The Farce of Debate: Rand Paul Shines and Nobody Notices

I was so disappointed in the way the debate was handled, I really could not sleep last night. I tossed and turned thinking about how badly Rand Paul was treated, not just by Donald Trump, which is somewhat expected by now from the bully billionaire, but from the CNN panel of moderators who only allowed him to speak when his name was mentioned by the other nominees.

Pompous platitudes and innuendos abounded, while Dr. Paul was given the obligatory opportunity to defend himself slightly. It appeared that Trump at center stage was in complete control of the panel. 

I finally dragged myself out of bed at 11:00 AM to have some coffee, and ran across the following article, which perked me up a bit.

I present it in its entirety to the Esteemed Readers of this blog for their assessment.


"Donald Trump does not like Rand Paul.

In the weirdest non sequitur of a often-incoherent second Republican presidential debate, the billionaire front-runner for the party nomination declared, “Rand Paul shouldn’t even be on this stage. He’s number 11. He’s got 1 percent in the polls. There’s too many people onstage already.”

As he has been on so many points, Trump was entirely wrong on this one.

Paul distinguished himself with coherent questioning of mass incarceration, calls for criminal-justice reform, and aggressive referencing of the injustices that extend from a failed drug war. The senator from Kentucky had one of the best moments of the debate when, during a back-and-forth over Jeb Bush’s youthful inhaling of marijuana, Paul put things into perspective for the former Florida governor: “Kids who have privilege like you do don’t go to jail. But the poor kids in the inner city still go to jail.”

And when the debate turned to foreign policy, Paul made more sense than the rest of the runners combined.

“I’ve made my career as an opponent of the Iraq War,” declared the senator, who reminded the crowd that “The Iraq War backfired and did not help us.”

“I’m not sending our sons and our daughters back to Iraq.” —Rand Paul
Those lines did not earn Paul a lot of applause Wednesday night. This Grand Old Party does not well remember—nor respect—the wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings about a military-industrial complex or the example of “old-right” Republicans who opposed military adventurism.

But Paul displayed a steady awareness of that history. His great contribution to the debate was to offer an alternative to the bombast and bluster that came Wednesday night from many of the other contenders—and that, frankly, comes on a regular basis from prominent figures who position themselves across the political spectrum.

The senator warned, “”If you want boots on the ground, and you want them to be our sons and daughters, you’ve got 14 other choices. There will always be a Bush or Clinton for you if you want to go back to war in Iraq.”

While others spoke of putting boots back on the ground in the Middle East, he dissented, saying, “The first war was a mistake and I am not sending our sons and daughters back to Iraq.”

Paul’s dissents extended beyond objections regarding the Iraq imbroglio—as was appropriate during the course of a debate that produced plenty of objectionable statements from the crowd of Republican front runners and pretenders.

Early in the evening, several of the contenders were stumbling over one another in express their readiness to rip up the Iran nuclear agreement, with Senator Ted Cruz trumping them all by promising, “If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.”

A few minutes later, in a break from what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie referred to as “this childish back-and-forth” with Trump and Fiorina over who was the worse CEO, Fiorina said there would be no back-and-forth with the president of Russia. “Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all,” she announced. “We’ve talked way too much to him.”

This is where Paul really stepped up.

Noting the location—the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California—Paul said with regard to the “wouldn’t talk to him” line: “Well, think if Reagan had said that during the Cold War? We continued to talk with the Russians throughout the Cold War which [was a] much more significant [challenge than] where we are now.”

Paul continued:

Should we continue to talk with Iran? Yes. Should we cut up the [Iran nuclear] agreement immediately? That’s absurd. Wouldn’t you want to know if they complied? Now, I’m going to vote against the agreement because I don’t think there’s significant leverage, but it doesn’t mean that I would immediately not look at the agreement, and cut it up without looking to see if whether or not Iran has complied.

The same goes with China. I don’t think we need to be rash, I don’t think we need to be reckless, and I think we need to leave lines of communication open. Often we talk about whether we should be engaged in the world, or disengaged in the world, and I think this is an example of some who want to isolate us, actually, and not be engaged.

We do need to be engaged with Russia. It doesn’t mean we give them a free pass, or China a free pass, but, to be engaged, to continue to talk. We did throughout the Cold War, and it would be a big mistake not to do it here.

There was a similar moment when the question of intervention in Syria arose.

The Kentuckian said:

I think this gets to the point of wisdom on when to intervene and when we shouldn’t. Had we bombed Assad at the time, like President Obama wanted, and like Hillary Clinton wanted and many Republicans wanted, I think ISIS would be in Damascus today. I think ISIS would be in charge of Syria had we bombed Assad.

Sometimes both sides of the civil war are evil, and sometimes intervention sometimes makes us less safe. This is real the debate we have to have in the Middle East.

Every time we have toppled a secular dictator, we have gotten chaos, the rise of radical Islam, and we’re more at risk. So, I think we need to think before we act, and know most interventions, if not a lot of them in the Middle East, have actually backfired on us.

There are plenty of issues on which Rand Paul is wrong. He is not so steadily anti-war as his father, former congressman and 2012 presidential contender Ron Paul, or as “old-right” Republicans like North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones Jr.

There are plenty of things that Paul has said and done that merit skepticism, and opposition.

But the senator—and his dissenting views with regard to foreign policy—belonged on the main stage Wednesday night. Indeed, it was Rand Paul, not Donald Trump, who made Wednesday night’s gathering of Republican presidential contenders a debate. "

Thanks to John Nichols, The Nation’s Washington correspondent.
http://www.thenation.com/article/rand-paul-made-some-of-the-few-sensible-points-of-the-whole-debate/

A Hero's Letter to Obama

Often times, I run across a rant from some American, who has come to realize what a serious mistake Americans made in electing a socialist community organizer to the highest elected office in the land.

But the following "open letter" to Barack Obama comes not from a disgruntled tax paying American, but from an American Patriot and War Hero, who gave three of his limbs to fight a war in Iraq, only to have over a decade of struggle be for naught.

I present to the Esteemed Readers of Fix America, the following letter from Senior Airman (Retired) Brian Kolfage.

"Senior Airman Brian Kolfage is a United States hero.  He is a triple-amputee veteran of the War in Iraq who has surpassed all odds and made the most incredible recovery of any veteran to ever survive his injuries.  He is a patriot – the kind of man you want your son to grow up to be.  This is his letter to Obama on Presidents Day.

My Open Letter to Obama on Presidents day.

I nearly died in a war that you and most of your colleagues supported overwhelmingly, including the two presidents who came before you. Many citizens may not agree with waging war in Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi citizens, but it’s something that warriors like myself have zero control over. I joined to serve my country and to better my life. I’ve seen things that you could never imagine, and they have made me the person I am today.

Mr. Obama, even though we share extreme opposite views, we have one thing in common, we both attended school in Hawaii. However, that’s where the similarities end. You see, as you attended your exclusive, private school, I would ride my bike to Kaimuki High school in one of the roughest areas in Hawaii every morning and would ride past Punahou, the exclusive privateschool you attended. I would notice the Bentleys, Maserati’s, and fancy foreign cars that all the kids were dropped off in; wow it must have been extremely rough in Hawaii living that life, right? I could only imagine what it was like to have that kind of money. Fortunately for you, not many people are aware of the school and the upper class citizens who attended it. The tuition to attend your exclusive, private school was more than it cost me to obtain a Bachelor’s degree inArchitecture from the University of Arizona. You talk a big game when it comes to financialinequality, yet I’m quite sure you have no idea what it’s truly like to have sacrifice. You were one of the elitist children in Hawaii.

After High School, we each chose very different paths. You were able to attend Ivy League schools, and I sought out a military career to in hopes of earning a degree. What we have in life as children usually sets the tone for what we will face later in life that will make us successful. I worked to get where I am today, and YOU WERE HANDED IT….Mr. Inequality.

I volunteered to go to Iraq on both of my deployments, and the second time I begged to go even after I wasn’t selected, which ultimately got me placed on the team where I would lose both legs and my dominant arm. I’ve never asked myself was losing 3 limbs in a war worth it, even though many Americans were against it.

I am frequently reminded of the many young Iraqi children who would beg me for water, food, and toys while I was stationed in Iraq. Children, who in all aspects made the poorest of poor American children look rich. You have no idea what it really means to be poor. It’s laughable that you, who would have no idea what it means to be poor would so frequently play the inequality card.

While I was in Iraq, our mission was to liberate the Iraqi citizens from a tyrant and that’s what we did. Never forget, it was your people who sent us there, like the Clintons, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi & Carl Levin. However, since the day you busted onto the scene you’ve been talking about ending the war and pulling the troops out, not understanding the blood sweat and tears that so many Americans and Iraqi’s invested. And with complete disregard for every life sacrificed, every limb lost, and every broken family, you bailed on our mission to pursue an agenda that was completely centered on your re-election in 2012. If you didn’t bail on Iraq you were worried that you may not get re-elected and that’s a fact. Just before elections on Oct 11, 2012 you said “Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Look at Iraq now, they are in shambles and the Al Qaeda flag is flying freely. Clearly, you’re unfit for duty as a Commander in Chief. You put your own agenda ahead of America’s agenda, and now you have single handedly ruined and destroyed nearly everything we gained in Iraq. It clearly means nothing to you, because the only thing that you’ve personally invested in that country was a promise to bail on them. However, people like me gave limbs, friends have died, and we’ve watched families destroyed by war’s aftermath.

I’m not placing blame on you for the war, I’m placing blame on you for destroying what we’ve worked so hard to build. You’re not a leader, you’re a community organizer. A leader would have stood up regardless of the situation and put America’s agenda first and that is ensuring a secure Iraq even after 10 years of war. But, you placed Barack first, just as Robert Gates confirmed in his new book. I can’t help but think of those poor kids who I gave water and toys to 11 years ago. They’re probably 15 or 16 years old now, and I can only imagine what it’s like for them to have their nation being torn apart yet again; all because of your poor leadership qualities. Regardless of why we went to Iraq, its water under the bridge. We went there, we waged war, and we not only owed it to our KIA’s but we owed it to the citizens of Iraq. We invaded their country and turned it upside down, and you bailed on them. You bailed on our soldiers and you’ve wasted every death and every limb, it’s all for nothing. And to make matters worse you blame others for your failures

You’re just another elitist rich thug who’s pretended to live the rough life growing up in the inner-city. You’re only worried about your own agenda and furthering your party instead of taking care of Americans. Your inability to be a leader at some of the most critical points has caused both of our wars to fail. You’ve been a joke to most of our veteran community and we have no faith in your ability to lead.

Senior Airman Ret Brian Kolfage USAF

- See more at: http://viralsurvival.com/2014/05/09/triple-amputee-veterans-fck-you-letter-to-obama-goes-viral/#sthash.5Z3Nbpw8.dpuf

Red Lines In The White House, or Selecting The Truth - Part 2

There is a cause for John Kerry's and John McCain's brain dead position on just how moderate the rebel force is in Syria, which is made up of more than seventy factions. 

"The woman whose opinion lawmakers are relying on to go to war in Syria is also a paid advocate for the war-torn country’s rebels.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry encouraged members of the House of Representatives to read a Wall Street Journal op-ed by 26-year-old Elizabeth O’Bagy, an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War, who asserted that concerns about extremists dominating among the Syrian rebels are unfounded.

“Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and Al Qaeda die-hards,” O’Bagy wrote for the Journal on Aug. 30. “Moderate opposition groups make up the majority of actual fighting forces,” she wrote.

But in addition to her work for the Institute for the Study of War, O’Bagy is also the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a group that advocates within the United States for Syria’s rebels, a fact that the Journal did not disclose in O’Bagy’s piece.

In an interview with The Daily Caller, O’Bagy said that despite her title as the group’s political director, she is paid as a contractor.

She insisted that she is not involved in the political lobbying that SETF does. “They kind of have two departments within the Task Force — one focused on working with the government on the Hill on advocacy and then the other working inside Syria and directly implementing government contracts,” she said.

O’Bagy’s relationship with SETF is a serious conflict of interest, according to David Reaboi, vice president for strategic communications at the Center for Security Policy.

“While there’s been a lot of worthwhile effort to expose activists considered pro-Assad or pro-Hezbollah — or, at least, to consider their analysis as coming from an interested party — O’Bagy seems to pass herself off as an impartial observer of the situation. Her access to Congress, intelligence services and to think tanks should be regarded as what it really is, which is a reflection of the Syrian rebels’ cause and aspirations,” Reaboi said.

In speaking with The DC, O’Bagy regularly insisted that she was not a salaried employee of SETF, but a paid contractor acting in an advisory role.

“I’m the political director and aid coordinator, and that’s my official title at the organization, but that’s mostly because it provides me an opportunity to engage on humanitarian issues and to be a part of some of these larger government contracts going to humanitarian aid,” O’Bagy said.

The Foreign Policy news site reported in June that SETF “boasts extensive contacts with rebel commanders” and “spent months lobbying Congress, the State Department and the White House for everything from small arms to anti-tank and and anti-aircraft weapons to body armor to advanced communications equipment for the rebels.”

O’Bagy is quoted in the Foreign Policy piece saying that the Obama administration’s June decision to openly arm Syrian rebels didn't go far enough. ”Small arms and ammunition really only get you so far against airplanes,” she said then.

Kerry and other lawmakers (including Sen. John McCain) have relied on O’Bagy’s assessments while calling for an American military intervention in Syria. McCain even traveled with O’Bagy to Syria in May.

“A woman by the name of Elizabeth Bagly, B-A-G-L-Y, just wrote an article,” Kerry said in congressional testimony Wednesday (spelling O’Bagy’s name wrong)“she works with the Institute of War. She’s fluent in Arabic and spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition and studying Syria. She just published this the other day. Very interesting [Wall Street Journal] article, which I commend to you.”

“I just don’t agree that a majority are Al Qaeda and the bad guys,” Kerry concluded.

Kerry made the same argument before the Senate on Tuesday.

“The opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation,” Kerry told Sen. Ron Johnson, “more defined by the breadth of its membership and more defined by its adherence to … an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution, which will be broad-based and secular.”

But on Thursday morning, Reuters called out Kerry’s — and by extension, O’Bagy’s — assessment as “at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.”

In December, O’Bagy opposed the Obama administration’s attempts to designate Al Nusra — a powerful Syrian rebel group — as a terror organization because of its ties to Al Qaeda.

“I’m not saying they aren't a terrorist group. But given the circumstances and given their cooperation with the opposition as a whole, designating them now would be disastrous,” O’Bagy said to McClatchy newspapers in December 2012.

In April 2013, Al Nusra pledged loyalty to Al Qaeda.

O’Bagy told The DC that she had opposed the terrorist designation because she feared it would damage the rebellion against Bashar al Assad’s dictatorship.

“The point that I was trying to make in terms of Al Nusra being designated a terrorist organization was that at the time they had been embraced to a large degree by certain aspects of the population and they were very much seen as fighting for the cause,” she said. “I knew that designating them as a terrorist organization would have a very radicalizing impact on the ground. I wasn't sure if that trend could be reversed. I was terrified that this could be an irreversible process of radicalization.”

O’Bagy told The DC that she was wrong to consider Al Nusra anything but a terror group.

“I can admit when I’m wrong. In many ways Al Nusra has revealed its true face and many see it as a foreign influence and an outside group… Designating them a terrorist group has helped empower more moderate groups,” she said.

But O’Bagy blames the United States’ lack of support for the increased role of such Al Qaeda affiliated groups.

The “failure of America to help the Syrian people” is what is “pushing” Syrian rebels “into the arms” of extremists, she said.

“If the moderate forces are going to be successful, if they are going to maintain their ability to leverage any sort of influence, then they need to be supported and they need to be empowered. If they are not able to respond to these attacks, the rebels [will join the extremists who] are better resourced, better equipped, actually willing to respond directly to these chemical weapons attacks,” O’Bagy said."
by Charles C. Johnson

Considering the source, to whom these and other government officials are relying on for sound information, a paid lobbyist for planes, tanks, weapons, and body armor for extremist Al Qaeda off shoot groups, is the last person, if at all, to who anyone should be listening. This is but one example of the type of mental ineptitude displayed by Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain.   

However, according to others who actually have been on the ground in Syria and have talked with the people still living there and people in refugee camps, The Free Syrian Army, which is made up of jihadi radical extremists from other countries, raped, murdered, and burned homes to the ground until the majority of the decent people fled the country.




End Part 2

Reference Links:

Woman informing Kerry, McCain’s opinions on Syria also an advocate for Syrian rebels
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/woman-informing-kerry-mccains-opinions-on-syria-also-an-advocate-for-syrian-rebels/#ixzz2e9F2tvvW

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/woman-informing-kerry-mccains-opinions-on-syria-also-an-advocate-for-syrian-rebels/#ixzz2e9FcptGF

Syria: Nobel Peace Laureate Tells Her Account of What She Witnessed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msA35ATXol8

A Fond Farewell: The Last American Statesman

We may never know what America would have been had the American People stood up to the parties in force and elected Dr. Ron Paul as their 45th President. It is an equally sad day for those Texans that he has represented admirably for twenty three of the last thirty five years in the House of Representatives.

No one person has stood before the Congress with such integrity and honesty in defending the Constitution and the liberties of All Americans as Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul, the distinguished gentleman from Texas.


I have written about Dr. Paul over these last four years in my effort to educate and inform my followers and readers why it would be in the best interest of all Americans to have this statesman as our President. In the post What Would Really Happen If Ron Paul Were To Be Elected President? I explained through the words of Bill Sardi the policies of Dr. Paul and how they would restore economic solvency, reduce debt, and restore our monetary system to a soundness that has been absent since the beginning of the Federal Reserve System.

To allow Dr. Paul to say it in his own words I present here the full transcript of his farewell address to Congress, courtesy of the Campaign for Liberty website. You can read the Farewell Speech here.



Added the YouTube video!

Tampering in Tampa

With the Republican National Convention about to begin in Tampa, the Romney team along with the RNC has stepped up their efforts to remove delegates who support Ron Paul while they also have been throwing out sound bites to attract Ron Paul supporters with such promises as support for Dr. Paul’s platform policies.

Last week Romney said he would support an audit of the Federal Reserve but insisted that Congress (our elected representatives) could not be trusted with the responsibility of controlling the monetary system of the People, choosing instead for it to remain in control of the private banks. Now they are hinting at a return to the Gold Standard, admitting that sound money may be the answer to the inflation of the dollar and its lack of worth. Again, it is merely to appease the supporters of Ron Paul.

As was the case in 2008 when Senator John McCain won the nomination defeating both Mike Huckabee (2^nd in the nomination process) and Mitt Romney who finished a distant third at the convention, the GOP pundits are claiming again that a vote for Ron Paul would be equal to a vote for Obama. While most diehard Republicans will vote the party line, most independents and libertarian voters will not. Romney cannot win an election against Barack Obama because his flip-flopping does not bode well with most educated voters. Some pundits think that his choice of Paul Ryan as a Vice Presidential running mate will solidify his nomination and eventual victory in November yet most informed voters without short-term memory loss will remember that Ryan reneged on his own campaign promises to not increase the debt ceiling and instead cut spending. He did neither as the records show. And also the McCain Book on Romney clearly demonstrates why he must not win the nomination.

There is no doubt that another term with Obama would end the United States as a free and sovereign nation. Of that you can be certain. But the election of Mitt Romney will not fare much better as he will further erode our liberties as he is in favor of both the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, claiming that it is necessary in the world we live in today.

While we still debate the issue of Obama’s eligibility with several States moving to take him off their November ballots, fewer are doing the same with Romney anticipating his winning the GOP nomination.  It does seem obvious to the informed that Ron Paul’s plan to reduce the debt and the size of government stands out from the rest of the pack.

I feel that the issues in the privately-own major media are divisive and fail to address the crisis we all face as sovereign People in the United States today. Militarism for the sake of corporate greed is hidden behind the curtain while the threat of terrorism if made the mainstream topic. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist and a danger to our Israeli ally is spread throughout the press and television news while calls for a preemptive strike against the threat of a nuclear Iran are blasted across the headlines.

We the People must unite and stand together to restore our republic to the Constitution and not the laws of the Corporate State. Or we will continue to lose all liberty and become full slaves to the global elite government they are  pushing on us.And we must accomplish that through an honest election.

Romney/Ryan: Dream Team or Nightmare?

It is apparent to anyone with a pulse that Obama must be removed from office. The privately-owned major media will have you think that Romney is the way to accomplish that task. But perhaps America voters suffer from memory lapses, as they think that Romney can defeat Obama in November.

I count myself among those with memory and reason, as Romney was a distant third behind Mike Huckabee and eventual GOP nominee Johm McCain. We know the dismal results of 2008, and in an attempt to make a course correction in Congress in 2010 by electing "Tea Party" endorsed candidates to break the stronhold of the liberal left.

With promises of reducing spending and debt, America sent many new faces to Washington with a hope that changes will take place.

Results prove the intentions of those elected then and there is no reason to think that Romney along with Paul Ryan will make changes if elected in November. What is really required is radical change, and that is the only way we can restore our representative republic to the limited government conceived and nurtured by our founders.

Buying the propaganda of the party elite will only result in a further slide into a global takeover and the complete loss of national sovereignty. This is not like any other elected in the history of the United States. This is the election that our enemies have been waiting for since the beginning of the Revolution, and their dreams are about to become our nightmares.

In my previous posts I have demonstrated why Romney is not a good choice for America. In Bigger Sharper Teeth  I listed what a Romney cabinet would look like. Romney supports the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will support war against Iran. The rhetoric about a 'radical' Islamic nation with a nuclear capability seems to justify a policy of preemptive war. That is a dangerous policy at best and one that has been used by those who promote aggression against sovereign nations not because of their threat towards America, but the competition they produce against the petroleum corporations of Great Britain and the United States.



Support for all the military bases the United States built and populated with America troops comes from borrowing money that the nation does not have. True to the warnings of President Eisenhower in his farewell address the 'military industrial complex' poses the most serious threat to our national security. But he failed to warn us about the threat that the central banks pose on our liberty and sovereignty. That is to me the most eminent threat we face as we approach the November elections.

Having your vote count is not merely voting for the candidate(s) who best  represent your ideology and opinions. It is a matter of the integrity of the election and the counting of the ballots. In recent times we have been using machines to make it easier to vote. The cost of this simplicity is the very integrity of the process. Machines can be programmed to cheat and these fixed elections have been reported in many states of the past several years.

What is more important to you? An expeditious result or an accurate and honest count? I choose the latter and I feel that paper ballots are a priority to that integrity. In my post, Protecting The Vote it is explained in detail how this can be done. The important thing to remember is that wherever there is opportunity to cheat, someone will attempt to do so and some will succeed.



Do your patriotic duty and vote for the best candidate and not the lesser of two evils. Evil is still evil whether it is greater or less.

Just Around The Corner: or Obama Hear and See All 1984 Plan

It has now been revealed that the plan and ability to gather unlimited data and information on U.S. Citizens; regardless of terrorism, regardless of religious affiliation, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of occupation, regardless of location, has been put into effect according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifying on January 31, 2012 before a Senate (Select) Intelligence hearing.


The similarities between methods of governance of the U.S. Government and the methods of governance described in the chilling book 1984 by George Orwell, the nom-de-plume of Eric Arthur Blair, are close enough as to be considered nonexistent. Never-ending wars with fictional enemies (pick one and add false flag operations and operations of misdirection), government interference at every level of existence, ever pervading ominous fear of government, a lack of personal rights, no free speech without fear of government reprisal, and the constant pounding of propaganda and persuasion spewing from radio, television, and the privately-owned major media to vote into office the very people that will continue this downward spiraling into a dictatorship backed up and enforced by a militarized police state. There are many more similarities; individuals ultimately own nothing, they are subject to indefinite detention, re-education, confinement, or simple death. These now legal methods and techniques of governance are in effect and are being implemented at an ever increasing rate and rate of proliferation.


Who is responsible for the concepts behind the powers hidden within; Operation MOCKINGBIRD, REX 84, Operation Granite Shadow, Operation Power Geyser, Operation Cable Splicer, Operation Night Train, Operation Garden Plot, Continuity of Government, FEMA, FEMA detention centers, Patriot Act, NORTHCOM, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice's Fusion centers, TSA, TSA VIPR Teams and Roaming VIPR Teams, NDAA of various years, NDRP, and a never ending and increasing stream of executive orders from the White House. The list is increasing in length. Where is Judicial Review? Where is the U.S. Congress?


These are in front of you right now... March 24, 2012... I wonder what is just around the corner?

The Means?

What if Fox Network never allowed Andrew Paolo Napolitano to make another broadcast?


What if Fox Network instead fired him for his efforts to awaken U.S. Citizens to the dangers our nation faces from within?


What if Barack Obama is not a U.S. Citizen of any kind, but instead an Indoneasian Citizen?


What if Barack Obama is an illegal immigrant from Indonesia and of Kenyan birth?


What if his Hawaiian Democratic eligibility certification left out "of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and"?


What if Kevin Cronin, Chief Elections Officer, Hawaiian Office of Elections for the Hawaiian Cheif of Elections refused to sign it?


What if Elana Kagan signed it instead?


What if Nancy Pelosi chairperson of DNC declared and then certified he was legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preferences Poll and Caucus which says nothing regarding the U.S. Constitution?


What if on January 6th, 2009, when Congress voted to certify the election by the Electoral College, not one congressman chose to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, as was their duty, and question the state of Hawaii's certification?


What if by that point in time, most if not all of Congress, believed the problems could not possibly have any merit because no one could have gotten that far into the election process without red flags being raised and waived by the privately-owned major media?


What if no one was aware of the problems surrounding Barack Obama because the privately-owned major media was not reporting any of this news nationally?


What if Barack Obama by way of election fraud was declared the incumbent president?


What if he misstated his oath of office, and never said it correctly?


What if the the next day a private ceremony was performed on the Qur'an instead of the Holy Bible and Barack Obama swore to God (Allah) in front of Chief Justice John G. Roberts and the words of upholding and defending the the U.S. Constitution meant nothing to the illegal immigrant who was not a U.S. Citizen?


What if a foreign citizen who is not a legal U.S. Citizen and has no loyalty to the United States of America is required to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution of which any oath does not bind him?


What if he occupies the presidency illegally?


What if he appointed Elana Kagan to be his Solicitor General?


What if he appointed the Solicitor General to oversee and insure that a health care plan would be composed and presented to The U.S. Congress for adoption, but knew a legal question of constitutionality might face Judicial Review by The U.S. Supreme Court?


What if the health care plan was adopted but did not meet Constitutional requirements?


What if Barack Obama appointed Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme court?


What if any decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court has been thrown into doubt because any decisions made by Justice Kagan are not valid because she was appointed by someone who can not be and is not the President?


What if the health care plan passed by the U.S. Congress was in legal question?


What if a legal challenge over the constitutionality of the health care plan was placed before the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if it met constitutional requirements?


What if The U.S. Supreme Court honored the request for Judicial Review and took up the challenge?


What if it was left up to Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself or not?


What if Barack Obama had appointed Leon Panetta to be the United States Secretary of Defense a position which calls for a proven and battle tested military background which Panetta does not posses?


What if Barack Obama exceeded Executive Authority and brought unilateral undeclared war against a foreign nation like Libya?


What if the U.S. Congress who has the only authority to declare war after the Emergency War Powers Act limits have passed wanted to ask questions of the U.S. Secretary of Defense?


What if Barack Obama had appointed Leon Panetta to be the United States Secretary of Defense and then the Secretary of Defense stated that the United Nations and N.A.T.O. agreements and laws superseded the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Constitution?



What if the actions, agreements, or orders made by the person occupying the presidency to any one or any foreign nation as the legal representative of the American people were void because a fraud was perpetrated on the American people by an illegal immigrant and his conspirators and therefore he can not be the president?


What if failure to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution by any of these conspirators occurred during a time of war?

What if TREASON has occurred?

What if motions in the form of resolutions were brought before the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to begin Impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama and Leon Panetta for failure to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and for violating the U.S. Constitution but none of the privately-owned major media reported this news?


What if by being subservient to the United Nations and N.A.T.O. the United States lost its' sovereignty and its' Citizens lost their sovereignty?

What if the Posse Comitatus Act which became law were suspended and U.S. Armed forces were stationed within US. borders to carry out operations against U.S. Citizens?

What if The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence meant nothing to the United Nations peacekeeping and German troops assigned to NorthCom and practiced house to house searches for firearms of any type?


What if Dr. Ron Paul who knows the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are the only authority upon which our Nation is based, is not allowed because of election fraud to become the next President?

What if... What if... What if... What if... What if... What if... What if...
What if... the ends justify the means?