Tag Archives: treason

Treason

The dictionary has the definition of Treason as:

1. The offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2. A violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.

3. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Each elected official in Washington from the president to senators to representatives, all take an oath to uphold the Constitution, their allegiance is to the Constitution, not their party and definitely not to only one man. I have read many stories lately, of how many of the Democrats who backed Obama, knew from the beginning that he was incompetent, yet they shouted that he was the best thing for this country since sliced bread. Is this treason? It seems to me it falls under the definition 2. A violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state. 3. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. After all, their allegiance is supposed to be to the Constitution and the country.

Even the Royals of the Democratic Party, the Clintons know what Obama truly is. In a new book titled “Blood Fued,” Hillary was quoted as saying that Obama was, ‘incompetent and feckless’ then went on to say, “the thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time,” ‘That’s the story of the Obama presidency, no hand on the f***ing tiller,’ and also “Obama has turned into a joke,” and ‘You can’t trust the motherf***er. While Bill said, “I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,”‘ Yet they also shouted that he was the best thing for this country since sliced bread. Is this treason?

Yet, in the 2012 election, Bill and Hillary shouted from the rooftop, that Obama was the only one who can save America. Instead of backing the best man for America, they went with a man who has no clue about running a hot dog stand, let alone a country. Why did they do that, who benefits from their deceit? Bill and Hillary, naturally. Putting their self interests before the country’s is the opposite of what Bill and Hillary are supposed to be doing, is this treason, intentionally putting the country in harm’s way sounds like treason to me. Bill and Hillary are set for life, so what do they care who runs the country, everything that they do benefits them in one way or another.

Let me say that I am a firm believer in loyalty; I believe that loyalty is one of the most noble qualities a person can have. However, there comes a point when you have to draw the line, a president like Obama, who seems like he is intentionally trying to run this country into the ground, should be exposed, not protected. Still, the Democrats who know in their hearts that Obama is a disastrous president still praise him and his policies. Is this treason?

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are guilty, putting self-preservation before country seems to be a pre-requisite of becoming a politician, it just seems to me that the Democrats go overboard. I am not a Constitutional scholar or lawyer, all I know is what I read in the dictionary. I’m not accusing anyone of treason, but the definition I believe speaks for itself.

Hey Alan Colmes ‘I Read Your Book’ A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

Treason

This is one man’s opinion.

Armed Federal Agents To Impose Obamacare on States

Bible, flag, guns, Our rights

 Il Duce ObamaI just read a story that made my skin crawl.  Barack Obama has declared that the federal government will send federal agents into states to take over their insurance industry if they don’t surrender to Obamacare and set up the exchanges demanded by the regime.  Obamacare was passed in 2009 using bribery and arm twisting, topped off by a complete perversion of the legislative process.  It was opposed by a huge majority of We the People and reconciliation was used in a total disregard for the normal legislative process. This action led to the TEA Party uprising in 2010 that saw Republicans sweeping elections across the nation.

Now Obama brazenly stands up there and says that We the People have absolutely no voice in how we attend to our own health care.  This is bold, in your face, tyranny.  This is treason!!! Obama and his cadre of Marxists have once again thrown the Constitution out the window and said “I demand this…..!!!!!” or “I will by-pass Congress and do as I wish”.  Now he has decided to by-pass the state governments and the very voice of the people.  Is this not the definition of a dictatorship?

We either live by the Constitution or we live by the dictates of Der Fuhrer and his band of cutthitler4hroats.  The sad fact is that the ”leadership” of both political parties, the “ruling elite”, have joined forces with Obama to subjugate the population.  We now find “universal firearm registration” becoming much more acceptable to the Republican Party establishment, no surprise there.  All the noise about the assault weapons ban was a smoke screen for universal registration.  As soon as they know where all the weapons are they don’t need to ban them, they can just come out and confiscate them.  This is tyranny!!

Barack Obama has declared that he will dictate how we obtain and pay for our own health care, and he will send his armed agents to enforce it.  Any guess as to where a lot of the DHS purchases will be going???  The 10th Amendment doesn’t mean any more to these people than does the Dept Homeland Security Logo2nd Amendment.  He will send his Gestapo agents into each state and just take over the industry, he will “nationalize” the insurance industry.

Anyone who opposes this dictator will be dealt with by “federales”.  In 2010, Oklahoma voters rejected Obamacare in a 70%-30% vote.  Obama says what we want doesn’t matter and that he will impose his will on us by using armed federal agents to insure compliance.

This is not a battle between Democrat and Republican; it is a battle between Good and Evil, between We the republican logoPeople and a tyrannical government.  They are already giving massive amounts of military hardware to city and state law enforcement agencies.  Some sheriffs and policeDemomcrat Logo chiefs have said they will stand with Obama but many have said they will stand with We People.

The few people in Congress who speak up for the Constitution are pilloried by people on both sides of the political “aisle”.  Personally, I don’t see an aisle between the parties.  The federal government, in the name of Der Fuhrer Barack Obama, has announced its decision to subjugate its citizens.  They no longer make any pretense of “looking out for our best interests” and have gone right to threatening to sending armed agents to impose their will on what is supposed to be a free people.

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Benito Mussolini did this very thing when they seized control of their nations.  Anyone who refusedStalin Bans Guns to comply with the dictator was either bribed or intimidated into submission, or replaced (read that: shot).  As of now we have come to the point of “weBenito Mussolini refuse and they replace”.  How long before they step in somewhere else?  The federal government has been far too involved in our everyday lives for years.  Now that a majority has bucked up and said “whoa Hoss!!”, Obama and his cutthroats are going to just send in their Gestapo agents to enforce the dictate.

The question is, what are the states going to do????  Are the governors and other elected officers of these states going to accede to the demands of the dictatorship or are they going to stand up for the Constitution?  Are they going to honor their oath of office and their pledge to We the People???

Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak has said he does not have the authority to enforce federal laws and will not do so.  What will Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and the Republican controlled legislature do??? Will they step up and use state Mary Fallinlaw enforcement to prevent this act of treason or will they roll over and give in???  If they will surrender our 9th and 10th Amendment rights today what happens when the “federales” get finished with the 2nd Amendment?

If Congress, both political parties, and the governors of the threatened states, allow Obama to get away with such a blatant act of tyranny where will it stop??  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what happens when a small group of people can use force to impose their will on the majority of the population.

And what about those states not directly affected by this?  Do you think this doesn’t affect you?  I remember a quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller  in which he mentioned all the times people were trampled on by the Nazi government and he said nothing because it wasn’t him. Then they got to him and he was alone.  We all must stand together now or there won’t be any standing together later because many of us will be gone.

Now is the time for the governors to get together and create a plan of action against this blatant tyranny.  Many sheriffs have said they will stick with We the People, and We the People will stick by their sides.  The time for party politics is gone.  This is about the liberty of the citizens of the United States of America.  The noose is tightening around our necks and the ruling political class is tightening it as fast as they can because they see the citizens waking up. They see citizens beginning to make serious preparations for an all-out assault on our freedom by a dictatorial oligarchy in Washington, D. C. (De Cesspool) and they are moving as fast as they can to head off any ability of said citizens to oppose them.Bible, flag, guns, Our rights

The people are mobilizing to fight off the activities of a government overstepping its Constitutional bounds while most of our elected officials, in both political parties, band together to remove our only means of protection, the 2nd Amendment.

This action bConstitutiony the regime will abolish the 9th and 10th Amendments; universal firearm registration will abolish the 2nd Amendment.  The 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure had been trampled to death numerous times in the last few years.  Our Republic is on the verge of oblivion and dictatorship is on the horizon.  Obama, Boehner, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, McCain, Graham, Cantor, Schumer, and the rest are not going to just give up when they are a whisker away from the absolute control they have been seeking.  Their behind-the-scenes handlers won’t allow it either.  The window for a peaceful resolution is rapidly closing.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russsell

Claremore, Oklahoma

March 26, 2013

Rebuttal of Obama’s SOTU lies about America’s nuclear deterrent

arton1691

When he delivers the SOTU tonight, Obama will likely mention his plan to deeply cut (read: dramatically weaken) further America’s already excessively cut nuclear deterrent at a time when Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India are all growing and modernizing nuclear arsenals, and just a day after North Korea tested a nuclear weapon – thus utterly refuting Obama’s notions of a “nuclear-free world”.

Republicans have the duty and the power to stop his cuts of America’s nuclear deterrent while explaining to the public – in their rebuttal of Obama’s SOTU as well as on other occassions – why Obama’s policy is suicidal and treasonous and why America needs a large nuclear deterrent and will need it for the foreseeable future.

The following is offered as advice on how to refute the lies that Obama is likely to make in his remarks.

Obama will likely falsely claim that:

1) “America has more nuclear weapons than needed for national security.”

Yet, on close inspection, this claim is completely false.

A significantly smaller nuclear arsenal will not be able to meet most, let alone all, of America’s defense requirements and those of its allies. It will not be able to effectively deter America’s enemies for the simple reason that it will be too small. Being significantly smaller, it will not be survivable enough and will thus be much easier for both Russia and China to destroy in a nuclear first strike on the US. Even if they refrain from such a drastic action, they will certainly use America’s weakness to intimidateWashington and its allies and to attack American allies and interests around the world. Don’t delude yourself that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran would refrain from doing that if they had the opportunity to do so.

The fact is that a nuclear arsenal, in order to be survivable, MUST be large – there’s no way around that fact. In order to be an effective deterrent, it also must be able to hold the vast majority of enemy military and economic assets at risk. A smaller arsenal and the new nuclear strategy prepared for Obama’s signature will be utterly unable to do so.

This is because there are simply so many strategic and nonstrategic weapon sites and other important military (and economic) targets in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran that being able to target a majority of them will require far more warheads than Obama would allow – not a mere 1000-1100, but at least 1,550, if not more. The Heritage Foundation’s nuclear weapons experts have estimated that about 2,700-3,000 nuclear warheads are required for that.

And why is it important to target at least a majority, if not the vast majority, of an enemy’s assets? Because only then will he suffer a truly devastating and prohibitively costly retaliation if he commits aggression. If he loses only a minority of his assets – even if they’re the most important ones – he will not be deterred from attacking. Only if the vast majority of his assets are held at risk will he refrain from aggression.

A small nuclear arsenal could only target Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian population centers, as it would be woefully insufficient to hold the majority of enemy military assets at risk. This would mean a shift from counterforce to countervalue targeting – i.e. targeting innocent civilian populations (which Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian leaders don’t value anyway) instead of enemy warmaking capability. Is this the policy we want? The proponents of arms reduction do.

But such a policy would arguably be immoral, and would not be accepted by most Americans. So the only credible and acceptable policy is counterforce – which requires a large number of warheads.

Yet, Obama and his bureaucrats and apparatchiks don’t care about that. All they care about is disarming the US and creating their pipedream “world without nuclear weapons”, a fiction that will never exist (as NK’s nuclear test yesterday proves).

So instead of reviewing possible targets and then deciding on how many warheads the US needs, they’ll instead impose an ideological, arbitrary warhead cut on the military: no more than 1000-1100 warheads, and the military will have to adapt its targeting strategy to that.

They’ve got it exactly backwards. They’re imposing an arbitrary warhead limit on the military and forcing it to THEN come up with a targeting strategy to fit that limit.

2) “Nuclear weapons are relics of the Cold War.”

This false claim doesn’t even meet the straight face test. Nuclear weapons are highly relevant in today’s security environment.

The biggest military threats to America are Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The first three have nuclear weapons; Iran is racing to acquire them. The biggest threat posed by these countries is that of a large-scale nuclear or (in Russia’s or China’s case) attack by them.

Russia has a very large strategic nuclear arsenal (2,800 warheads, 1,500 of them deployed and 1,300 in reserve) and the means to deliver it:

  • Over 250 strategic bombers (64 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, and 151-171[1] Tu-22Ms), each capable of carrying six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and a nuclear freefall bomb;
  • 14 ballistic missile submarines (5 Delta III class, 7 Delta IV class, 1 Typhoon class, and 1 Borei class submarine), which can carry 16 ballistic missiles each (the Typhoon class boat can carry 20); these missiles include the 12-warhead Liner SLBM and the 10-warhead Bulava SLBM;
  • 434 ICBMs, including (numbers in parentheses refer to the maximum warhead carriage capacity):
  1. 58 SS-18 Satan missiles (10 warheads and 30 penetration aids each);
  2. 136 SS-19 Stiletto missiles (6 warheads/missile);
  3. 171 SS-25 Sickle (RT-2PM Topol) missiles (single-warhead);
  4. 74 SS-27 Sickle B (RT-2UTTH) missiles (single-warhead);
  5. at least 18 SS-29 (RS-24) missiles (4 warheads/missile).

The Satan fleet alone can carry 580 warheads to the CONUS. Russia’s ICBMs are not currently loaded with the maximum possible number of warheads, but can be thus loaded at any time, if the Kremlin so orders.

Russia also has a huge tactical nuclear arsenal – far larger than America’s. It is estimated to have at least 1,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads – by any measure, far more than the US has (about 500). These are warheads of various types: missile warheads, aircraft bombs, nuclear depth charges, nuclear torpedo warheads, nuclear artillery shells, etc. They are deliverable by a wide range of systems, including aircraft (e.g. the Su-24, Su-25, Tupolev bombers, and the Su-27/30/33/34/35 Flanker family; Russia plans to procure 200 Su-34s), short-range ballistic missiles (e.g. the SS-26 Stone), surface warships, submarines, and artillery pieces.

So Russia alone has a huge nuclear arsenal which America must defend itself and its allies against. It has, in recent years, made repeated threats (over a dozen in the last 4 years alone) to use these weapons against the US or its allies if they don’t succumb to Russia’s demands on various issues.

Thus, the Russian threat, by itself, is huge and justifies the retention of a large US nuclear arsenal.

China has 1,800, and potentially up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, as determined in objective, impartial studies independently by Professor Philip Karber (Georgetown) and Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, a former Russian missile force chief of staff. Their estimates are based on Chinese fissile material stockpiles, delivery system inventories, potential targets for China, and itsst, 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels for nuclear missiles (which the US has to be able to destroy to be capable of credible retaliation if China attacks). China’s nuclear arsenal is so large and so sophisticated and survivable that General Yesin visited the US last year to warn US policymakers about that fact.

North Korea has about 12 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them to the US, as demonstrated by its successful December 2012 test of a genuine ICBM and the fact that it can mate nuclear warheads to ballistic missiles. North Korea, of course, also has large arsenals of SRBMs and MRBMs.

Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and may have them by next year. It is also developing an ICBM capable of hitting the US, which US intel estimates it may have by 2015, and already possesses ballistic missiles which can hit targets as far away as Warsaw (e.g. the Sejjil missile).

Moreover, while Russia and China are threats to many but protectors to nobody, the US has to provide a nuclear deterrent not only for itself but also for 30 allies, many of whom would otherwise develop their own nuclear weapons. If the US nuclear arsenal is further cut significantly, they (especially Japan and South Korea) will have no choice but to “go nuclear.” This will make the proliferation problem much worse.

3) “Nuclear weapons are too costly to maintain. We can save a lot of money by cutting their number.”

This claim is also utterly false. The entire ICBM leg of the nuclear triad costs only $1.1 bn to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn. The total nuclear arsenal and its supporting facilities and workforce cost $32 bn to $35 bn per year to maintain according to the Stimson Center. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the DOD’s annual budget (over $600 bn), the annual federal budget deficit ($1 trillion), or the total annual federal budget ($3.6 trillion).

Eliminating both the bomber and ICBM legs of the triad would “save” a tiny $3.6 bn per year – 0.1% of the total federal budget. It’s nothing. It’s less than a rounding error.

4) “Cutting our nuclear arsenal will convince others to give up their nukes. If we give up ours, North Korea will give up its.”

This false claim is downright laughable. There is zero evidence supporting it. In fact, while the US has been dramatically cutting its nuclear arsenal since the Cold War’s end – from over 20,000 warheads in 1991 to 5,000 today – two new states (Pakistan and North Korea) have joined the nuclear club and fielded ICBMs, while China has dramatically expanded its nuclear arsenal. India and Israel have grown theirs. Moreover, all of these countries consistently refuse to even talk about, let alone give up, their nuclear arsenals. China has recently categorically rejected nuclear disarmament and North Korea has just tested a nuclear weapon. What’s more, China has actively AIDED North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Other countries don’t give a damn about America’s “moral example” or “leadership by example”. They don’t care about American gestures. All they care about is THEIR military strength and how it compares to America’s. If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal, they will only see it as a sign of weakness – which it would be. It will never convince them to give up their nuclear arms.

Signing and implementing New START has not convinced other countries to give up their nukes.

Moreover, further cuts to America’s arsenal will not enhance America’s “credibility” in the yes of the “international community” or convince that community to place meaningful pressure on North Korea and Iran; the “international community” has utterly failed to do so.

That Obama (reportedly) plans to cynically use North Korea’s nuclear test to justify further deep reductions in America’s own deterrent is mindboggling, ridiculous, despicable, and outrageous. As North Korea, China, and Russia grow their nuclear arsenals, it is foolish and suicidal to cut America’s. North Korea’s nuclear test is an argument AGAINST Obama’s US nuclear arsenal cuts, not for them.

In sum, there are absolutely NO reasons to cut the US nuclear arsenal. But there are many reasons NOT to do it. Republicans should study the above facts and disseminate them widely to counter the blatant lies that Obama will likely make tonight to defend his indefensible, deep cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent and thus America’s deterring power. Republicans also have the power AND the duty to STOP Obama’s gutting of America’s nuclear arsenal.

For more information and analysis of America’s nuclear deterrence needs, check out my website. Recommended reading includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this, thisthis, and this article.

Also, Dear Readers, please call your Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they don’t stop America’s unilateral disarmament by Obama.

Obama’s Treason: Update

talibanCDN was kind enough to publish “Obama Flagrantly Commits Treason” on January 13, 2013. The article highlighted how Obama approved, with Mohammed Karzai’s acquiescence, the Taliban to open an office in Kabul, Afghanistan. The office is supposedly, in “Dear Leader” Barack Hussein Obama’s own words, “… to facilitate talks.”

But, the Taliban doesn’t appear ready to talk. Afghan police say a suicide car bomber targeted a convoy of NATO supply trucks on January 25, but failed to hit them. A spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said no NATO troops were killed or injured in the attack for which the Taliban have claimed responsibility.The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the attack.

“… to facilitate talks.”

That’s well and good, but actions speak much louder than words. You would think that Obama would have learned that fact with the Taliban. But, to quote John Belushi on SNL, “Nooooooooooooooooooo.” It seems that the Taliban, in 2011, targeted an American consulate convoy, and that two Americans were “slightly wounded.” But the fact that Americans were “slightly wounded” is beside the point. The Taliban attacked an American convoy, and continues to attack American ally convoys.Yet, Obama somehow saw fit to reward them.

Did Obama’s reward end the attacks? “Nooooooooooooooooooo.”

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

President Obama's Treacherous Deals with the Russians

President Obama gave a hot mic supplication to departing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Putin should give him more “space” and “flexibility” on such national security issues as Anti-Ballistic Missile defense. According to Obama, this will be his “last election,” after all.

Of course, any mention of this eye-popping exchange outside the credentialed press will be spun by Pravda West as mere blog fodder for de-contextualized right-wing hysterics. Well, comrades, let’s at least make sure our hysterics are properly contextualized, shall we?

The exposed convo between the two outgoing presidents runs as follows and was originally reported by Jake Tapper of ABCNews:

President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”

President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”

President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

The exchange runs more like a series of Twitter replies between BFFs than a serious high-ranking discussion on national security. It’s time we start rummaging through Barack Obama’s closet to see what kind of Russian connections we can find.

Alright, a boatload of Матрёшкu, some empty Stoli bottles, and a Russian mail order bride catalogue… hmm. Okay, here’s the good stuff:

  • After unsurprisingly attractive female Russian spy Anna Chapman is captured by American counter-intelligence, the Obama administration releases her spy ring in exchange for… a carton of black market Pall Malls? No, but close. The Russkies’ release of four accused spies… who aren’t even Americans.  No blabbing about a suspected mole in the NSA, no blue prints revealing Russia’s ABM countermeasures, only a foxy photo spread in Russian Maxim in exchange! Men, I think we got the better end of that bargain, don’tcha think? Meoww!
  • Russian President Medvedev engaged in drunken saber-rattling with the demand that America remove Theater Wide Defense from Europe. This was despite the Obama administration’s supine proposals to “cooperate” with the Russians on certain aspects of missile defense. Yes, and maybe swimmers in the South Atlantic should cooperate with sharks over the issue of what’s for dinner?
  • The most belligerent Noble Peace Prize winner in world history has pledged to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. No, seriously. Obama proposed a good faith sacrifice in this quixotic crusade to make a unilateral cut of our nuclear weapons by up to 80%. This would put our stores below even Chinese levels, let alone Russian stockpiles. Who else is for a “flexible” second term? Hands, anyone?
  • The president conceded disputed oil-rich territory in the North Pacific and the Arctic to the Russians. According to bilateral treaties with the Russians going back to 1867, the United States had developed a claim to islands off the coast of Alaska. One is tempted to dub this “Obama’s Folly,” but it is hard to imagine any unforeseen upside in the deal. Unless Russia secretly conceded to allow Obama free reign on the world’s algae supplies.
  • Russian billionaire Alexei Mordashov, ranked in the top 50 on Forbes’ wealthiest people in the world at around $19 billion net worth, applied to the Department of Energy for a green subsidy to assist with Government Motors manufacturing. According to Investors Business Daily, Mordashov was given a $773 million loan to produce special high-quality steel, already available in ample supply, for the disastrously unmarketable Chevy Volt.
  • Despite Russia’s arming of Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, who has bloodily repressed a domestic uprising, the administration has remained remarkably quiet. The same might be said of the Russians’ assistance of the Iranian nuclear weapons energy program at Bushehr. In fact, the Russians’ human rights violations and jeopardizing of international security might be the only matters this garrulous president will keep quiet about.

The dirty laundry list could go on, but the sane have already come to the conclusion that something is amiss in the Oval Office. After all, if you had taken a vodka shot for every time the president double-crossed America, you’d be drunker than a Russian sailor on payday.

If it turns out that the Wikileaker was right that the Russians got the best president money could buy, one could hardly color a prescient observer with a surprised face. Obama has been more supine than a Romanian gymnast while bending over backwards for ‘Vlady Daddy’ (“he likes to pahty, he don’t start trouble, he don’t botha nobody”).

The problem with the president having a man-crush on Putin is you can take the man out of the KGB, but you can’t take the KGB out of the man. And as far as the Kremlin is concerned, it is sure starting to look a lot like Obama is “our man in Washington.”

You can call this crazy, but the proper response is that the things our president is doing are crazy.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker and OwntheNarrative and is a regular commentator on the late night talk show TB-TV.

The American Left: Does It Have the Freedom of Sedition and the Right to Tyranny?

Free Speech, Sedition & Treason

The American Left has pushed the United States to the brink of Constitutional crisis. Whether or not the left agrees with conservatives regarding the unconstitutionality of its preferred laws, the perception of millions of Americans is that the country is in political crisis. This is the state of the nation because what have widely been agreed-upon as the “rules of the game,” as implied in liberal democracy, are being replaced in piecemeal fashion by progressives whose primary agenda is to unfetter the government. Whether or not some of the left’s methods of transforming the country should be considered illegal or unconstitutional is the subject of this essay.

The New Left rationalizes its “fundamental transformation” of the nation, with the tacit endorsement of using extra-constitutional or even unconstitutional means, by appealing to a crusader-like mission to remedy the supposed structural injustices of our legal system. Among the left’s devices of transformation are the linguistic redefinition of terms like “freedom” and “equality,” thereby impacting public law, and the opportunistic and pragmatic employment of power.

For the purposes of this article’s argument, the left’s motives will be assumed to be laudable and its ends moral. What will be focused on are the means of the left’s value-transmission and whether or not specific practices should be considered illegal or unconstitutional. The same moral framework intrinsically applies to the right. Although current issues like the proposed crackdown on pornography are not addressed, like reasoning applies to all ideological and political content. But the focus will specifically be upon the New Left, since its agenda is currently driving the dominant political party.

The New Left has undertaken a programme of utilizing culture as a method of ingraining its values into a public highly resistant to the temptations of socialism. The institutions that animate public discourse – the schools, universities, entertainment and news media, the courts – are indisputably dominated by intellectuals whose sympathies tend toward the political left.

Yet is it the power of the left’s ideas that has led to the fait accompli? Or has it been the abuse of the state’s apparatus to effect political change that is the explanation for the left’s success in certain institutions? Successively answering these two questions leads us to the distinction between a reasonable difference of opinion and active, ongoing sedition.

Ideas in and of themselves cannot legally be treasonous, but they can be seditious. As one dictionary points out, “Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense.” Yet the same dictionary points out that sedition is the “incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.” There is a tension in the American public’s view of what constitutes sedition and treason and this can be explained by our nation’s ideologically charged history.

In American history, the Founders were considered by the British to be seditious or even treasonous. They thus staked “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors” when they rebelled against the Crown. But by the end of the eighteenth century, the U.S. government had already passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which suppressed political speech deemed to be a threat to the interests of the state. The Wilson administration continued this dark legacy of speech repression with its passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which anarchists and socialists particularly rued. The subsequent Red Scare and the McCarthy era are commonly pointed to by left-leaning academics as exemplars of free speech suppression of the worst type. But scratch the surface of these cries of foul-play and one finds that the hard left actively suppresses speech whenever it is politically expedient or the conditions are ideologically favorable.

Although the practice should not be commended, the suppression of speech should not be illegal so long as the institution is privately owned or operated. But what crosses the line of amorality into immorality is the practice of an institution that receives federal funds or subsidies suppressing free speech or engaging in speech with political implications (a broader definition than is currently accepted). The reason this practice is morally indefensible is because the fruits of a citizen’s labor should not be confiscated or purposely diminished in value in order to finance speech that may run against an individual’s freedom of conscience. This runs directly contrary to any “open society.”

Thus, it is immoral for public schools, universities, or state-financed media outlets to receive federal funding and to promote a political ideology that is not in accordance with the agreed-upon rules of the game. It is immoral to promote coercive means, as implied in the advocacy of the use of state force, in order to impose one’s ideology on others or to silence one’s intellectual opposition. Yet this is precisely what the progressive left does on a routine basis in our schools and universities, as countless testimonials online avouch.

The intolerance of the “tolerant” left when it comes to ideology is rapidly becoming infamous. But whether or not those on the radical left vehemently disagree with those on the so-called right is not the point. Communists, socialists, fascists, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes have that right.

Neither is it the point that the content of the left’s speech may sometimes be seditious by nature, in the sense that progressives occasionally support unconstitutional means for imposing their contrarian morality upon others. This is sometimes the case.

The point is that the radical left’s behavior of suppressing the speech of its ideological opponents, whether in our public schools, colleges, universities, or publicly funded media ought to be illegal. This brings us to the next dilemma, which cuts at the core of free speech rights. The conclusion is the ultimate solution to the problem of public funds being utilized to promote sedition.

The New Left: Institutionalizing Sedition

The modern struggle over freedom of speech can be traced to the post-McCarthyite era, when many radicals reacted by insisting on absolute freedom of speech on our college and university campuses. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement (FSM) embodies such a movement. FSM leader Mario Savo put his aims such:

The First Amendment exists to protect consequential speech; First Amendment rights to advocacy come into question only when actions advocated are sufficiently limited in scope, and sufficiently threatening to the established powers. The action must be radical and possible: picket lines, boycotts, sit-ins, rent strikes. The Free Speech Movement demanded no more — nor less — than full First Amendment rights of advocacy on campus as well as off: that, therefore, only the courts have power to determine and punish abuses of freedom of speech. The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate endorsed this position on December 8, 1964 by declaring against all University regulation of the content of speech or advocacy — by a vote of 824 to 115.

Yet as with many political matters with the left, the issue is not the issue. Professor of Sociology William Peterson at California-Berkeley wrote the following of the FSM, as cited in Ayn Rand’s essay “The Cashing In: The Student Rebellion” as found in The Return of the Primitive:

The first fact one must know about the Free Speech Movement is that it has little or nothing to do with free speech. If not free speech, what then is the issue? In fact, preposterous as this may seem, the real issue is the seizure of power.“

This is the real crux of the issue: whether or not the left is attempting to abuse and refuse public access to speech in order to promote its accrual of power. The aspects of public discourse known as political correctness, hate speech, free speech zones (implying one is not free to speak elsewhere), the Fairness Doctrine, FCC regulations, net neutrality rules,  or other speech codes, when accompanied by the state subsidy, advocacy, or suppression of certain kinds of speech, should be struck down as unconstitutional. Likewise, peacable protest in a public forum should not be restricted.

Yet the left restricts speech whenever it is politically expedient or ideologically favorable to do so. One can trace the left’s usage of free speech as a shield to advocate seditious ideas to the movement’s hardline communist thinkers.

Many might think this is controversial statement or a bridge too far in argumentation. But ideological literacy and the ability to navigate the terrain of the abstract leads one to this conclusion. If one examines the history of ideas, one is not persuaded that the left’s switch from classical liberal assumptions to essentially socialist ones happened as if from out of nowhere. With that in mind, Lenin said:

“Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for the uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters.”

When one recognizes that the American left rejects “bourgeois morality,” all of its idiosyncrasies and apparent hypocrisies when it comes to freedoms and rights become crystallized into an integrated understanding. And as the socialist Nikolai Bukharin wrote in the “The Programme of the World Revolution“:

The following is now clear to the workers and peasants. The party of the Communists not only allows no freedom (such as liberty of the press, speech, meetings, unions, etc.) for the bourgeois enemies of the people, but goes still further and demands of the government to be always ready to close the bourgeois press, to break up gatherings of the enemies of the people, to forbid their lying and libelling, and sowing panic; the party must mercilessly suppress all attempts of the bourgeoisie to return to power. And this is what is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is not to purport that all members of the left are communists or even recognize themselves as socialists. There are divisions on the left and major distinctions between de Tocqueville liberals, progressives, social democrats, democrat socialists, Fabian socialists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, and so on. But resorting again to the often-overlooked collection of essays written by Ayn Rand on the New Left, cited above, we can begin to appreciate the connection between socialist goals and “democratic” or “pragmatic” means:

The general tone of the reports was best expressed by a headline in the New York Times, March 15, 1965: “The New Student Left: Movement Represents Serious Activists in Drive for Changes.” What kind of changes? No specific answer was given in the almost full page story – just “changes.” Some of these activists, who liken their movement to a revolution, want to be called radicals. Most of them, however, prefer to be called “organizers.” Organizers of what? Of deprived people. For what? No answer. Just “organizers.”

Delving deeper into the background of two specific radicals, Saul Alinsky and William Ayers, both of import in terms of their association with the current president, we find indispensable linkages between what is widely considered on the right to be socialist or communist in thinking and the radical pragmatic terms of the father of community organizers Saul Alinsky.

Leftists hold up Alinsky as an innocuous toiler on behalf of the working class because they agree with his ethical ends and because he justifies their power lust. A passage from Jim Geraghty’s article “The Alinsky Administration” shows the left’s moral equivocation of New Left radicals with The Founding Fathers:

Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.

Alinsky is right in that history is written by the victors. But he is wrong in that there is a moral equivalence between rebelling from tyranny and imposing tyranny. The Founders’ goal was to free men from political coercion and economic enslavement (see the “rough draught” of The Declaration of Independence, e.g.), not to utilize the state to economically restrict, manipulate, or exploit citizen-laborers or otherwise determine the winners and losers in the economy. Again, this cannot be justified as moral by any stretch of the imagination. These counter-revolutionary practices are nakedly tantamount to wielding sheer power and building for power. Another passage, from Ryan Lizza’s “Barack Obama’s Unlikely Political Education“:

The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!”

And an additional quote from Matt Patterson’s “Study Saul Alinsky to Understand Barack Obama” illustrates the famous picture of Obama teaching “relationships built on self-interest”:

Years later in 2007, The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza interviewed then-senator Obama and found him still “at home talking Alinskian jargon about ‘agitation,'” and fondly recalling organizing workshops where he had learned Alinsky-esque concepts like “being predisposed to other people’s power.”

When confronted with public discussion about Obama’s verifiable Alinsky ties, leftists either shrug or deny them. Now, it is not illegal or seditious to community organize, per se, like our president did. It should not be purported that the concept of empowering the “underprivileged” is ethically wrong, either. But what is wrong is using the government as an aegis to deprive others of private property and to redistribute the expropriated funds to any political clients, whether they are members of an underclass or corporations. This political activity is not protected by The Constitution even by stretching the General Welfare Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment; and for good reason. The effects are particular in that these political activities harm certain parties and benefit others (including the redistributive party). So why does the left claim this activity is moral, and therefore, should be legal (and due to the deformation of the law, is legal)?

Implied in the left’s moral claims, to elucidate the ethical clash between left and right, is the concept best expressed in Michel Foucault’s “The Subject and Power, “A society without power relations can only be an abstraction.” Yet this supposed bit of sophisticated insight is a grotesquery. It does not harm another person in society for an individual to better himself, or to voluntarily collaborate with a group, or to labor for a commercial enterprise. Selling one’s labor is not akin to slavery because labor is a necessary aspect of human existence; and by extension, working within a capitalist society is in no way tantamount to slavery or is it morally relatable to the state’s coercive expropriation of the fruits of citizens’ labor, whether the state is democratically elected or not. Voluntary labor is not akin to slavery nor is it akin to indentured servitude; one can abstain from participating in the market. The fact that a person will starve or be relatively deprived without providing valued labor in a market does not make the capitalist system unjust, it makes the reality of being human what it is. One is not entitled to force another person to labor on one’s behalf; a disabled person is not able to labor and therefore, it is our nation’s shared value of protecting life that justifies the public policy of subsidizing that citizen’s living expenses.

Thus, bearing this legal and moral argument in mind, when conservatives are disturbed by the political activities of the community organizer Saul Alinsky or those of the unrepentant domestic terrorist and avowedly communist William Ayers, the latter being politically associated by his own admission with the president, we are not distraught about a mere difference of opinion. We are concerned about the left’s seditious activities, particularly when they are accompanied by state force. Whether or not one supports sedition is besides the point; it cannot be moral to impose one’s views on another using force. The entire concept of morality is gutted. We can now expand on the divergence in moral thinking between Constitutional conservatives and the hard left, and why the latter should be considered wrong on the issue of using state force to effect extra-constitutional and unconstitutional change.

The American left commonly dismiss “right-wing” arguments because they believe that power structures are inescapable (in other words, voluntarism is illusory because society irresistibly conditions men’s thinking). If there is so such thing as private property, a minority irrefutably controls something that others do not; this drives the left to seek out the “democratization” of the economy.  They see this as a pragmatic means of supplying the means to meet the needs and wants of the masses.

What many on the right call the communist or socialist left is by all appearances an activist left animated by a stripped-bare, non-ideologically driven bent to resolve “issues.” Since power is inherently a part of politics, those on the left reason, there is no point quarreling about immoral means, but rather we should all be getting on with furthering moral ends. Those who get in the way are inherently wrong.

But it cannot be shirked off that one cannot remedy evil by committing or tolerating evil. One cannot remedy injustice by committing injustice. There is moral condemnation on the left of such judgmental thinking and certitude, which is labeled either simplistic or outright authoritarian. True, principles are simplistic; but their application to reality is infinitely complex and they constitute the difference between what is moral and immoral.

Our political system of liberal democracy is a political mechanism for allowing the settlement of ideological differences in a civil society.  But when coercive power is utilized by one party over another, ideology is besides the point. There is an objective standard for morality, as Ayn Rand points out.  Killing another person is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of physically ending another person’s life. Stealing is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of forcibly taking something that does not rightfully belong to a given person, all considerations about the production of the given product implied. There are objective ways to determine morality. Not everything is subjective or “ideological” in the dismissive “that’s just your opinion” sense.

Conclusion

So let us reframe the issue and address the key problem. The New Left program of cultual marxism creates a dilemma – is it legitimate to change the culture using legal, constitutional means in order to unconstitutionally change the political system?

The threshold of when sedition becomes treason is met when political power is used to violate individual rights, such as life, liberty, and property. Property rights are violated when wealth is confiscated and used for ways that go well beyond the protection of life and property. Liberty is restricted when laws are passed that impair one’s ability to express himself or to make his own living.  Life is violated when a human being is allowed to be killed without legal repercussions or when people are sent to war against their will and without due process.

Censorship or violation of individual rights cannot be justified by appeal to ideology. There is no right to tyranny. There is no moral justification for de facto slavery. The underpinning argument for all civil rights legislation is that all men are created equal in a legalistic sense. Yet the left undercuts the foundational basis of our laws by advocating policies that tacitly imply freedom is enslavement and race is an insurmountable handicap. Thus, progressives undermine our legal system when they pass laws that undercut property rights and the freedom of association, which implies that men are not created equal and therefore need special state privileges.

The left’s remedy for perceived injustice is often more injustice. Instead of appealing to reason, the left resorts to force when it suppresses public speech. It often does so on the grounds of protecting minorities or the underprivileged or some other group. But the harm of a verbal or negative injustice is greatly outweighed by a coercive or positive one. One does not empower some citizens by impairing other citizens’ rights; one only establishes a condition of enfeebled dependency on the state.

Likewise, one cannot harm another by failing to perform a duty or service for another person. Such reasoning cannot be a basis for rights, properly understood. Men are not born slaves or indentured servants of other men, whether directly or via the aegis of government. One is not owed anything by virtue of merely existing.

Thus, there is no right to tyranny. There is freedom of sedition; yet there is no freedom to commit treason, as is entails establishing a dictatorship (nominally proletarian or otherwise). The weapons of words are allowable in the arena of political combat; but once those words are put onto paper as laws and undercut the Constitutionally protected individual rights of speech, association, religion, and self-defense, words can become treasonous.

The president accumulating power in the executive branch is a form of sedition, but it is not treason unless the legislative branch of government rules it so. The government is effectively usurping legislative power by shifting it into a fourth branch – a bureaucratic one, insulated from the legislative branch by a wall of separation, erected through uncompetitive federal labor laws. The market does not affect government as it does the rest of us (at least those of us the government does not rig the game for). But the legislative branch needs to counteract this assault on The Constitution or the legal recourse is lacking.

The president took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution of the United States. Yet, the credentialed constitutional scholar complained that The Constitution says what the government cannot do to people, but it does not say what the government can do for people on their behalf. The president has the right to hold such seditious views. But the president does not have the right to commit treason by imposing his preferred brand of tyranny on fellow citizens through democratically elected office.

The solution to the problem of “political correctness” being used to erode Americans’ rights is to support the marketization of education and to oppose the federal funding or subsidization of any and all specific ideological or political content. The lynchpin institution is education. Re-establish it as an open forum for political ideas, and the restitution of classical liberal values and liberal democracy follows. This makes the difference between the public’s acceptance of the legitimacy of unconstitutional rule or rejection of it. On such a mission the nation’s fate as a free country or a socialist tyranny depends.

Obama Has Finally Done It – Commits Treason

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines TREASON as “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.” The US Constitution, in Article III, Section 3, addresses treason: “Treason against the United States, shall consist … giving them [enemies] Aid and Comfort.” Treason, as defined by the framers of the US Constitution, is “… aiding the enemies of the USA.”

The last time I looked, Russia was still an enemy of the USA, if for no other reason than its Iran policies: opposition of oil sanctions and “regrets” Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Further, Russians were spying on the USA.

So what? you say. That is nothing new. But now guess who wants to give USA secrets to Russia: President Barack Hussein Obama!!! Obama told Congress on January 4, 2012, that he is prepared to share US missile defense secrets with Russia. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on US Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority.  [emphasis mine]

US officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. Further, there are concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China, and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, to help their missile programs defeat US missile defenses. Obama is willing to give away a technological secrets highly desired by Russia (and especially by China) in a liberal pursuit of a thirty-year-old grudge against President Ronald Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength.”

And this is not the first time he has given away missile secret. As part of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed by President Barack Hussein Obama in February, 2011, information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Great Britain will be given to Russia. The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the “special relationship” between the US and Great Britain. Classified messages show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” treaty. So now we see that Obama thinks his “accomplishments” are more important than the interest of allies.

Will the Barack Hussein Obama outrage never end? He is determined to destroy the USA any way he can. He has tried economics. He has tried class warfare. Now he wants to aid an enemy of the USA. The US Constitution says its treason, I say it’s treason, most readers of this website will say it’s treason. Now it is time for us (and the US) to make sure everyone knows what he is doing. And where is the MSM? As usual, shilling for Obama by not doing their job!

But that’s just my opinion.

Access to other articles like this one can be found at RWNO, my personal web site.

Impeachment or Nullification?

Mr. Brown,

I read your item of October 4, 2011, calling for the impeachment of Barak Obama for a variety of either criminal or unethical conduct. I agree that the case you lay out calls for not only the immediate removal, but the prosecution of the whole lot of them on many charges in many categories. I just disagree with your approach. I believe it is doomed to failure. I admire your patriotism and your passion but believe it to be misdirected. I don’t want you to take this letter as criticism because it is absolutely not written as criticism. My intent is to make this country a better and safer place to live. I would like to see your talents and passion be put to work in what I believe to be a better opportunity for success in our common goal.

In the first place, the Democrats will tie up any impeachment proceedings until after the next election at least. Democrats will fight as dirty as necessary and racism will be the word of the day. I don’t believe John Boehner or Mitch McConnell will allow it to even get started. Then if/when it finally does get through the House, it dies a quick death in the Senate because McConnell certainly isn’t going to jump on your team. I agree Obama and his cartel of evil need to be removed but there is a better way to accomplish this task. Much mirth has been made about the question the “birthers” keep harping on. The truly funny, or maybe ironic, thing is that the birth certificate issue is quietly working its way through the courts and we are winning. Orly Taitz has long been a proponent of the nullification of the Obama regime through the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, The Naturalization Act of 1790, and an 1875 Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Heppersett (88 US 162) that upheld the eligibility provision.

The problem in the past few years has been that courts threw out the cases on the grounds that the filer had no personal vested interest in the issue, that they would not be directly harmed in any way by the issue so they could not bring legal action forward. Then a unique man steps forward. John Dummett is not interested in playing political games and mincing words about what he says. No more “definition of what is is” claptrap from the Oval Office. He is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. He is recognized by the Federal Election Commission, and on the ballots in all 50 states.

He is also ignored by the main stream media, including the co-called “conservative” media. John is willing to take on the true issue here, the eligibility of Barak Obama to be president. The birth certificate Obama released is a very poor fake. I can see it and I am not a computer forensics expert. Not one of the Republican Party political machine candidates will touch the issue. No one in the Republican Party will speak up and tell the truth because they are afraid of the attacks. John Dummett is a patriot not a politician. John Dummett, Orly Taitz and a few others have stepped up big time to put a stop to the most evil people to ever control our nation. I hope that you will use your forum to help this issue, and help those fighting this battle.

I am not being critical of your efforts, I applaud them. I believe you are doing your best for your nation but I also look at the practicality of the matter. If Obama is impeached and removed from office, in the next 13 months, then you will have succeeded to a point. If Obama is impeached he could be removed from office. If that succeeds what do you have? Obama gone and all of his orders, rules, everything he has signed remains on the books, left to be fought over again in order to rescind them.

On the other hand, John Dummett and Orly Taitz , on the behalf of We the People, have much more to win. John has been given “in dicta” standing as a person that could be harmed by the Obama candidacy for president. If he has to run against an incumbent who has an estimated $1 billion for re-election and the free flow of taxpayer money to facilitate his expenses, and who is not eligible to run in the first place, John will be directly harmed. That is the layman’s explanation of “in dicta”. John has been given the legal standing to bring suit in federal court against Obama. No one has ever been able to do this before. The biggest difference in impeachment vs. nullification is that nullification nullifies everything Obama did during his term. It nullifies Executive Orders, czar appointments, Obamacare, everything. All laws, bills, regulations, etc. put in by the Obama administration are voided by nullification but left in place by impeachment.

This court battle will also prove that every sitting member of Congress has violated their oath of office in their lack of vetting of Obama and   in doing nothing about this issue in the 111th and 112th Congresses as they have been aware of this Constitutional Crisis from the beginning. There are even ramifications with SCOTUS in their collusion to withhold from the people “redress of grievances” in this matter. The outcome of this court battle will have repercussions that will resound through DC. Impeachment will do nothing to curb the corruption within DC. John is serious about the matter. He is also serious about his run for the nomination of the Republican Party for President. Our nation needs patriots in Washington D. C.

We have had 100 years of Ivy League lawyer career politicians running things and they have made a mess of everything. As long as we rely on people like Romney, Perry, Gingrich, et al to counter people like Obama we will get the same results we have with Obama, though to a lesser degree of “in your face” attitudes. We the People are looking for something else. We are looking for honesty, integrity, and someone willing to stand on the Constitution not just give it lip service. Nullification based on Obama’s birth certificate is the only way to completely erase the Obama abuse of the Constitution and our laws. It won’t bring the economy and stolen money back but it will erase the edicts and abuse that impeachment won’t erase.

I am including the website for the court case and John’s candidate site. I hope you will check out both sites and get to know John. He is worth your time. Even if you won’t support him will you give him the same coverage you give others? Will you at least introduce WE the People to John? Will you help them raise money to keep this legal action going? They have attorneys who are working for free but they need court costs and other expenses covered. I hope you will see my point and throw your weight into the nullification process also. You can be a great asset to your nation. You have a widespread and influential forum. You can bring this into the sunlight and force others to acknowledge the issue. You can do with the “birther” issue what Andrew Breitbart did with the ACORN issue. You can be on the cutting edge of a real and positive change in America. I truly believe this is the only course to turn this evil back. Your help would be appreciated very much by John, Orly, and the others.

But bigger than that is the gratitude of We the People. The every day commoner like me needs people like you to fight our public battles for us. My voice is through people like you who are willing to help give the voice of the common man a public forum and stand for God, the Constitution, and We the People. I am also forwarding an e-mail statement from John under separate cover.

Please take a few minutes to check out these sites: www.recruityou.info Hold control key while click to open. www.johndummett.us

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

In God We Trust,

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

October 4, 2011

http://bobrussell.patriotactionnetwork.com/

Floyd Brown was trained as an economist and writes on investing and politics for the San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Times, InvestmentU.com, Townhall, and Human Events, among other publications. He began his political interest as a student volunteer for Ronald Reagan and has served in many Republican campaigns since then, including Bush, Forbes, and Dole. He was the Executive Director of the Young America’s Foundation from 2001-2006. He is the current President of The Western Center for Journalism, training “citizen journalists” in the use of internet tools and online video creation.