The National Geographic Channel has teamed up with Harvey Weinstein, conservative-loathing filmmaker, to create a movie titled SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden. The purpose of the movie is to focus and highlight Obama’s role in the killing of Osama bin Laden. The movie is to air on the eve of the election, but Howard Owens National Geographic;’s CEO stated that they “weren’t considering the election, and there is no political inference or connection regarding the timing of its air-date.”

There is much concern on the left regarding the misconception of Obama’s significant role in the killing of bin Laden, and the film makers are insisting that Barack Obama be more prominently featured in the movie to make the voting public more aware of his role in the killing of bin Laden, rather than the demurred and shy stance Obama has taken on the subject. This movie, rather than the accounts of the actual SEALs involved, will be “the real inside story behind the manhunt and raid that took down al-Qaeda’s notorious leader, told through the eyes of the military and intelligence teams involved,” but focusing on the perspective of the hero who was instrumental in the success of the raid to give it a stronger sense of realism.

For accurate sourcing, the National Geographic and Harvey Weinstein have been granted unrestricted access by Mendacity Publishing to Barack Obama’s yet to be released book, Dreams from Myself. Nestled between chapter 14, Things I Taught God, and chapter 16, Things I Taught all Future Generations of Mankind, is Chapter 15, Things I Taught Seal Team Six.

An excerpt from Chapter 15 upon which the movie is based:

The air in the White House gymnasium was heavy with humidity; the air also carried the burden of the weight of the mission which I would embark upon shortly; it was a cheerful atmosphere shrouding the court, despite the course of action I would take as soon as I wrapped up a game of one-on-five against the L.A. Lakers. Fate would have it no other way: zero hour and my sinking the game-winning three-pointer intersecting at the exact moment in time.

It was now time to turn my attention to defining my presidency, and it was time to turn my attention to defining me (I).

I hated the name “Operation Neptune Spear”—who can operate under the weight and stigma of that name? I fought and struggled for the most menacing name possible, “Operation Choom Gang,” but used the white flag and conceded this battle to focus on the war.

Another battle that I was determined to win and in which I did come out victorious was with the Director of the CIA, David Petraeus. Petraeus insisted on having Mitch Rapp tag along, but it was my opinion that he would slow me and the mission down. Petraeus agreed and conceded.

My involvement with taking down bin Laden started in 2002 while killing time during debates and hearings when the Illinois Senate was in session. I was surfing the net for Afghanistan poppy seed distributors (research only), when I happened upon the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti as a man not confined by borders. After intense research, I came to the conclusion this man was strongly connected to Osama bin Laden, as well as probably one of the most prolific heroin mules in the world. I never mentioned this to anyone, but I continued to search and track the exploits of al-Kuwaiti until 2010. It was at this juncture that I was positive from the intelligence that I personally gathered on al-Kuwaiti of the exact location of bin Laden. I felt comfortable bringing the CIA into the fold; I had the CIA conduct further surveillance and they concurred with me that bin Laden was in fact holed up in his Abbottabad compound in Pakistan.

It was a dark night, a good night for cover. I was the epitome of cool as I piloted the never-before-seen stealth-modified Black Hawk out of Afghanistan under the cover of darkness to a perfect landing just inside the compound of a man I vowed to hound to the gates of hell and back. Even though my predecessor failed, that was not an option for me. I needed the SEALs on board to feel a wave of calm and confidence, so my coolness expanded from my being and engulfed and insulated their bodies just before the Black Hawk touched down as I confidently barked last minute orders. Once on the ground, I bolted from the Black Hawk as quick as a thought, bounded across the compound’s exterior, and burst through the impenetrable doors, guns blazing. I fended off the marauders on my left and on my right. Once the SEAL team was able to catch-up, out of breath, I commanded the lower level be cleared as I bounded up the stairs; my acute instincts and senses told me the lair of bin Laden rested at the top. I burst through the triple reinforced door as if it were cardboard. Out of the corner of my eye, I picked up movement: a tall, bearded man clutching 5 PKs, a Colt .45, and a scythe. As the blinding inferno raced from the barrels of the PKs, I leapt to the side, and while mid-air, I placed two perfectly round holes in bin Laden’s temple. Tap, tap. Before I could draw my next breath, I advanced down the stairs at break-neck speed with the now flaccid body of the devil I vowed to destroy draped over my shoulders. I sprinted across the courtyard to the Black Hawk, tossed the body in the back, commandeered the controls, and was airborne heading into the abyss of the dark Pakistani night back to Afghanistan for a positive ID on the body, then to the awaiting U.S. Carl Vinson for disposal of the body.

There was one thought coursing through my mind as I replayed the events of the evening as my mind settled into a trance-like state from the rhythmic sound of the Black Hawk: Justice has been done.

 

 

 

 

Congress voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder, a black man, in contempt of Congress. The final tally was 255 Yays, 67 Nays, and 1 Present. There were 109 legislators who did not vote, demonstrating their racist-walking technique in front of a salivating media.

The Congressional Black Caucus was in a high state of exigency. After a hastily convened emergency congregation called by the Black Caucus, they strategized their walkout of the House chambers before the non-race-based, and non-caucus members voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

Before the vote, they circulated a draft form letter pleading for support from other ideologues who believe that there are two sets of laws in this country: one for Caucasians, and one for Blacks and various other races. The letter was only privy to certain race-based caucuses such as the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Asian Pacific Caucus, and an honorary member of this elite group of skin color sectarians, the Progressive caucuses, by virtue of their moral turpitude, of course. And there was one special copy of the letter reserved for any Caucasian female who could come forward and manifest that the House Republicans contempt vote against Holder was a vast conspiracy of secret special interest money, a nationwide scheme to suppress the black vote, and suffocating something or other. But, she also had to believe that there is a congressional district in Heaven.

The letter:

Dear Colleague:

We write to urge you to stand with us in the pursuit of justice for the Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric H. Holder, a black man. In its history, the United States House of Representatives has never held a white United States Attorney General, or any other Cabinet official, in contempt.

Instead of focusing on job creation, spending taxpayer money, destroying healthcare, and other critical issues in the best interest of minorities, before this Congress, we have been asked to engage in a political stunt on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Our constituents elected us to do real work, not to engage in meaningless partisan activity, such as writing letters like this, and our planned walkout of Congress.

Over the past 15 months, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have cooperated with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s requests for information on “Fast and Furious,” an unfortunate operation that we want you to believe began under the Bush Administration in 2009, one year after Obama was elected, and, in fact, was terminated by Attorney General Holder without his ever knowing of its existence, something a white Attorney General could not accomplish. The Department has made extraordinary efforts to accommodate Congress by turning over almost 8,000 of the requested 80,000 documents–including all the documents that relate to the tactics in this investigation and the other flawed investigations that occurred in Arizona during the Bush Administration in 2009, one year after Obama was elected. The Attorney General also participated in a bicameral meeting in a good faith effort to satisfy the Committee’s information requests by suggesting that he would never turn over the documents to a program that he will not admit existed before or after he closed it down. While the Attorney General has advised House Republicans that he is willing to work with them in attempting to reach an agreement that would exonerate him of lying, fabricating, and stonewalling, the Republican Leadership is instead rushing recklessly to a contempt vote because he is black.

Contempt power should be used sparingly, carefully, and only in the most egregious situations involving non-black persons, but never against a black person because that would be considered racist. The Republican Leadership has articulated no legislative purpose for pursuing this course of action other than when Eric Holder perjured himself during congressional questioning. For these reasons, we cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold a black Attorney General in contempt. We adamantly oppose this partisan attack and refuse to participate in any vote that would tarnish the image of Congress or of an Attorney General who has done nothing but work tirelessly to protect the rights of black American people. We must reflect upon why we are elected and for our constituents to reflect upon why they voted for us, and choose now to stand up for justice.

We call upon all defective and racist members of Congress to stand with us during a press conference–while our colleagues are performing what they were elected to do–on the Capitol Building steps during this appalling series of votes to discuss our nation’s most significant priority–talking about creating jobs and spending money. At this critically important time in our nation, we must work as colleagues rather than political enemies.

If you believe that negative comments about Barack Obama or Eric Holder are racist, then please join us on the Capitol Building steps to capture some airtime.

Stumbling onto the Capitol steps, reeking of Strawberry Hill and Mentos, blouse soaked with sweat, clutching a crumpled copy of the letter from the Congressional Black Caucus, Nancy Pelosi stated, “These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote. They’re closely allied with those who are suffocating the system: unlimited special interest secret money.”

The heel of Pelosi’s shoe broke off, she tripped, and grabbed the microphone as her posterior met the cement, and she started again defending Holder, “Instead, let us tie the hands of the person who is assigned to make sure that the American people have the right to vote… and that their vote is counted. It is all tied together. Don’t forget, they’re going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn voter suppression initiatives in the states. This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of the Republicans. These folks want a plutocracy where instead of the choice of the many the checks of the very few determine the outcomes of elections. It is connected. It’s clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name.”

At this juncture, the wine, Mentos, and euphoria of having her name on the letter got the better of Pelosi. Her bloodshot eyes crossed, she sighed, looked to the heavens, and started mumbling about Ted Kennedy and the healthcare mandate, “I knew that when he left us he would go to heaven and help pass the bill.”

But, repugnance and hatred does not take a holiday.

For those skulking behind the imprudent veil of the apolitical, and who do not believe that politics matter, take heed. There is an insurmountable ideological chasm within this nation; with unadulterated hatred for this country on the left, systematically dismantling the fundamentals that created this country, and patriotism on the right, struggling to protect the fundamentals that created this country. Then there are the apolitical vagabonds drifting aimlessly in the middle, unaffiliated and unattached to this country.

Just this weekend, this Memorial Weekend, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes was able to epitomize the hatred and disdain of this country by the left. Here are the thoughts of Chris Hayes regarding the term “hero” being applied to anyone who was killed in military service for this country:

Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it’s interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word “hero”?  I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.

This is much bigger than Chris Hayes and his statement; this is about the ever increasing manifestation of the hatred and the disrespect of this country from the left. Chris Hayes is not an outlier, a deviation, as his statement is archetypical of the left. Just as vile as his statement is, so too were the accolades and support of those in alliance within the comment sections of the myriad media outlets of the left, vomiting their equally as loathsome remarks.

Then there is Barack Obama, who used a Memorial Day a ceremony at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall to campaign for reelection. In a line within his speech, it did not take Obama long to insert the term “I” in celebration of  himself:  “As long as I’m president, we will make sure you and your loved ones will receive the benefits you’ve earned and the respect you deserve. America will be there for you.”

Fortunately being labeled and celebrated as a war hero on Memorial Day is not a democratic process, thus denying Chris Hayes and the moral deviants of the left the enjoyment of a vote, and their malignant rhetoric against the heroes of this country falling on deaf ears.

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.