The Great New Hampshire Debate-For Educational Purposes Only

by a concerned reader

The New Hampshire Debate has accomplished little to define either the candidates intentions, ideas, or beliefs or a coherent account of their records. This was due to the moderators questions which steered around all the major problems facing this country focusing on issues not pertinent to the governance of this nation and the moderators inability to curtail frivolous issues which ended with pastime pursuits!

I would have cared to listen to the candidates response to questions like:

As president, how would you:

1. Restore and protect citizens' rights as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution?

Signing the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barry (Barack Hussein Obama?) Soetoro said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans; but, signed it anyway.

Now, some of the president’s advisers are expressing their concern with Obama’s action and say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans. Under the bill, which approves all defense spending for the 2012 fiscal year, certain provisions allow for the military detainment and torture of US citizens, indefinitely, essentially allowing for Guantanamo Bay-style prisons to be a real possibility for every American.  As the act floated around Congress, an underground outrage erupted and activists attempted to keep the bill from leaving the House and the Senate, although a lack of media coverage largely left the matter hidden from the public. Despite this campaign, the legislation made it out of the Capitol Building and into the Oval Office last month, prompting advocates against the act to petition for the president to veto it. But, Barry (Barack Hussein Obama?) Soetoro signed it anyway.

2. Repair the damage that has been done to several of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

Violation of the U.S. Constitution by deliberate omission of the original 13th Amendment:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

The Real Thirteenth Amendment, shown above, was ratified March 12, 1819 with the vote of the Virginia General Assembly to publish the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia with this article of amendment included in the Constitution of the United States, and thus it became an integral part of the Constitution for the United States of America. This amendment added a heavy penalty, not included in the original exclusion of Titles of Nobility provided in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honour, or receiving any emolument, other than their legitimate earnings, under any guise from external sources, by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the them, or either of them." This amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently "disappeared", never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted.

Article 1, Section 8: perversion of the monetary system; ... To coin money, (responsibly?) regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; the federal Congress has unconstitutionally turned over the coining of Money, the regulation of the value thereof, and of foreign coin to the Treasury, in contradiction to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1; the federal Congress has failed to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States in contradiction to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6, by implementing the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913; HJR 192 – Federal Reserve Notes are NOT lawful money – “payment is declared to be against public policy” (Act of 28 October 1977, Pub. L. 95-147, § 4(c), 91 Stat. 1227, 1229, now codified in 31 U.S.C. § 5118(d)(2)).

Violation of Article 1, Section 9:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. ; ... the Department Of Justice, in contradiction to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, has allowed ex post facto laws to be passed (i.e., retroactive taxation), and, in contradiction to Posse Commitatus, has allowed the military to be used against citizens in the united States of America, resulting in the deaths of minor children and adults;

Violation of Article 3, Section 1:

The federal Judiciary, in contradiction to Article 3, Section 1, has held Office during bad behavior by not complying with the following: The supreme Court has the power of “judicial review,”  (i.e., the power to declare laws passed by the U.S. Congress to be null and void if such a law or laws was/is in violation of the Constitution for the united States of America.)  They have failed by omission to declare as unconstitutional both the public and secret edicts of President(s) (i.e. Executive Orders.)

(To protect states against invasion); borders are wide open; the federal President has become a “domestic enemy” by implementing Bankruptcy (1930-32) and “War and Emergency Powers” (March 9, 1933 and subsequently) and “International Emergency and War Powers” (1977) in contradiction to Article 4, Section 4; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion (from all enemies foreign and domestic); and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Also, under Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;... has committed a federal crime. Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

Violation of Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

By all 535 members of Congress (see FOAVC.ORG and Walker vs. Members of Congress);

Violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution:

Flagrant violations of oath of office;  the federal President has failed to live up to his oath of office in contradiction to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution for the united States of America (original intent); NOT: “of the United States” – limited jurisdiction (legal entity).

The Congress has flagrantly violated their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution (i.e., Article 5 is one obvious example)

The violation of the 1st Amendment:  Passage of laws providing federal tax revenues to be provided to faith based organizations; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances; also, by violating Article 5, the Congress has violated the 1st Amendment (and vice-versa)clause: “and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Violation of the 2nd Amendment:

The right to bear arms;  only recently did the Supreme Court finally uphold the 2nd Amendment by rejecting Washington D.C.’s ban on hand gun ownership for the past 32 years.

Violation of the 4th Amendment:

(search and seizure without a warrant); Too many examples to justify use of space.

Violation of the 5th Amendment:

Flagrant legal plunder via eminent domain abuses (Supreme Court upholds abuse of eminent domain abuse); 6.8 new cases per day;

For the violation of the following: the 5th Amendment: right not to be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury (Statutory Jurisdiction notwithstanding the 6th Amendment: right in all criminal prosecutions to enjoy a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of Counsel for his defense. the 7th Amendment: right to trial by jury; as opposed to trial WITH jury; the 9th Amendment: the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; the 10th Amendment: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people; 16th Amendment: Also, many people are claiming that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by three-fourths of the states? 17th Amendment: Was the 17th Amendment really ratified by three-fourths of the states?  The violation of U.S. law and international treaty (Geneva Convention): torture at Guantanamo Bay, water-boarding (which is stated in clear legal language that it is illegal in the Army Field Manual);

3. Correct the American economy and monetary system?

4. Restore the Posse Comitatus Act, and would you redefine military service branches, (i.e., Departments), to insure military force not be used against U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil?

5. Dissolve unconstitutional departments and agencies, or re-mandate and re-task them?

Federal agencies that are not constitutional, specifically the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Those who claim the Department of Education is Constitutional say that it promotes the general welfare of the United States, however, this phrase, appearing in the preamble of the Constitution does not grant or prohibit power to Congress, is not its purpose. The preamble simply describes the Constitution and what the document itself was designed to do, and is not actually a binding decree of the Constitution.

The Department of Education was founded using the preamble as the basis for its Constitutionality, but due to what’s stated above, it is clear that it is not. Thomas Jefferson considered the federal government’s involvement in education to be unconstitutional. In 1862, James Buchanan warned that giving education to Congress would create a vast and irresponsible authority. Both he and Jefferson were right.

President Obama requested a $48.8 billion budget for the Department of Education, and an additional $28.6 billion for Pell Grants (both increases from previous years) in his first 2012 budget. Despite all the spending for education, test scores do not improve. Because of this failure of the department, and its inherent unconstitutionality, it should be devolved back to the states.

The Department of Energy should suffer the same fate. Nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government have the right to control a specific industry. The elimination of this department was something Ronald Reagan greatly desired, but was unable to do with Democrats controlling Congress. The department was created from components of existing agencies in 1977. By 1982, the agency’s budget had doubled. President Obama’s 2011 budget request for the department was $28.4 billion, a 6.8% increase from 2010. Please remember, the Department of Energy is responsible for the crony loan program which gave taxpayer dollars to companies like Solyndra, Beacon, Evergreen Solar and many more which have all bankrupted after loans were granted or received. This department, which has been using taxpayer funds to invest in highly risky companies (I thought risky investments were the reason the Occupiers hate Wall Street?) based solely on political reasons is clear grounds for elimination.

The NLRB… where to begin. This agency has been trying to bolster union support since its inception. Union membership actually only totals about 9% of the national workforce, yet this agency would prefer that to be 100%. We’ve seen that with their lawsuit against Boeing. They want Boeing to shut down a plant that employs over 1000 people just because it’s not unionized. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even agreed that the government force the plant to shut down, but she would prefer it simply become union.

Is this kind of government overreach Constitutional? Remember, these are only some of the agencies that are not authorized by the Constitution, and are just a small example of departments in our federal government that should not exist.

6. Prevent world-wide preemptive U.S. Military action and stop unrequested and invasive military action (i.e., unilateral warfare)?

The long war provoked by the treasonous acts of Sept. 11 is over. The congressional resolutions authorizing combat in Afghanistan and Iraq no longer justify military operations in either country -- or anywhere else. U.S. President Barack Obama gained office by denouncing his predecessor’s assertion of unilateral power to commit the nation to an endless war against terror (the cause of which is now plain to see for anyone willing to look at the real evidence). Yet, despite the absence of legislative authorization, Obama is moving down George W. Bush’s path to unilateral warfare. This is the real existential threat to American democracy.

7. Guarantee the right to privacy for U.S. Citizens from all Departments, Agencies, and Bureaus?

From The Washington Post, Posted at 2:35 PM ET, 01/31/2011

FBI in hundreds of privacy violations, report finds By Jeff Stein

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported nearly 800 violations of privacy laws and regulations to the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board from 2001 to 2008, according to records obtained by a watchdog group.

The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said it had also uncovered “indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11.” It said it could find no records of whether anyone was disciplined for the infractions.

The group drew its findings from about 2,500 documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents included "lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant," the EFF said.

Valerie Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, said that the violations were mostly technical or procedural.

The number of substantive violations of someone's rights is very small and we take them very seriously," she told the Los Angeles Times, which first reported the findings on Sunday.

These guidelines were put in place to prevent civil rights abuses," responded Mark Rumold, the EFF lawyer who obtained the documents. "And when the FBI is glibly treating violations as technical mistakes, it's indicative of a broader problem — the FBI's attitude toward dedicated, effective oversight.”

Caproni told the Times that she was “confident that, by and large, 99.9 percent of the time our agents are acting in compliance with the Constitution, the statutes, executive orders (which now have effectively negated all civil liberties and the Constitution itself, a concerned reader states) and FBI and DOJ policies on civil liberties.

The disclosure comes as Congress grapples with renewing the USA Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which loosened restrictions on U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain personal information on American citizens. It expires in February.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has proposed putting restrictions on domestic intelligence-gathering (now negated by practices of Fusion Centers all over the country, a concerned reader states). His office said he would have no comment on the EFF report until he had had a chance to read it.

But on Jan. 26, when he introduced his USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act, Leahy said the legislation would "increase judicial oversight of government surveillance powers that capture information on Americans."
By Jeff Stein | January 31, 2011; 2:35 PM ET

These are just seven of the more than thirty critically important questions I was hoping to hear answers to from each candidate.

Instead of these, the moderators allowed and encouraged responses regarding personal religious beliefs or customs (the constitution prohibits any law regarding religion),  arguments involving the truth of numbers of jobs generated (figures no one has actually counted, calculated or confirmed), issues voted on (a matter of record not open to debate), mud slinging, and the penultimate question of the evening "if you weren't doing this what would you be doing?" Only one candidate had any response I thought was reasonable considering just one of the problems facing the state of our nation. It wasn't regarding football or basketball!

If I were in charge of the network who staged this circus, I would tell Stephanopoulos and the dizzy blond to pack their bags and look for work elsewhere!



The Great New Hampshire Debate-For Educational Purposes Only Rating: 4.5 Diposkan Oleh: petingi sadang