a call for action - ebook

8/9/2019 A Call for Action - eBook

1/161

A Call for ActionA program to remove the radicals from Congress,

fix Social Security, end our dependence on

imported oil, and restore the Republic.

Lester Townsend

The dog pictured above requires periodic maintenance from his master. If he is not taken

for a walk he will make a mess.

Congress requires periodic maintenance from the citizens of this country. Because of a

lack of oversight, of Congress, by the voters. Congress has created a monumental mess.

The Obama administration and the radicals who control Congress are making the

situation much worse, and are causing the deficit to increase at an exponential rate. The

people of this country must replace all Congress critters, who are not honoring their

oath of office.

The pending collapse of Social Security does not have to happen. There is a way to fix

Social Security and we can end our dependence on imported oil.

This book gives details on how these needed changes can be made.


2/161

A Call for Action

by

Lester Townsend


3/161

I wish to thank Joe Sanger CPA, Gloria Sanger and Dr. Ronald

Graeser DO, for their input into this book.

I have tried to present this information in a format which can be

understood by people who do not have a background in actuarial

and pension issues. To the extent this book fails in that regard,

and to the extent the report contains any errors, I am solely

responsible.

This book is titled A Call for Action, because the people must

act.

Copyright 2009 by Lester Townsend. All rights reserved.

Published by lulu.com


4/161

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEMS! 1

POLITICAL ACTION

IT'S A GERRYMANDERED COUNTRY 3

IT'S AN OATH 6

HOW PEOPLE VOTE DOES MATTER

A HISTORY OF FISCAL MISFEASANCE 11

IGNORE WHAT THEY SAY!, WATCH HOW THEY VOTE! 14

CHECKS AND BALANCES 21

EXCEPTIONS AND REGULATIONS 26

STOPPING THE CULTISTS

THE GLOBAL WARMING CULT 33

CONSERVATIVE, NOT REGRESSIVE 42

SOCIAL SECURITY

HOW TO FIX THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM 48

BACKGROUND OF SOCIAL SECURITY 52

WHAT IS A PENSION PLAN? 58

EVALUATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING

MODEL 65

EVALUATION OF MEDICARE FUNDING MODEL 81

EVALUATION OF COMBINED FUNDING MODEL 87

PROPOSALS TO RAISE TAXES OR CUT BENEFITS 89

OTHER IMPENDING THREATS TO THE SOLVENCY

OF SOCIAL SECURITY 93

i


5/161

CONSTITIONAL PROBLEMS WITH SOC. SEC.

THE PAYROLL TAX 95

THE 1937 SUPREME COURT CASES 104

THE 1960 SUPREME COURT CASE 115

ENERGY

ENDING OUR DEPENDENCE ON IMPORTED OIL 119

A CALL FOR ACTION

ANSWER THE CALL 126

ADDENDUMS

NOT YOURS TO GIVE 132

MY THIRD PARTY EXPERIENCE 140

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 144

END NOTES 146

INDEX OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 155

ALPHABETICAL INDEX 156

ii


6/161

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEMS!

This country faces major problems. The purpose of this book isto issue a call for the citizens of this country to take action, andto show how some of the major problems can be solved byadherence to the Constitution of the United States.

First, our country is on a course to national bankruptcy, andCongress is currently engaged in a massive program ofspending which will impoverish our children and grandchildren,because of the taxes that will be required to pay off the debt.

Second, the Social Security and Medicare Programs are going togo broke1,2. This problem occurred because all branches ofgovernment collaborated in setting up Social Security, aswelfare program, instead of setting up an old age pensionprogram. These actions occurred because of the desire, byCongress, to spend money which should have been deposited

into an actual Social Security Trust Fund. It costs five times asmuch to pay Social Security benefits in a welfare program, thanit would to fund a pension plan providing the same benefits.

A third problem is that this country is dependent on imported oilfor our energy needs. While much of this oil comes fromCanada, we also import oil from countries which are not ourfriends. Countries such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia ( 18 ofthe 19 hi-jackers on 9-11 were Saudis ).

This problem has occurred because we have been blocked fromdeveloping our own resources by environmental extremists. Thedamage caused to our economy by this dependence onimported oil is so severe, that the environmental extremistsshould be considered eco-terrorists. All reasonable people areenvironmentalists who want to protect our environment. Theextremists use this fact to make anyone, who opposes extreme

environmental positions, feel guilty and support actions whichactually harm this country. These extremists are eco-terrorists.

There are many other problems but this book will be primarily

1


7/161

directed at providing ways to solve the problems listed above.

The first section will address political issues and suggest howAmericans can answer a call to take action, and fix ourproblems. We must replace politicians, who place special

interest groups over the American people. We can end theoverspending by replacing the pork barrel politicians withpatriots who will honor their oath of office.

The last section of the book will cover the Social Security andMedicare Programs and the use of our energy resources to endour dependence on imported oil. We can fix the Social Securityand Medicare funding problems, without raising taxes or cuttingbenefits, by using the oil and gas properties owned by the

Federal Government.

2


8/161

POLITICAL ACTION

IT'S A GERRYMANDERED COUNTRY

We reelect over 90 plus percent of our Congressmen everyelection, because the Congressional Districts have beengerrymandered to be safe for the incumbent in generalelections. People identify with one of the two major parties andvote for that party.

The gerrymandered election districts are created by identifyingthe voting patterns for various communities. These patterns are

then used to draw the boundaries for Congressional ( and other) Districts, which favor one party by having a majority of votersfor that party. The term gerrymander1 is defined as; the dividingof a state, county, etc. into election districts so as to give onepolitical party a majority in many districts, while concentratingthe voting strength of the other party in as few districts aspossible.

The voting records at the precinct level can be used to comparethe total votes cast with the votes for the candidates of aparticular political party. These precincts can then be clumpedtogether in voting districts designed to favor that party.

The overall vote of the country will show that 25 to 30 percentof the voters identify themselves as Republicans while 30 to 35percent regard themselves as Democrats. The Democrat partyhas a higher percentage because the blacks in this country vote

as a monolithic block, with over 90 percent voting for theDemocrats. Hard core voters, in both of the major parties, canbe thought of as brain dead, straight ticket, party line voters.

Gerrymandered districts allow an incumbent to have a reliablebase of 40 percent or more of the vote in the general election.

The opposing major party will have corresponding decline in thenumber of dependable voters. This makes it very difficult for thenon-incumbent major party to get a candidate elected, to

Congress, in a gerrymandered district.

In some districts this gerrymandering results in a dependable

3


9/161

vote, in the general election, in excess of 50 percent.

The gerrymandering has resulted in this country having a oneparty system in most Congressional Districts. This single partyis the incumbent party. The only election which counts in these

districts is the incumbent party primary.

The gerrymandering of Congressional Districts has been usedby George Soros and his radical left wing extremists to takeover control of the Democrat party. The strategy was used, toget left wing extremists elected, in the primary elections.Because they would then win in the general election.

David Horowitz lays out the details of what has happened to the

Democrat Party inThe Shadow Party2. This book details how arelatively small group of voters were able to elect extremists,and take control of the Democrat Party. This strategy waspossible because of the low voter turnouts in partisan primaries.A small number of activist voters can elect a candidate in aprimary election.

This same strategy can be used to elect individuals who will

pledge to honor their oath of office. All the big spenders whovoted to override the veto of the 2007 water bill ( discussed inthe chapter titled Watch how they vote ) should be challengedin the incumbent party primary election, or the general election,or both.

The fact that incumbents have created a system to insure theirown reelection, can and must be used to remove them fromoffice. If all of the patriots and tea party attendees will rally

behind a singe patriot candidate, in the incumbent partyprimary, we can remove the radicals from office. Theseextremists will be vulnerable to an active group of voters, whoturn out in support of a single patriot candidate.

Our Representatives and Senators are elected, by the voters,and they can be removed by the voters. The Patriots need tohoist the incumbents by their own petard. A petard is definedby my Random House Webster's College Dictionary as a bombformerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate. To be hoistby, or with, one's own petard, is to be caught by the very deviceone had contrived to harm another.

4
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Party-Hillary-Radicals-Democratic/dp/1595551034/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255817062&sr=1-1http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Party-Hillary-Radicals-Democratic/dp/1595551034/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255817062&sr=1-1


10/161

We are now living in a country where radicals rule, and thePatriots must rise up and remove the radicals. If this is notdone, this country will not long endure.

5


11/161

IT'S AN OATH

Congress

Every member of Congress takes an oath of office beforeassuming their duties as a Senator or Representative. Takingthe oath is required by Article VI of the Constitution whichprovides:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the

Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and

judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,

shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any

Office or public Trust under the United States.

The actual wording of the oath1 is as follows:

I [name], do solemnly swear ( or affirm ) that I will support anddefend the Constitution of the United States against all

enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith andallegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, withoutany mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I willwell and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which Iam about to enter: So help me God. 5 U.S.C.3331

All who take this oath need to understand what taking the oathentails.

This oath is a Constitutional requirement for service in theSenate, or the House of Representatives. This oath takesprecedence over loyalty to any particular party or specialinterest group, and must not be viewed as simply a proceduralrequirement to hold office.

An Oath is a solemn promise2; which is defined as a pledge orvow3. This vow should be viewed with the solemnity and

seriousness, which should be accorded to a person's marriagevows.

This promise is made by the person assuming the office.

6


12/161


13/161

Judges

The oath of office for Judges6 is different than the oath formembers of Congress and the Executive Branch.

A Judge or Justice takes the following oath: I, XXX XXX, dosolemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice withoutrespect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to therich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge andperform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under theConstitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

A judge promises to administer justice without respect topersons. This part of the oath requires our laws to be

administered without regard to race, gender, religion, ethnicityor self perceived gender identity, unless a provision in the lawallows an exception or preference. The promise also requires

justice to be administered under the Constitution and laws ofthe United States. This provision requires that any exceptions orpreferences in our laws must comply with the U.S. Constitution.

This oath does not include any provision allowing the laws ofother nations to be used. The U.S. Constitution is thepreeminent law of our country.

Traditionally judges have had the latitude to interpret theConstitution in view of the facts in the case being considered bythe court. In recent decades, this latitude has been used toinclude provisions which are not in the Constitution, or to ignoreprovisions that are included in the Constitution.

The Constitution does provide checks and balances which canbe used to correct errors and abuses when made by the Courts.These checks and balances are to be applied by Congress, andare discussed in the chapter on Checks and Balances. Ourcongressmen have an obligation to remove judges, and othercivil Officers, who do not honor the oath of office. Failure to actis a violation of the oath taken by Congress.

President

The President must also recite an oath of office. The oath forthe President is the only oath for which the wording is

8


14/161

specifically contained in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution Provides: I do

solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of

President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This oath is similar to that recited by Congress Persons in thatthe President vows to preserve, protect and defend theConstitution of the United States. This provision requires thatour President should protect the Constitution by vetoing any lawwhich violates the U.S. Constitution.

Military

The Oath of Office (for officers)7:

I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in theUnited States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm)that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United

States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will beartrue faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligationfreely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon whichI am about to enter. So help me God.

The oath for officers is, first and foremost, an oath to supportand defend the U.S. Constitution. The oath is not a vow of fealtyto a specific individual, such as a President who is engaged in

developing a cult of personality.

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees)8:

I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I willsupport and defend the Constitution of the United Statesagainst all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear truefaith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders

of the President of the United States and the orders of theofficers appointed over me, according to regulations and theUniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

9


15/161


16/161

HOW PEOPLE VOTE DOES MATTER

A HISTORY OF FISCAL MISFEASANCE

There is a level of financial misfeasance on the part of ourCongress which has grown to mind boggling size. The followingtable of Historical Data1 from the Congressional Budget Officeshows the history of deficit spending for the last four decades.

11

Table F-1.

Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Def icits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1969 to 2008

(Billions of dollars)

Deficit (-) or Surplus Debt

On- Social Postal Held by

Revenues Outlays Budget Security Service T otal

1969 186.9 183.6 -0.5 3.7 n.a. 3.2 278.1

1970 192.8 195.6 -8.7 5.9 n.a. -2.8 283.2

1971 187.1 210.2 -26.1 3.0 n.a. -23.0 303.0

1972 207.3 230.7 -26.1 3.1 -0.4 -23.4 322.4

1973 230.8 245.7 -15.2 0.5 -0.2 -14.9 340.9

1974 263.2 269.4 -7.2 1.8 -0.8 -6.1 343.7

1975 279.1 332.3 -54.1 2.0 -1.1 -53.2 394.7

1976 298.1 371.8 -69.4 -3.2 -1.1 -73.7 477.4

1977 355.6 409.2 -49.9 -3.9 0.2 -53.7 549.1

1978 399.6 458.7 -55.4 -4.3 0.5 -59.2 607.1

1979 463.3 504.0 -39.6 -2.0 0.9 -40.7 640.3

1980 517.1 590.9 -73.1 -1.1 0.4 -73.8 711.9

1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 -0.1 -79.0 789.4

1982 617.8 745.7 -120.6 -7.9 0.6 -128.0 924.61983 600.6 808.4 -207.7 0.2 -0.3 -207.8 1,137.3

1984 666.5 851.9 -185.3 0.3 -0.4 -185.4 1,307.0

1985 734.1 946.4 -221.5 9.4 -0.1 -212.3 1,507.3

1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 0.0 -221.2 1,740.6

1987 854.4 1,004.1 -168.4 19.6 -0.9 -149.7 1,889.8

1988 909.3 1,064.5 -192.3 38.8 -1.7 -155.2 2,051.6

1989 991.2 1,143.8 -205.4 52.4 0.3 -152.6 2,190.7

1990 1,032.1 1,253.1 -277.6 58.2 -1.6 -221.0 2,411.6

1991 1,055.1 1,324.3 -321.4 53.5 -1.3 -269.2 2,689.0

1992 1,091.3 1,381.6 -340.4 50.7 -0.7 -290.3 2,999.7

1993 1,154.5 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1 3,248.4

1994 1,258.7 1,461.9 -258.8 56.8 -1.1 -203.2 3,433.1

1995 1,351.9 1,515.9 -226.4 60.4 2.0 -164.0 3,604.4

1996 1,453.2 1,560.6 -174.0 66.4 0.2 -107.4 3,734.1

1997 1,579.4 1,601.3 -103.2 81.3 0.0 -21.9 3,772.3

1998 1,722.0 1,652.7 -29.9 99.4 -0.2 69.3 3,721.1

1999 1,827.6 1,702.0 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.6 3,632.4

2000 2,025.5 1,789.2 86.4 151.8 -2.0 236.2 3,409.8

2001 1,991.4 1,863.2 -32.4 163.0 -2.3 128.2 3,319.6

2002 1,853.4 2,011.2 -317.4 159.0 0.7 -157.8 3,540.4

2003 1,782.5 2,160.1 -538.4 155.6 5.2 -377.6 3,913.4

2004 1,880.3 2,293.0 -568.0 151.1 4.1 -412.7 4,295.5

2005 2,153.9 2,472.2 -493.6 173.5 1.8 -318.3 4,592.2

2006 2,407.3 2,655.4 -434.5 185.2 1.1 -248.2 4,829.0

2007 2,568.2 2,728.9 -342.2 186.5 -5.1 -160.7 5,035.1

2008 2,524.3 2,982.9 -641.8 180.8 2.4 -458.5 5,802.7

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Note: n.a. = not applicable (the Postal Service was not an independent agency until 1972);

* = between -$50 million and $50 million.

a. End of year.

revised: 4/14/09

the Publica


17/161

This table ( which shows debt held by the public, andapparently does not show debt held by foreign governmentssuch as China ) shows a pattern of ever increasing budgetdeficits over the last 40 years. The only on budget surplusoccurred in 1999 and 2000 which were the last years of the

Clinton administration. The total budget surplus in 1998 and2001 occurred because the Social Security surplus is included ingovernment revenue.

We currently have a group of professional politicians inWashington who think their job is to bring home the Bacon. Thedeficits occur because they want to have money spent in theirhome districts to show they are working for their constituents.

The taxpayers and voters are responsible for this sorry state of

affairs. Pork barrel projects are not paid for with free moneyfrom Washington. They are paid for with tax dollars, or withborrowed money, which will ultimately be our children's taxdollars. All government borrowing puts the taxpayers on thewrong side of the compound interest equation. The amountneeded to pay off this debt will be far in excess of the amountborrowed because of interest added to the debt.

The earmarks and pork barrel projects usually benefit very few

people. When your Congress Critter boasts about how muchmoney is being spent in your Congressional District ( or state inthe case of a Senator ), ask yourself how much of this moneywill benefit you? The answer is probably none. You need torealize that Congress is spending your money to benefit others.

These others are probably individuals, or special interestgroups, who make campaign contributions to help the politicianget reelected.

Taxpayers and voters are ultimately responsible for ourgovernment's current financial problems. As long as we reelectCongress Critters who spend money on projects, which are notlimited to the legitimate functions of the Federal Governmentset forth in the Constitution, this mess will continue. This bookis a call for action!

We need to remove all of the porkers in Congress. The Chaptertitled Ignore what they say, watch how they vote! contains a

copy of the roll call vote on the veto override of the pork laden2007 Water Bill. By their vote on this bill, the porkers haveidentified themselves. The list also details the individuals whovoted against the veto override. These individuals should be

12


18/161

praised.

We need to educate ourselves about the issues, positions andvoting record of candidates. If we fail to educate ourselves, weare part of the problem. If we do not vote we are part of theproblem. If we are eligible to vote and have not registered to

vote, we are both irresponsible and a part of the problem.

We as taxpayers, and voters, need to elect representatives whowill limit spending to the necessary functions of government.

We need to elect patriots who will honor the oath of office.

13


19/161

IGNORE WHAT THEY SAY!

WATCH HOW THEY VOTE!

Spending by our Federal Government is the responsibility ofCongress, not the President or the Courts. The Presidentproposes but Congress disposes. The President can jawboneCongress in a effort to control spending and can even vetovarious spending bills. The final decision on spending resides inCongress which can override a presidential veto.

The massive deficit spending by Congress is a bipartisan

problem. A look at the budget deficits shows a pattern ofirresponsible spending by Congress regardless of the party incontrol. During the first six years of the George W. Bushpresidency, the Republicans controlled Congress. During thisperiod, the president did not veto a single spending bill.President Clinton actually did a far better job of working withCongress and controlling the deficit.

During the last two years of the George W. Bush administration,

when the Democrats controlled Congress, the deficit spendingwas even worse than during the period during which theRepublicans were in charge. The 2007 Water Bill demonstratedthat out of control spending is a bi-partisan problem andprovides a litmus test to identify which congress persons areresponsible for our current problems.

The administration proposed programs with a cost of 4.9 billion

dollars. Congress larded the bill with pork barrel projects. TheHouse bill provided for 15 billion in projects and the Senate billprovided for 14 billion in projects. The House and Senate billswere the sent to a Conference Committee to resolve anydifferences. The Conference Committee compromised bykeeping all of the pork barrel spending from both houses, andvoted out a bill with 23 billion in approved projects. PresidentBush then vetoed the bill1 because of the massive amount ofpork barrel projects. Congress then voted, by a wide margin, to

override the veto. The following is a list showing the roll callvote2, in the House of Representatives, on the veto override.

14


20/161

15

Roll Call Vote No. 1040 T ally Vote to Override Veto o f 2007 Water Bill

Yea : 361 Members

Don Young (R-AK) Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)

Ro bert Ad erho lt (R-AL) Gerald McNerney (D-CA) Alcee Hastings (D-FL)

Jo Bonner (R-AL) Gary Miller (R-CA) Ric Keller (R-FL)Robert Cramer (D-AL) George Miller (D-CA) Ron Klein (D-FL)

Artur Davis (D-AL) Grace Napolitano (D-CA) Connie Mack (R-FL)

T erry Everett (R-AL) Laura Richardson (D-CA) T imothy Mahoney (D-FL)

Michael Ro gers (R-AL) Dana Ro hrab acher (R-CA) Kend rick Meek (D-FL)

Mario n Berry (D-AR) Lucille Ro ybal-Allard (D-CA) Jo hn Mica (R-FL)

John Bo ozman (R-AR) Linda Sanchez (D-CA) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)

Mike Ross (D-AR) Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) D Wasserman Schultz ( D-FL )

Vic Snyder (D-AR) Adam Schiff (D-CA) Dave Weldon (R-FL)

Gabrielle Giffo rds (D-AZ) Brad Sherman (D-CA) Robert Wexler (D-FL)

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) Hilda So lis (D-CA) John Barrow (D-GA)

Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) Fortney Stark (D-CA) Sanford Bishop (D-GA)

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) Hank Johnson (D-GA)

Joe Baca (D-CA) Mike Thompson (D-CA) John Lewis (D-GA)

Xavier Becerra (D-CA) Maxine Waters (D-CA) Jim Marshall (D-GA)

Howard Berman (D-CA) Diane Watson (D-CA) Tom Price (R-GA)

Mary Bono (R-CA) Henry Waxman (D-CA) David Scott (D-GA)

Ken Calvert (R-CA) Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)

Lois Capps (D-CA) Diana DeGette (D-CO) Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Dennis Cardo za (D-CA) Marilyn Musg rave (R-CO) Leonard Boswell (D-IA)

Jim Costa (D-CA) Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) Bruce Braley (D-IA)

Susan Davis (D-CA) John Salazar (D-CO) Steve King (R-IA)

John Doo little (R-CA) Mark Udall (D-CO) Tom Latham (R-IA)

David Dreier (R-CA) Joe Courtney (D-CT) Dave Loebsack (D-IA)

Anna Eshoo (D-CA) Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) William Sali (R-ID)

Sam Farr (D-CA) John Larson (D-CT) Mike Simpson (R-ID)Bob Filner (D-CA) Christopher Murphy (D-CT) Melissa Bean (D-IL)

Elto n Galleg ly (R-CA) Christop her Shays (R-CT ) Judy Big gert (R-IL)

Jane Harman (D-CA) Michael Castle (R-DE) Jerry Costello (D-IL)

Wally Herger (R-CA) Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) Danny Davis (D-IL)

Michael Honda (D-CA) F. Allen Boyd (D-FL) Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Corrine Brown (D-FL) Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)

Tom Lantos (D-CA) Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) Phil Hare (D-IL)

Barbara Lee (D-CA) Vern Buchanan (R-FL) J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Kathy Castor (D-FL) Jesse Jackson (D-IL)

Dan Lungren (R-CA) Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) T imothy Johnson (R-IL)

Doris Matsui (D-CA) Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) Mark Kirk (R-IL)


21/161

16

Roll Call Vote No. 104 0 T ally Veto Override Vote - 200 7 Water Bill - Yea Votes

Ray LaHood (R-IL) Albert Wynn (D-MD) David Price (D-NC)

Dan Lip inski (D-IL) Thomas Allen (D-ME) Heath Shuler (D-NC)

Donald Manzullo (R-IL) Michael Michaud (D-ME) Melvin Watt (D-NC)

Peter Roskam (R-IL) Dave Camp (R-MI) Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)

Bobby Rush (D-IL) John Conyers (D-MI) Jeff Fo rtenberry (R-NE)Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) John Dingell (D-MI) Ad rian Smith (R-NE)

John Shimkus (R-IL) Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) Lee T erry (R-NE)

Jerry Weller (R-IL) Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) Paul Hodes (D-NH)

Joe Donnelly (D-IN) Dale Kildee (D-MI) Caro l Shea-Porter (D-NH)

Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) Caro lyn Kilp atrick (D-MI) Ro bert Andrews (D-NJ)

Baro n Hill (D-IN) Jo seph Kno llenb erg (R-MI) Ro dney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)

Mark Souder (R-IN) Sander Levin (D-MI) Rush Ho lt (D-NJ)

Peter Visc losky (D-IN) T hadd eus McCotter (R-MI) Frank Lo Bio ndo (R-NJ)

Nancy Boyda (D-KS) Candice Miller (R-MI) Frank Pallone (D-NJ)Dennis Moo re (D-KS) Michael Rogers (R-MI) S teven Ro thman (D-NJ)

Jerry Moran (R-KS) Bart S tupak (D-MI) J im Saxton (R-NJ)

T odd T iahrt (R-KS) Fred Up ton (R-MI) Alb io Sires (D-NJ)

Ron Lewis (R-KY) T im Walberg (R-MI) Christopher Smith (R-NJ)

Haro ld Rog ers (R-KY) Michele Bachmann (R-MN) Steve Pearce (R-NM)

Ed Whitfield (R-KY) Keith Ellison (D-MN) T om Udall (D-NM)

Rodney Alexander (R-LA) John Kline (R-MN) Heather Wilson (R-NM)

Richard Baker (R-LA) Betty McCo llum (D-MN) Shelley Berkley (D-NV)

Charles Boustany (R-LA) Co llin Peterson (D-MN) Dean Heller (R-NV)William Jefferson (D-LA) Jim Ramstad (R-MN) Jon Porter (R-NV)

Bobby J indal (R-LA) T im Walz (D-MN) Gary Ackerman (D-NY)

Jim McCrery (R-LA) Todd Akin (R-MO) Michael Arcuri (D-NY)

Charlie Melancon (D-LA) Russ Carnahan (D-MO) T im Bishop (D-NY)

Michael Cap uano (D-MA) Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO) Yvette Clarke (D-NY)

William Delahunt (D-MA) Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) J os ep h Cro wley (D-NY)

Barney Frank (D-MA) Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) Elio t Engel (D-NY)

Stephen Lynch (D-MA) Sam Graves (R-MO) Kirs ten Gillib rand (D-NY)

Edward Markey (D-MA) Kenny Hulsho f (R-MO) John Hall (D-NY)James McGovern (D-MA) Ike Skelton (D-MO) Brian Higg ins (D-NY)

Richard Neal (D-MA) Charles Pickering (R-MS) Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

John Olver (D-MA) Gene T aylo r (D-MS) Steve Israel (D-NY)

John T ierney (D-MA) Bennie T hompson (D-MS) Peter King (R-NY)

Niki T songas (D-MA) Roger Wicker (R-MS) Randy Kuhl (R-NY)

Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) Dennis Rehberg (R-MT ) Nita Lowey (D-NY)

Elijah Cummings (D-MD) Howard Cob le (R-NC) Caro lyn Maloney (D-NY)

Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) Bob Etheridge (D-NC) Caro lyn McCarthy (D-NY)

Steny Hoyer (D-MD) Rob in Hayes (R-NC) John McHugh (R-NY)C.A. Rupp ersberg er (D-MD) Walter Jones (R-NC) Grego ry Meeks (D-NY)

John Sarbanes (D-MD) Mike McIntyre (D-NC) Jerro ld Nad ler (D-NY)

Chris Van Ho llen (D-MD) Brad Miller (D-NC) Charles Rangel (D-NY)


22/161

Almost all of those who voted to override this veto are still inCongress. The list of those who voted against the veto overrideor who did not vote is on the following page.

17

Roll Call Vote No. 1040 Tally Veto Override Vo te - 200 7 Water Bill - Yea Votes

Thomas Reyno lds (R-NY) T imo thy Murphy (R-PA) Michael McCaul (R-T X)

Jose Serrano (D-NY) John Murtha (D-PA) So lomon Ortiz (D-T X)

L McIntosh S laughter ( D-NY ) John Peterson (R-PA) T ed Poe (R-TX)

Edo lphus T owns (D-NY) Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) Silves tre Reyes (D-T X)

Nyd ia Velazquez (D-NY) Joe Sestak (D-PA) Ciro Rodriguez (D-T X)

Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Bill Shuster (R-PA) Pete Sessions (R-TX)

Stephanie Jones (D-OH) Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) Lamar Smith (R-T X)

Marcy Kap tur (D-OH) James Langevin (D-RI) William T hornberry (R-T X)

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Henry Brown (R-SC) Rob Bishop (R-UT )

Steven LaTourette (R-OH) James Clyburn (D-SC) Chris Cannon (R-UT )

Ralph Regula (R-OH) John Spratt (D-SC) J im Matheson (D-UT )

T im Ryan (D-OH) S. Herseth Sand lin (D-SD) Rick Boucher (D-VA)

Jean Schmid t (R-OH) Stephen Cohen (D-TN) T homas Davis (R-VA)

Zack Space (D-OH) J im Cooper (D-TN) T helma Drake (R-VA)

Betty Sutton (D-OH) David Davis (R-TN) Randy Fo rbes (R-VA)

Michael T urner (R-OH) Linco ln Davis (D-T N) James Mo ran (D-VA)

Charlie Wilson (D-OH) John Duncan (R-T N) Bobby Sco tt (D-VA)

Dan Bo ren (D-OK) Bart Go rdo n (D-T N) Peter Welch (D-VT )

Tom Co le (R-OK) John T anner (D-T N) Brian Baird (D-WA)

Mary Fallin (R-OK) Zach Wamp (R-T N) No rman Dicks (D-WA)

Frank Lucas (R-OK) Joe Barton (R-T X) Doc Hastings (R-WA)

John Sullivan (R-OK) Michael Burgess (R-T X) Jay Ins lee (D-WA)Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) John Carter (R-T X) Rick Larsen (D-WA)

Peter DeFazio (D-OR) Mike Conaway (R-T X) J im McDermo tt (D-WA)

Darlene Hoo ley (D-OR) Henry Cuellar (D-T X) Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)

Greg Walden (R-OR) John Culberson (R-T X) Dave Reichert (R-WA)

David Wu (D-OR) Lloyd Doggett (D-T X) Adam Smith (D-WA)

Jason Altm ire (D-PA) Chet Edwards (D-T X) T ammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Christop her Carney (D-PA) Charles Gonzalez (D-T X) Steve Kagen (D-WI)

Charles Dent (R-PA) Kay Granger (R-T X) Ron Kind (D-WI)

Mike Doyle (D-PA) Al Green (D-T X) Gwen Moore (D-WI)Philip Eng lish (R-PA) Gene Green (D-T X) David Obey (D-WI)

Chaka Fattah (D-PA) Ralph Hall (R-TX) T homas Petri (R-WI)

Jim Gerlach (R-PA) Ruben Hino josa (D-T X) Paul Ryan (R-WI)

T im Ho lden (D-PA) Sheila Jackson Lee (D-T X) Shelley Moo re Cap ito (R-WV)

Paul Kanjo rski (D-PA) Ed die Bernic e J ohns on (D-T X) Alan Mo llo han (D-WV)

Patrick Murphy (D-PA) Nicho las Lampson (D-T X) Nick Rahall (D-WV)


23/161

The Senate also voted to override the veto of the water bill by

an overwhelming margin, showing that the appetite for porkwas the major desire of both houses in Congress. The followingtable shows the roll call vote3 in the Senate.

18

Nay : 54 Members Roll Call Vote 1040 Vote to Override Veto o f 200 7 Water Bill

Spencer Bachus (R-AL) Paul Broun (R-GA) Patrick T iberi (R-OH)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Nathan Deal (R-GA) Joseph Pitts (R-PA)

T rent Franks (R-AZ) Phil Gingrey (R-GA) T odd Platts (R-PA)

John Shadegg (R-AZ) Jack Kingston (R-GA) J . Gresham Barrett (R-SC)

Brian Bilb ray (R-CA) John Linder (R-GA) Bob Ing lis (R-SC)

John Campbell (R-CA) Dan Burton (R-IN) Joe Wilson (R-SC)

Darrell Issa (R-CA) Mike Pence (R-IN) Marsha Blackburn (R-T N)

Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Geo ff Davis (R-KY) Kevin Brady (R-TX)

Howard McKeon (R-CA) Roy Blunt (R-MO) Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

Devin Nunes (R-CA) Virg inia Foxx (R-NC) Jeb Hensarling (R-T X)

Geo rge Rad anovich (R-CA) Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Kenny Marchant (R-T X)

Ed Ro yce (R-CA) Sue Myrick (R-NC) Randy Neugebauer (R-T X)

Doug Lamborn (R-CO) Sco tt Garrett (R-NJ) Ron Paul (R-T X)

T om Feeney (R-FL) James Walsh (R-NY) Eric Canto r (R-VA)

Jeff Miller (R-FL) John Boehner (R-OH) Virg il Goode (R-VA)

Adam Putnam (R-FL) Steve Chabo t (R-OH) Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)

Cliff Stearns (R-FL) David Hobson (R-OH) Frank Wo lf (R-VA)

C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) J im Jordan (R-OH) F James Sensenb renner (R-WI)

Not Voting : 17 Members Roll Call Vote 1040 Vote to Override Veto o f 2007 Water Bill

Ed Pas to r (D-AZ) James Oberstar (D-MN) Robert Brady (D-PA)

T homas Tancredo (R-CO) G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) Sam Johnson (R-T X)

Lynn Westmo reland (R-GA) Michael Ferg uso n (R-NJ) Barb ara Cub in (R-WY)

Steve Buyer (R-IN) Donald Payne (D-NJ)

Julia Carson (D-IN) Vito Fossella (R-NY) Speaker : 1 Member

Ben Chand ler (D-KY) Michael McNulty (D-NY) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

John Yarmuth (D-KY) Deborah Pryce (R-OH)


24/161

19

SENATE VOTE ON VETO OVERRIDE OF 2007 WATER BILL

Roll Call Vote No. 406 Tally

Yea : 79 Members

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) John Kerry (D-MA) James Inhofe (R-OK)

Ted Stevens (R-AK) Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) Gordon Smith (R-OR)

Richard Shelby (R-AL) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Susan Collins (R-ME) Robert Casey (D-PA)

Mark Pryor (D-AR) Olympia Snowe (R-ME) Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Carl Levin (D-MI) Jack Reed (D-RI)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Ken Salazar (D-CO) Norm Coleman (R-MN) Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Tim Johnson (D-SD)

Thomas Carper (D-DE) Christopher Bond (R-MO) John Thune (R-SD)Mel Martinez (R-FL) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Bill Nelson (D-FL) Trent Lott (R-MS) Bob Corker (R-TN)

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Max Baucus (D-MT) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Jon Tester (D-MT) Robert Bennett (R-UT)

Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Kent Conrad (D-ND) John Warner (R-VA)

Charles Grassley (R-IA) Byron Dorgan (D-ND) James Webb (D-VA)

Tom Harkin (D-IA) Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Larry Craig (R-ID) Ben Nelson (D-NE) Bernard Sanders (I-VT)

Mike Crapo (R-ID) Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Richard Durbin (D-IL) Robert Menendez (D-NJ) Patty Murray (D-WA)

Evan Bayh (D-IN) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Herbert Kohl (D-WI)

Richard Lugar (R-IN) Pete Domenici (R-NM) Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Pat Roberts (R-KS) Harry Reid (D-NV) John Rockefeller (D-WV)

Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Charles Schumer (D-NY) John Barrasso (R-WY)

David Vitter (R-LA) Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Edward Kennedy (D-MA) George Voinovich (R-OH)

Nay : 14 Members

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Richard Burr (R-NC) Jim DeMint (R-SC)

Wayne Allard (R-CO) Judd Gregg (R-NH) Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Sam Brownback (R-KS) John Suntan (R-NH) Michael Enzi (R-WY)

Mitch McConnell (R-KY) John Ensign (R-NV)

Not Voting : 7 Members

John McCain (R-AZ) Barack Obama (D-IL) John Cornyn (R-TX)

Christopher Dodd (D-CT) Jim Bunning (R-KY) Back to Vote Map.

Joseph Biden (D-DE) Hillary Clinton (D-NY)


25/161

In deciding how you will vote, you need to ignore what thepoliticians say and watch how they vote. There is a group ofrepresentatives in the Democrat Party who claim to be fiscallyconservative. None of these alleged Blue Dog democrats votedagainst the veto override. To be fair, there were some who

simply did not vote. They apparently did not want to voteagainst the party leadership. This 2007 Water Bill vote indicatesthat most of these politicians will say what they think voterswant to hear, and in fact are not fiscally conservative. It is your

job as a voter to hold our politicians accountable, by ignoringwhat they say and watching how they vote.

The right to vote includes a solemn responsibility to educateyourself about the issues, and to consider what is best for all of

the people in the country. This is a truly great country, but ourresources are limited and need to be managed properly. Thegreed of the special interest groups is unlimited and will destroyour country, if our politicians continue to fund every programwhich is presented with a tear jerking plea for money. Theincrease in our national debt, and the required debt servicecosts, will limit our ability ability to pay for the necessaryfunctions of government. Pork barrel spending must stop!

Many of the programs requesting funds from the governmentare for good and noble purposes. This fact makes them hard toresist. Any legislator who does not support the spending islabeled as heartless. This is unfortunate but is not a reason tovote for programs which are not authorized by the Constitution.

The oath of office requires our legislators to support and defendthe Constitution, even when doing so may make them appear to

be heartless. Government is like a cancer which, if leftunchecked, will grow until it kills it's host. As a cancer survivor, Ican say from personal experience that radical surgery is bothpainful and debilitating. I can also say that that the reason I amhere today, is because I had the radical surgery.

This book is a call for the American people to act. We Americanscan remove Congress Critters, who ( by their votes )demonstrate that they are more interested in benefiting a fewspecial interests with pork barrel projects, than in benefiting allof their constituents by controlling spending.

20


26/161

CHECKS AND BALANCES!

Honoring the oath of office requires our representatives to applythe checks and balances contained in the Constitution1. This

includes more than just voting against bills which violate theConstitution.

The Constitution provides checks and balances on the variousbranches of government, including the courts. The checks onthe Courts are the responsibility of Congress, which also has thepower to provide checks on the Executive Branch. The bestknown of these checks is the power of impeachment, which

allows the House of Representatives to act as a Grand Jury anddetermine if there is sufficient reason to impeach an individual,such as a President or a Judge.

The Senate then tries the individual and determines if he/she isguilty and should be removed from office or subjected to somelesser penalty.

The provisions in the U.S. Constitution1 which govern the power

of impeachment include the following.

Article I., Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other

Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I., Section 3.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When

sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When

the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall

preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of

two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to

removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy anyOffice of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party

convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,

21


27/161

Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II., Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United

States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and

Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and

Misdemeanors.

Article III., Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme

Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to

time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and

inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and

shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation,

which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article III., Section 3.

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War

against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and

Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the

Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in

open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,

but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or

Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

Article VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members

of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and

judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,

shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to anyOffice or public Trust under the United States.

22


28/161

These sections are extracted from the language in the U.S.Constitution and are relevant because they apply to the powerof impeachment.

Article I, sections 2 and 3 provide that impeachment

proceedings must begin in the House of Representatives. Theact of impeachment requires only a simple majority vote by theHouse. The Senate then has the power to try and convict ( oracquit ) the individual who has been impeached. A convictionby the Senate requires a vote of two thirds of the Memberspresent.

Article I, Section 3 also provides that the act of impeaching anindividual simply removes that individual from office. This limit

means that Congress has the power to fire members of theExecutive and Judicial Branch. This power should makeCongress the most powerful branch of the three branches ofgovernment.

The power to impeach does not include the power to applypenalties in addition to firing the individual in question. In factany impeachment which tried to do more than simply fire an

individual would violate the prohibition of bills of attainder inArticle I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in Article III, Section3.

Any additional action against an individual subjected toimpeachment would be in a Court of Law.

The provisions in Article II, Section 4 provide that; The

President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,

shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason is defined in section Article III, Section 3 of theConstitution.

The following definitions are from Blacks Law Dictionary2.

Bribery:

The offering, giving, receiving,or soliciting of any thingof value to influence action as official or in discharge of

23


29/161

legal or public duty. The corrupt tendering or receivingof a price for official action. The receiving or offering ofany undue reward by or to any person or a public officerto influence his behavior in office. The taking or giving areward for public office.3

High Crimes:

High; This term, as used in various compound legalphrases, is sometimes merely an assignation of dignity,not importing a comparison; but more generally it meansexalted, either in rank or location, or occupying a positionof superiority, and in a few instances it implies superiorityin respect to importance, size, frequency or publicity of

use4

The use of the adjective high to describe crimes, givesthe phrase high Crimes the same meaning as theterm felony.

Felony:

A crime of a graver or more atrocious nature than those

designated as misdemeanors. Generally a crimepunishable by death or imprisonment in a penitentiary.And at common law, an offense occasioning totalforfeiture of land or goods to which capital or otherpunishment might be superadded according to degreeof guilt.5

Misdemeanors:

Offenses lower than felonies and generally thosepunishable by fine or imprisonment otherwise than in apenitentiary. An act committed or omitted in violationof a public law either forbidding or commanding it.6

Civil Officer:

The word 'civil', as regards civil officers, is commonly

used to distinguish those officers who are in publicservice but not of the military. Hence, any officer ofthe United States who holds appointment under thenational government, whether his duties are executive

24


30/161

or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments ofthe government, with the exception of officers of thearmy or navy, is a 'civil officer.' 7

These definitions used in conjunction with the impeachment

provisions in the Constitution give Congress the power to fire( impeach ) any individual appointed by the President.

Impeachment does not carry any forfeiture of pension benefitsor property other than the ability to be employed by the U.S.Government. Any forfeiture of property can only occur aftercourt action. This provision in the Constitution gives Congressthe Constitutional authority to fire, for cause, any of the Czarsappointed by the President.

The requirement of a 2/3 vote in the Senate, to convict, is ahigh threshold which will limit the use of the impeachmentprovisions. This requirement creates a situation where we needto elect Senators who will honor their oath of office.

This requirement was demonstrated by the difference betweenthe impeachment actions affecting President Nixon andPresident Clinton. When President Nixon found out that the

Republicans in the Senate would vote for impeachment. Heresigned. This can be compared with the impeachment ofPresident Clinton, where the Democrats voted againstimpeachment. These votes demonstrate a much higher level ofpersonal integrity on the part of the Republican Senators, thanwith the Democrat Senators who put party loyalty over theiroath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution requires all Senators,

sitting in judgment, at an impeachment proceeding, to be underoath. Ignoring the facts and voting to acquit because of partyloyalty is a violation of the Senators Oath of Office.

25


31/161

EXCEPTIONS AND REGULATIONS

The previous chapter dealt with impeachment. Our Constitutionprovides other checks which apply to the Judiciary. These

checks include the power to strip the Federal Courts ofappellate jurisdiction and to write regulations on appellate

Jurisdiction.

This power is provided by Article III., Section. 2., Clause 2 of theU.S. Constitution.Article III., Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,

arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and

Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all

Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to

all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to

which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two

or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between

Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same Stateclaiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State,

or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and

Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court

shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before

mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both

as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such

Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I have quoted the entire section so as not to be accused oftaking anything out of context. The last sentence of this sectionallows Congress to make exceptions regarding areas where thecourts have jurisdiction. The wording in this section providesthat exceptions where appellate jurisdiction is not allowed are

made by Congress. This means that any law stripping theFederal Courts of jurisdiction does not require a Presidentialsignature. In addition there is no requirement that anything,

26


32/161


33/161

Representatives, and the Senate as a separate branches ofgovernment with their own specified powers.

This country is supposed to be a Constitutionally limitedRepublic. This country is not supposed to be ruled by judges.

You may ask. Why do we need to limit the power of the courts?The obvious answer can be demonstrated by the well knowncase ofRoe v. Wade. We have a case where an unconstitutionaldecision by a District Court Judge is ultimately upheld by theSupreme Court. This case then became the law of the land,because lower courts are bound by Supreme Court Decisions.

This case was unconstitutional because it violated both the 5 th

and 14th Amendments to the constitution. The 5th and 14th

Amendments both provide that no person shall be deprived oflife, liberty or property without due process.

There is no due process when an abortion occurs. No one isrepresenting the interests of unborn Americans. Becausedecisions of the Supreme Court become the law of the land, therights of the unborn are ignored.

When we continue to complain about abuses by the court,without making our representatives in Washington exercise thepower they have to curb the excesses of the courts, we are nodifferent than the homemaker who continually complains aboutthe spider webs in her house, and continually cleans out thespider webs day after day. What this homemaker needs to do iskill the spider.

Demonstrating in front of abortion clinics, or appealing bad

court decisions and waiting in a forlorn hope that the case willbe overturned, is no different than the homemaker trying tosolve the cobweb problem by sweeping up the cobwebs everyday. Congress has always had the power to stop the judicialabuse caused by activist judges. After decades of inaction bymembers of Congress, we should realize that our currentrepresentatives do not intend to do anything to protect us, fromabuse by activist judges.

We can pressure our representatives to impeach bad judges.This also, is no different than simply sweeping up the cobwebs.Impeachment would only get rid of one bad judge. There are

28
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113


34/161

dozens of activist judges who need to be impeached.

What we need to do is replace our current batch of electedrepresentatives in Washington. We need to elect people whowill honor their oath of office, to support and defend the

Constitution. We need to elect people who will use the power inArticle III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution to curb abusesby activist Judges. Solve the problem, Kill the spider. Replacethe Representatives who do not honor their oath of office. Electpeople who will support and defend the Constitution!Article III, Section 1, provides that; The Judges, both of thesupreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices duringgood Behavior...

This provision imposes a much lower standard for the removalof a judge, than for the removal of a President or Vice Presidentwho has been elected by the people. A judge can be removedwhen his actions demonstrate bad behavior. Judges do notserve at the pleasure of the President and must be fired byCongress.

When a Judge makes a decision which ignores provisions thatare included in the Constitution, or interprets the Constitution toinclude provisions which are not included, the judge iscommitting a misdemeanor ( bad behavior ) and can besubjected to impeachment. Every Judge is required to take anoath of office by Article VI of the Constitution. The violation ofthis oath of office by the aforementioned acts could beconsidered an impeachable offense, since the judge is notproviding justice under the Constitution and laws of the United

States.

The power of Congress to write Regulations, which tell theFederal Courts how appellate jurisdiction is to be applied, isanother check on abuses by the Courts. Use of this power willbe necessary to solve the current problems created by eco-terrorists who are stopping the development of our nation'sresources.

To understand how this power functions, it is necessary tounderstand what a Regulation is.

29


35/161


36/161

guidance which is specifically allowed by the Constitution. Suchan act would be the highest of high crimes because it would bean assault on the Constitution itself.

The power of impeachment is the enforcement tool which is

provided to insure congress has the ability to actually apply, theconstitutionally provided limits on the power of the courts.Congress would literally be forced to impeach any judge whotried to undo any limitation imposed by congress under ArticleIII., Section 2., Clause 2.

The impeachment would be required because the Judge wouldbe assaulting the very institution of the Congress, and therespective powers of the House of Representatives and the

Senate as separate branches of government.

You may ask. Why do we need to limit the power of the courts?The obvious answer is that the Federal Courts cannot be trustedto properly interpret the U.S Constitution. There have been anumber of Federal Court decisions in recent years which violatethe U.S Constitution.

Activist Federal Judges are legislating from the bench, whenthey do not want to accept the restrictions contained in theConstitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power andresponsibility to curb the abuses by the courts. The voters needto remove legislators who shirk their responsibility.

The use of the power to make exceptions, to appellateauthority, will be necessary to save the Social Security Systemand end our country's dependence on imported oil. We must

prevent the eco-terrorists from using the power of the federalcourts, to stop the development of our own resources.

If this power is not used, eco-terrorists will continue to use theFederal Courts to stop the development of our own resources.

When this power is first used, it will probably require that somefederal judges be fired. Our judges are used to having god likepower to determine what the Constitution means, and they willnot share this power willingly. Voters need to electrepresentatives and senators who will act to stop the abuse ofthe Constitution by the judiciary.

31


37/161

The exceptions and regulations discussed here would put thefederal judges on notice that they are subject to restrictions.Such notice is needed in the normal course of business, to allowthe necessary latitude, for our federal judges to do their jobs.

There are occasions where a judge renders a decision which isso egregious that the judge should simply be fired. An exampleof this was the decision by a federal judge ordering an increasein taxes to finance the Kansas City School System. This decisionhas resulted in the taxpayers paying an additional 2 billiondollars in taxes, since the decision, with no improvement in theeducational outcome for the school system2.

Under our Constitution a judge does not have the authority to

order a tax increase. Article VI of the Constitution guarantees allstates a republican form of government. Violation of thisfundamental part of our Constitution should have resulted in theimpeachment of this judge.

32


38/161

STOPING THE CULTISTS AND THEIRPUPPET MASTERS

THE GLOBAL WARMING CULT

There are two groups of radicals who will destroy our country ifthey are not stopped. When a person considers the final resultof the actions being pursued, it is apparent that our destructionis intended. Both of the groups have used the big lie strategypromulgated by Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

The idea of the big lie is that, if you tell a lie often enough,people will begin to believe it.

Cults develop when their puppet masters sound sincere and usecarefully tailored half truths, to get their followers to believe thelie. These people can then be developed into a cult of truebelievers who will spread the lie. The followers of cults usuallybelieve that their actions are for the good of the the countryand the world. Because they believe they are doing good, it isessential that they be brainwashed, or not exposed to other

ideas, so that they will reject any inconvenient facts.

The mark or badge of a cult is the active suppression of anydissenting point of view. False doctrine or dogma can not standexposure to the truth. Dissent must be squelched by anymeans possible. This suppression may be in the form ofoutlawing bibles in Saudi Arabia, which adheres to Islam, whichis probably the largest cult in the world. Another example is the

statement by Al Gore that the science is in, and no one canquestion the science behind global warming. There are manyother cults in this country and the world, such as the cult ofpolitical correctness. This book will focus on two, because thefollowers of these two cults have succeeded in being elected tohigh office, and are in the process of destroying our country.

The environmental extremists have succeeded in stopping usfrom developing our own resources. A recent example of this

was a court decision ending an Alaska offshore drilling plan1.The fact that these actions have been going on for decades isshown by the fact that the first new refinery in over 30 years isnow being planned to start construction in 20102. The extreme

33


39/161

environmentalists, who should be considered as eco-terrorists,will probably wait until construction has started, before filingsuit. This wait would occur, because they want to inflict themaximum amount of financial pain.

The cult of global warming, and it's variations, has given us theenvironmental extremists. I have labeled these individuals aseco-terrorists. Eco4 is a combining form for ecology and theenvironment. A terrorist is a person who commits acts ofterrorism. Terrorism5 is the use of violence and threats tointimidate or coerce, especially for for political purposes.

We need to stop our courts from being used as a weapon, toprevent the development of our resources. Our Constitutiongives Congress the power and authority to prevent the use ofour courts as a weapon against the people.

The following is an example of the type of resolution needed.The language could probably be improved, but this draft ispresented to show how uncomplicated the needed languagecan be. This law would need to be passed along with languagesetting up an actual Social Security Trust Fund.

_______________________________________________________________

JOINT RESOLUTION

LIMITING APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL COURTS

WHEREAS: It is necessary to promote the general welfare of this

country by having a Social Security Trust Fund with incomeproducing assets which can be used to fund the benefits beingpaid to beneficiaries of the Social Security Trust Fund.

WHEREAS: Currently all payments of Social Security benefits aremade from accounts with the U.S. Department of Treasury,which have to be paid from taxes or borrowing by the TreasuryDepartment.

WHEREAS: It is necessary to allow the allow the Social SecurityTrust Fund to own properties which produce oil and natural gas,as well as other income producing assets.

34


40/161

WHEREAS: In recent years, the courts have been used to blockthe development of oil, mineral and other resources.

WHEREAS: Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution of the UnitedStates provides the Congress of the United States the ability,

power, and authority to limit the Appellate Jurisdiction of theFederal Courts.

RESOLVED: The Federal Judiciary shall no longer have appellatereview authority on cases attempting to block the developmentof oil, gas and other resources on property owned by the SocialSecurity Trust Fund.

RESOLVED: Any act to obstruct, evade, or circumvent the

provisions of this resolution by any civil Officer of the UnitedStates, including Federal Judges, shall be a high crime and suchindividual shall be subject to impeachment.

_______________________________________________________________

This type of legislation is only a start to the actions needed.More information is provided in the chapters on political action.

The damage being done is real and getting worse. The eco-terrorists who have been elected to positions of power in ourgovernment have recently taken control of General Motors andChrysler. After this takeover they have terminated thefranchises of 789 Chrysler dealerships6 and 1,100 GMdealerships7 will be terminated by 2010. These dealers are notpart of the corporations, and there is no valid business reasonto eliminate a large portion of a company's sales outlets.

This action appears to have been taken because the extremeenvironmentalists wanted to create a network of dealers forsmall imported cars from China and India. These dealers havemillions of dollars invested in special purpose property andmust use these assets to make a living for themselves and theiremployees.

This action will force the auto dealers into an action they wouldnot otherwise pursue.

This is an example of the use of force and coercion by terrorists

35


41/161


42/161

global warming deniers. This is further proof that globalwarming is a religion, and worse yet, a cult.

The followers of this cult who are in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives have identified themselves by their votes on

HR 2454; The Clean Energy and Security Act. A copy of the rollcall vote on this bill follows.

37


43/161

38

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 47 7

HR 2454 RECORDED VOTE 26-J UNE-200 9

BILL TITLE - American Clean Energy and S ecurity Act

Ayes 219

Ab ercro mb ie, Neil ( D HI-1 ) Cumming s, Elijah ( D MD-7 ) Ho nd a, Michael ( D CA-15 )

Ackerman, Gary ( D NY-5 ) Davis , Danny ( D IL-7 ) Hoyer, Steny ( D MD-5 )

Ad ler, John ( D NJ-3 ) Davis , Susan ( D CA-53 ) Inslee, Jay ( D WA-1 )

Andrews, Robert ( D NJ-1 ) DeGette, Diana ( D CO-1 ) Israel, Steve ( D NY-2 )

Baca, Joe( D CA-43 ) Delahunt, William ( D MA-10 ) Jackson, Jesse( D IL-2 )

Baird , Brian ( D WA-3 ) DeLauro , Rosa ( D CT-3 ) Jackson-Lee, Sheila ( D TX-18 )

Baldwin, T ammy ( D WI-2 ) Dicks , Norman ( D WA-6 ) Johnson, Eddie ( D TX-30 )

Bean, Melissa ( D IL-8 ) Dingell, John ( D MI-15 ) Johnson, Henry ( D GA-4 )

Becerra, Xavier ( D CA-31 0 Doggett, Lloyd ( D TX-25 ) Kagen, Steve ( D WI-8 )

Berkley, Shelley ( D NV-1 ) Doyle, Michael ( D PA-14 ) Kanjorski, Paul ( D PA-11 )

Berman, Howard ( D CA-28 ) Driehaus, Steve ( D OH-1 ) Kap tur, Marcy ( D OH-9 )

Bishop, Sanford ( D GA-2 ) Edwards, Donna ( D MD-4 ) Kennedy, Patrick ( D RI-1 )

Bishop, T imothy ( D NY-1 ) Ellison, Keith ( D MN-5 ) Kildee, Dale ( D MI-5 )

Blumenauer, Earl ( D OR-3 ) Engel, Eliot ( D NY-17 ) Kilpatrick, Caro lyn ( D MI-13 )

Boccieri, John ( D OH-16 ) Eshoo, Anna ( D CA-14 ) Kilroy, Mary Jo ( D OH-15 )

Bono Mack, Mary ( R CA-45 ) Etheridge, Bob ( D NC-2 ) Kind, Ronald ( D WI-3 )

Boswell, Leonard ( D IA-3 ) Farr, Sam ( D CA-17 ) Kirk, Mark ( R IL-10 )

Boucher, Frederick ( D VA-9 ) Fattah, Chaka ( D PA-2 ) Klein, Ron ( D FL-22 )

Boyd , Allen ( D FL-2 ) Filner, Bob ( D CA-51 ) Kosmas, Suzanne ( D FL-24 )

Brady, Robert ( D PA-1 ) Frank, Barney ( D MA-4 ) Kratovil, Frank ( D MD-1 )

Braley, Bruce ( D IA-1 ) Fudge, Marcia ( D OH-11 ) Lance, Leonard ( R NJ-7 )

Brown, Corrine ( D FL-3 ) Giffords, Gabrielle ( D AZ-8 ) Langevin, James ( D RI-2 )

Butterfield , George( D NC-1 ) Gonzalez, Charles ( D TX-20 ) Larsen, Rick ( D WA-2 )

Capps, Lois ( D CA-23 ) Gordon, Barton ( D T N-6 ) Larson, John ( D CT -1 )

Capuano, Michael ( D MA-8 ) Grayson, Alan ( D FL-8 ) Lee, Barbara ( D CA-9 )

Cardoza, Dennis ( D CA-18 ) Green, Al ( D T X-9 ) Levin, Sander ( D MI-12 )

Carnahan, Russ ( D MO-3 ) Green, Raymond ( D T X-29 ) Lewis, John ( D GA-5 )

Carson, Andre ( D IN-7 ) Grijalva, Raul ( D AZ-7 ) Lip inski, Daniel ( D IL-3 )

Castle, Michael ( R DE-0 ) Gutierrez, Luis ( D IL-4 ) LoBiondo, Frank ( R NJ-2 )

Castor, Kathy ( D FL-11 ) Hall, John ( D NY-19 ) Loebsack, David ( D IA-2 )

Chandler, Ben ( D KY-6 ) Halvo rson, Deborah( D IL-11 ) Lofgren, Zoe ( D CA-16 )

Clarke, Yvette ( D NY-11 ) Hare, Phil ( D IL-17 ) Lowey, Nita ( D NY-18 )

Clay, William ( D MO-1 ) Harman, Jane ( D CA-36 ) Lujan, Ben ( D NM-3 )

Cleaver, Emanuel ( D MO-5 ) Heinrich, Martin ( D NM-1 ) Lynch, Stephen ( D MA-9 )

Clyburn, James ( D SC-6 ) Higgins, Brian ( D NY-27 ) Maffei, Daniel ( D NY-25 )

Cohen, Steve ( D T N-9 ) Hill, Baron ( D IN-9 ) Maloney, Carolyn ( D NY-14 )

Connolly, Gerald ( D VA-11 ) Himes, James ( D CT-4 ) Markey, Betsy ( D CO-4 )

Conyers, John ( D MI-14 ) Hinchey, Maurice ( D NY-22 ) Markey, Edward ( D MA-7 )

Cooper, Jim ( D TN-5 ) Hinojosa, Ruben ( D T X-15 ) Matsui, Doris ( D CA-5 )

Courtney, Joe ( D CT-2 ) Hirono , Mazie ( D HI-2 ) McCarthy, Carolyn ( D NY-4 )

Crowley, Joseph ( D NY-7 ) Hodes, Paul ( D NH-2 ) McCollum, Betty ( D MN-4 )

Cuellar, Henry ( D T X-28 ) Holt, Rush ( D NJ-12 ) McDermott, James ( D WA-7 )


44/161

39

Ayes - Continued

McGovern, James ( D MA-3 ) Pingree, Chellie ( D ME-1 ) Smith, Adam ( D WA-9 )

McHugh, John ( R NY-23 ) Polis, Jared ( D CO-2 ) Smith, Christopher ( R NJ-4 )

McMahon, Michael ( D NY-13 ) Price, David ( D NC-4 ) Snyder, Victor ( D AR-2 )

McNerney, Jerry ( D CA-11 ) Quigley, Mike ( D IL-5 ) Space, Zachary ( D OH-18 )

Meek, Kend ric k ( D FL-17 ) Rang el, Charles ( D NY-15 ) S peier, Jackie ( D CA-12 )

Meeks, Gregory ( D NY-6 ) Reichert, Dave ( R WA-8 ) Spratt, John ( D SC-5 )

Michaud, Michael ( D ME-2 ) Reyes, Silvestre ( D TX-16 ) Stupak, Bart ( D MI-1 )

Miller, George ( D CA-7 ) Richardson, Laura ( D CA-37 ) Sutton, Betty ( D OH-13 )

Miller, R. ( D NC-13 ) Rothman, Steven ( D NJ-9 ) Tauscher, Ellen ( D CA-10 )

Moore, Dennis ( D KS-3 ) Roybal-Allard, L.( D CA-34 ) Teague, Harry ( D NM-2 )

Moore, Gwen ( D WI-4 ) Ruppersberger, C.A. ( D MD-2 ) Thompson, Bennie ( D MS-2 )

Moran, James ( D VA-8 ) Rush, Bobby ( D IL-1 ) Thompson, C. ( D CA-1 )

Murphy, Christopher ( D CT-5 ) Ryan, T imothy ( D OH-17 ) T ierney, John ( D MA-6 )

Murphy, Patrick ( D PA-8 ) Sanchez, Linda ( D CA-39 ) T itus, Dina ( D NV-3 )

Murphy, Scott ( D NY-20 ) Sanchez, Loretta ( D CA-47 ) Tonko, Paul ( D NY-21 )

Murtha, John ( D PA-12 ) Sarbanes, John ( D MD-3 ) Towns, Edolphus ( D NY-10 )

Nadler, Jerrold ( D NY-8 ) Schakowsky, Janice ( D IL-9 ) Tsongas, Niki ( D MA-5 )

Napolitano, Grace ( D CA-38 ) Schauer, Mark ( D MI-7 ) Van Hollen, Christopher ( D MD-8 )

Neal, Richard ( D MA-2 ) Schiff, Adam ( D CA-29 ) Velazquez, Nydia ( D NY-12 )

Oberstar, James ( D MN-8 ) Schrader, Kurt ( D OR-5 ) Walz, T imothy ( D MN-1 )

Obey, David ( D WI-7 ) Schwartz, Allyson ( D PA-13 ) Wasserman Schultz, D ( D FL-20 )

Olver, John ( D MA-1 ) Scott, David ( D GA-13 ) Waters, Maxine ( D CA-35 )

Pallone, Frank ( D NJ-6 ) Scott, Robert ( D VA-3 ) Watson, Diane ( D CA-33 )Pascrell, William ( D NJ-8 ) Serrano, Jose ( D NY-16 ) Watt, Melvin ( D NC-12 )

Pastor, Edward ( D AZ-4 ) Sestak, Joe ( D PA-7 ) Waxman, Henry ( D CA-30 )

Payne, Donald ( D NJ-10 ) Shea-Porter, Carol ( D NH-1 ) Weiner, Anthony ( D NY-9 )

Pelosi, Nancy ( D CA-8 ) Sherman, Brad ( D CA-27 ) Welch, Peter ( D VT-0 )

Perlmutter, Ed ( D CO-7 ) Shuler, Heath ( D NC-11 ) Wexler, Robert ( D FL-19 )

Perriello, Thomas ( D VA-5 ) Sires, Alb io ( D NJ-13 ) Woolsey, Lynn ( D CA-6 )

Peters, Gary ( D MI-9 ) Skelton, Ike ( D MO-4 ) Wu, David ( D OR-1 )

Peterson, Collin ( D MN-7 ) Slaughter, Louise ( D NY-28 ) Yarmuth, John ( D KY-3 )

Nays 212

Aderholt, Robert ( R AL-4 ) Bartlett, Roscoe ( R MD-6 ) Bonner, Jo ( R AL-1 )

Akin, W. ( R MO-2 ) Barton, Joe ( R TX-6 ) Boozman, John ( R AR-3 )

Alexander, Rodney ( R LA-5 ) Berry, Robert ( D AR-1 ) Boren, Dan ( D OK-2 )

Altmire, Jason ( D PA-4 ) Biggert, Judy ( R IL-13 ) Boustany, Charles ( R LA-7 )

Arcuri, Michael ( D NY-24 ) Bilbray, Brian ( R CA-50 ) Brady, Kevin ( R TX-8 )

Austria, Steve ( R OH-7 ) Bilirakis, Gus ( R FL-9 ) Bright, Bobby ( D AL-2 )

Bachmann, Michele ( R MN-6 ) Bishop, Rob ( R UT-1 ) Broun, Paul ( R GA-10 )

Bachus, Spencer ( R AL-6 ) Blackburn, Marsha ( R TN-7 ) Brown, Henry ( R SC-1 )Barrett, James ( R SC-3 ) Blunt, Roy ( R MO-7 ) Brown-Waite, Virginia ( R FL-5 )

Barrow, John ( D GA-12 ) Boehner, John ( R OH-8 ) Buchanan, Vern ( R FL-13 )


45/161

40

Nays - Continued

Burgess, Michael ( R TX-26 ) Gohmert, Louis ( R TX-1 ) McCotter, Thaddeus ( R MI-11 )

Burton, Dan ( R IN-5 ) Goodlatte, Robert ( R VA-6 ) Mchenry, Patrick ( R NC-10 )

Buyer, Stephen ( R IN-4 ) Granger, Kay ( R TX-12 ) McIntyre, Mike ( D NC-7 )

Calvert, Ken ( R CA-44 ) Graves, Samuel ( R MO-6 ) McKeon, Howard ( R CA-25 )

Camp, David ( R MI-4 ) Griffith, Parker ( D AL-5 ) McMorris Rodgers, Cathy ( R WA-5 )Campbell, John ( R CA-48 ) Guthrie, Brett ( R KY-2 ) Melancon, Charles ( D LA-3 )

Cantor, Eric ( R VA-7 ) Hall, Ralph ( R TX-4 ) Mica, John ( R FL-7 )

Cao, Anh ( R LA-2 ) Harper, Gregg ( R MS-3 ) Miller, Candice ( R MI-10 )

Capito, Shelley ( R WV-2 ) Hastings, Doc ( R WA-4 ) Miller, Gary ( R CA-42 )

Carney, Christopher ( D PA-10 ) Heller, Dean ( R NV-2 ) Miller, Jeff ( R FL-1 )

Carter, John ( R TX-31 ) Hensarling, Jeb ( R TX-5 ) Minnick, Walter ( D ID-1 )

Cassidy, Bill ( R LA-6 ) Herger, Walter ( R CA-2 ) Mitchell, Harry ( D AZ-5 )

Chaffetz, Jason ( R UT-3 ) Herseth Sandl in, S. ( D SD-0 ) Mol lohan, Alan ( D WV-1 )

Childers, Travis ( D MS-1 ) Hoekstra, Peter ( R MI-2 ) Moran, Jerry ( R KS-1 )

Coble, Howard ( R NC-6 ) Holden, Tim ( D PA-17 ) Murphy, Tim ( R PA-18 )

Coffman, Mike( R CO-6 ) Hunter, Duncan ( R CA-52 ) Myrick, Sue ( R NC-9 )

Cole, Tom ( R OK-4 ) Inglis, Bob ( R SC-4 ) Neugebauer, Randy ( R TX-19 )

Conaway, K. ( R TX-11 ) Issa, Darrell ( R CA-49 ) Nunes, Devin ( R CA-21 )

Costa, Jim ( D CA-20 ) Jenkins, Lynn ( R KS-2 ) Nye, Glenn ( D VA-2 )

Costello, Jerry ( D IL-12 ) Johnson, Samuel ( R TX-3 ) Olson, Pete ( R TX-22 )

Crenshaw, Ander ( R FL-4 ) Johnson, Timothy ( R IL-15 ) Ortiz, Solomon ( D TX-27 )

Culberson, John ( R TX-7 ) Jones, Walter ( R NC-3 ) Paul, Ronald ( R TX-14 )

Dahlkemper, Kathleen ( D PA-3 ) Jordan, Jim ( R OH-4 ) Paulsen, Erik ( R MN-3 )

Davis, Artur ( D AL-7 ) King, Peter ( R NY-3 ) Pence, Mike ( R IN-6 )

Davis, Geoff ( R KY-4 ) King, Steve ( R IA-5 ) Petri, Thomas ( R WI-6 )

Davis, Lincoln ( D TN-4 ) Kingston, Jack ( R GA-1 ) Pitts, Joseph ( R PA-16 )Deal, Nathan ( R GA-9 ) Kirkpatrick, Ann ( D AZ-1 ) Platts, Todd ( R PA-19 )

DeFazio, Peter ( D OR-4 ) Kissell, Larry ( D NC-8 ) Poe, Ted ( R TX-2 )

Dent, Charles ( R PA-15 ) Kline, John ( R MN-2 ) Pomeroy, Earl ( D ND-0 )

Diaz-Balart, Lincoln ( R FL-21 ) Kucinich, Dennis ( D OH-10 ) Posey, Bill ( R FL-15 )

Diaz-Balart, Mario ( R FL-25 ) Lamborn, Doug ( R CO-5 ) Price, Tom ( R GA-6 )

Donnelly, Joe ( D IN-2 ) Latham, Thomas ( R IA-4 ) Putnam, Adam ( R FL-12 )

Dreier, David ( R CA-26 ) LaTourette, Steven ( R OH-14 ) Radanovich, George ( R CA-19 )

Duncan, John ( R TN-2 ) Latta, Robert ( R OH-5 ) Rahall, Nick ( D WV-3 )

Edwards, Thomas ( D TX-17 ) Lee, Christopher ( R NY-26 ) Rehberg, Dennis ( R MT-0 )

Ehlers, Vernon ( R MI-3 ) Lewis, Jerry ( R CA-41 ) Rodriguez, Ciro ( D TX-23 )

Ellsworth, Brad ( D IN-8 ) Linder, John ( R GA-7 ) Roe, Phil ( R TN-1 )

Emerson, Jo Ann( R MO-8 ) Lucas, Frank ( R OK-3 ) Rogers, Harold ( R KY-5 )

Fallin, Mary ( R OK-5 ) Luetkemeyer, Blaine ( R MO-9 ) Rogers, Michael ( R AL-3 )

Fleming, John ( R LA-4 ) Lummis, Cynthia ( R WY-0 ) Rogers, Michael ( R MI-8 )

Forbes, James ( R VA-4 ) Lungren, Daniel ( R CA-3 ) Rohrabacher, Dana ( R CA-46 )

Fortenberry, Jeffrey ( R NE-1 ) Mack, Connie ( R FL-14 ) Rooney, Thomas ( R FL-16 )

Foster, Bill ( D IL-14 ) Manzullo, Donald ( R IL-16 ) Roskam, Peter ( R IL-6 )

Foxx, Virginia ( R NC-5 ) Marchant, Kenny ( R TX-24 ) Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana ( R FL-18 )

Franks, Trent ( R AZ-2 ) Marshall, James ( D GA-8 ) Ross, Mike ( D AR-4 )

Frelinghuysen, Rodney ( R NJ-11 ) Massa, Eric ( D NY-29 ) Royce, Edward ( R CA-40 )

Gallegly, Elton ( R CA-24 ) Matheson, Jim ( D UT-2 ) Ryan, Paul ( R WI-1 )

Garrett, Scott ( R NJ-5 ) McCarthy, Kevin ( R CA-22 ) Salazar, John ( D CO-3 )

Gerlach, Jim ( R PA-6 ) McCaul, Michael ( R TX-10 ) Scalise, Steve ( R LA-1 )

Gingrey, John ( R GA-11 ) McClintock, Tom ( R CA-4 ) Schmidt, Jean ( R OH-2 )


46/161

The ideas in this book need to be used to remove these radicalsfrom power. The administration and its supporters will subjectother hardworking citizens to the same type of terrorist attackthat was directed against the auto dealers, if the radicals areleft in power.

Any patriot, who was one of the auto dealers stripped of hisfranchise in a Congressional District represented by one of thepeople who voted for this bill, should consider answering thecall made by this book. You will already have name recognitionin your community, and you have a personal reason to act.

41

Nays - Continued

Schock, Aaron ( R IL-18 ) Stearns, Clifford ( R FL-6 ) Walden, Greg ( R OR-2 )

Sensenbrenner, F. ( R WI-5 ) Tanner, John ( D TN-8 ) Wamp, Zach ( R TN-3 )

Sessions, Peter ( R TX-32 ) Taylor, Gene ( D MS-4 ) Westmoreland, Lynn ( R GA-3 )

Shadegg, John ( R AZ-3 ) Terry, Lee ( R NE-2 ) Whitfield, Edward ( R KY-1 )

Shimkus, John ( R IL-19 ) Thompson, Glenn ( R PA-5 ) Wilson, Addison ( RSC-2 )

Shuster, William ( R PA-9 ) Thornberry, William ( R TX-13 ) Wilson, Charles ( D OH-6 )

Simpson, Michael ( R ID-2 ) Tiahrt, Todd ( R KS-4 ) Wittman, Rob ( R VA-1 )

Smith, Adrian ( R NE-3 ) Tiberi, Patrick ( R OH-12 ) Wolf, Frank ( R VA-10 )

Smith, Lamar ( R TX-21 ) Turner, Michael ( R OH-3 ) Young, C. W. ( R FL-10 )

Souder, Mark ( R IN-3 ) Upton, Frederick ( R MI-6 ) Young, Donald ( R AK-0 )

Stark, Fortney ( D CA-13 ) Visclosky, Peter ( D IN-1 )

NOT VOTING

Flake, Jeff ( R AZ-6 ) Hastings, Alcee ( D FL-23 ) Sullivan, John ( R OK-1 )


47/161

CONSERVATIVE, NOT REGRESSIVE

A previous chapter discussed the global warming cultists.Another cult, trying to destroy the U.S.. is the group of peoplewho worship at the altar of free trade. Many of the followers ofthis cult claim to be conservative. These individuals arepromoting policies and actions which are destroying ourmanufacturing base and our middle class. Such policies andactions are not conservative. A conservative1 is one who isdisposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or torestore traditional ones, and to limit change.

If anyone questions the result of the actions taken by the freetraders, that person is denigrated and vilified with the label ofprotectionist. The implication is that being a protectionist isa bad thing. Protection2 is defined as the act of protecting or thestate of being protected. Protectionism3 is the practice ofprotecting domestic industries from foreign competition byimposing duties or quotas.

Protecting our industry and workers is the conservative position.Trying to make protectionism a bad word is an example ofOrwellian double speak, where up is down, and good is bad. Thefact that the promoters of free trade are trying to suppress allopposing views, is evidence that we are dealing with a cult.

Free trade, as it is practiced by multi-national corporations, isthe practice of shipping manufacturing plants, and jobs, fromthe United States to third world countries. Goods can then be

manufactured in sweat shops at very low ( slave labor ) wages,and shipped back to be sold at a very high profit margin.

This trade is not free for the United States, and the job losseswe have suffered over the last several decades is the cause ofour current financial distress. The loss of a good payingmanufacturing job, with benefits, forces most workersinto service jobs, at low pay with no benefits. Most of thesepeople must then refinance their homes, to get a lowerpayment, so they can survive. This migration of workers, downthe income ladder, is the source of most of the sub-primemortgage market. When we then have a large increase in food

42


48/161

and fuel prices, these individuals must choose between eatingand paying the mortgage. The spike in food and fuel prices,during the summer of 2008, tipped us over the edge andprecipitated the current nationwide financial distress.

Pundits on talk radio claim the sub-prime mortgage problem iscaused by people being given mortgages they never shouldhave received. There was some fraud, but the root cause wasthe pressure being put on the middle class, by the outsourcingof our jobs. The outsourcing is not being covered by the majornews media. When millions of people are forced into low paying

jobs, they can't afford to consume the products being produced,and our economy collapses.

Protecting our middle class and way of life is conservative.Supporting free trade policies which will cause the destructionof our middle class is regressive. We are on a path which willlead us back to a time before we had a large middle class.

We must not return to the days of the Robber Barons, where afew super rich individuals controlled most of the wealth andproperty. We can stop this trend by eliminating the income tax

and letting our small business owners and professionals keeptheir own money.

There are cultists and radicals, in both major political parties,who are promoting destructive positions and programs.

The cultists in both parties can be voted out of office. Theglobalist puppet-masters, who want to create a one world

government, are using their puppets in the global warming cultand those who worship at the altar of free trade to further aglobalist agenda. The global warming nuts have created a poolof auto dealers who are being forced into a position where theywill have to sell cars imported from China and India. The goal isto force the sale of smaller cars which get higher mileage rates,reduce carbon emissions, and cause the economies of Chinaand India to grow.

The free traders are shipping our plants, and jobs, to countrieslike China and India, to promote the growth of other countries'economies. Wanting other countries to have growing economiesand to prosper is a noble purpose. The problem is that the

43


49/161

globalists are promoting the growth of other countries at theexpense of America's workers and middle class.

The members of the global warming cult, and the free trade cultare working together to destroy America. They will deny this

contention, but the final result of their actions will be thedestruction of our economy and of our way of life.

The actions taken are allegedly for our good, while having anunderlying purpose of destroying our country and ourConstitution. The ultimate goal is to have a one worldgovernment where nations will not be able to make war againsteach other. This may sound like a good idea, but is not. It will benecessary to destroy our Constitution, before the U.S. can bepart of a one world government. When our Constitution isdestroyed, there will be no freedoms or personal liberties.

The drive to have a one world government has been underwayfor over a hundred years with the League of Nations set up afterWorld War I, being a major manifestation of the effort. AfterWorld War II, the United Nations was set up and continuestoday. The United Nations model for government is totally

unable to provide protection for individual rights and liberties.The institution is corrupt to the core.

a call for action - ebook

Documents