he was tough, fought for his honor, and if the duel were still a viable option today, perhaps politics would be more civil; that is, if two politicians with honor to defend could be found.

When measured against the aforementioned presidents, Barack Obama is a yapping little lap dog nipping at the nearest ankle for political expediency from under the safety of the Oval Office furniture.

Obama continues his losing streak against facts. He refers to the company as British Petroleum rather than BP, much to the consternation of another one of America’s allies that Obama continues to impugn. BP plc is the name on record. British own 40% of BP’s shares, while 39% are American owned. The actual rig is owned by Transocean, owned and operated from Switzerland. The drilling was performed by Halliburton, an American based company. BP is American, Swiss, and British, yet Obama is focusing his attention solely on BP, and disregarding American and Swiss complicity. Obama’s love of diversity is presenting a hard target for him to focus his faux rage upon.

Obama finally addressed the gulf oil spill with a rambling, undefined, incoherent, and disoriented speech from the Oval Office. The mode of his speech consisted of the usage of the words fight, battle, and battle plan. Since Obama’s teleprompter prompted him portray such a martial persona, then a quote from Sun Tzu’s Art of War would seem apropos:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy’s strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal, engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them. –Sun Tzu

The President wrestles daily with wars, threats of wars, battles, and threats of battles, and Obama seems to talk quite a bit about them. Sun Tzu has advised on how to win wars and battles for centuries with effective and proven strategies. Acknowledging Tzu’s strategies and measuring Obama’s military and leadership genius, America is left with a President who has been imperiled in every battle he has fought because he knows neither himself nor his enemy, and his weapon of choice is his mouth. When ten times his enemy’s strength, he unleashes discourse; when five times his enemy’s strength, he unleashes discourse; when double his enemy’s strength, he unleashes discourse; when equal his enemy’s strength, he unleashed discourse; when weaker than his enemy, he unleashed discourse.

Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s Achilles’ heel, as they are finding out at an alarming rate, is that they do not know America.

Friday, June 5th, The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the employment numbers for May: 431,000 new jobs created. Obama seized the headline and quickly articulated, “the economy is getting stronger by the day…private sector hiring is growing, too.” This is behemothic lie number one.

In a purely academic sense, there were 431,000 new jobs added in May, but the chasm between academics and reality presents a prodigious expanse. Of the jobs created, 411,000 were for Census Bureau employees–government jobs, temporary jobs, jobs funded by taxes annexed from private capital that would have provided legitimate jobs within the private sector. In actuality, there were only 41,000 legitimate jobs created, private-sector jobs that create or provide an end product of substance and value to the American people. Quite frankly, the 411,000 jobs created by the Census Bureau could be, in the academic sense, classified as taxpayer funded expansion of the parasite industry.

The White House had previously leaked to the media that 150,000 private sector jobs would be created in May. The economy needs to create 100,000 private sector jobs per month to maintain pace with current population growth. This was a remarkable statement from Obama, considering he has only surpassed 100,000 private sector jobs once in 17 months as president, and the economic indicators outside the Democratic Party confines paint a bleak picture. The addition of only 41,000 private sector jobs can be directly attributed to Obama’s failed policies.

The unemployment rate dropped from 9.9% to 9.7% in May thanks to 322,000 potential gainfully non-government employed workers leaving the labor force. This does not bode well for the economy either.

Barack Obama has played the same game of Three-card Monte to redirect the insignificance of his enumerated jobs since an accounting of his antics has been on record. Almost daily, from different cities, different counties, different states, Census Bureau employees are coming forward with the same stories of being hired, trained, working for a week, laid-off, rehired, then counted as new jobs in the system. The average seems to be four fires and rehires per Census whistle-blower. By calculating with a rudimentary algorithm, the actual number of Census workers hired would be 102,750. Even though this is anecdotal, with a flavor of mathematical burlesque, Obama is lying to the public about the state of the union.

When June 5th came to a close, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 323.31 upon news of the dismal jobs report, indicating the economy is still comatose despite Obama’s instinctual and perfunctory hyperbole. The fact that Hungary is also on the verge becoming the next economic black hole as a result of employing the same economic policies Obama and the Democrats are implementing did not impress investors either. 431,000 workers hired, indeed.

Barack Obama’s fantastical defense of his health care reform bill is behemothic lie number two:

This is a patient’s bill of rights on steroids…We’re making sure this thing is paid for…Other measures will reduce premiums for people buying private insurance in the marketplace by 14% to 20%…Not only can we afford to do this – we can’t afford not to do this…This legislation will give millions the opportunity for the first time in a very long time, the opportunity to get health insurance.

This past week, CBO Director, Dr. Douglas Elmendorf, released his Health Costs and the Federal Budget, annulling the misrepresentations Obama provided the country while claiming that the health care reform bill would reduce costs, insure more people, and save the government money, all without reading a single word of the bill, and being utterly ignorant of its contents. The only people left, gullible enough to continue to believe this nonsense about the health care reform bill seem, for some odd reason, to be affiliated with the Democratic Party, and could quite possibly be suffering from a peculiar strain of Stockholm Syndrome.

According to Elmendorf’s report, per capita spending is unsustainable, which was one of the primary arguments of the opposition to the health care bill during what little debate was allowed. With unsustainable spending, three results will occur, according to the CBO:

1. Those with health insurance will have less money available for other needs.
2. It will be harder for the uninsured to buy insurance.
3. Government spending on Medicare and Medicaid will break federal and state budgets.

The health care plan, if not dismantled by a Republican led Congress after 2010, will, in unison with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, cause the insolvency of this country. The sleeping giant is awakening; the states, which have, collectively, unlimited power over the federal government, are resisting by challenging the law in federal court, and amending their state constitutions to protect their citizens and the state’s budgets from the economically malignant and unconstitutional federal health care law.

The White House and Barack Obama tried to affect the outcome of a federal election. The White House (Barack Obama) denied offering Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) a job in the White House in exchange for not running against Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the Pennsylvania primary. Incidentally, Arlen Specter, just last year, sold his political soul to Obama for the sum of a promise of intervention during an election, and Specter almost got it. Obama said, “I can assure the public that nothing improper took place.” This is behemothic lie number three.

The evolution of Obama’s lie: When directly confronted about Sestak’s statement that the Obama administration offered him a job for dropping out of the campaign against Arlen Specter, the first official response by Obama was emphatic and absolute denial. That evolved into “an official response shortly on the Sestak issue.” That evolved into Obama admitting offering Sestak a position to “avoid a decisive Senate primary” against Specter.

What was committed at the White House is a flagrant violation of federal election law. It is customary for newly elected presidents to reward select supporters with jobs in the administration, sans qualifications, for their efforts behind getting them elected, which is the largest contributor to the political Peter Principle that plagues this country, but is legal. What is not legal, and is a violation of federal law, is to offer someone a job in the administration for future benefits to the president, or to circumvent the integrity of the Democratic election process by denying the voting public the right to vote on all candidates presented. Obama attempted to derail the entire process by circumventing the very laws that are in place to protect our political process.

White House Press Secretary and super sleuth, Robert Gibbs, when pressed on the issue, said that his own investigation revealed nothing “problematic.”

Darrell Issa (R-CA) asked Eric Holder’s Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate these allegations. Eric Holder told Issa that the Justice Department will not appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the Obama administration. Obama’s ace in the hole is Eric Holder as Attorney General, which is akin to having Al Capone’s accountant audit his books for irregularities, and report the findings to Elliot Ness.

Again, to whom is this profligate regime, and its ringleader, speaking?

Now of course I did not actually read the bill with my own eyes; what I did was follow the examples displayed by the erudite leaders of this country, delegating my scholarship to the press, magazines, blogs, and the general word on the street. If our president, Barack Obama, can sign a 2700 hundred page health care bill based on anecdotal propaganda gathered by various people possessing incorruptible decadence, and if Eric Holder can delineate the Arizona immigration law and issue apocalyptic prophecies in infinitesimal degrees without ever reading the bill and instead relying on hearsay, and if Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, can claim that “That’s not the kind of law I would have signed… I believe it’s a bad law enforcement law,” without reading one page of the 10 page bill by relying on a jejunely calculated postulation based on intelligence gathered from La Raza pamphlets, The National Enquirer, and The View, then I hereby proclaim myself a renowned expert on the Arizona immigration law by intellectual proxy.

Based on my indolently gathered intelligence, I must proclaim solidarity with the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, West Hollywood, and Oakland, all from the wistfully insolvent state of California. But an honorary position among these patriotic enclaves is warranted for the Phoenix Suns.

Since I have not actually read the immigration bill in question, I thought we could read it together, staring at the demonic scrawlings with our collective jaws agape. I plugged the following words into Google: immigration law, racial profiling, oppressive states, and discrimination. The following treatise is the fruit of my sleuthing. Notice how in the first sentence, the state is compelling all municipalities within the state to cooperate with federal immigration law, and forcing all law enforcement agents to check legal status by questioning immigrants and demanding to see their papers.

The reprobate:

(a) Every law enforcement agency shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

This must be one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation on the books in any state of this union. Not one consecrated city has the option of giving sanctuary to pre-citizens without penalty. The nerve of Arizona… wait a second… what is this… this is not the Arizona immigration bill. Listen: I must ask the reader to strike from the record any prejudicial and malignant thoughts this bill may have caused them to formulate against California, as this is section 834b of the California Penal Code forcing all municipalities to comply within the state of California. Obviously a stenographic error in transcribing, causing the first sentence to not reflect the words “in California” preceding the word “shall” in the first sentence.

Anyway, our crusade is still salvageable. I will refrain from personal investigation, and rely on my original methodology, which is recommended by our leaders in D.C., depending on other people’s opinions for my own. With serendipity reigning down upon us this past week, one of the true leaders of a wonderful empire that just so happens to abut Arizona, no less, was touring the White House and our esteemed Congress, and addressing this very subject. What a sad state of affairs to which we have succumbed when the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, has to risk flying across Arizona’s borders to scold and educate the populace of America regarding the atrocious Arizona immigration bill. This Mexican President, this captain of righteousness, has shepherded his beloved country of Mexico down a path of peace and prosperity, which is starting to pay huge dividends by curbing the random decapitations, kidnappings, drug smuggling, human smuggling, abject violence, and general anarchy and mayhem, by noting that there was a 5 1/2 minute period in the month of December when not one of the above mentioned exportable commodities happened. Now I shall let President Calderon explain the Arizona law in plain and simple Spanish.

Calderon flew into the United States last week, being under diplomatic parasol, technically making his lack of documents a non-issue, but he did, and prudently so, refuse to land in Arizona for refueling purposes, nonetheless. There were a few snags with the Democratic Party’s warm acceptation of his diatribe against the United States as his translator’s rendition was as discombobulated as the diction of a Middle School English teacher in Tucson. Regardless of the incoherency of the speech at times, there was always a rousing standing ovation lauded by the Democrats. The Mexican Embassy had to clear up a few poorly translated remarks by Calderon. Example of the poor translation: “Despite their enormous strain on the economy and society of the United States, millions of immigrants are shadowy, and at times, like in the land seized from Mexico, the state of Arizona, are forced into patterns of dissemination.” The transcript from the Mexican Embassy: “Despite their enormous contribution to the economy and society of the United States, millions of immigrants still live in the shadows, and at times, like in Arizona, even face patterns of discrimination.” Calderon said the law “ignores reality,” while adamantly pronouncing that the billions of dollars that illegal aliens cost the U.S. each year, the crimes they cause, the drugs smuggled into the U.S. across the border, the kidnappings in the U.S. by Mexican pre-citizens, the violence on the border, and the smuggling of humans across the border, were unrealistic products of the right-wing propaganda machine.

I was so inspired by Calderon’s scolding of the anti-pre-Americans that I have located the immigration law of El Diablo currently in force in Arizona. I used the same key words in Google as before: immigration law, racial profiling, oppressive states, and discrimination, but added the great country of Mexico and Calderon. Google disgorged that Arizona immigration law dictates immigrants should:

have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records;
and contributors to the general well-being of the nation;
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

This is not a law, this is citizenship genocide; this would not only eradicate all pre-citizens from within the confines of Arizona’s boundaries, but if adhered to in the strictest manner, would eliminate the entire Democratic Party within that state, and if ever adopted nationally, would set this country back, politically, all the way to the ratification of the Constitution. How can the state of Arizona force all the pre-citizens to… hold on a second, not again… there must be some sort of mistake with this Google. This appears to be the immigration law of Mexico. Again, strike this from the record, extinguish whatever ill thoughts are burning in your mind until I can get this sorted. There has to be a perfectly good explanation. Hold your faith, as it does not excuse Arizona, we all know they did something horribly wrong with immigration. I, along with Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and the entire Democratic Party, just know something is amiss in Arizona; we are just not exactly sure what it is yet, but it is most definitely much worse than anything California and Mexico have done. And I can promise that once one of us finally reads this bill, we will find some way to bring their contumelious and oppressive immigration law to light. Bear with us.

How about this: “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection… assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S.” No, no, no. That’s from the United States immigration law Section 1304(e).

Eureka! I have procured the iniquitous document.

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

A. No official or Agency Of This State Or a County, City, Town or Other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification.

E. In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by:

1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

Resolute readers do charge forth with our crusade against the state of Arizona, as the plenitude of evidence against Arizona has been manifested by my stalwart enterprise. Unfortunately, I have yet to read the snippet above, as I have become infirmed with physical exhaustion and mental lethargy as a result of this production. If anyone can peruse the above Arizona law and locate the obvious mandate for racial profiling, discrimination, and the various other pernicious verbiage, please note it and pass it on to me so I can be informed.

Nothing quite aggregates the inerudite fog that the Obama administration, the Democratic led Congress, and the heterogeneous disposition that various states and cities wander around in, than the above quote. And the Attorney General of this “nation of cowards,” epitomized the Obama administration last week when asked by the House Judiciary Committee if he had read the new 10 page Arizona immigration law. Holder, after spending weeks denouncing, criticizing, and demonizing the law because it “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling,” was “unfortunate,” and because he questioned whether the law was unconstitutional, answered,

I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it. I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is.

Compounding the Obama administration’s superficial ineptness, the queen of our security, custodian of our southern border, and former Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, took as strong a stance against the Arizona law as did Holder:

That’s not the kind of law I would have signed… I believe it’s a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in. When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation.

Napolitano would have you believe that most of the law enforcement agencies of Arizona changed their minds in less than a year regarding immigration enforcement. And incidentally, Napolitano did admit that her statements regarding the Arizona immigration law were formulated without reading the 10 page law. She never read it, and rest assured that Obama never read it, and rest assured that…, etc., etc.

Pitted against reality in an epic battle in which it long ago decidedly submitted to defeat, the City of Los Angeles has persuaded the Los Angeles Lakers to withdraw from the NBA finals against the Phoenix Suns unless their home games are moved to Austin, San Francisco, Mogadishu, or any other bureaucracy that harbors a vapid disdain towards the rule of law in favor of moral and cerebral ineptness. The Phoenix Suns have also decided to boycott the city of Phoenix and the state of Arizona; refusing to play any more games within the Great State, they will only wear jerseys inscribed with Los Suns, and concur that Mogadishu should be their surrogate home city.

Of course it would be preposterous to believe that the Lakers would boycott the NBA finals, or that Phoenix would move to another city over a law passed through a democratic process in Arizona. These modern day Leftists lack the five essential ingredients necessary to bring their vacuous threats to absolute fruition: standards, morals, perseverance, character, and the innate ability to transform an abstract political philosophy into a transcendental sociopolitical governmental foundation, the United States Constitution, as did a group of leaders in 1776. They may pick and choose a contract here and there to break in violation of contract law, boycott a few travel plans to Arizona, but when matters of momentous significance are on the line, they will unceremoniously assume the submissive position that afflicts all invertebrates.

The NBA Players Association has entered, at their own peril, the arena of national politics by labeling the Arizona immigration law “disturbing.” Remember, this is a game, a game of basketball, a sport. As with all professional sports, basketball is watched and supported by Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, Upper-Class, Middle-Class, Lower-Class, blacks, whites, and all ethnicities. The NBA Players Association and the Phoenix Suns are provoking commercial genocide.

Basketball, or as it was originally called, Basket Ball, was the creation of James Naismith in 1891 for one purpose: “The game of basketball was the result of a challenge from a teacher to his student to pique the interest of an incorrigible class during the usually dull winter months.” A perfunctory perusal of any sports page of the past ten years or so will attest to the fact that the “incorrigible class” has come full circle and is now the players, owners, league, and Players Association.

In the game of one-upmanship of aborted cognizance, San Francisco is impossible to beat, but the Los Angeles City Council never goes down without a fight, and with regard to the boycotting of Arizona, Los Angeles may have achieved a tie. Possibly, but the jury is still out.

What I find ironic is that the majority of city council members, governors, civic leaders, and politicians who have reacted to the immigration law in Arizona with rabid revulsion, all seem to have surnames of a south of the border persuasion. It does seem quite coincidental that certain similarities exist in the surnames of enemy nations or a similar genre of enemies that wish to usurp the American way of life. Just a casual, anecdotal observation reveals that most of the surnames against the Arizona law, or pretty much any law against criminals that cross the border into this country, are of a Hispanic bias, just as the surnames of, say, the Third Reich, mostly wore umlauts for hats.

A few nuggets of wisdom, patriotism, and words of social cohesiveness from a few of the Los Angeles City Council members, I have on loan from the pages of Time Magazine:

“The Lakers are critical to continuing the momentum,” says Los Angeles City Council member Jose Huizar, who was born in Mexico. His statement was referencing the momentum of the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona. Of what “momentum” he is referencing is anyone’s guess, as the only momentum to be found is the rapidly increasing national support for the Arizona law, and comically, a poll from the LA Times regarding Los Angeles’ boycotting Arizona. The result of the poll of Los Angeles residents was a resounding, “No. The city should mind its own business. 93.4%.”

Los Angeles City Council member Ed Reyes, one of the co-authors of the Arizona boycott legislation, is also holding out high hopes for the Lakers. “It would be huge,” says Reyes, hoping the Lakers would boycott the playoffs against Arizona. Mind that Reyes was born in Los Angeles, and is only an American citizen in the academic sense. It would be huge for Los Angeles alright, as boycotting an NBA playoff as a team would probably be the demise of that team as it is known, in that city. Reyes would love to see “Laguneros” — Spanish for Lakers — on the team’s jersey for at least one of the games against the Suns.

Reyes’ city council colleague Richard Alarcon is even more direct. “I love the Lakers, and hope they repeat [as NBA champions],” says Alarcon. “But there are some things more important than basketball. Democracy is more important than basketball. And the Lakers should make a statement.” Reyes is correct that “democracy is more important than basketball,” but considering that the Arizona law was passed by a democratic vote, and Alarcon version of democracy is of a Fascist’s persuasion, the then following statement would be more accurate: Democracy is more important than the Left’s version of Democracy. Since the discussion is encompassing, at its most basic level, people living and working where they should not, i.e., sneaking into a jurisdiction for a self-serving benefit, it is certainly worth mentioning that Alarcon was investigated in 2010 by the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division for not living in the district in which he ran for office.

Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, has taken a different approach, and with Villaraigosa being an economic prodigy, solvency is just around the corner for a functioning bankrupt Los Angeles. Villaraigosa went to law school, and was also a member of Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board. For starters, Villaraigosa had to abandon his legal approach to economic solvency because of a technicality: he failed the California Bar Exam four times and is not licensed to practice law by virtue of, quite frankly, being inflicted with the obtuse. So his only avenue was economic, where his genius has been roused from a lifetime of dormancy.

Villaraigosa appears to have stumbled upon the economic theorem employed by the Left: if costs are raised exponentially as revenues drops, then somehow, a balance sheet in the black will magically appear from nowhere. FDR perfected this theorem to prolong the Great Depression by at least a decade. Villaraigosa’s solution to an ever increasing budget deficient, now hovering around $500 million for Los Angeles, “In California, I think there’s a real sense that these immigrants provide a great deal to the economic might of the state.” Villaraigosa’s economic astuteness is highlighted by his agreement with the boycott of Arizona, and apparently he and the city foresee a financial windfall when Arizona and other states and cities reciprocate the strategy. All illegal immigration is a net gain for Los Angeles, and the country, this according to Villaraigosa.

Here is a short list of the “economic might” that illegal immigration costs the state of California and the nation according to the Center of Immigration Studies, compiled from census data: Illegal immigration cost the state of California $10.5 billion per year, or $875 million per month, or $20 million per week. An added bonus of “economic might” about which Villaraigosa can brag is that Mexicans smuggle 80% of all cocaine in the U.S. across the open border we share with Mexico, and 50% of all heroin. After all the “economic might” is calculated from illegal immigration, $8 billion is sent back to Mexico annually, further contributing to illegal immigration’s “economic might” here.

The City of Angels very well could be conducting their council meetings by the illumination of candlelight. There is this dam in Arizona, the Hoover Dam, that has been providing electricity to Los Angeles since 1936, ergo, Arizona would win the boycott competition by myriad watts, if they so choose to engage.

Irreparable Harm to Arizona’s Reputation? Read the headline at dailyfinance.com. The lead sentence stated, “As bad as the financial hit may be, the cost to the state’s reputation is almost immeasurable.” The disconnect from reality by the Left is breathtaking at times. This article was 100% fabricated, and written under the guise of a fantasy that if you write it enough times, it becomes fact. Several national polls have the Arizona immigration law gaining traction across the country. From the Pew Research Center, polling numbers for the law conclude, “Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them.” And as disclosed in a preceding paragraph, the LA Times poll concluded that 93.4% of residents of LA polled said LA should mind its own business. Financial hit and soiled reputation, indeed.

Reyes, Alarcon, and Villaraigosa, and others whose alliances lie with Mexico rather than America, justify their Lèse majesté for a community that does not exist, the Latin American Community, the Hispanic Community, and whatnot. This Latin and Hispanic Community does not exist, or at least north of America’s southern border. The  Latin and Hispanic community does exist though, south of the border in Mexico, Central America, and South America, and Reyes, Alarcon, and Villaraigosa are welcome to reside there, for comfort’s sake, of course.

This is a nation of Americans, sans the 14 million illegals, a nation of individuals with individual liberties, and individual freedoms. What it is not is a nation of “communities” of various ethnic backgrounds, heritages, and languages. The immigrants that filtered through Ellis Island, the Italians, the Irish, the Polish, never lost their pride and their ties to their homelands, even though they lived in Italian communities, Irish communities, etc. But what set these Americans apart from their contemporary illegal and legal immigrant brethren is that they were not leaches, learned English, worked, created a life, and assimilated a little each and every day, with passion and thankfulness, with the hopes of becoming American. These “communities” that Reyes, Alarcon, etc. belong to only seek citizenship, not becoming American.

It seems in the past month, my beliefs are aligned more so with the state of Arizona and its immigration law, and its ban on anti-American rhetoric taught by ethnic study programs, but then again, I always try to side with the founders, and I am sure they would side with Arizona.

The Honorable Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, has banned all city employees from non-essential travel to the state of Arizona. One exception is law enforcement officials investigating crimes, but–in botched Shakespeare–therein lies the rub: one city’s junk is another state’s law. The venerable brain trust of the West Coast, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, are taking menacing procedures for an economic boycott of the Grand Canyon State, and even boycotting that racist chasm the Grand Canyon, no less. But fear not, Arizona, the Honorable Newsom formed, within hours of the passage of the law, the “Arizona Boycott Workgroup” to ascertain whether their boycott could possibly backfire on San Francisco, or through the lens of reality, if one sits down to a game of poker with 45 cents, a handful of crumpled IOU’s, and a reputation of being rather stupid, against the reigning world poker champion with the backing of $10 million worth of chips, what is the probable outcome?

I would presume that most folks of a common sense persuasion would likely be more offended, economically concerned, and morally aghast, if it had been Somalia that proclaimed a boycott of Arizona rather than San Francisco. In the grand scheme of things, San Francisco has long since become America’s vermiform appendix.

Let us deconstruct the city with the Golden Bridge. San Francisco is America’s Baghdad on the Bay; San Francisco can also lay claim as America’s Sodom. One small trivia fact about San Francisco that is not well known is that there are no angels in San Francisco. They boycotted it. The last time a couple of angels visited the city, they were last seen running up Fillmore with a wild look of terror in their eyes, clutching their holy britches with one hand, and protecting their posteriors with the other. Word travels fast on the internets of eternity, and thus was the beginning of the boycott of San Francisco by angels.

To be clear, San Francisco is the antagonist of all things American, and in a sense, the enemy of America. The hands on Darwin’s clock have spun backwards on the city of San Francisco. This city has digressed into one of the most perverted, anti-American, and rapidly decaying bastions of anathema produced by a civilized nation. Cold War Russia displayed a better disposition towards America than does San Francisco. Perversion, immorality, and American hatred are badges of honor worn with pride in this iniquitous abyss on the bay.

The city is operated by a Board of Supervisors and the Beelzebub of mayors, Gavin Newsom.

A truncated list of the decisions by the Board of Supervisors in which the only conceivable litmus test for their decision would be whether the decision is moral or immoral, with immoral the reigning champ:

Let us start with the shining star of the Board of Supervisors, Gerardo Compos Sandoval. Sandoval believes that the United States should not have a military; he believes that we should give up all our military weaponry; he just plain hates our military, our veterans, and the United States of America, which he and the citizens have become expatriates.

Sandoval stated, “I don’t think we should have a military.” He said that the local police and firefighters should be responsible for our national defense. When asked, “Should the United States give up our tools of war?” he stated, “You know that’s a very complicated question, but I would say, if you forced me to answer, I would say, yes, we should.” The Board of Supervisors voted down the harboring of the USS Iowa as a museum. Said Sandoval regarding voting against the harboring of the ship, “You don’t want a symbol of war in the harbor? It’s a warship and it’s got guns on it. It fires things. You know, you can’t deny what it is.”

Sandoval is representative of the City of San Francisco. And since his harebrained ideas while on the Board of Supervisors were antithetical to logic, intelligence, and morality, the good complicit citizens voted him Superior Court Judge.

This bastion of civility voted to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney, thus making their matriarch of stupid, Nancy Pelosi, President. Once again in a flamboyant display of irrelevance, San Francisco’s impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and Pelosi’s ascension to the throne of a communist America never materialized outside the city limits of America’s Baghdad.

They voted against the limited use of eminent domain, but counter to the pervasive movement across the country, chose to expand eminent domain.

They voted to publicly finance candidates of their choice by raising taxes on corporations and financial institutions to pay for their campaigns.

San Francisco loves pedophiles and sex offenders, and will defend them tooth and nail. The Board of Supervisors voted down a law that would increase the penalties and monitoring of sex offenders and pedophiles, but impeached Bush and Cheney.

The city voted to ban military recruiting in high schools and colleges and to completely ban handguns.

The San Francisco school board voted to ban all Junior ROTC programs from their school districts.

San Francisco, in contrast to Arizona, will violate the federal laws with which it disagrees. They force their police department to also disregard federal law. The city will not allow their police to ascertain a detained suspect’s immigration status, and if they serendipitously discover that they have an illegal alien in their custody, are forbidden from alerting federal authorities. San Francisco is a “Sanctuary City” for criminals, run by criminals.

But stupidity cannot be contained within the city limits of San Francisco, as it is a statewide affliction. President of the California State Senate, Darrell Steinberg, believes that it would be in the best interest of the state to end all state contracts with Arizona. But in the real world, California is so insolvent it would have long ago been broken-up and sold in bankruptcy court to the highest bidder, and if Karma existed, that winning bidder would be none other than North Korea, and perhaps for payment, the U.S. could receive something of greater value than California, such as the North Korean national energy grid.

But there is a solution that would appease all involved. Illegal aliens** have said they will leave Arizona because of the new law as they don’t feel so welcome. San Francisco loves them some fugitives. You can see were this is going.

The solution: load 6,000 Greyhound buses with the previously unwelcomed feeling 450,000 now overjoyed illegal aliens by offering them a welcoming atmosphere and a free trip to Arcadia–not to be confused with Arcadia, CA east of L.A.–deposit them just inside the city limits of the sanctuary city of Baghdad on the Bay, which can, if they so choose, disperse the overjoyed illegals among the welcoming around the state. If Arizona seems to be getting the better part of the deal, it doesn’t really matter since California, as a state, is dumber than a box of crickets, and they will never know the difference anyway.

This may seem like an insurmountable financial burden on the fine city of San Francisco, and the great State of California, but financial bounties await. If the state of California would only start charging an exit tax at the international border between California and the United States on the exponentially increasing hordes of the wealthy fleeing the state with the taxman nipping at their heels, true Nirvana would await the Golden State once again as their coffers would be overflowing.

**Do not construe that by the use of the term illegal aliens that I am insinuating that they come from south of the border and am condoning racial profiling of the darker skin persuasion. I am not. I believe, as most common sense folk do, that there is an equal chance that those without documentation in the state of Arizona could just as well have illegally crossed our Southern border from other countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, or Miami.

The members of the opposition to the new curriculum are shackled and bound slaves of ignorance. The Leftists screaming the loudest could only have been suckled on the teats of the pseudo-intellectual and charlatan of American history, Howard Zinn, or a close derivative thereof. These dissenters of history are the end products of years of indoctrination, with the probability of their answering ten fundamental questions about the founding of this country correctly being statistically improbable.

What harm has an educational system hijacked by a Leftist’s agenda wreaked on this country and its culture? Look no further than the recently passed health care bill, a bill that is entirely and blatantly unconstitutional. This bill was passed without vote in the Senate and sent to Barack Obama, who eagerly signed it into law. This procedural process would have been unfathomable to the founders of this country. Why? Because of the abject ignorance of voters of this country and the malignant corruption of our elected officials. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, et al. can attribute their elected positions to decades of propaganda taught in schools regarding American history. And it would only be apropos that the same people railing against a history that is contradictory to their spurious view support these politicians. The only plausible defense against these pervasive second-rate Trotskyites is education and literacy, which Texas has attempted. And Thomas Jefferson concurs. An uneducated and uninformed public will be the downfall of our liberty, and as witnessed, the more ignorant our country has become of it’s founding principles, the less liberty we possess, and the only method of restoration available to this country is the understanding principles that is was founded upon. Jefferson’s remedy: Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

These naysayers and self-proclaimed liberals of factual history are too simpleminded to know what liberalism is, and oblivious that their ideology is antithetical to liberalism. They are addicted to propaganda, big government, and are incapable of the concept of a self-sustaining life. In short, Thomas Jefferson, whom they adore for the wrong reasons, was a classical liberal: limited government and unfettered individual liberty. A combination unfathomable to government dependents.

Texas has set forth a course to rediscover and teach the authentic history of this country’s founding, devoid of political correctness, prevarications, and the anti-American propaganda the Left needs to dispense to substantiate its existence.

These dissenters of history are a hateful lot. After assaying thousands of déclassée opinions of the counterfeit erudite at Facebook’s group 1,000,000 Against the Texas School board’s Version of History (79,000 members and holding strong), it is clear this concentration of the obtuse are fine examples of the ignorant and uneducated, with a public forum, sans scholarship. The following quotes are the mode of their literary caterwauls:

You don’t need to burn or ban books, just rewrite history and science.

Help not to rewrite History.

Ronald Reagan and conservatism ruined our country.

This is worthy of protest! They accuse Washington of infringing on our rights and freedoms, and then turn around and alter American and World History!

My God what is happening to us? When did knowledge and education become the enemy? I’m so afraid of the masses running over the truth and brainwashing the country. I do not like the way this country is going.

What Texas is doing to education is just disgusting. I’m still in school so what they do to education in Texas could easily affect me. What bastards.

If you want to do something about this, join The Thomas Jefferson Movement.

Please note the last sentence in this string regarding Jefferson. Everything these benighted malcontents support is antithetical to what Jefferson envisioned as the role of the federal government. Not one legitimate intellectual argument against the proposed curriculum was made.

Moving beyond these amateurs to professional rubes, we encounter a more sophisticated ignorance from compensated journalists. April Castro, writing for the AP, demonstrated in her article, Texas ed board vote reflects far-right influences, why Texas is revising their social studies curriculum. Castro’s ignorance of U.S. History, mathematics, and the political spectrum is alarming, and her unmitigated prejudice against anything conservative, and the Texas State Board of Education, is, quite frankly, on the threshold of comedy.

Castro initiates her illiterate exposition with a hazy and intangible proclamation of what constitutes a faction: “A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.” Considering that the vote was 10-5 in favor of the new curriculum, and that a faction is defined as a smaller group within a larger group, it is impossible for Castro to camouflage her prejudice against the majority of the voting block in her first sentence by proclaiming 2/3rd majority a faction. She also never explains what a “far-right faction” is, even though she wields it as a pejorative. A far-right faction today would sit markedly to the left of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers, which could only leave disdain for the likes of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, et al. by Castro.

Castro then aimlessly wanders into a bewildered query of the Judeo-Christian influences on the Founding Fathers, and her obliviousness of their blatant intent to avoid, at all costs, a democratic form of government: “Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation’s Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a ‘constitutional republic,’ rather than ‘democratic….’” There was no philosophical rational for the “separation of church and state” as the “separation of church and state” did not exist, miraculously, for 150 plus years, until the 1947 Supreme Court case Everson vs. Board of Education. The “separation of church and state” is an anti-American plaything that has been brandished by the Left at the slightest suspicion of the Government’s acknowledgment of the God that the Founders relied on, prayed to, and used as guidance for crafting the Constitution. It is indisputable that the foundation of the Constitution was based on Natural Law, or Gods’ Law. The rational for the “establishment clause” of the 1st Amendment was the same rational as for the 2nd Amendment: the Founders’ intent was to prevent another church-controlled government, as experienced with the Anglican Church in England, and to protect religion from the government. The 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent government confiscation of, or infringement upon, privately owned firearms, which the colonists had just endured during the preceding ten years leading to the Revolutionary War.

This Princess of Propaganda, April Castro, and her use of apologetic quotation marks, rendering the phase “constitutional republic” a castrated metaphor, in the stead of a “democratic” government, highlights her uncultivated intellectual disposition. This country was established as a republican form of government, not a democracy. The word “democratic” is never mentioned in the Constitution, and there are volumes of the Founders’ writings proclaiming their disdain for a democratic form of government. Moreover, what is found in the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution is, The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government. It takes less than an hour to read the Constitution, and it is highly suspect that Castro spent five minutes reading the actual document, and based her statements not on facts, but ideology.

Castro appears to be projecting the self-loathing of the Left onto this country with her next statement, and presenting as fact, via her macro-economic callowness, that the periodic travails of the United States free-market could have been avoided by more governmental regulation: “By late Thursday night, three other Democrats seemed to sense their futility and left, leaving Republicans to easily push through amendments heralding ‘American exceptionalism’ and the U.S. free enterprise system, suggesting it thrives best absent excessive government intervention.” “American exceptionalism” came into existence after the Revolutionary War. It existed until the Leftists could no longer be beaten back. Since the turn of the 20th Century, cresting with the leadership of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, “American exceptionalism” has become a barren husk of what it once was, beaten into submission by myriad apologies for its very existence. All economies have peaks and valleys; it is the nature of the beast. But every single catastrophic economic happenstance this country has endured can be directly attributed to governmental regulation.

I can think of no legitimate reason for the board to have removed Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum. He was one of the more predominant figures regarding the Age of Enlightenment and its influence on the incipient fundamentals of the United States. While the Age of Enlightenment was secular in nature in Europe, Jefferson and company were able to incorporate the Enlightenment’s attributes of liberty, republican government, and religious freedom with the devout religiousness of the colonies. But almost every naysayer of the social studies curriculum has been much too quick to lambaste the removal of Thomas Jefferson, and with absolute blindness, as Jefferson, the anti-Federalist in the political spectrum, was to the right of Adams, Washington, Madison, and Hamilton, and would have had no tolerance for the government dependent Left, who are invoking his name in the name of something or other.

To understand April Castro, or the 70,000 members of 1,000,000 Against the Texas School board’s Version of History, and the Left in general, an understanding of the Founders’ reason for the Revolutionary War is in order:

Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.

This is an excerpt from A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, used by the Left for high school and college history classes. Zinn is the messiah of the Left.

If you truly believe this country is on the wrong track, as the majority of people polled do, this is what is wrong with this country: The continued perversion of American history, this deceitful propaganda that has poisoned minds. What is wrong with this country is the illegitimacy of casting a vote for a congressman, or president, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, when neither the congressman, the president, nor the voter, have the faintest idea what the Constitution means.