Professor Elhauge presents as fact that these two mandates required engagement in commerce, thus setting  200+ years of precedent by the first Congress, “which was packed with framers,” as per his depiction. He then states, “Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.” The professor appears to subscribe to the oft employed licentious theorem of the Left that if it is not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, then Congress can presume it has unfettered authority to mandate, tax, legislate, control, and dictate wantonly. But, plausibly, historically, and factually, that is neither the intent nor the spirit of Article 1, Section 8, as it was not an enumeration of what the government should or could do, but rather a very narrow set of limitations constraining what the government can do. What the government cannot do is mandate commercial purchases under the Commerce Clause, as that power was not enumerated, intended, nor would it have survived ratification. Perhaps a perfunctory history lesson of why the Constitution was created, and the purpose of the Commerce Clause, may be the antidote to apocryphal balderdash.

Liberals, progressives, and a particular genus of law professors are wringing their hands in animated intoxication regarding these two particular mandates cited by Professor Elhauge. And reinforcing Professor Elhauge’s theorem of mandated purchases under the Commerce Clause, the Left are evidencing case law functioning as unsanctioned amendments to the Constitution, or as unsanctioned legislation fabricated by American jurisprudence. This benighted infatuation with stare decisis, this judicial inbreeding of the Supreme Court assigning dominion of past Supreme Court rulings as surrogates for the Constitution, has resulted in the passing of deleterious and recessive traits to each Supreme Court progenitor. As with genetics, if the Supreme Court reaches a faulty decision, or flagrant political or agenda driven decision, this trait is passed down to each successive Supreme Court that is indentured by the judicial genetics of stare decisis. Professor Elhauge appears to be erroneously attesting that the first Congress, “which was packed with framers,” mandated that the citizens of sovereign states, states that ceded very few enumerated powers to the newly created federal government, were forced to engage in commerce ad libitum.

Before brandishing adulterate case law and phantom mandates, one question must first be answered: What was the purpose of adding the Commerce Clause to the Constitution?

One must delve much deeper than the burlesque Supreme Court assembled by FDR and its league of handpicked ideologues parading around as judiciously inclined justices. These robe wearing sycophants infected American constitutional jurisprudence with the New Deal, and especially Wickard v. Filburn. Wickard v. Filburn breached the boundaries of the Constitution by affording the federal government an almost immeasurable expansion of powers via the Commerce Clause. And if this unburdened scope of power was the original intent of the Commerce Clause, what was the point of the founders penning the remainder of the Constitution if it is subordinate to the Commerce Clause? Indeed, it is necessary to delve beyond FDR’s reign, beyond Professor Elhauge’s imaginary mandates of commerce, back to the Articles of Confederation and the commercial dysfunction between the states.

Prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution, the governing document of the United States was the Articles of Confederation. Of the myriad weaknesses of this document, the focus will be commerce and the militia, as these two areas are what Professor Elhauge perhaps employed in some fashion of palmistry to arrive at his supposition.

Prior to the American Revolution, colonial commerce was regulated by Great Britain, and to a greater extent in the years just preceding the Declaration of Independence. After independence was declared, the framework of colonial commerce changed, immediately going from regulated to unregulated. Without a structured and enforceable set of regulations to ensure the equitable and uninterrupted flow of the transportation of goods between the states, counterproductive trade barriers between the states arose and jeopardized the necessary commercial alliances of the states essential for sustainability of the nation. The states having the advantage of ports charged exploitative tariffs on goods that passed through their ports en route to and from the states without ports. This started a series of trade wars pitting states with ports against states without ports, with both sides charging counterproductive tariffs.

To compound the problems created by discordant commerce, the Articles of Confederation lacked the mechanism to provide and enforce a uniform monetary policy to protect commerce as well. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had the authority to setup their own monetary systems and print their own currency.

Article III of the Articles of Confederation addresses the states entering into a “firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense,” while Article VII addresses the appointing of officers of the land forces raised by the states, and Article VIII addresses the expenses and funding of “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare.” The government did not have to power to raise an army for defense, and the government did not have to funds to honor Article VIII regarding paying expenses of defense, as the government was unable to even collect the taxes due to pay off the debt from the Revolutionary War. The states generally ignored the federal government regarding taxes, and the Articles left the government powerless to collect taxes.

Even though the states maintained their militias after the end of the war, the inability of the federal government to raise an army left the newly sovereign states vulnerable without a united military front. Even after the Treaty of Paris was signed, the forts in Northwest Territory remained under British control and occupation. The states were not enforcing nor abiding by the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, and the government lacked the power to compel them to do so.

With the Articles of Confederation rapidly approaching critical mass of failure, the necessity of a revision of the document became imperative. A Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation was called on May 14, 1787 and lasted until September 7, 1787. James Madison’s solution to the failings of the Articles of Confederation was to create an entirely new governing document and government. The final result of the four month long convention was the greatest governing document ever created, the United States Constitution. Among the very narrow and limited enumerated powers the states ceded to the newly formed government was the regulation of commerce, and the ability to tax to support a military. Other than the very narrow and limited enumerated powers the states ceded to the newly formed government, and additionally narrowed further by the Bill of Rights, the states retained all previous powers not ceded in the enumerations in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment guaranteed the states’ sovereignty not ceded as well.

The members of the Continental Convention, while debating the structure of the Constitution, were guided by King George III and despotism, as charged in the Declaration of Independence, on one shoulder, and the anarchy disposition of the Articles of Confederation on the other shoulder. The genius of the Constitution was the equipoise between totalitarianism and anarchy. To manifest the ignorance of contemporary liberal legislation, jurisprudence, and the unprecedented abyss of nescience at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue we suffer, the boundaries of how much power the federal government would be able to exert over the states was set by James Madison with his Virginia Plan. Madison proposed that the newly created legislature have the power to invalidate state laws. The proposal was hastily withdrawn for obvious reasons.

The Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8, contrary to what the subversionary left postulates, the size of an industry, its percentage of GDP, or whether every citizen will at some point in their life utilize the industry, are outside the purview of the Commerce Clause. During the era of the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Convention, the term “regulate commerce” had a very specific meaning: All products and articles of trade, passing between the states, through the various ports, or along the waterways between the states, and their subjectivity to tariffs, were subjected to being regulated by the Commerce Clause as rectification of the Articles of Confederation. The Commerce Clause had no authority over intrastate commerce. The only aspect of commerce that the states surrendered to the federal government was their right to impose tariffs on the goods being transported. James Madison’s summation of the limits of the Commerce Clause reigns supreme over preposterous case law, law school and judiciary ideologues, and the vacuous ideology of the left: “A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter.”

It is also noteworthy that the term “commerce” during the era of the Constitutional Convention was categorically extraneous from the manufacturing or production of agriculture, fur, textiles, firearms, printing, farming, and all goods, as it was limited to only controlling tariffs and the transportation of these goods.

As narrow in scope as the Commerce Clause was intended, the powers of the federal government regarding the defense of the nation are extraordinarily expansive in contrast. In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the founders enumerated 7 clauses regarding the militia, navy, and defense of the United States:

• Provide for the common defense
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
• To provide and maintain a Navy
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

To augment and clarify the expansive powers of national defense, the government passed the Militia Act of 1792, and it was this section that caused Professor Elhauge to have a mandated commerce epiphany, with the following directive:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

In Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution under the judicial powers is the phrase “admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” In the founding era, the term “maritime” was recognized as the high seas, and the term “admiralty” was recognized as domestic water ways, including harbors and ports. Soon after the ratification of the Constitution, the federal courts, which were granted the power under Article III, Section 2, concurred with the legislation regarding its broad powers of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states, To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

In addition to the “admiralty and maritime jurisdiction” established in Article III, Section 2, Article I, Section 8 enumerates the government’s power of legislation over dock-yards.

Under its Admiralty power, the Congress created two acts. The 1790 Act required all ships more than 150 tons, and traveling outside American waters, to maintain a medicine chest, and the 1798 Act imposing a 20 cent per month tax to be withheld on the wages of seamen. These were explicit powers under the Constitution, and all ships, crew, and passengers were under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The 1790 and 1798 acts of requiring medicine chests and a 20-cent per month tax for the building of seamen hospitals were justifiable mandates under various constitutional authorities, including the power to provide for the Navy, which would include merchant ships that were regularly engaged in skirmishes with the French, as authorized by Congress, thus making them quasi-militaristic.

Prof Einer Elhauge’s entire argument is based on several untruths and inconsistencies. When the foundation of an argument is based on untruths and grandiose depictions, its prognosis is bleak once inoculated with the truth.

Professor Elhauge states in his New Republic article dated April 13, 2012, “In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms.” Contrasted with an article he wrote in the January 5, 2012 New England Journal of Medicine, “In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm,” Professor Elhauge’s ability of maintaining a static argument has been compromised. The difference between “buy firearms” and “obtain a firearm” is not a matter of semantics, but rather an inconstant argument.

But in contrast to either of Professor Elhauge’s statements, the actual language of the Militia Act of 1792 stated, “That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock….” No citizen was required anything other than to have in their possession a good musket or firelock. There was not a mandate to enter into a commercial transaction to purchase a good musket or firelock, and if there was a mandate, it would have been justifiable under the powers enumerated to the Congress under the military powers.

Professor Elhauge takes his argument to an embarrassing level when rebutting Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett’s argument “it was different because it did not require individuals to buy guns if they got them from someone else.” Professor Elhauge uses the Obamacare mandate of requiring one to have health insurance as not a mandate to purchase insurance. He states that if someone else buys insurance for you, it is the same as someone buying you a gun. The difference between the two is insurmountable. A gun is tangible, and insurance is intangible. Someone cannot give you an extra health insurance policy they are not using, you cannot inherit a health insurance policy, you cannot be gifted a health insurance policy, a gun purchase is a onetime purchase, and a health insurance policy is a perpetual monthly purchase.

Professor Elhauge also takes liberty with math and context. He wields the phrase that the Congress was “packed with framers” too much too often. There were 55 delegates, with 20 of them being present at the Constitutional Convention. Less than 50 percent is not quite the mathematical or common sense definition of “packed.”

Professor Elhauge writes,

The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

As previously stated, merchant ships and their seamen were at times engaged in combat with the French, as authorized by Congress. It was during this time when treaties with France were repealed that the skirmishes at sea became more hostile, and the prospect that seamen could potentially be engaged with the French, that a 20 percent withholding from seamen for hospitals for their care was enacted. Contrary to Professor Elhauge’s claims, no seamen were required to purchase insurance, the 20-cent deduction was not an insurance policy, and the 1790 Act only required a medicine chest on board.

“History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1807 letter 20 years after the Constitution was written. Jefferson’s categorical delineation of the state of mind of the men tasked with creating a form of government with just enough power to execute its narrowly defined functions  has no equal.

Today Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, nescient law school professors, and mutineer judges are the archetypical foundation of what bad government, bad education, and bad jurisprudence are, according to Thomas Jefferson. Unlike the lack of the necessary power under the Articles of Confederation, today’s bad government is the presumption that the federal government has the power to regulate every facet of an individual’s life.

This country does have a governing document, the Constitution, and each and every clause contained within the document is the result of causality. Each and every clause within the Constitution has a spirit, a purpose, a precise reason for being, and can be narrowed to two primary functions: to correct the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, and myriad layers of the protection of states’ and individual’s rights from the federal government.

It is with bad scholarship, such as Professor Elhauge, et al. of …”trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed,” as Jefferson warned; and by creating meanings and events that never were intended nor transpired, teaching of case law as constitutional law, the constitutional illiteracy of Harvard Law graduate Barack Obama, and the malignance and willingness of the courts to rely on stare decisis as constitutional law that will be the undoing of this republican form of government more so than any other threat or crisis this country has ever faced.

In June of 2011, the Texas Senate (21-9) and House (96-48)  passed Senate Bill 7, prohibiting the State of Texas from contracting with healthcare providers that “perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.” After Texas blocked funding to Planned Parenthood and other various professional abortionists in the State of Texas that perform abortions on the taxpayers’ dime, Barack Obama subsequently blocks $35 million in federal Medicaid funding for low-income women in Texas.

Possessing a rabid phobia of the truth, and in the stead of condemning Obama for ending the funding to Texas, and saluting Governor Perry for vowing to keep the program funded within Texas, the archetypal Left found a quixotic windmill in Governor Perry. Compliments of one of the more radical yellow press hustlers in the United States, the Huffington Post headline bellowed, “Texas Loses Entire Women’s Health Program Over Planned Parenthood Law.” With the Huffington Post’s beguiling aspersions aside, Texas has not lost the program, and the program is currently funded at least until October of 2012 with federal money that actually came from Texas taxpayers. Perry has vowed he will find a way to fund it. And always much more entertaining than the habitual apparatchik dogma from the Huffington Post are the erudite comments to this article by the apostles of unsophistication who crowd around the Huffington Post in the evening after dinner.

Sophomoric political scare mongering aside, the cuts in Medicaid by Obama did not kill the program, poor women won’t pay, and access to healthcare sans the option of aborting a baby will still be available. The program is operating, and will do so without interruption. This is a Texas program, and Texas is committed to it. Governor Rick Perry stated the following regarding the Medicare cuts by Obama:

We’ll find the money. The state is committed to this program. Those people that are out there trying to say, “Oh they’re going to kill this program” are just dead wrong. Texas will carry the costs from the time the Obama Administration cuts funding for the program until this impending decision is reversed, either by negotiated resolution or litigation.

In a compelling letter to the Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner, Tom Suehs, Perry stated, “I am directing you to begin working with legislative leadership to identify state funding to continue to provide these services, in full compliance with Texas law, should the Obama Administration make good on its threat to end the health care to these 100,000-plus women.”

Perry also fired-off a letter to Barack Obama regarding the constitutional issue of blocking the Medicare funding, but as with all complainants regarding Barack Obama and his affinity for operating outside the Constitution, Perry had to take a number and get in back of a very long line:

Your administration’s attempt to violate states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by mandating which health providers the State of Texas must use is nothing more than an effort to continue to financially support abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and their affiliates. I will not allow these services to be denied by your administration’s political agenda and opposition to enacted Texas law that prohibits abortion providers and their affiliates from receiving taxpayer dollars.

Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins also summed up nicely Obama and his constant politicizing anything and everything that may produce a Democratic vote: “This administration needs to stop using women and the unborn as pawns in funding President Obama’s radical allies. Some on the left have said there is a ‘war on women’ – they are correct, and its lead general is President Barack Obama.”

This is not about healthcare, as Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot stated:

Planned Parenthood is a poor investment of public funds. Planned Parenthood offers only a narrow range of services and is unwilling or incapable of offering comprehensive primary and preventative care. Planned Parenthood cannot treat breast cancer. They do not even have one mammogram machine anywhere in Texas. The only time a woman will see a doctor at Planned Parenthood is if she is there for an abortion. Women deserve better.

Now on to these uterus knitters. There seems to be an allegedly nationwide fury of women who depend on other people’s money, furiously knitting what appear to be yarnish looking uteruses, and mailing them to politicians who are fondling their uteruses by way of tampering with welfare funding:

Inside Kimberlyn Crowe’s Oak Cliff home, knitting has always been quiet therapy. Suddenly, it’s become a way to make some noise.

“Words don’t do any good because it’s all been said,” she declared. So she let the yarn became her words and her hobby become her voice.

“The statement is: ‘Get your hands off my uterus!’” Crowe said with a laugh.

She began knitting uteruses last week. On Sunday, she joined a group of North Texas knitters inside a Garland home.

They knitted, crocheted, and sewed dozens of uteruses. They will send them to Texas Gov. Rick Perry and other select lawmakers in Austin and Washington who, they believe, have cast votes cutting funding to women’s health care and limiting access to birth control.

Crowe is keen to send lawmakers a message. “Here’s your own uterus; now keep your hands off mine,” she said.

The uterus-knitting project is happening nationwide.

The hand-made uteruses will be hand-delivered to Gov. Perry’s office during a march in Austin in late April.

“You know, one could hope the heavens will open, light will shine down, and they’ll get it,” said Crowe with a smile. “I hope what they’ll hear is there’s a lot more of us than they might have thought of to start with.”

Crowe apparently suffers from the liberalism affliction of factual myopia and seems to be immune to the statement that Governor Perry said he will find money to replace the lost federal dollars, keeping the program intact without funding abortions.

So instead of knitting yarnish pink uteruses and dispatching them to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue through various parcel services to the actual culprit who has his hands on their uteruses and brains, these mendicant knitters are sending them to the one person who is vowing to actually put Texas tax dollars on their uteruses.

In a bizarre act of solidarity of sorts, I will join Crowe in sending my own knitted message, not to Rick Perry and various lawmakers, but to these busy uterus knitters. As Crowe stated, “Here’s your own uterus; now keep your hands off mine,” I will knit green dollar bills, and send them to these uterus knitters with the attached statement: “Here’s your own money; now keep your uterus off mine.”

They tell me that minorities cannot use a bank, rent a storage unit, write a check, cash a check, get married, drive a car, fly on a plane, rent a Post Office box, stay at a hotel, rent an apartment, buy a house, buy a gun, get a job, get a credit card, buy alcohol, get married, apply for welfare, apply for food stamps, be admitted to a hospital, use the public library, get insurance, get a business license, apply for social security, ship with UPS, buy Allegra D at a pharmacy, buy Drano, and transact any government business.

Now I have discovered that minorities cannot enter Eric Holder’s Department of Justice to exercise their 1st Amendment right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” without official photo identification.

Who are “they” that are continually trying to convince me that minorities are incompetent, unable to perform the simplest of tasks that their Caucasian counterparts can, and are just plain lazy? “They” are prejudicial racists, including, but not limited to, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the Democratic Party, and various garden-variety incendiary organizations, such as LULAC and the NAACP who claim to represent the majority of minorities. And let’s not forget the capricious and insurrectionist sect of the judiciary.

In May 2011, Texas passed an election law requiring voters to present government issued photo IDs to be able to vote. Voter ID laws serve one purpose and one purpose only: to prevent voter fraud. This list of valid photo IDs that Texas will accept are a driver’s license, a Texas issued ID card, a passport, a gun permit, a military ID, etc. Quiet onerous, indeed.

On March 12, 2012, Barack Obama’s Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division objected to the Texas voter ID law. This Justice Department is teaming with cowards, crippled by racism, prejudice, and a radical leftist ideology. This is the same Civil Rights Division that dismissed the case against the New Black Panther Party for threatening with billy clubs white voters who attempted to vote at a predominantly black polling place. The complaint against Texas is from the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Thomas Perez. He is flanked by several new deputy chiefs that slithered over from the NAACP and the ACLU.

An important annotation is the fact that Perez is currently the president of Casa de Maryland. Casa de Maryland is another rights group that conjures up rights for illegal immigrants, is a member of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and also operates five day labor centers in the state of Maryland. As with all day labor centers, they are predominately utilized by illegal aliens seeking day employment. One of the primary sources of funding for Casa de Maryland is the Open Society Institute, which is owned by George Soros.

Prior to Perez’s tenure as overseer of an unconcealed racist and prejudiced Civil Rights Division, the Department of Justice had previously approved several states’ voter ID laws, and the ones they did not approve were approved in a court of law. Texas law is consistent with other state voter ID laws. And as astonishing as it seems, after Georgia’s voter ID law was challenged in court by the ACLU and the NAACP, and their suit being unceremoniously tossed out by a federal judge, Georgia’s minority voting participation increased significantly.

They, or Obama’s Justice Department, claim that Texas law is discriminatory to minorities under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. They claim it “disproportionately harms” Hispanic voters. It’s discriminatory because the Justice Department believes that minorities cannot perform any of the above enumerated citizen related activities, including acquiring an official photo ID, which conveniently, Texas provides for free. Perhaps Barack Obama and Eric Holder should, at the very least, take a cursory glance at Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, which the Supreme Court ruled on in 2008 in a 6-3 decision in favor of the voter ID law enacted by the state of Indiana. John Paul Stevens, one of the court’s liberal justices, wrote the majority opinion paralleling the state’s purpose of preventing voter fraud, and that the requirement of presenting a valid photo ID is not an undue burden:

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.

The plaintiffs in this case, the Democratic Party and an assortment of interest groups that were representing the interests of minorities and the Democratic Party’s votes, argued that having to obtain a free state ID card was an undue burden on minorities. But when showtime came, the plaintiffs could not present a single witness not able to meet Indiana’s voter ID requirements. Also jumping into the fracas by filing an amicus brief was The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, the self-anointed “non-partisan public policy and law institute,” which is ironically funded by billionaire Bolshevik aficionado George Soros.

With the courts overwhelmingly siding with state voter ID laws, the NAACP, a league of race hustlers, has decided to take the voter ID disenfranchisement circus to the United Nations Human Rights Council. To make their case, they are dragging two potential victims of disenfranchisement all the way to Geneva, Switzerland. One is a crack cocaine dealer that was sentenced to 24 years in prison, and the other too lazy to travel a few blocks to pick up a free ID card from the state of Texas.

Potential victim number one, Austin Alex, a student at Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth, Texas, is the lazy one. Alex and the NAACP are distraught over the strenuous and onerous effort required for him to travel a few blocks to pick up his free Texas official photo ID. Austin only has an out of state driver’s license; with moving from another state, registering for school, etc, and traveling to Geneva, how could he possibly be expected to find the time or energy to pick up a free photo ID to be able to vote?

Potential victim number two, Kemba Smith, pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, and was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison. She was pardoned by Bill Clinton after serving almost 7 years. Kemba is concerned that she won’t be able to vote if she moves back to her home state of Virginia if she has to verify who she is at the polling place of her choice. Virginia has a law that felons cannot vote, and if she has to prove who she is at the voting booth, she will be turned away. The fundamentals of her case are that her human rights would be violated if she cannot sneak into a voting booth unaccounted for. Even though she was pardoned by Clinton, a presidential pardon does not erase her conviction, merely forgives it, and her loss of the civil right to vote because of her federal felony conviction can only be erased by the state in which she resides. So it seems that the NAACP and Kemba Smith are asking the Human Rights council to allow her to be able to break a state law regarding felons not being able to vote by letting her vote without identifying herself and thus exposing her felony conviction. Kemba Smith is a dichotomy for me, as I actually sympathize with Kemba regarding her 24-year prison sentence and her commendable contributions to society since her release. She was convicted by virtue of conspiracy law rather than actual participation, and mandatory federal sentencing, which are draconian, unconstitutional, and the laws they represent exceed the purview of the federal government. It is her association with the NAACP, and presenting such an unscrupulous cause to such a fraudulent and defective United Nations, which negate her accomplishments.

But before either of these two manufactured martyrs enter the United Nations building in Geneva, these two pawns of the NAACP will have to present valid and official photo IDs to pass the threshold.

This band of increasingly extraneous demagogues will present their case to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This ragtag aggregation of oppressors, tyrants, and despots parading around as a who’s who of human rights advocates–Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Congo, Angola, Malaysia, China, and of course, Russia–will be adjudicating. According to Freedom House, the majority of the Human Rights Council is comprised of countries that are not free, and since this is regarding voting rights, their case will be pled in front of countries, as Dennis Prager stated, whose “elections, if they have them, are rigged, and prominent opponents are jailed, tortured and killed.” And don’t forget that the Human Rights Council just adopted a report that commended Muammar Gaddafi and Libya for an accomplished human rights record.

Why is the NAACP so opposed to voter ID laws? Why are they spewing racist propaganda against legitimate and prudent voting ID laws? Why are they traveling to Geneva with these two manufactured martyrs with them? Because there exists no legitimate reason for the NAACP to exist. Their business model is based on racism, and when they can’t find racism, they manufacture racism. They have pounced from one manufactured racial crisis to another. The liberals, the Democrats, the judges, the media, all have to continually be agitated to keep the funding flowing. And in the case of Texas voter ID law, even though the Justice Department has identified that it will be Hispanics who will be disenfranchised, the NAACP has created racism for its constituents as well in Texas. Hilary Shelton, the vitriolic senior vice president of the NAACP, can create racism anywhere, anytime simply by lying. She defended the Geneva trip with a remarkably stupid statement regarding voter ID laws:

It’s trickery, it’s a sleight-of-hand. We’re seeing it happen here and we don’t want it to happen to you, and we are utilizing the U.N. as a tool to make sure that we are able to share that with those countries all over the world. This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy…undercuts the integrity of our government, if you allow it to happen.

What this arrogant bag of wind should do for perspective is emigrate to perhaps Saudi Arabia, then boldly march up to a voting booth without a male guardian, and try to cast a vote. Also, if Shelton should decide to drive herself to the voting booth, as women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, there would be no trickery and sleight-of-hand as her transgressions could result in being pummeled with stones.

So who exactly will be disenfranchised by the Texas voter ID law? Who will be unable to cast their votes for the Democrats? It’s not minorities, and especially not Hispanics. Hilary Shelton of the NAACP stated, “It’s trickery, it’s a sleight-of-hand.” But this statement defines the actions of the Justice Department quite nicely regarding their opposition of the Texas voter ID law. According to the Heritage Foundation, the math employed by the Justice Department is “clear in its intentions, fuzzy in its methodology and wrong in its conclusions.”

According to the 2010 Census, Hispanics make up 37.6 percent of the population in Texas, but 21.8 percent of registered voters in Texas are Hispanic. This skewed percentage is the result of a large number of Hispanics in Texas being here illegally. The Justice Department claims that 6.2 percent of Hispanics registered to vote do not have driver’s licenses, as opposed to 4.3 percent of non-Hispanics. According to worldwide standards and accepted mathematics, this is a 1.9 percentage difference. But according to Barack Obama’s Justice Department, a “Hispanic voter is 46.5 percent more likely than a non-Hispanic voter to lack” an ID. And according to the actual data gathered that the Justice Department chose to ignore, three times as many non-Hispanic registered voters are without IDs; thus, the voter ID law will affect Caucasians and other registered voters much more severely.

What this country has deteriorated into since Barack Obama was elected president is an entire cabinet, including the Justice Department, that views all axioms, civility, reason, facts, and the Constitution as Quixotic windmills to be blindly charged wielding prejudice and discrimination as weapons, and injustice as their armor.

Within the palisades of Christianity, the most basal representation of good and evil is that God is good and Satan is evil. It originated with the beginning of humanity with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There exists no latitude for moral relativism, as moral relativism is the product of liberalism’s dangerous artifice to justify licentious indulgences and oblige them upon society. Satan is not the source of evil according to Catholicism, but is the enemy of Christ’s Kingdom. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Satan is the “head of all the wicked.” Good being morally positive, and evil being morally negative. The Catholic Church believes that contraception is congenitally evil; in the Humanae Vitae, it is taught that unnatural methods of birth control are considered abortion.

A pernicious political axiom, manifest to those not afflicted with apparatchik myopia, is the truism that Barack Obama is a seasoned and venomous radical, anti-Christian, anti-religion, anti-morality, and has demonstrated a pathological mania with infanticide. No American president has launched such a blitzkrieg against morality and the Constitution equal to Barack Obama, while simultaneously creating and nurturing one of the most corrupt and inept administrations in American history. Almost every single cabinet secretary or leader is morally, intellectually, and ethically challenged.

Barack Obama’s latest assailment against morality and the Constitution arrives via his Health and Human Services mandate forcing religious employers and organizations to be complicit in providing contraception and abortifacients, even though their religion believes it to be a sin.

Obama’s mandate is a continuation of his myriad violations of the Constitution and federal law. The HHS mandate is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment’s protection of religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….The mandate also is in direct violation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was enacted for the purpose of preventing laws or mandates that would burden the free exercise of religion.

It would be judicious to clarify the record regarding Obama’s dedication to legalizing infanticide prior to his being elected President in 2008 to properly compare and contrast against the Catholic Church’s doctrine. As a state Senator for Illinois, Barack Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003; he was the only Senator that spoke against the bill on the Senate floor. The bill would have provided protection for babies that survived attempted abortions. Barack Obama was able to facilitate the continuation—in league with Planned Parenthood and its bevy of financial contributors—of the destruction of infants. Though partial birth abortion was at the center of this bill, that term is a misnomer. The actual term for the procedure that Obama was instrumental in perpetuating is called intrauterine cranial decompression or intactdilation and extraction. The name is descriptive of the procedure. A baby is pulled from the mother’s womb, exposing the legs, torso, and arms, but not the head. Tiny fingers moving and clasping, feet kicking, heart beating. The technicality that separates this procedure from the various forms of homicide that will produce a 20 to life prison sentence is keeping the baby’s head inside the mother’s womb as the doctor jams the tip of a pair of blunt curved metzenbaum scissors into the baby’s skull, pries open the skull, then suctions out the brain. This of course is performed long after the baby has the capability of feeling the extreme pain being inflicted.

Consistent Ethic of Life is a term used by the Catholic Church that summarizes the church’s position that all human life should be protected by law. The Catholic Church speaks with moral authority regarding abortion, birth control, etc., and apparently for these particular policies of the United States government. Barack Obama’s record regarding abortion prior to running for President, according to the Catholic Church and its doctrine, is a willfully committed, serious transgression against the law of God, depriving the soul of divine grace.

Now that Barack Obama’s character has been contrasted as antipodal to the Catholic Church and its doctrine, and considering that the Catholic Church has a history of interposing itself in American politics, and the Church’s multitude of radical and socialistic politicians it has been complicit in electing, does the Catholic Church’s record and actions regarding birth control and abortion reconcile with its doctrine?

Georgetown University is a private Catholic institution that was founded in 1789 by the first head of the Catholic Church in America, John Carroll. It was at this storied university that Barack Obama demanded that God sit at the back of the room, not draw attention to himself, and keep quiet before he would give his speech. Apparently there was not enough room on the stage for two deities, and Georgetown agreed; they complied by camouflaging all religious symbols behind Obama’s stage. Lucifer, if invited to speak at Georgetown, would have been ashamed to ask for more than was granted to Obama.

It would be intellectually disingenuous to deny that the Catholic Church was instrumental in electing Barack Obama President, which beget Obamacare, which beget the unsurprising HHS mandate requiring that the Catholic Church commit various sins. In fact, the Catholic Church’s fatuous exploits into politics, especially the 2008 election, have aggrandized Roe v. Wade. The Bishops are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth over this mandate; as George Will stated, “it serves them right.” The damage and consequences of this mandate are the result of the Catholic Church’s undiscerning obsession to elect politicians that will perpetuate socialism by taking from the wealthy and redistributing that wealth in the name of God.

Since the 1930s, the Catholic Church has either been constructing these Faustian pacts with the most profoundly immoral and debauched political party this country has suffered, the Democratic Party, or forging Machiavellian maneuvers causing the subversion of the Constitution and the elimination of individual rights in the name of redistribution and manufactured equality. The Catholic Church has been making these compacts with this political party and propagating socialism since the FDR administration. But, there is no doubt that the Catholic Church makes these deals with the best of intentions out of their duty and concern for the downtrodden, the needy, the oppressed, and the destitute, but it is the damage committed against humanity by the political knaves they are in league with, and the predictable consequences enacted by these political philistines, that have profoundly eroded its moral authority.

The Catholic Church was an enthusiastic proponent of the New Deal. The New Deal Coalition consisted of various interest groups and significant voting blocs; the Catholic Church was an integral part of the New Deal Coalition, and it willingly partnered with the corrupt political machines of Chicago, New York, etc, and corrupt labor unions, as all parties were coalesced by FDR. The New Deal Coalition was responsible for the Democratic Party and liberal politicians being the majority political party from the 1930s to the election of Eisenhower in 1952. Since John F. Kennedy, the breakdown for the Catholic vote for presidential contenders is as follows: John F. Kennedy, Democrat, 82%; Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat, 78%; Hubert Humphrey, Democrat, 55%; Jimmy Carter, Democrat, 56%; Michael Dukakis, Democrat, 52%; Bill Clinton, Democrat, 53%; Al Gore, Democrat, 50%; and Barack Obama, Democrat, 54%.

With the 2006 and 2008 elections, and 55% of Catholics voting Democrat, they handed to the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the majority of state governorships, the majority of state legislatures, the presidency, and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Within the realm of morality, they handed control of this country over to a league of frenzied abortionists, and in predictable consecutiveness, two Supreme Court justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, champions of abortion. A two-year political rampage by Catholic voters ensured that Roe v. Wade will endure for decades.

Rather than spend their efforts practicing idolatry of Obama, if the Catholic Church’s hierarchy had spent their efforts supporting candidate(s) more representative of the church’s doctrines and what they regard as holy, perhaps enough of the rank and file members of the church would have caused a different result in the election(s). Obama received 69,456,897 votes to McCain’s 59,937,814 votes, or 52% to 46%; Obama had 365 electoral votes and McCain had 173 electoral votes. The Catholic voting bloc consists of 47 million voters, and Obama received 55% of the Catholic vote. Presuming all Catholic voters voted, Obama received 24,200,000 Catholic votes. If the Catholic vote of 24,200,000 went to McCain, then the numbers would have been 45,256,884 Obama to 84,137,811 in McCain’s favor. Certainly enough to swing the electoral votes the other direction. Now this does not forgive any other Christian sect for voting against the tenets of Christianity, which would have caused a greater impact. Obviously these calculations are far from scientific, but accurate enough to convey the point.

The 2008 presidential and congressional election was the cardinal political event to dismantle Roe v. Wade, solidify the Defense of Marriage Act, and keep intact Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, rather than continuing to subject our military to the radical left’s social agenda. It was also an opportunity to eradicate the plethora of laws and mandates of decades of liberal politicians and judges assaulting what is considered sacrosanct by the Catholic Church, and anyone subscribing to fundamental morality. One election cycle would not accomplish this feat, but would be the first step in that direction. The Catholic Church botched it. Beelzebub could not have orchestrated a more perfect election to continue the moral decline of America, and the continuation of the federal government’s meddling in abortion.

All the bishops that advocated Obamacare and pressured Congress to vote for it are now warning that they will be forced to shutter the following Church organizations:

• Catholic hospitals. These account for 12.6 percent of all hospitals in the U.S., and also administer healthcare to a lower socioeconomic group.
• Catholic charities. These are one of the largest groups of charitable organizations in the U.S., consisting of almost 1800 organizations. Annual revenue is$4.7 billion, with90% of each dollar donated going to charitable services.
• Catholic schools. The Catholic Church operates over 7500 schools in the U.S., educating over 2.5 million students with a 99% graduation rate, and a 97% college placement rate.

After 60 plus years of an inimical relationship with a league of unprincipled parasites, subordinating its moral doctrine to socialistic ambitions, the Catholic Church has jeopardized its doctrine and principles, and religious freedom, by being foolish enough to put their faith in a political Judas Iscariot. Perhaps the Catholic Church, with its nobly unrelenting and altruistic crusade, can unite its disseminated flock, choose politicians that are not antithetical to morality, and keep the socially beneficial bearings of socialism within the demarcation of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is good, but its politics are evil.

Alejandrina desperately wants to serve the citizens of San Luis, Arizona, U.S.A., but the legal system has determined that nodding and the use of histrionics was not the appropriate lingua franca needed to perform her elected duties. You see, Alejandrina has a handicap, an impediment preventing her from pursuing a vocation of bureaucratic beguilement: she no habla Inglés.

Before the Arizona Supreme Court derailed her bid for a council seat, County Superior Court Judge John Nelson ruled that her name be stricken from the March ballot. Try as he may, Judge Nelson was hamstrung by highly discriminatory laws.

Arizona state law requires elected officials to be proficient in English since there is a high probability that they may have to communicate with the native tongue speakers in their elected capacity at some point during their tenure. Judge Nelson employed the use of a sociolinguistic expert to ascertain Alejandrina’s ability to communicate with American native tongue speakers without the use of dance and the forming of letters and symbols with her hands. William Eggington, sociolinguistic expert, administered a few simple English proficiently tests to determine if this fledgling pol could read, speak, and comprehend the native tongue of America. Alejandrina, being emblematic of why diplomas from public schools are of catchpenny quality, graduated and received her diploma from Kofa High School in Yuma, sans basal competency of the English language, and probably with honors, to boot. Unfortunately for Alejandrina, she came fortified with a positive and determined attitude and a diploma from a public high school more interested in agendas and graduation rates than actual education: she failed the test. In fact, Eggington stated that her fluency in English was limited to “basic survival level.”

Being a fair and judicious judge, the Honorable Nelson, even when factoring in the failed tests, seemed to be searching for a reason to facilitate the typical American dream shared by Alejandrina and all quasi-Americans of becoming successful in their endeavors in an English speaking country without a fundamental command of the English language. He seemed sympathetic to the fact that she was born in the United States, graduated from a public high school, and has only had 35 short years to learn English.

The Honorable Nelson then asked Alejandrina a few queries during her hearing in hope of a linguistic breakthrough. Unfortunately, Alejandrina answered the questions with samplings of Kurt Vonnegut, and her political career seemed to be all but scrubbed:

Nelson: “Do you understand the seriousness of this hearing?”

Alejandrina: “I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you different.”

Nelson: “Do you feel you understand English proficiently enough to serve the citizens of San Luis?”

Alejandrina: “If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you’re a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.”

Nelson: “Are you willing to learn the English language?”

Alejandrina: “Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.”

Nelson: “Do you understand what I’ve been saying?”

Alejandrina: “Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, ‘Why, why, why?’ Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.”

The paradigm of the U.S. being an English only language began to come under assault in a 2000 lawsuit the EEOC brought against Premier Operator Services, Inc. for requiring that phone operators speak English to try to improve communications with callers seeking information, phone numbers, and whatnots. The EEOC claimed it constituted unlawful national origin discrimination by requiring English. Premier was fined $709,284. Premier stated through an interpreter who spoke only English, the company will layoff all the employees and move their information division to India to improve communications.

The ramifications of the Premier lawsuit and the attack on the Salvation Army by the EEOC and Congress for their abusive and discriminatory work environment requiring employees to speak English have spawned a new genre of discrimination lawsuits that have made their way to the Supreme Court just this past year to right this pernicious practice, and maybe to gain a little cash for their troubles.

Alejandrina is determined to become a non-English speaking city council member, and follow in Obama’s footsteps, and be the second President of the United States lacking the ability to communicate with the American people. Her fate will rest with the United States Supreme Court. She has three court cases involving speaking Spanish in the workplace to comfort her. Even though the cases were thrown out on technicalities, she hopes to avoid the same technicalities with the aid of Rosetta Stone.

In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court has taken three discrimination lawsuits under an emergency filing by three separate defendants accusing current and potential employees of discrimination by requiring them to speak English on the job. Justice Ginsburg made the following statement about the court’s sui generis move: “This abhorrent brand of discrimination, as with any facet of a U.S. citizen’s life, should not be left un-legislated, unregulated, or uncontrolled by some branch of bureaucracy. This must end now.” Ginsburg went on to state that if the allegations are true, then she, Sotomayor,  Kagan, and Breyer are of the opinion that the plaintiffs’ rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments have been violated on a level not seen since the Jim Crow era. Believing she had misquoted one of the amendments, she was pressed about how their 19th amendment rights could have possibly been violated. Ginsburg stated, through tightened lips and a tone that manifested her constitutional acumen, “Where there is a will, there is a way.”

A brief summary of the three lawsuits:

Sanchez v. Central Intelligence Agency: The law firm of Bicker and Bicker filed the petition for Aristotle Sanchez. Sanchez was born and raised in Miami; he emigrated from Miami to Virginia at age 22. He has been employed as a shredder tuner at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia for the past 15 years. Aristotle had always enjoyed a high degree of comfort and protection being an immigrant from Miami working for a government that put political correctness ahead of national security, law, and common sense. Sanchez’s very being ached to become a CIA operative, and he fantasized about the life of a spy while tuning shredders, wondering what secrets his finely tuned shredders had seen. He had heard too many a thrilling story in the breakroom in which spies talked shop and swapped stories to not fancy himself as a spy.

After seeing a note on a poster board in the breakroom for a position as a covert operative to infiltrate nefarious domains in the Middle East, Sanchez could hardly contain himself. He applied for the job. After being denied the position as a spy for not having a bachelor’s degree, proper training, failing the aptitude test, being marginally fluent in English, and unable to speak Arabic, Persian, Armenian, and Somali, as was required for the job, he sued alleging racial and linguistic discrimination and unlawful national origin discrimination. Ican Bicker, council, called the CIA’s attitude and hiring practices outrageous and indefensible in today’s politically correct climate.

Gonzalez v. City of Malibu: The law firm of Payne & Suphrun filed the petition for John Wilkes Gonzalez. Gonzalez worked for the phone company Telmex in Tzurumútaro, Mexico as an information and emergency operator for the past 7 years before mysteriously ending up in the United States. Gonzalez spent his days dispensing crucial information as to what areas of the border were safe to cross on a particular day, as crossing the U.S. border is considered an emergency in Mexico–especially if the government is not available that day with crossing information. Being of an industrious nature, he immediately applied for a job as 911 operator for the Malibu, California police department. Gonzalez assumed that his extensive background as an emergency operator with Telmex in Tzurumútaro would certainly qualify him for the position. With his English being limited to three phrases that he was assured would facilitate his professional advancement in California, “Barack Obama is my friend,”“no hablo inglés,” and “I am a Democrat,” he was unfortunately not offered the position. To make matters worse, the name on his social security card read “Joe Biden,” and during the interview, as he answered all questions with one of the three phrases, John Wilkes Gonzalez was deemed not qualified to handle emergency calls that are primarily in English. His attorney, Iman Payne, called the actions of the City of Malibu one of the most egregious forms of discrimination he has witnessed in his six months as an attorney, and it was clear that Gonzalez was a victim of racial and linguistic discrimination, and unlawful national origin discrimination.

Castro v. Yale University: The firm of Rush, Rush, & Delay filed the petition for Lyndon Baines Castro. Castro emigrated from Berkeley, California to College Station, Texas. Castro arrived equipped with educational accomplishments, such as valedictorian from Berkeley High School, sans science, a BA in Arguing with Judge Judy, and a minor in The Joy of Garbage from U.C. Berkeley, a Masters in Romance Languages and Literatures from U.C. Berkeley, and a PhD in The Application of Logic in an Abstract Educational Environment from U.C. Berkeley. Upon arrival, he immediately applied for a position as a professor at Texas A&M University. Not exactly sure what he was qualified to teach, or what he actually knew, he left the position portion of the application blank. Being born and spending the entirety of his life in Berkeley, California by parents who were first generation immigrants from Miami, English was a third language for Castro, with Spanish first, the detached dialectic vernacular of Hippie second, and of course English third.

Castro was denied the job. During the course of the interview and background check, it was determined that, even with all his degrees, Castro appeared to not have a functional and serviceable level of education. The university was puzzled with Castro’s inability to engage in comprehensible conservations in English considering his education. There was also great concern and curiosity regarding his pathological inability to integrate with a foreign culture. A psychiatrist was summoned to assist the university in understanding Castro’s inability to comprehend and adapt to the traditional, conventional, and preferred cultural characteristics of a functioning citizen, and his inability to communicate at an educated level.

Although Castro was offered a paying position as a test subject in the Anthropology Department, he sued the university citing racial, linguistic, educational, and unlawful national origin discrimination.

The filing was initially delayed as his council, Dewey Rush, was replaced by Will Delay, then the filing was finally completed by a third partner, Will Rush, who stated that “never before have I seen this level of discrimination before since the last time  saw it, but certainly not since have I seen it before now.”

All three appeals were dropped by the defendants because the Supreme Court refused, in a vote of 5-4, to hear the oral arguments in Spanish and Hippie. The defendants refused, on principle, to conduct the hearings in English. They felt they were discriminated against by the Supreme Court, and have since, with the help of the Obama administration and Eric Holder, taken their case to the International Court of Justice at the U.N. in their quest for justice.

When asked their opinions regarding the ruling, and the potential ramifications if the International Court of Justice ruled in their favor, the plaintiffs stated, “no hablo Inglés, dude.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

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

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The draft:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step One: A Simple Misunderstanding

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

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

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

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

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

Step Two: State of Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step Three: Blame it on Bush

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

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

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

Step Four: Can’t Read Them All

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

Step Five: Nuclear Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Now

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

Chicago

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

 The Attorney

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

Sharon Bialek Wants to Put a Face to the Charges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Legal and Credit

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

Current Source of Income and Current Fiancé

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

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

The Other Public Accuser

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

 Gloria Allred’s Last Gasp for Relevancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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