My Second Blog Revisited – White House KNEW Obamacare would kill private businesses

March 2, 2013

Update December 18, 2014:

After fighting Allstate for four years, I wrote a small ‘law review’ memorandum (3000-words plus citations of news and case law) on why Health Insurance premiums doubled. It was posted March 5, 2009 on WordPress.

The first comment was posted by a ‘sound of reason’ on September 9, 2009. It is worth reading as it suggests the writer had inside information that Obamacare would make my legal analysis irrelevant because private health insurance companies would be put out of business, and I quote:

“this is the most ridiculous xxxx i’ve ever read. an hmo is better protection than an attorney? it is obvious you’ve never dealt with an hmo – or an attorney! hmo’s will only represent their own best interests; based on how they screw their own customers just to increase their own profits, it is beyond comprehension how anyone would envision hmos protecting their customers against liability companies.”

Now, how did ‘sound of reason’ know ‘hmos’ were going to ‘soon be out of business’?

I followed the comment IP address trail back to an e-mail address, which was ‘’ Now, ‘fishy’ created the site for people to report anti-Obama blogs on the Internet. Negative publicity forced it to be taken down, as it was described by some as an ‘enemies list.’

Further research revealed ‘fishy’ was, indeed, a major White House operative (gaining notoriety because of his effective use of the Internet) . . . his name is Macon Phillips.

Note the posting date! Prior to forced passage of an unread 2700-page bill in congress the following year.

Therefore, the Democrats forcing (w/o proper reconciliation) to a vote without the 2700-word bill being read was an TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE between doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients.

sound of reason

Look how ‘fishy’ wants to control profits. Dummy. State PRCs already control insurance rates based on profit:loss.

Submitted on 2009/09/09 at 12:08 am
this is the most ridiculous xxxx i’ve ever read. an hmo is better protection than an attorney? it is obvious you’ve never dealt with an hmo – or an attorney! hmo’s will only represent their own best interests; based on how they screw their own customers just to increase their own profits, it is beyond comprehension how anyone would envision hmos protecting their customers against liability companies.
if you want to reduce health insurance costs, link the amount of profit that a hmo or insurance company can make (a ceiling, if you will) to the satisfaction rate of its insured – the higher the satisfaction rate, the more % the hmo can have in profit. if the insurance company tries to screw its customers by giving bad service, then their satisfaction rate will go down and their % of max profit will likewise go down. this will reward hmos and insurance companies by doing right by their own customers – which is how it should work regardless.
the author of this article is so far up the insurance company and hmo’s xxxx that he’s coming out their nose. the easiest way to correct the author’s errors is to simply tell the reader that we should do the exact OPPOSITE of what is written here. oh well – if obama gets his way, this article will be moot soon enough, since hmos and insurance companies are going to soon be out of business.
sound of reason


How Did Romney Get 3 Million Fewer Votes Than McCain?

November 11, 2012

Up-date Jan 8, 2013 — There was the story of the disgraced Ohio Dem politician, bragging about teaching people how to defraud the vote through gas bills and fake ID. Here is the latest —
Jerome Corsi’s upcoming book will describe vote fraud in the 2012 election. My theory, and ‘napkin/post-it’ calculations showed that by picking key districts, powerful poll officials, especially in Ohio (where Obama’s 2008 election organization never shut its doors) could have undermined the Romney vote and vote count, changing the election.
Up-date Nov 27:  Two articles that are a must read.  and

*  *  * *  *  *

Up-date Nov 16, 2012: Nov. 5, 2012.

Must SEE!

This article concludes that even ‘de minimus’ (minute) changes to the tabulation software can affect the entire system. Who benefitted? Was it used to control the outcome of the critical Ohio vote? See the Boxer/Tubb Jones Title 3 Sec 15 challenge to the 2000 Ohio tabulation at the end of Section II.



I. Chick-fil-A issues did not need Get Out the Vote marketing.

II. Title 3 USC § 15 Challenge Necessary

I. Chick-fil-A did NOT need any ‘get out the vote’ marketing.

Nor did the two key 2012 HOT BUTTON issues, 1) Obamacare, and 2) Unemployment vis-à-vis taxes.

Two-thirds of the public are polled as being against Obamacare for its effect on healthcare and jobs. Unemployment is over 9%, and upcoming taxes and the socialist policies of Obama will trigger more layoffs.


Secretaries of State in key markets had a computer patch installed that allowed ‘real-time’ tabulation from disparate voting machines. Why? WHY! Answer: So they could determine where and how many Romney votes needed deletion.

Obama had 9 million less votes than in 2008. Yet, turnout was up both in early voting and at the polls. Why then were Romney’s numbers 3 million LESS than McCain’s back in 2008 when there was NO HOT BUTTON?

Dismiss my theory, but it is pure deduction based on an indelible fact about the tabulation patch. And if true, it means the election process is permanently corrupted . . . over.

Why file fraudulent voter registrations and work to send in bogus absentee ballots when all you have to do is lose, ‘in vivo machina,’ just enough of your opponents votes.

The theory can be tested. The Ohio machines (and similar setups) must be analyzed to see if the tabulations can be altered, i.e., votes deleted.

In lieu of paper ballots, we need two counts: One at the door taken mechanically by two poll workers, and the other from the machine tabulation tallies. They must match up within a margin of error.

For a detailed record of the Complaint and Expert Opinion Affidavit describing the ‘patch’ by a computer engineer, see

See also

II. Title 3 USC § 15

The electoral votes must now be counted and certified, and under Title 3 U.S.C. § 15 a simple letter signed by one Senator and one House Member can halt the proceedings to examine the following:

The 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act et seq 1855 denied a U.S. born son of a British subject U.S. citizenship. This law stood for 99 years, until Wong Kim Ark.

  • Conversely, a son of a British subject born on U.S. soil was a natural born British subject, under the 1772 British Nationality Act.
  • The 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship at birth to children of ‘stateless’ freed slaves, i.e., who had no nationality jurisdiction through the father. ‘Under the Jurisdiction Thereof’ is the analog of its antecedent Act, the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s ‘Not subject to any foreign power.’ It referred to the nationality of the father, not place of birth.
  • Article 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gave plenary power to congress, NOT the Judiciary, for the LEGISLATION of Uniform Naturalization law . . ..
  • Minor vs. Happersett (U.S. Supreme Court, 1875) defined in judicial notice, i.e., stare decisis still valid to this day, that a ‘natural born citizen’ was of two U.S. citizen parents.
  • Wong Kim Ark violated Art 1, Sec 8 by ignoring existing statutes, acts, and treaty and misinterpreted the 14th Amendment to apply to children born of aliens. Regardless, Wong Kim Ark did not, nor could not, redefine ‘natural born citizen.’
  • Fact: Obama’s April 27, 2011 birth certificate is an altered, fake, and forged document.
  • Fact: Obama’s SS# does not pass E-Verify.
  • Fact: Obama has admitted, in his own writing and voice, that he was born a British citizen.

Can we not find one senator and one house member willing to fight for the constitution?

McCain was booed when he tried to sooth the crowd, defending Mr Obama as ‘a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.’ Minnesota, 2008

“Obama is a radical Communist. And I think it is becoming clear; that’s what I told everyone in Illinois. I think everybody knows its true. He is going to destroy this country. We’re either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.” Ambassador Alan Keyes,February 19, 2009

“Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors . . . and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer . . . Upon such reading of [the electoral votes], the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received . . . No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.” 3 U.S.C. § 15 Counting electoral votes in Congress

New York Times WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 [2000] – “Congress officially ratified President Bush’s election victory on Thursday, but not before Democrats lodged a formal challenge to the electoral votes from Ohio, forcing an extraordinary two-hour debate that began the 109th Congress on a sharp note of partisan acrimony . . . a single senator – Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who was sworn in Tuesday for a third term – joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat of Ohio, in objecting to Ohio’s 20 electoral votes for Mr. Bush, citing voting irregularities in the state.”


Martin versus Zimmerman 101, or How to Become an Expert on the Sandford, Florida Killing of Traynor Martin

April 1, 2012

On Thursday, March 22nd, a former governor of New Mexico got into my taxi. I recognized him from a State Bar speech he gave about ten years ago. Over the course of the thirty-minute ride we discussed many legal issues, but my position on the Martin-Zimmerman case had him nonplussed.

I told him that just considering the police releasing Zimmerman without an arrest indicated there was particularized evidence supporting self-defense; therefore, no grand jury would be able to indict him.

The governor reminded me he started out as a district attorney and state attorneys general, but conceded that the parents of Martin would sue Zimmerman civilly. ‘What good would that do” I asked. ‘Zimmerman is collection proof.’ (In addition, Florida law bars civil complaints if criminal charges failed.)

As the week’s reporting provided more information, it seemed I was correct. Zimmerman had physical evidence of being beaten, and while on his back . . . which even later in the week was supported by an eye-witness. WE HAVE NATURAL RIGHTS, MERELY BY BEING LIVING BREATHING SENTIENT CREATURES, SPECIFICALLY THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE . . . PROTECTED BY LAW IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

At the end of this article, I am going to provide links to information on the Martin-Zimmerman case so you can make your own informed decision. However, this case may affect you more than you think, so don’t dismiss this as a ‘race’ issue or a problem limited to Florida.

I do dangerous work on the weekends. Until I win in court money the law says I’m due for a landlord forfeiting my place of business because of his code violations, I am struggling each week while rebuilding in a new location. My business has been closed for a year . . . something for which I will not be compensated.

Anyway, that dangerous work requires me to pack a pistol when the night starts getting crazy. Having that pistol saved my life once. It was good to have it many other times, but I was only put in an imminent life-threatening situation once; the other times I was able to cool off the situation with bravado and my physical size.

What I am saying is that if you keep a gun in your home, or you decide to keep one close in your car during business or on long trips, please research your state laws governing self-defense. Another good idea is to seek out an attorney familiar with those laws and who has represented clients who have exercised their 2nd Amendment Right in self-defense. Bring him your questions and get the ‘street’ view, and keep his contact information . . . just in case. For half the price of that new gun, or seven boxes of ammunition, you can add tremendously to your confidence in situations requiring deadly response.


Neighborhood Watches are the ‘eyes and ears’ of the police. Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, a stranger on foot in that gated community, until he was satisfied he was a legitimate visitor or the police arrived. Think of a retailer when a kid in a ‘hoodie’ enters the store. The best defense the retailer has against shoplifting is to let the kid know that the shopkeeper is aware of him. A simple greeting at the door, or a ‘may I help you’ on the floor goes a long way.

Racial Profiling is the only case the Justice Department may have against Zimmerman. However, if the community has had a rash of break-ins by local black youths, Zimmerman was not profiling by race but influenced by a recent fact pattern.

Now, it is unlawful for police to stop a vehicle based on an anonymous tip, e.g., that a crime was committed by a black man with dreadlocks accompanied by a white woman in a green SUV. However, Zimmerman was representing all residents and property owners in Twin Lakes Retreat and had a natural right and official sanction to approach anyone on the property whom he did not recognize or was behaving suspiciously.

Suspicious Behavior is not ‘walking while black in a gated community.’ Walking with a gangsta-style strut and wearing a ‘hoodie’ at night during a rash of break-ins may trigger suspicion. Is that black profiling? Not when so many white youths emulate the rapper, hip-hop dress and ‘attitude.’

A middle-aged lady walking her dog is not suspicious. If Martin had smiled and said ‘Good Evening’ to Zimmerman, that would allay suspicion. However, pulling the hood up and walking away is ‘articulable suspicious behavior.’

‘Hoodies’ are sinister and appear criminal if not having an aura of a ‘monkish’ eeriness as portrayed in many films in the horror film genre,’ suggestive of the hiding of one’s identity while performing acts in the service of Satan. Please, a hooded-cloak or robe in the setting of a church or monastery communicates purity and peacefulness, but at night on the street the covering of one’s face be it the hoodie or Islamic coverings is just downright sinister.

So, can the Justice Department meet the burden of proof Martin was profiled as a black? Martin was black but, as required in a Terry Stop, Zimmerman had articulable suspicion which he communicated to the 911 operator; that Martin seemed stoned and was a stranger.

Did Zimmerman violate civil rights by approaching Martin? No. Zimmerman was in the common area of his home and community and was in a quasi-official position as a watchman. In fact, Neighborhood Watch persons are protect from ‘harrassment, threats, and physical abuse’ by Florida state law.


The police report (linked below) records an investigation listing conditions of Zimmerman’s shirt and injuries to his head consistent with his story, that Martin knocked him down with a sucker punch to the nose and battered his head against the pavement.

There was no avenue of escape, so the Stand Your Ground statutory provision is less applicable as a legal defense than pure terror of imminent great bodily harm, e.g., head trauma.

Martin had complete control over the outcome of his interaction with Zimmerman. As opposed to Al Sharpton’s baseless accusation that Zimmerman ‘hunted’ Martin down to kill an innocent black boy, Martin attacked visciously and with malevolence.

Zimmerman will be justified and free from prosecution, but first the authorities must bolster their courage and position against the race-baiting media and media whores.


A wealth of legal citations and analysis is well-presented by Dave Kopel at . Dave Kopel is the Director of the Independence Institute and, along with other members of his family, a highly-dependable legal consultant. Scroll down to March 27, 2012.

Here is one statute Dave Kopel missed, protecting Neighborhood Watch volunteers: See bottom of page 12.

I have downloaded the Police Report created by the Sandford Police Department in the course of their investigation clearing George Zimmerman of manslaughter or any other criminal violation. As you all may know, or have experienced, anytime there is a death the police engage in enhanced investigation procedures including the coroner and CSI. Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report

The city manager issued a timely press release explaining why the Police Department did not charge George Zimmerman. It includes an explanation of the police findings and cites several pertinent laws. Zimmerman_Martin_shooting

An opposing opinion

The chief author feels Zimmerman approaching Martin voids any application of self-defense law. I disagree. Every free man has that right by Natural Law. If it can be proven that Zimmerman had criminal intent, e.g., to stalk and shoot Martin, that would vitiate the self-defense. However, Zimmerman was reporting every step of his actions to 911, as required by Neighborhood Watch. That precludes any mental state of criminal intent, thus leading to a criminal act:

My Blogs on Obama, Summarized

March 13, 2012

In 2008 I challenged attorney Phil Berg’s claim that candidate Obama was not a U.S. citizen. Berg responded in vigorous defense. That challenge is detailed in my first blog of Feb-2009.

I went on to research the concept of Article II’s Natural Born Citizen.

The arguments over ‘What is a Natural Born Citizen’ are extensive and sometimes complex. There are questions of dual nationality, jurisdiction, two schools of case law precedent, dicta versus judicial notice, conflicting definitions of ‘naturalization,’ the role of British common law, the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Minor vs. Happerset, and the Jus Soli – Jus Sanguinis debate.

I have engaged Obama supporters in argument, but my final goal was to take all of that complexity and emotionally-charged bias and distill it into one pure drop of truth, or compress it into a perfect small diamond with clarity in all its facets.

Jefferson’s advice on reading constitutional law suggests we take the use of ‘natural born citizen’ in John Jay’s letter to George Washington, in a clause following the admonission not to allow “Foreigners” into the new government. The ‘natural born citizen’ clause extends the ban on ‘Foreigners’ to anyone having ‘alienage’ from birth; therefore the Natural Born Citizen is perfectly defined by comparing the two clauses.

The intent of the framers in Article II was to bar anyone with alienage from birth to the commander-in-chief. Obama admits he was born with British nationality through his father; his U.S. citizenship at birth was determined by his mother’s legal capacity to confer, not merely birth on U.S. soil. Neither qualify him as a natural born citizen.

In the proverbial nutshell, a Natural Born Citizen is Born Without Alienage.

Alienage at birth today is the result of a alien parent. Wong Kim Ark and the 1922 Cable Act inadvertently created the Dual National at birth, i.e., a conflict of nationality jurisdictions. That conflict must be resolved statutorily when the child reaches the age of decision, but it allows ‘nationality of convenience.’

English common law does not define Natural Born Citizen. While the jurists claim their interpretation through common law is superior to Parliamentary Act, jurisprudence states that statute must be followed by the courts and the 1722 British Nationality Act favored Jus Sanguinis citizenship of children of British subjects born outside the King’s dominion.

The American colonies followed Jus Soli as they were completely subject to the crown. However, once the United States was incorporated and the First Uniform Naturalization law passed in 1790, Jus Sanguinis was the sole manner of acquiring citizenship; it was through the free citizen father, not the domination of the King.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo has written briefs that are as complete a legal analysis as can be found out there. My blogs are pretty good too, but my intent was to simplify the complex and conflicting laws into the pure intent of the framers so that anyone could understand quickly, and without doubt.

I hope they help.

‘Wall of Separation’ Explained

February 28, 2012

One must consider the brilliance and fortitude of our founding ‘grand’fathers; those men who by force of religious conviction were exiled to the American colonies.

William Penn was one. Miles Standish and the Pilgrims were the first. However, Roger Williams is the subject of the ‘Separation of Church and State’ issue, recently brought to the fore by presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s criticism of John F. Kennedy’s promise of a ‘wall of separation’ between his Catholic heritage and his presidency.

Roger William’s ‘wall’ sermon came out of his controversies with Cotton Mather, specifically his response to Mather in ‘The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Conscience Sake’ and ‘Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered’ in 1644.

In it, we can see the perfect response to Barack Hussein Obama’s attempt to FORCE free contraception, ‘day after’ birth control, and abortion services on a Christian insurance company providing healthcare policies to employees of a non-profit Catholic organization. Roger Williams wanted the church to be kept Holy and untainted by the government. His language suggests that in its best form, a refuge from religious persecution, the American colonies are an attempt to create a ‘paradise’ on earth taking the good from the ‘wilderness’ into the protection of a righteous self-government.

Indeed, the framers noted that the Republican form of government could only succeed if managed and populated by a righteous and religious people.

“Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered” in 1644.

In it, Roger Williams first mentioned his now famous phrase, “WALL OF SEPARATION”:

Mr. Cotton…hath not duly considered these following particulars.

First, the faithful labors of many witnesses of Jesus Christ, existing in the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both SEPARATE from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the HEDGE, or WALL OF SEPARATION, between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the WALL itself, removed the candlestick, &c. and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.

And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be WALLED in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the world and added unto His Church or garden…a SEPARATION of Holy from unHoly, penitent from impenitent, Godly from unGodly.

Rev. Roger Williams was alluding to the Scriptural pattern that when God’s people sin, He judges them by allowing the church to be trampled by an ungodly government:

Isaiah 5:1-7 ‘My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine…and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard…When I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?…I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I WILL TAKE AWAY THE HEDGE thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and BREAK DOWN THE WALL thereof, and it shall be trodden down…For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but found oppression.’

The understanding was that if God’s people repent “He will restore His garden” by having it “WALLED in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.”

The spiritual descendents of Roger Williams were Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, a State which had the Congregational Protestant Christian denomination established as the official State Church from 1639 to 1818.

With religion under each individual States’ jurisdiction until 1947, the Danbury Baptists complained about their discriminated status in the Congregationalist controlled State of Connecticut in letter to Jefferson, October 7, 1801:

‘Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty – That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals – That no man ought to suffer in name, person or effects on account of his religious opinions – That the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.’

Agreeing with the Baptists in his personal reply, Jefferson wrote, January 1, 1802:

‘Gentlemen…Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a WALL OF SEPARATION between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man.’

Bill Federer in

Mitt Romney a Socialist, but Doesn’t Know It

January 23, 2012

Socialism is a economic system in opposition to capitalism.

Mitt Romney has been heralded as a capitalist due to his private sector pursuits. However, while his conditional capitalization of floundering businesses may have succeeded in reorganizing them back into economic health, his reorganization of Massachuset’s healthcare distribution was pure socialism.

Here is an interesting definition of Socialism by Albert Einstein. However, his ‘allocated production’ forgets that such allocation requires an all-powerful central government independent to market forces, i.e., natural law . . . i.e., a TYRANNY.

“I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.” Albert Einstein, ‘Why Socialism?,’ 1949

Here is a more current definition of Socialism readily visible in our current political climate and the resulting Recession: SOCIALISM is a political allocation of goods and services in direct conflict with market forces and natural law ignoring the root causes of failed production, distribution, and social ills, THUS REQUIRING TAXATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND PRODUCERS IN ORDER TO THROW MONEY, INEFFECTIVELY AND WITH GREAT WASTE, AT THE PROBLEM ACCELERATING THE INEVITABLE FAILURE INTO SYSTEMIC CATASTROPHY.

Let’s take the Healthcare issue. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed due to illegal immigration, abuse of the personal injury settlement process, and out-of-control costs of educating doctors. The start of the solution is in the following link, but that would insult various special interest groups. So, instead of being honest and addressing the issues, politicians force increased health insurance premiums to subscribers . . . this is a Microeconomic model of what is happening through Socialist control of goods and services.

Let’s look at the Illegal Immigration issue. Illegal immigrants outnumber legal visa holders 30-to-1. The INS is therefore completely ineffective and must divert its resources to hide the illegal immigrant problem forcing, by Federal Mandate, private and state services freely provided to the illegal aliens and their children.

Instead of ‘fixing’ the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, i.e., birthright citizenship merely by birth on U.S. soil, the entire population is ‘taxed’ in order to cover up illegal immigrant need for housing, food, education, and medical care.

Einstein noted that Socialism had to be educated into the public. Our public schools not only teach Socialism, but require taxation of Property in order to fund schools and teacher/administration salaries and pensions . . . if you don’t pay your Property Tax, you lose your property . . . again, TYRANNY. Why should a teacher instruct the class on Adam Smith principles, or make Bastiat required reading, when their ‘gravy train’ is funded through Socialism?

Therefore, SOCIALISM can be defined as a POLITICAL COWARDICE; that Cowardice converted into Tyranny over the docile law-abiding citizen through Governmental Bullying (one last ‘i.e.’), otherwise known as by force of law through the barrel of a gun.

Gingrich’s Association with ‘Mac’ not P.C.

January 12, 2012

Update — February 3, 2012    If you’d like to read an ‘historical’ research paper on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, similar to work Gingrich Group was paid for, see        This is a very informative piece, describing how bundled mortgage securities risked loss of value by people paying off the mortgages ahead of schedule, as well as the inclusion of government manipulation forcing banks to issue ‘non-performing’ mortgages under the C.R.A.

Newt Gingrich is perspicacious, knowledgeable about a wide range of topics pertinent to the history and governance of the United States. In fact, he was intimately involved with some of that history, voting for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and leading the House to record employment statistics and balanced budgets.

His successes came at a price, mostly a loss of popularity to the status quo. He also was forced to pay $300,000 for an ethics investigation he was cleared in, and survived being targeted by the IRS. In the end, the target on his back was just too big and he was forced to resign mid-term as Speaker of the House.

His post-congress career has been as a lecturer, author, and consultant. His research, writing, and speaking is what gives him the glibness and ability not just to instantly reply to challenges but to add a spin of teaching in his response. His comments are substantive and immune to redirection. This is what makes Newt Gingrich such a popular candidate for 2012; his comments, while accurate, also make him the clearer target.

While other politicians rely on vague platitudes and sound-bites, Newt Gingrich’s mouth actually ‘bites.’

N.Y. congressman Rick Lazio has publicly denied that Newt Gingrich ever lobbied him . . . in contrast, Barack Hussein Obama was #4 in Fannie Mae political contributions, after Dodd, Schumer, and Franks.

Here is the New York Times article quoting Newt Gingrich on his relationship with Fannie Mac, his comments till recently restricted due to contractual obligations.

By and

For roughly six years, Newt Gingrich worked closely with high-level officials at the government-sponsored mortgage company Freddie Mac. As a highly paid consultant, he coached them on how to win over the conservatives who consider their company an anathema, spoke to their political action committee and offered general advice as they worked to stave off various threats to Freddie Mac’s survival, several people familiar with his role there said on Wednesday.

The full extent of Mr. Gingrich’s involvement with Freddie Mac burst into the open after Bloomberg News reported Tuesday that he earned $1.6 million to $1.8 million, in an on-and-off relationship from 1999 to 2008, with the mortgage company that has since been taken over by the federal government. The payments were far more than had previously been known, or than Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, had acknowledged.

His compensation, which several former Freddie Mac officials confirmed in interviews on Wednesday, and the extent of his work with the mortgage company, presented Mr. Gingrich with a fresh challenge to his Republican bid for the presidency just as he was climbing in polls.

Not only is Freddie Mac a longtime conservative whipping post, but the extent of his consultancy for the mortgage giant seemed to be at odds with his own statements about his work there. He has also blamed it for the collapse of the housing market, saying that at least one Democratic supporter should be jailed, and, in 2008, that President Obama should give back any money his campaign received from its executives.

The news of the full extent of his Freddie Mac contract put him on the defensive all day. And all of his corporate work, in energy, health care and other industries, is now sure to be scrutinized by the news media and his opponents.

“Fannie and Freddie, as you know, have been the epicenter of the financial meltdown in this country,” Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota said while campaigning in Iowa. “While he was taking that money, I was fighting against Fannie and Freddie.”

Speaking with reporters in Iowa on Wednesday, Mr. Gingrich played down the report, saying that he did not know exactly how much he was paid, and that Freddie Mac was but one company that enlisted his firm, the Gingrich Group.

“It’s a multiyear project. It was paid to Gingrich Group. Gingrich Group has many clients,” he told reporters. “I offer strategic advice for a lot of different companies.” (His campaign followed up by listing some of them, including I.B.M., Microsoft and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.)

And, he said, “I did no lobbying of any kind.”

In interviews on Wednesday, several former Freddie Mac officials, and others with direct knowledge about his work there did not dispute that. But at least four of them did dispute Mr. Gingrich’s own description of his work for Freddie Mac during the CNBC debate last week. When asked about a $300,000-per-year, two-year contract in 2006 and 2007, Mr. Gingrich said he had acted as a “historian.”

He said Freddie officials had asked his advice, telling him, “We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do.”

And, he explained: “As I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.”       

Five officials with knowledge of the interactions, and speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid getting drawn into a public fight with Mr. Gingrich, said they had never heard of him saying any such thing.

“Freddie wasn’t spending $25,000 to $35,000 a month for years to have somebody give them history lessons on what would have happened in 1945 if Japan had won,” one former official said.

Another said Mr. Gingrich was enlisted at a time when conservatives were moving aggressively to dismantle Freddie and its counterpart, Fannie Mae, and the organizations were trying to fight back by presenting themselves “as American as apple pie.”

Officials said Mr. Gingrich was brought in to help Freddie Mac hone its message to conservative audiences. One person recalled that Mr. Gingrich advised them, for instance, to tell Republicans that the organization was not explicitly government-backed — and, at the time, it was not — but also not as freewheeling as Wall Street banks, occupying a responsible middle ground.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were commonly referred to as government-sponsored entities. They were established by Congress, and their debt and other obligations have always carried an implicit guarantee that the federal government would step in to save them if they were ever in danger of collapse. Republicans said that the companies — and by implication their Democratic supporters — fueled the crisis by financing vast numbers of unaffordable loans.

In all, Mr. Gingrich served two terms as a consultant to Freddie Mac, the first starting shortly after he left the House in 1999. Hired by the head of the mortgage company’s government affairs shop, Robert Mitchell Delk, he stayed on through 2002. In an interview with Bloomberg, Mr. Delk said Mr. Gingrich helped him devise a program on expanding home ownership that Mr. Delk then shared with White House officials under President George W. Bush.

Two other officials said that during Mr. Gingrich’s second run with the group, when he took a two-year contract starting in 2006, he addressed donors to the Fannie Mac political action committee and discussed writing an op-ed article or academic “white paper,” but never put his name on anything on Freddie’s behalf.

Mr. Gingrich has in recent months been harshly critical of those who have worked with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. For instance, he said, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, should be jailed for his association with “a lobbyist who was close to Freddie Mac.”

On Wednesday, his campaign said that Mr. Gingrich believes Freddie Mac should be “broken up.” Asked whether Mr. Gingrich regrets helping the company, his spokesman, R. C. Hammond, said that he did not and that his views had changed after the housing meltdown.

For his part, Mr. Gingrich said he welcomed the scrutiny. “Everybody will dig up everything they can dig up,” Mr. Gingrich said. “That’s fine; they should.”

Trip Gabriel, Charles Duhigg and Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.

‘When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff.’  Cicero

Recall the destruction of Scooter Libby’s career and reputation when a liberal jury convicted Libby of lying to a Federal investigator, based solely on flimsy comparative memories of Libby versus those of a popular TV commentator.

In the end, it was found out that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the cause of the ‘leak’ concerning Valerie Plame, and the special prosecutor knew it the entire time.

Here is another example of Armitage’s foul politics, his ad hominem attack on a Republican leader, Newt Gingrich. Compare their words, those of Armitage versus Gingrich, and relate it to the abuse of negative advertising against Gingrich.

In a Washington speech, Gingrich had blazed away at “ineffective and incoherent” State for “six months of diplomatic failure” and its “propensity for appeasing dictators and propping up corrupt regimes.” In contrast, he noted, the Defense Department” delivered diplomatically and the the military delivered militarily.” The former Republican Speaker berated State bureaucrats for undue deference to the U.N. and for tolerance of terrorism in Syrian-occupied Lebanon. Becaue much of his unofficial view is shared by what many liberals call “the neocon cabal” around Bush, Gingrich’s broadside was taken by le tout Washington as damning evidence of internal war between Rumsfeldian hawks and Powellite doves. Safire duly noted, “The State response was ad hominem, attacking the speaker rather than his speech.” After dismissing rejoinders by an assistant secretary of state as “not of an adept vituperator,” Safire wrote: “It is clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds and out of therapy,” said American’s second-ranking diplomat. All of us observing “the Shoot-out at the Neocon Cabal” agree that was a good one. The rhythm of Armitage’s memorable phrase—reminiscent of Adlai Stevenson’s “out of sorts and out of office”—suggests that an unbalanced Gingrich is in need of, and running from, psychiatric care. The deputy secretary’s riposte offends only psychiatrists, and there are no Republican psychiatrists.”

Source, Litigation logic: a practical guide to effective argument, by Paul Bosonac;  quoting from Invective’s Comeback, N.Y. Times, April 28, 2003, at A.23.

An Excellent Discussion of Natural Born Citizenship at Mario Apuzzo’s Blog

December 20, 2011

I’d like to refer you to attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog, specifically the one dated December 11, 2011. It includes a list of case law with brief analysis of each very useful to your understanding of the Judiciary’s opinions on citizenship.


Here is my Comment on that Blog Post:

Notice how in the Elk case, the 14th Amendment ‘born or naturalized’ aids in conflating ‘natural born’ with ‘native born,’ as most consider a child born on U.S. soil of alien parents not naturalized per se.
Therefore, they are raising statutory Jus Soli to the level of natural law.
In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48 (1844), Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, wrote:
“Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”
Of course, the conflict is the public law concept of jus soli undermining the ‘reasonable qualification’ that was, since 1790, an integral part of legislated Act requiring aliens to first naturalize before their minor children could become U.S. citizens.
Sec. 3. Uniform Naturalization Law by Congress “And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:”
The champions and defenders of the Jus Soli insist that Sec. 3 applied only to children born abroad . . . yet cannot prove this when challenged.
Justice Story’s Commentaries describes the reason for making Naturalization law Uniform through Federal legislation. See
Uniform Law relies heavily on the Plenary Powers Doctrine. The courts in each state were limited to administering oaths and keeping records. Later, that part of Naturalization Law was given over to the Executive Branch. As cases and controversies in suit against the Secretary of State ensued, the courts declared Article III power over naturalization law and the liberal courts began rewriting it.
I recommend Mark R. Levin’s article at
Congress has the power to ‘fix’ the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the 14th Amendment, merely by adding a brief definition of ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to 8 USC 1401, but our congressmen are, almost unanimously, misinformed and uneducated on the subject.
Indeed, a President Gingrich could address congress and teach them, and encourage them to challenge the SUPREME (or not so supreme) Court.

Gingrich, Palestine, Obama and the Menorah

December 11, 2011

In 167 B.C., the Jews revolted under the leadership of the Maccabeans and restored Jewish control of Israel and the Temple’s ransacked interior, lighting the oil lamp called the‘shamash’ in the sanctuary. This is the origin of the Jewish holiday of Hannukah; a restoration of Israel and its capital city, Jerusalem.

The Plains of Philistia were historically the hills of Gaza, the namesake of Israel’s ancient enemies, the Philistines. Hadrian called the post-70 AD Israel Palaestina as an insult to the routed Jewish population.

Seven centuries later the region came under Muslim domination and under the Turkish Ottoman Empire fell during WWI. It was then that Great Britain formulated the 1922 Palestine Mandate, reformulating some Arab land to historic Israeli borders and giving the rest of the region to Jordan.

From 1922 to 1947, the national borders of what is now Israel were defined under British Mandate and called Palestine . . . about 64% of the population were Arabs. In 1948, the region’s government was organized as a Jewish state, Israel . . . not Palestine.

Arabs out-populated the Jews 2:1 in 1947 so the Arabs were offered their own state (the first two-state solution), plus the right for a large number to live in Israel. The Arabs refused to make any concessions and attacked the hodge-podge Israeli lands in 1948. That war, and 1967’s, helped Israel create contiguous and defensible borders.

25-years . . . that is as long as Palestine existed as a national entity under British rule, not Palestinian rule. After thousands of years of Jewish heritage, going back to 1500-years before the Birth of Christ, Israel was restored to a largely homeless people who suffered millions of lives brutally lost in the European holocaust.

Recall also that the Arabs sided with Nazi Germany and were part of the losing side in WWII. Indeed, Hitler’s‘Mein Kampf’ is still a best-seller in the region.

A so-called ‘Palestinian’ claim to conquered lands is a very thin stretch indeed.

In a Dutch newspaper interview, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein  said: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian  state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel  for our Arab unity. In reality, today, there is no difference between  Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical  reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since  Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct  Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.” ‘Trau’ (March 31, 1977)

The ‘balkanization’ by ‘Palestinians’ of Israel is a military tactic using an oppressed and violent population to undermine a sovereign nation. From 1.2 million Arabs in 1947, the Arab-Palestinian population has matched Israel’s Jewish population, now each at about 5 million.

The Arabs are intent on destroying Israel, but the little nation is holding on . . . something to remember with Hanukkah in two weeks and Newt Gingrich’s comments last week. Barack Hussein Obama may have ceremonially lit a traditional Temple Menorah in anticipation of Hanukkah, but the ‘shamash’ of Israel’s very existence is struggling, by miracle, to stay lit.

The critics got it wrong lambasting Obama for lighting a temple Menorah . . . the lighting of that symbolic temple artifact on Hannukah from the ‘shamash’ candle relives the struggle of 1948, if not 167 BC, and the fight that continues to preserve Israel. It doesn’t matter Obama did not formally participate on the correct day.

Herman Cain versus Allegations and Accusers

November 6, 2011

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has been electronically harassed by the media over allegations of sexual harassment during his tenure in the National Restaurant Association (N.R.A.), as well as recent visits to media outlets.

Mr. Cain admits to settlements by the N.R.A. in termination agreements with disgruntled female employees, to which he was not privy. These settlements were common prior to proactive mitigation by legal experts.

Part and Parcel to these settlements, i.e., more properly dignified as ‘agreements,’ were non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions barring the complainant from discussing or publicizing the allegations or terms of the ‘agreement.’ In exchange for tens of thousands in legal fees charged by counsel for the defendant and a contingency attorney for the plaintiff, ‘settlements’ were a matter of cost versus benefit.

However, disclosure or disparagement by the complainant after agreed terms of termination and departure can result in successful suits and damages assessed against the former complainant . . . however, this is hardly a bar to flaunting agreements to a person who is ‘collection-proof’ or bankrolled by media paying for stories.

In the alternative, exposing clients to damages in violation of clear contractual agreements should expose that attorney for the complainant flaunting the agreement to censure and disbarment, and monetary damages charged to his professional liability insurance.