Has America Become TOO STUID TO SURVIVE?






By Arthur W. Ritchie


Shakespir Edition


Copyright 2016 Arthur W. Ritchie


ISBN: 9781310139987


Shakespir Edition, License Notes



This e-book is licensed for your enjoyment and may be shared with others.

Thank you for respecting my work.








Chapter 1 Every Civilization in History has Collapsed in Bankruptcy. Why?

Chapter 2 The Harvard University I.Q. Study

Chapter 3 Genetic Garbage that Needs Culling

Chapter 4 The Average Citizen is Too Stupid To Vote Wisely

Chapter 5 How We Destroyed Our Constitution

Chapter 6 Changes We Might Consider If We’re to Save Ourselves

Chapter 7 Funding Elections

Chapter 8 The Desecration of our Bill Of Rights

Chapter 9 Our Criminal Justice System


Appendix 1 Judges So Slimy They’d Need a Ladder to Kiss a Snake’s Ass

Appendix 2 The Glorious Illogic We Call “The Law!”

Appendix 3 The Black’s I.Q. Problem

Appendix 4 Woman’s voting and Jeannette Pickering Rankin

Appendix 5 Obama as Law Professor



Two things are infinite: The Universe, and

Human Stupidity

And I’m not sure about the Universe.”

__________ Albert Einstein


The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their leader. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that make him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.


Vaclay Klaus

Former Premier of the Czech Republic.










People only understand one thing: fear, for without fear of the consequences if they do not, who would pay their taxes? Obey the speed limit? Not murder those we find insufferable? Without some unifying fear, people pick and choose from the intellectual sewage of the day to find their new, “religion.”

Take Global Warming; a hoax making a rich ho hum politician richer. What were his credential for touting it? While majoring in fiction writing at Harvard, he took a course on climatology.

Political Correctness is more nonsense varying from race to race and day to day; and let’s not forget the ever popular: Save the whatever’s. It’s a time when we’ve forgotten that this is a Darwinian universe; a place where nature’s ever changing genetic strains come and go, and thwarting nature’s ways of culling the herd of junk allows the parasites to multiply until they kill their host. And the death of which I speak, is that of Western civilization itself.



This study by Harvard University, posits that the average Liberal / Democrat’s IQ is a pitiful 88 while the average Conservative / Republican’s IQ is 110. That’s a staggering 22 point spread — the difference between being considerably above average, or dumb as a rock. And Harvard is a bastion of liberalism.



[_ https://iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/new-study-shows-liberals-have-a-lower-average-iq-than-conservatives/_]






[* 80% of Democrats are politically clueless . . . *] That’s why I’m a Democrat . . . I can make the Democratic voters think

whatever I want them to.[]


[+ http://clashdaily.com/2012/11/james-carville-says-80-of-democrats-are-politically-clueless/+]







[+ http://thepatriotnation.net/this-is-what-liberalism-looks-like-thug-has-15-kids-13-baby-momma+]


Too ignorant to see that Obama’s plan is to ruin our country, liberals miss its key element: To flood our country with Mexico’s genetic garbage and camel-piss drinking Muslims: In other words, those so stupid they’ll lower our nation’s average intelligence to a point where the White European stock that created this great nation and culture will be swept away at the ballot box as those too stupid to understand our nation’s problems vote for the party lacking the intelligence to fix those problems, the Democrats. Doubt it? Why is Obama deliberately regulating businesses out of existence at the cost of countless jobs? Why has he simultaneously opened our boarders to those with NO education, NO craft, skill or talent, NO jobs waiting for them, and who don’t even speak our language? Why? So he can add them to our welfare and voters’ rolls. Why? So that they can destroy our culture while bankrupting us. Read the lying bastard’s books! If there’s anything the Obamas’ hate, it’s Western culture which their lower class minds are simply too stupid to comprehend.

The White House under the Kennedys:

The White House guest under the Obamas:


The sick part of this, is that those that voted for him will be hurt the most when the money runs out. For the only way we’ll be able to keep writing welfare checks will be by either cutting payments to all welfare recipients; the new crap and old voters alike, or printing money until it become worthless. And these are but a few of the problems we’ll encounter on liberalism’s nightmare highway.


Europe is being overrun by Muslims hell-bent on killing them. Nations once fearing a Soviet invasion may now have to BEG Russia to rid them of the vermin they welcomed with open arms. Why?

The Roman Empire died on September 4, 476 AD, when their last Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, rode out a city gate to close the book on one of history’s greatest civilizations. A thousand years of glory had rotted out from the inside, and it would take another thousand years for Europe to recover. Why? Because those causing the empire’s collapse lacked the brains to fend off starvation, or halt the invaders stealing what little they had. We aptly call these centuries, The Dark Ages.

Rome’s population fell from 1,200,000 to 12,000 as mud replaced marble as their primary construction material. That same catastrophe looms on our horizon begging the question: Why are we letting it run its course? Especially since we’ve known from day one under our Constitution how our nation would end: The vote would be given to those worthless, non tax paying, not country defending masses that would want ever more of that which the intelligent and hard working had created. And no matter how much they’re given, it is never enough.



Democracies’ Fail When the Average Citizen is Given

the Vote, Because the Average Citizen is



Intellectually incapable of grasping the issues of the day, Joe-six-Pack’s family votes for the best liar on the ballot because — being incapable of understanding the nation’s problems — they believe those promising the most free stuff. How their charlatan will pay for what they’re peddling never crosses the Six-Pack family’s mind, for just as soldiers will always outnumber officers and workers outnumber manager, so fools will always outnumber thinkers. And the boob-ocray’s party — and it doesn’t matter what they call it — Socialist Communist, Labor, Progressive or Democrat, whatever — has a mantra that’s rung boldly unchanged through the ages:








Too Stupid to Vote Wisely, Who do the “Six-Pack” Family Elect? PSYCHOPATHS:


Incapable of developing a conscience, psychopaths are often pathological liars. Abhorring work and supervision, they see themselves as our superiors and expect to be handed power over us. And, as between five and eight percent of all populations are born psychopaths, no nation is ever going to run out of criminals, salesman, lawyers, politicians, or cop wannabes.


“… the “psychopath” [who in most ways is indistinguishable from the criminal] … crave[s] power for its own sake, and they will do virtually anything to acquire it. Insatiable in their thirst for power and unprincipled in their exercise of it, they care very little whom they injure or destroy.”

[_ _____ Dr. Stanton E. Samenow _]

Inside the Criminal Mind


Dumber psychopaths seek careers in crime, sales, law enforcement or politics; smarter ones prefer white-collar crime such as law, politics, or corporate management. And most politicians are simply lawyers too lousy to make the rent payments. And what happens when they turn out to be just as bad at politics? Often colleagues put them up for judicial appointments. And how do miserable lawyers turned lousy legislators do as judges? Take a peek at how often their decisions are reversed or vacated.




A staggering 68% of all appealed cases are either reversed or vacated by our Supreme Court! Raising the question: Which houses the most idiots? The Court of Appeals? Or the Supreme Court? It’s a tie.

Can you imagine anyone as dumb as Congressman Joe Barton or that other towering example of skull-content putrification, Sheila Jackson Lee, becoming a Federal Judge? Member of the Court of Appeals? Or, God help us, becoming a justice on the Supreme Court?

Fascinating isn’t it? While a non-lawyer is rendered ineligible for a judgeship by tradition, any idiot that’s ever held a law license can be so appointed — if they have the right connections of course.


PS: Neither of the Clintons or Obamas has a currently valid law license. Hmmm.


Congresswoman Lee’s oratory has reached such dazzling heights of ineptitude that websites have been created just to keep us appraised of her latest gaffs.



See Appendix 1 for “Judges So Slimy they’d need a ladder to kiss a snake’s ass.


PS: Congresswoman, if Republicans came up with a way to kill Blacks, you wouldn’t be here.





Citizens lined up to greet delegates leaving the Assembly Room of the Pennsylvania State House, [now Independence Hall] on that September day in 1787, for the Convention called to repair our Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had finished its work, and Philadelphians were curious to learn what they had decided. And as Benjamin Franklin appeared, a woman asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”

“A Republic Madam,” he replied, “if you can keep it!”



WHY A REPUBLIC? Knowing the masses are, and always will be, too stupid to run anything as complex as a government, the writers of our Constitution built safeguards into it that should have kept us going forever with only an occasional tweak. But after our Civil War, congress began diddling with it and — bit by bit — undermined voter intelligence until today, stripped of all its safeguards, Franklin’s fears have come true. Our idiots are electing those hell-bent on being reelected by promising the free stuff driving us into bankruptcy.

Believing the states were governed by their more intelligent citizens, our founders defaulted voter eligibility to the state legislatures; and the states, believing only mature, tax paying citizens worthy of voting tended to limit the vote to free, property owning males 21 and older. But even that group wasn’t trusted with more than the ability to elect their House members. Senators were appointed by state legislatures; and the Presidency was isolated from both the public and state governments by an Electoral College: A group envisioned by the founders to consist of intellectuals chosen by the people to pick a president for them. And, quaint though these safeguards might seem today, they gave us such presidential giants as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and the two Adams,’ all of whom would be considered “too brainy” to be electable today.




In the presidential election of 1824, the first where returns are available, a piddling 356,038 votes were cast from a population of 10,924,000. That’s a trivial 3.25% of the people. Yet, few though those voters were, they gave us a government protecting citizens, defending property, keeping roads in repair and that paid off our Revolutionary War debt. It was a time when the lower class knew they were not smart enough to vote wisely, and they did NOT make a fuss about it. But politicians pandering to the hoi polloi began meddling with the franchise to slowly change us from a plutocracy to the boob-ocracy of today — a time when even the village idiot is encouraged to vote. And by our Civil War’s end, [1865] congress had been dumbed-down to the point of believing themselves smarter than our Founding Fathers.


1868: The 14th Amendment was adopted July 9, 1868 and, as this deals with the rights and protections of the freed slaves, you might ask why I’m mentioning it in a treatise on lowering the intelligence of the average voter. I’m doing this to Show You Just How Stupid our Supreme Court Can Be! Did You Know that ALL American Corporate Law is Based on an Asinine Reading of the first Three Words of this Amendment By Our Supreme Court?! Read Appendix 2! It’s hilarious!


Let our Constitution’s Castration begin!


1870: The 15^th^ Amendment banned voter discrimination on the basis of race. Thus, less than a century after its writing, the cornerstone of our Constitution’s success, that the vote be limited to the informed and intelligent, was gone. Appendix 3.

Written to give the freed slaves the vote, its writers hoped it would make those that it freed Republicans for life. Well, it started out that way.

Northern troops occupying the defeated South after our Civil War made sure Blacks voted. And for 12 years, Black Republicans controlled the former Confederate States. But political skullduggery was needed to settle the presidential election of 1876, and the deal finally struck included the removal of all Federal troops from the South. [1877] And the instant they were gone, Southern Whites retook control of their states to enact every law they could think of to prevent Blacks from voting. Poll taxes, literacy tests, you name it.

Fascinating isn’t it? That amidst all the political skullduggery surrounding the writing and passage of this amendment, the writers saw no problem in giving the vote to ignorant and illiterate Black males while continuing to withhold the franchise from collage educated White females.


1912: Diddling with our House of Representatives: While absolutely necessary — without it today’s House might have thousands of members — a completely unworkable number — this act keeps most voters’ from knowing their representative.

Starting with the 1790 census — there were 3,929,326 of us then — those writing our Constitution gave our first government 64 House members, but as our population grew, so did the House’ membership, and after the 1910 census, they statutorily fixed their membership at 435 to re reapportioned for the election following each census. That shifted us from a nation with a representative for every few tens of thousands of citizens where many knew their representative, to today where the 2010 census gives America a population of 308,745,538 meaning that each congressperson represents roughly 708,760 Americans — a number so huge that few have a clue as to who represents them.


THEN[*:*] Knowing that without some check on congress’ ability to tax, time alone would find them bleeding us dry, our Founders limited congress to imposing a per capita tax: That is, so much per person. But, needing a fortune to finance his Civil War, Lincoln simply created an unconstitutional income tax which our Supreme Court took years to strike-down. So when “Prohibitionists” began thinking of writing an Amendment of their own, this Constitutional limitation posed a problem as over 70% of federal revenue came from taxes on the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages. So before a Prohibition Amendment could get off the ground, they had to find a way to replace that lost loot: Enter in



1913: The 17^th^ Amendment: Federal Senators would be elected by the people. Another layer of our government that would be chosen by the ignorant.


1919: The 18^th^ Amendment: Passed on January 16, 1919, and going into effect one

year later, it banned the manufacture, transport or sale of alcoholic beverages. But it did NOT ban the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages; an example of politicians pandering to a foolish public while exempting themselves.

Woodrow Wilson was president when this amendment threatened to go into effect and, being a native Virginian, he had a warm spot in his heart for Bourbon. So just before the act’s “D” day, he had the White House well stocked with his favorite brands. Meaning that, when he left office, [1921] he needed a congressional waiver to move his considerable supply of “spirits” to his new home.

Wilson was followed by an even better elbow bender, President Warren G. Harding: A man with enough gusto in his drinking proclivities to require that the White House have its own ‘official bootlegger’ to keep its liquor cabinets topped off. During one of his whiskey-soaked poker games, Harding bet and lost the White House Plate Room’s President Hayes china.


1920: The 19^th^ Amendment banned voter discrimination based on sex. Before this, states, starting with Wyoming in 1869, had given females the vote, and Montana was the first to elect a female, Janette Rankin, to congress in 1914. See Appendix 4


1933: The 21st Amendment: , repealed the 18th Prohibition Amendment. It seems our national limit on stupidity is about 13 years. And while this meant the instant return of the liquor taxes, no one mentioned getting rid of the income tax.


1964: The 24^th^ Amendment: While the 15th Amendment [1870] gave the freed male slaves the vote, it could only be enforced in the defeated south by Northern troops, and when those troops were recalled , Southern Whites regained control of their states to enact every law they could think of to prevent Blacks from voting, and many of these laws stayed on the books until this amendment was passed in 1964.

While the 24th Amendment abolished the poll tax from restricting voting in federal elections, it was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that cleaned out the southern states’ nest of gimmicks restricting the Black vote such as literacy tests etc. And this legislative duo made Blacks forgot it was the Republicans that freed them; or that without the Republicans’ unanimous support, the Voter Act would never have passed — not one southern Democrat voted for it,— or THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE LAWS OVERTURNED BY THE ACT OR AMENDMENT HAD BEEN WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATS. Blacks even forgot that the man standing behind the president as he signed these acts was the Republican, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. They only remembered that the man signing that law was President Johnson — a Democrat — the man who thanked their monumental stupidity with the immortal line:


I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

President Lyndon Johnson




1971: The 25^th^ Amendment, and stupidest of them all, lowered the voting age to 18 stripping the last remaining shreds of maturity from our voter pool.

During this time, the “Electoral Collage,” which originally insulated the presidency from the masses. died the death-of a-thousand-cuts to end its days as a mere collection of political hacks so inconsequential their names don’t even appear on the ballot. Now, even the president is chosen by, “the people.” But thank God we still have the Electoral Collage! Without it we’d still be recounting the votes to figure out who won the elections of 1876, 1960, 2000 . . .


27 million Americans are functionally illiterate … Forty-seven million more … read on only the most minimal level. Together, that’s almost 75 million Americans.

[_ _____ Coalition for Literacy _]


• [_ 14% of adult Americans cannot find the ] _United States on a world map.


• [_ 56% have no idea what the population of this country is. _]

[_ _____ National Geographic Society _]


How stupid are today’s voters? Edward Moore Kennedy, ran in the Massachusetts Democratic senate primary [1962] being held to fill the seat vacated when his brother became president. His opponent, Edward McCormack, son of the speaker of the House, challenged him with the line: “If your name were Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy, your candidacy would be a joke.”

True. Edward was just your typical Kennedy male: a womanizing drunk without a single redeeming feature. The year before, 1961, while on a trip to South America, Teddy had rented an entire Chilean brothel for an evening’s entertainment!


[+ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/28/ted-kennedy-arranged-rent-brothel-latin-america-61-memo-says/+]


The Kennedy name alone elected “Teddy” to the senate and kept him re-elected to reign for 46 years as one of our senate’s more formidable drunks.

Recent pitiful voting practices have given us the pathological liar, Barack Obama — an ass whose eight years in office will add as much to our national debt as all his predecessors combined — and to no purpose whatsoever.







The ever-present fools that have sunk every civilization in history are now sinking us, and repairing the tattered remains of our Constitution isn’t going to be easy. Anyway, let me say right up front that I have no expectation that any of these ideas will be taken seriously. I toss them out only as talking points for those younger and wiser than myself to ponder.




An IQ test in voting machine which voters must passed if their vote is to be counted. As this would wipe out Democrat votes wholesale, forget it.


Requiring voters to know who they’re voting for by placing names on the ballot in alphabetical order without a party label. This has exactly the same chance as above.




These will only work if we agree right up front that every congressional incumbent at the time of the amendment’s passage must be exempted. That is, any amendment passed would take effect on a seat by seat basis when and only when that seat became vacant.





THERE ARE TWO WAYS OF DOING THIS: Amend the Constitution to limit the number of terms anyone may serve: Perhaps two senate terms or six house terms or set a limit on a combination of offices.



MANDATORY RETIREMENT AFTER XX YEARS OF SERVICE: Pick a maximum number of years acceptable for service in congress, then automatically and irrevocably retire them PERIOD.




Going back to our Articles of Confederation days, amend our constitution to limit anyone’s serving in any office for more than two consecutive terms out of three. This allows members to return after a hiatus. And while many will argue that this won’t work because politicians will simply have their husband or wife replace themselves for the obligatory vacant term, if this is the best we can get, we should take it.





That is, make one body of our government idiot resistant.


Term: Change a Senator’s term of office from 6 to 20 years with succession prohibited.


By election only: In the event of a Senate vacancy, for whatever reason, that seat would remain vacant until the next Senate Election Day in that state where those who choose to run would do so for a full term. Thus, there will no appointments to the Senate as there will be no unexpired terms. And as the Senate represents the nation as a whole, an argument that one or even both Senators from one state may be missing simultaneously for a time holds no water for it means that the Senate is being thought of as it is today: a factional political body whose seats are filled by those who would loot the treasury for their personal or constituents benefit. The new Senate should spend their time working on the problems of the day, not worrying about funding their next election.


Election Day: Consistent with the minimizing of politics for the office, four separate days shall be set aside by each state for senatorial elections, and these days shall be three months apart and none shall coincide with any other election day in that state for any other office or offices. And should a seat become vacant before the incumbent has finished their term, that seat would be filled on the next Senate Election Day in that state after at least 90 days have passed; time for prospective candidates to prepare campaigns. Should a majority of the candidates running for a seat request more time, the state legislature may defer the election one Senate Election Date at a time as they see fit.

BUT: Anyone allowing their name to be placed on the ballot for that office is thereby barred from any other federal office or appointment for 10 years with these exceptions: Should that same senate seat become vacant, they may run for it; they may also run for the office of President or Vice President, and they may accept cabinet appointments. Why such severe restrictions? Because it would severely limit “professional politicians” from running for the senate.

A Senator serving out their full term shall receive their full salary for life with adjustments the same as those of sitting senators. This solve the return to prior occupation problem.

Candidates’ names shall be placed on voting machines or ballots in alphabetical order without a party label.

Senators must forswear all other government pensions for life. [There shall be no double dipping for previously dumped House members, etc. but private pensions shall be exempted from the rule.]

Other requirements such as the number of Senators per state, age requirements etc., remain unchanged.

Rare indeed is the psychopath that would risk their future on a race that might cost them 10 years of political inactivity. And, by placing the election on a non-election day for any other office, few voters will take the trouble to vote unless they have a vote worth casting. Perfect? No. An improvement? Hopefully. Barring the unexpected, most Americans would vote for two senators per generation. Then perhaps, without the folderol of party politics and nominating committee machinations, we will actually think about the choices and select the best among us: hopefully men and woman famous for doing something more meaningful than talking.

This is not a new idea. Several of our founders including Alexander Hamilton and John Adams thought the Senate would eventually become a lifetime job. Some even thought it might become hereditary.






As governments represent people, and not interests or things:


LET ANY REGISTERED VOTER be permitted to give any amount of their own money to any candidate that will appear ON THEIR BALLOT.


They may barrow money at the prevailing rate to do this, but they may NOT accept monies from any other source to donate.


BUT: Let no money or service of any kind or type whatsoever be contributed directly or indirectly to any candidate or party by anyone or anything that is not a living breathing registered American voter meeting the above requirement.

This absolute prohibition includes, but is not limited to, corporations, lobbies, PACs, trusts, foreign powers, unions, non-registered voters, money both directly and indirectly from out of state, and all the other special interest groups now buying congress. Our current funding laws are based on the assumption that elections are corrupt when not watched, yet allow corruption by slight of hand.

During the Dukakis / Bush presidential campaign of 1988, millions of dollars were spent by the Bush camp on television commercials blasting the Democrats on issues. But because Bush’s name or image were never used, these commercials were ‘off the books’ and not charged to his campaign. But when a campaign’s cornerstone ad avoids being charged to the candidate it benefits, how realistic is the law dealing with contributions?






Flat Out Unconstitutional!



AS NO Constitutional provision OR statue support the existence of Executive Orders, why are we allowing Obama to destroy our laws and constitution with them?


FINDING HIMSELF PRESIDENT with a Civil War started and congress out of session, Abraham Lincoln began issuing the self created pronunciamentos we today call: “Executive Orders.” Before Lincoln, there had only been the occasional Presidential Proclamation announcing the days of national mourning for the death of a notable etc.

Before congress’ return, Lincoln used this self-minted power to unconstitutionally nationalized our railroads and telegraph companies. And when congress returned, their silence gave tacit approval to Lincoln’s theft of their power, and he continued using it to rule by fiat throughout the war. And it’s that gutless congress’ precedent that Obama is using today, where it is just as illegal as it was under Lincoln. Something a constitutional scholar like Obama should know — were one that is.*


* See Appendix 5: “Chicago Law Prof on Obama: The Professors Hated Him because he was Lazy, Unqualified & . . . ”


Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of our Constitution orders that the President shall, “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”


Therefore: Consistent with the cited portion of our Constitution, OBAMA has NO POWER from any source whatsoever allowing him to determine which laws he will enforced, and which he will not. Neither does he have the power to write laws, for that would be a veto power over congressional acts which no law or part of our Constitution grants. And to counter his tyrannical illegalities, I suggest that we consider passing the following:





Congress shall have the power to alter or abolish in whole or in part any presidential order, edict, or pronunciamento by either a majority in both houses, or a two thirds vote of EITHER body.

This shall not affect cases coming before the Supreme Court with regard to the testing of an Executive Order’s constitutionality.


Simple isn’t it? Yet, our justices have undermined every word it, for if you’ve learned nothing else from my previous writings, you should know by now that prosecutorial lying is so common it makes *grand juries a joke._ Why? Because a [[*prosecutor’s job]_] is to convince a grand jury that a law has been broken, and that the person or group they are accusing, should be charged with coming that crime. But because any defense has been banished from a grand jury’s proceedings, any reason for a prosecutor — whose job it is to get indictments — to tell the truth is gone.

So someone charged with a crime for political reasons might find the prosecutor hiding incriminating facts, just as someone without political connections being charged might find exculpatory evidence being hidden. Add to this the fact that grand jury proceedings are usually sealed — and rare indeed is the prosecutor charged with lying …

Let’s go on: “No person shall be tried for the same crime twice.” Really? How many laws have been written allowing the government to do exactly that? Suppose you’re found NOT guilty of murder. What would you then call being hit with a federal charge of violating that same victim’s civil rights? For if that isn’t double jeopardy, what is? What was O.J. Simpson’s “civil rights” violation trial but a rehash of his murder trial?

Then there’s: *nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation*. Another “protection” shot to hell by “Civil Forfeiture” laws.

Civil Forfeiture Laws are licenses allowing “our protectors” to rob us blind by merely saying that something they covet MIGHT have been involved in a crime.

The disgusting part of this is that — not only do the lying bastards benefit from their theft — the stolen property is usually disposed of before the case is resolved, hence it can rarely be returned even if no charges are ever filed against the owner. If this isn’t the legal the theft of private property, what is?

The amendment go on, “without due process of law”? Let me define that for you, for IT, is law’s perverted way of creating the problem:


DUE PROCESS: Our founders never saw a time when we’d be so stupid as to elect those who would write laws allowing law officers to steal property. But when fools DO write such laws, they become the DUE PROCESS overriding our Constitutional protections!

As “the state” tends to steal from those too poor to pay the fortune in legal fees needed to fight the battle overturning these civil forfeiture laws — “fees” amounting to millions of dollars — these immoral and unconstitutional laws remain on the books. So much for the American Civil Liberty’s Union, or ACLU.

As for pleading the 5th“nor shall any person … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” forget it. While obviously written to prevent our being forced to harm our reputations, our genius’ of law have gotten around it by arguing that — if given immunity from prosecution — you lose the protection!

Getting that immunity did wonders for gangster Sam Giancana. He was murdered the night before he was to be forced to testify before congress about the mob’s involvement — if any — in President Kennedy’s assassination. Think about it. The feds gained nothing by screwing our constitution — and the screwee’s reward was to be murdered. Do you think those writing this amendment ever saw a time when bureaucrats could force you to spill your guts of your darkest secrets or spend time in jail? But this is just a typical case of legal reasoning:



The Hague Gas Declaration of 1899 outlawing the use of poison gas in warfare and was signed by nearly every civilized nation on earth.*


* : Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Projectiles with the Sole Object to Spread Asphyxiating Poisonous Gases …


Simple isn’t it? It says that, should the signatories go to war, they agree not to use projectiles containing poison gas. So why, just a few years later, did almost every one of those civilized nations use poison gas in WWI? Because legal minds were allowed to interpret those simple English words thusly: As the Hague agreement only bans the use of poison gas in projectiles — a word they defined as artillery shells — then opening a valve to release a deadly gas down wind to murder the enemy in their trenches, or dropping poison gas bombs from airplanes — something that hadn’t even been invented at the time of the Hague Convention — as these were NOT mentioned in the declaration, their use was just fine thank you.

Then, using their horse’s ass logic in reverse, they went on: Well, if it’s okay to kill people with gas bombs or opening valves, then the signers obviously didn’t mean what they said about artillery shells so …

An ad nauseam, rendering of this perverse logic gives us their readings of the 5th amendment.


And the poor 9^th^ and 10^th^ Amendments? They never had a chance!

Those writing these amendments forgot that they limit the power of the very government that would be interpreting them — and no government has ever limited its power for long.



Where in our Constitution is there anything anything at all — hinting that the Founding Fathers thought their new government should involve itself in our private lives? Not a word? So by what authority has the Supreme Court micro-managed our behavior in areas such as: Marriage; Abortion; Voting requirements; Marijuana use, the death penalty and a thousand other areas? WHY! Because in an almost endless list of issues, we have let them undermine our constitution unchallenged. Isn’t the document clear enough? If a power or subject has not specifically been given to the Federal Government by the Constitution itself, that issues’ determination reverts to the states, or the people: PERIOD. So why do we allow them to dominate our lives when their authority for doing so comes from nothing more then their looking at our Constitution through the tinted glasses of their predecessors usurping decisions? The cesspool lawyers worship at called, precedents.

The problem with precedents is that Judges intellectually range between smart, and really really stupid; and when citing a precedent, no one asks: Was this a ruling of Justice Einstein? Or Judge Jackass? You see, to overturn a precedent — no matter how smart or dumb the judge setting it was — requires a similar case involving people rich enough to spend the fortune in legal fees necessary to fight for the justice only appealing and overturning the original ruling gives. Thus a really stupid ruling may remain on the books as “law” for decades — or sometimes, forever. And all because none of those screwed by the faulty decision had the money to get justice.

Like religions whose myriad sects are derived from preachers misinterpreting the obvious reading of their founding texts, so our judges stray from justice by failing to return to our Constitution, a mistake leading to all the follies we observe today.


A Suggested Solution to the Problem of a Supreme Court Usurping

9^TH^ and 10^TH^ Amendment Cases:


As no organization can honestly police itself, let us take the matter of what is or is not encompassed by the 9th and 10th amendments out of their hands and give it to the states where it belongs. And to do this, I propose:



WHY SUCH A DRASTIC STEP? Because our Supreme Court can never be counted on to read our Constitution intelligently.


Example: Do we really need police so stupid they can’t understand the meaning of the simple words of our Constitution’s fourth amendment? Do we really need a Supreme Court so dumb they’ll accept the loss of one of our fundamental freedoms to prevent the firing of a few cops so stupid they should never been hired in the first place?

The Supreme Court Rules

You Have No 4th Amendment Protection Against

Cops Ignorant of the Law



[_ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-citizens-protection-violations-cops-ignorant-law/#wGZTTICyWP7PrYd4.99_]


This will cost us freedoms on a daily basis as power hungry cops figure out new ways to screw us.



Congress said Obamacare was NOT a tax. Obama said Obamacare was NOT a tax. Yet, in casting the deciding vote on whether our nation would be saddled with this turkey, Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. said — and all on his own mind you — that it IS a tax, and hence, constitutional.

Anyway, should anyone suggest that law is logical, ask them this: If law is logical, why are so many of the high court’s decisions 5/4 when reason dictates that most should be 9/0?

HINT: Ask any cluster of people how much 2 plus 2 equals and see how many different answers you get.

But then, don’t most justice’s votes just parrot the ideology of the party appointing them? And, that being the case, can’t most Supreme Court decisions be determined by nothing more complex than adding up the number of judges appointed by conservative administrations vs. those appointed by liberal ones?

And if the court’s “impartial” decisions are based on nothing more than ideology, how logical can they be when ideological bent varies from country to country, state to state, county to county, municipality to municipality, court room to court room, judge to judge, and day to day?


That’s Not Logic! That’s Chaos!






Do You Know a Tree by its Fruit?


[_ A sociologist is a scientist who blames crime on everything and everyone, except the person who commits it. _____ Dr. Laurence J. Peter _]

Inside the Criminal Mind”


[_ Civilization is that brief interval between a society’s excusing criminal behavior and criminal behavior excusing society. _____ A.W. Ritchie _]


Career criminals — psychopaths — are born, not made. And if countless prison reform experiments have taught us anything, it’s that you can’t rehabilitate anyone who’s incapable of believing that they’ve done anything wrong. But we can work on another problem: that of correcting the injustices that occur when crime’s elite appear before their judicial equivalent.



During July of 1987, New York police arrested four Colombians for drug dealing who were tried and convicted. At their sentencing, the lawyer for two of them reminded Federal Judge, Mark A. Costantino, that his clients would be deported after serving their time and he asked for leniency. The judge answered: “They [Colombians] don’t have too much regard for judges,” observing that Colombian drug lords had “killed 32 chief judges in that nation.”

The defense attorneys then argued that, as immigrants, their clients had trouble making a living, to which the judge replied, ‘Nobody told them to come here and get involved in cocaine.’ He sentenced the two to 30 years in prison.

This upset Federal Appeals Judges Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, James Oakes and George Pratt who threw the convictions out after detecting an anti-Colombian bias in Judge Costantino’s comments.

They said his ‘ethnic prejudice had infected the judicial process’ even though those comments were made AFTER the jury had convicted the men.

These geniuses then cast doubt on the evidence of any crime’s having been committed, despite the fact that a defense lawyer had admitted their clients were ‘mules’ who kept drug records and made deliveries!

These judges have raised a criminals’ rights to a level of asininity such that courtrooms have become little more than crap-shoots where lying lawyers devise ever more clever ways to suppress evidence and reverse reasonable sentences.




Pittsburgh — An 18 year old decided that he and his friends would rob an elderly couple he’d worked for. They tied them to chairs, ransacked their home, then, not wanting them going to the police, he decided to kill them.

Setting their chairs facing each other, they cut the old lady’s throat. As her husband sat crying, they cut his throat and left with their victims sitting there watching each other bleed to death.

A Pennsylvania jury, citing torture and intent to silence a witness in their decision, gave the man wielding the knife — who confessed and pleaded guilty — the death penalty.

But the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided the jury had been all wrong! The victims weren’t witnesses to a felony as neither the invasion of their home nor their murders were being investigated at the time. And once dead, they couldn’t witness their own murders.

As for torture? No way! You see, the prosecution failed to prove the defendant ‘had a specific intent to inflict unnecessary pain, suffering or both in addition to the specific intent to kill.’ In other words, according to this court, the killers did not intend to inflict unnecessary pain or suffering.

Oh, how I’d love to strap these miserable bastards to their fancy Supreme Court chairs and — as I joyfully slit their throats — asked each in turn as my knife dug in, “Are you in pain? Are you suffering? Yes? But unnecessarily so?”



New York — June 28, 1984: Bernard McCummings, a professional mugger, was trolling New York City with friends when they came upon and hammered a 71-year-old man senseless. Cops heard the screams — came running — shots were fired — and McCummings, was paralyzed as a police bullet cut through his spinal cord.

After serving less than three years in jail, McCummings was freed and immediately sued the city! And — believe it or not — the jury found for the mugger! It seems the police had used ‘unjustifiable deadly force’ in bringing this scumbag into custody! So how much did this pest get for plying his trade? $4.3 million!

So we have a professional criminal along with his scum-bag lawyer being rewarded for attacking a little old man. The idiots on this jury seem to be telling us that the cops should have just allowed the bastard to escape!

Adding insult to injury, in 1993, an appeals court affirmed McCummings’ award.




Robert Hunt Jr., saw a wedding announcement and the girl’s photo sexually aroused him. So, tracking her down, he broke into her home, and raped her. Oh, this was no simple sex act. He started by stuffing clothing down her throat. Then, after the attack, he founding her still breathing and drowned her in her bath tub.

Caught, convicted and sentenced to death, his life was spared by Nebraska’s high court because? Well, it seems Nebraska’s law is specific: The murder must be “especially heinous, atrocious, cruel,” or, showing, “exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of morality and intelligence.” And by a 4:3 vote, Nebraska’s high court denied this crime measured up to these standards. Huh?

It seems his victim hadn’t suffered enough! You see, his murdering her wasn’t to make her suffer, but to gratify his sexual urge.

The majority of these idiots then went on: ‘The evidence establishes that the victim was rendered unconscious within a short time of the defendant’s intrusion into her home, so it cannot be said that the murder was of the nature described.’ [in the state law.]

These gems of intellectual integrity then went on: ‘To be sure, forcing items into the victim’s throat and strangulation itself were cruel, but not ‘especially so,’ for any forcible killing entails some violence toward the victim.’

Then to top off this gloriously stupid opinion: ’There’s no evidence the acts were performed for the satisfaction of inflicting either mental or physical pain or that pain existed for any prolonged period of time.’



Psychopaths have not only entered our judiciary, in many places, they run it; and to accept their decisions is to abandon reason for the English language as it is used by elected bodies to write our laws does not exist in courts where psychopaths interpret them.

Every democracy in history failing to defend itself has collapsed into a dictatorship, or been taken over by a foreign power, and should that happen here, any dictator worth their salt would start by sweeping our streets of criminals whether they’ve paid their debt to society or not, and firing the judges that freed them. And were this to happen we’d applaud wildly! But, if we’d applaud a dictator’s doing it, why wait? We have the laws! All we have to do is replace the psychopaths not enforcing our laws with those who will.

Defenders of this nonsense claim we must give judges “judicial license” because our laws are too draconian — that enforcing them would be uncivilized. Others argue that other nations don’t punish as we do. [The current catch-phrase is, ‘Even Brazil doesn’t have a death penalty!’] If our penalties are harsh we can fix them, but what logic allows laws to be thwarted by the very people entrusted to enforce them?



Under the headline: “Biegenwald gets third reprieve from death penalty,” we read that Richard Biegenwald murdered 17 year old Maria Ciallella during November of 1981; the following April he murdered 17 year old, Deborah Osborne; then he murdered 34 year old William J. Ward in September of 1982.

Biegenwald was tried for these crimes, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with no hope of parole for 80 years. So why — years after the fact — are we reading of New Jersey’s Monmouth County Prosecutor, John Kaye, saying, “The public has spent incredible sums of money on this case,” in 1993? Because Biegenwald slipped another murder into the year 1982: The 18 year old Anna Olesiewicz, and in that case, he faced the death penalty.

This crime made it to the state’s highest court twice. A first. And as defense attorney Theodore Fishman said, “We are thrilled that he got the life sentence.” The prosecutor noted that, had the jury found for the death penalty, it would have taken at least 10 years to exhaust the appeals process. Is the expense of trying, convicting, housing and defending this man over? Perhaps not. You see, he’s also believed to have murdered 18 year old Betsy Bacon in November of 1982, and he may yet be tried again for that crime.

Richard Biegenwald has been convicted of four murders and may have committed a fifth. Yet, instead of executing him, our legal system has manipulated us into squandering millions of tax dollars and wasting years of court time to save his life by thwarting the very laws we have written to protect ourselves from the Richard Biegenwalds of this world.



This is our tree of criminal justice. Do you like its fruit? Would you give your life to defend it? For what is a government if not laws people have to occasionally die to defend?


To feel safe again only three things are needed:


• The ability to recall incompetent officials;

• The ability to realistically define the criminal element; and

• The ability to execute or imprison-for-life professional criminals.


How do we do this?


Grant the powers of Initiative, Recall and Referendum to the citizens of every state to remove any official refusing to uphold the law as determined by the people. Not only will our media keep us informed as to what fool is doing what, some judges might actually shape up when their folly becomes common knowledge. Much as this will enrage jurists at our uneducated meddling with their charade, this is the very essence of democracy; and to the extent that they deviate from it, they inculcate dictatorial rule undermining the very democracy they pretend to uphold.


New Jersey and New York have been reduced to crime ridden ghettos by judicial folly; yet, in total defiance of the people’s wishes, one state’s chief justice refuses to allow a death penalty already on the books to be enforced; and the other’s governor refuses to allow death penalty acts repeatedly written by their legislature to become law. [New York’s electric chair has sat idle since 1963.]

Our entire Declaration of Independence is a ringing indictment of King George III’s acts including the words: “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Isn’t this exactly what our governors and chief justices are doing today? Either preventing laws from being passed or thwarting the laws already on the books from being enforced?


A National Felons Act.


Legislatively order the Attorney General of the United States to create a file on every convicted felon in the land and mandate on penalty of massive federal funds being withheld that states report every single felony conviction. Congress may then create a ‘points’ list for felonies with points being added to each criminal’s file as they are accumulated. No judge or jury may access this file; it exists for the nation’s safety.

As each conviction is added to a criminal’s file, the number of felonies and points are tallied. When convictions equal three or more and the points total 12 or more, the file is reviewed for accuracy. And if:


• all the convictions are confirmed,

ª no appeals are pending,

ª no reversals of verdict are found, and

• no clerical errors found,


Declare the criminal a national felon whose ‘due process’ has come to an end and execute them without further ado!


Suggested points list:


• Murder, rape, kidnapping, 7

• Arson, drug dealing, armed robbery, second degree murder, other major crimes, 5

• Lessor felonies, 3


The magic numbers are 12 points and three convictions. Collect them and your birth certificate expires. [This will sweep up a lot of those who have gotten off multiple times by plea bargaining too. Those ‘threes’ have a way of adding up.]


Our legal system may screw up once — a sterling reason for not having a death penalty for any single conviction. It may screw up twice. But to excuse three convictions is to abandon reason, common sense and public safety. Yes some very young criminals are going to be caught. But then, they’ve been practicing since birth for they were born that way and wishful thinking isn’t going to change them.


Another Verdict?

The hungry judges soon the sentence sign,

And wretches hang that the jury may dine.

_____ Pope, Rape of the Lock.


A hung jury settles nothing, but how serious is that compared to 10 or 11 jurymen browbeating a dissenter[s] into a verdict they didn’t believe correct? And a judge sending a jury back to try again merely strengthens the majority’s leverage over dissenters; yet, a forced verdict costs society either way because ‘innocent’ prevents a guilty defendant from being retried; and ‘guilty’ deprives an innocent citizen of their freedom and reputation. But there is a proven answer to this seeming dilemma.


Scotland has a third verdict: NOT PROVEN which we might consider adding between our traditional guilty and not guilty verdicts thusly:


If a jury is split 11:1 with the holdout leaning toward guilt but having a lingering reasonable-doubt, the jury might be allowed to bring in a not proven verdict. This would free the defendant at the expense of the double jeopardy rule. For, if new evidence — the safety factor severely limiting re-prosecution — is presented to a grand jury, and they agreed the new evidence warranted a new trial, they might issue a new bill of indictment.


Other limitations on the use of the ‘not proven’ verdict might include:


• It may only be returned with the approval of the judge and

• It may not be used in any retrial. And should you think of this as

interfering with our concept of Double Jeopardy, we already do.


Military personnel are routinely tried in military courts on the same charges as civil actions pending or concluded. Likewise, police and other civil servants have the same problem with departmental charges duplicating criminal or civil ones. And, we have created a new legal bag of worms by renaming offenses such that you might get off on the civil or criminal action only to be retried for the same offense as a civil rights violation. The point is, our legal system occasionally forces juries to free the guilty or imprison the innocent because — although the case is too close to call — judges or peer pressure force juries to call it anyway. We are making jurors guess between extremes with no middle ground. Give them an out in the middle. The innocent need it for their freedom and society needs it for the guilty.

What can we do about Despicable Defense Tactics?


When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.

[_ _____ Marcus Tullius Cicero _]


Every profession has a goal based upon excellence — except law. Physicians work to restore health; engineers compare their finished product with the original plans to judge their success; musicians strive to perform according to the composers intentions for the further they stray from a score, the less successful they are perceived to be. Only at law is there a duty for practitioners — those whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law, order and justice — subvert their purpose by playing whatever games they can conjure up to win their case regardless of the justice of their cause. While conceding that a defense is necessary in our adversarial system, is there any reason to spot them points to do it?

Attorneys routinely browbeat witnesses into mush using a centuries old playbook of dubious practices. Since ancient times their trusty mudslinger has been the paralipsis — accusing someone of something by saying they would not accuse them of it, as in: “I wouldn’t dream of calling you a thief — but …” This technique’s cousin begins: “Is it not true that …” Which with a little though leads to other semantic nightmares.

Play a roll for a moment: You are the witness to a crime and, having testified for the prosecution, you gird your loins for the inevitable defense onslaught. Speaking in measured tones the jury cannot miss, the defense attorney begins: “Is it not true that you are a — [dramatic pause] — convicted murder?” The prosecutor jumps to their feet screaming an objection, the judge does back flips censuring the defense council who humbly replies, “I’m sorry your honor it just slipped out your honor . . . ” — what does the jury think? Cover up? Can they ever erase the question from their minds? Do they suspect you might actually be a felon with some arcane rule preventing its being mentioned?


This disgusting behavior is taught in law schools as: “you can’t un-ring a bell.”


Pick the most outrageous idiocy that comes to mind: “Is it not true that at 7:04 PM on August 23, 2002 you raped the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor before 1,328,571 onlookers? YES OR NO!” Dumb? Yet witnesses are accosted in this despicable manner every moment our courts are in session.


Found guilty, Bowman and Norman were sentenced from five to 15 years in prison, and their fecal mass attorney had his law license suspended indefinitely [1990] by the New York State Supreme Court. But such attorney punishment is rare, and it in no way unravels the damage done that led to that punishment. The victim’s torture at this disgusting trial will remain with her for life. And this is permitted because our legal system is dominated by those who thrive on power and ego while having no respect whatsoever for truth, justice or common decency. They see nothing immoral in this conduct for they make their living in this despicable manner by doing or say anything to win. And should you consider this an isolated case, read on:






At his arraignment, his attorney, Alyssa Gamliel, argued — in what I suspect is one of the strangest claims ever made in a courtroom — that there is no actual “proof” that the victim didn’t want to be set on fire!

And smearing your character such that the jury forgets your meaningful testimony while remembering only a lawyer’s baseless lies is the name of their game — and there’s nothing we can do about it — unless we empower juries to judge both lawyers and judges.


During the prosecutor’s closing arguments at one of Mafia boss, John Gotti’s trials, his lawyer shouted, “SPEAK UP! WE CAN’T HEAR YOUR LIES.”


After a jury is impaneled, but before the trial begins, legislatively require the bailiff to charge them:


Have state Attorney Generals keep the tallies with our media looking over their shoulders. And what do we do with the points? I thought you’d never ask:

In this corner: The despicable officer of the court. A hired gun who is highly trained, experienced, unscrupulous and probably a psychopath. A person paid to distort the truth with consummate skill, style and panache who will use any tactic to win while passing almost any lie detector test known including looking each juror straight in the eye. Or biased judges partisan to one side or the other.

On the other side, we have, The Jury: a mob chosen from a pool further boiled down by attorneys to better their chances of winning. It’s no contest from the start.



A kid broke into his school by climbing onto the roof, breaking a glass skylight, then dropping through the hole onto the pile of broken glass. Hurt by the fall and glass, he sued and won a million dollar settlement against the town! Why? Well, it seems the skylight was insufficiently lightednot safety glass — had no warning label that it would be dangerous to use as an illegal entrance, etc.

A kid wound up rich for a failed robbery. Why? As one juror said: “I don’t know how it happened. I don’t know how it happened. We looks [sic] like a goddamned bunch of fools, but it sounded so reasonable at the time.”




At William Kennedy Smith’s rape trial [December 1991] — yes, he’s a scion of the Kennedy clan — the prosecutor was a state employee and not one of the six jurors had a college degree. The defense council, on the other hand, used enough resources to justify a bill estimated at $1 million. Care to guess who won?




Where does this lead? 10 points a blue ribbon jury makes. Handicap attorneys accumulating 10 or more points for life. In jury trials, automatically grant their opponent an intelligent jury by giving them unlimited juror challenges for insufficient education.

Charlatans want the most average jury available and finding such juries is simple. Who monopolize jury pools? Retirees? The unemployed? The unemployable? But who else can take months or even years out of their lives to listen to the endless drivel we call a trial? The educated escape jury duty for the most trivial reasons because unethical lawyers don’t want them and use the trial’s expected length to get rid of them. But why should the guilty get off because they can afford a better actor / liar / lawyer than the state? Give justice a chance.

Attorneys accumulating 20 points in three years might have their license pulled for five years. Those accruing 30 points are disbarred for life. These are officers of our courts and who is better qualified to judge them than we?

LAW: Where did we go wrong?


Why would attorneys Melvin Belli and Richard Brown be fined $5,000 for filing a lawsuit on behalf of a client injured in the Dupont Plaza Hotel fire? Perhaps for failing to mention in their filing that their ‘injured’ client was dead and buried before the fire began. Or, as Federal Judge Raymond Acosta put it, “Before filing, Messrs. Belli and Brown failed to conduct any type of inquiry to a fundamental prerequisite for Mr. Andino’s claim — that he be alive.”


It takes 17 times as long to process an inheritance in the United States as it does in Great Britain — and costs 100 times as much.


We Americans spent $30 billion on damage lawsuits in 1986 — and collected less than half that amount. [Lawyers and court costs took the rest.]

[_ _____ Glenn Nishimura, Executive Director _]

HALT — Americans for Legal Reform


The founding principles of our civil law were: *FOR EVERY WRONG THERE IS A REMEDY,_ which were to _*MAKE THE INJURED PARTY WHOLE AGAIN. And all our civil law problems are the result of the American Bar’s deliberately destroying every facet of these principles.

America is the only nation on earth where the winner of a civil suit is routinely denied their legal fees as part of the settlement. Sounding so simple, this:


• Maximizes the legal fees in each case.

• Maximizes the number of cases going to trial

• Maximizes the need for lawyers

• Minimizes the importance of a case’s merits.

• Clogs court calendars

• Astronomically inflates insurance premiums

• Costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year in wasted time and fees while

• Making fraudulent billings by lawyers an un-provable theft.


Our judicial system has been wrecked from within and few even know about it because our schools — an adjunct of our lawyer driven state — have deliberately gone out of their way to avoid discussing it. Even lawyers tend to plead ignorance when asked specific questions about it. And how many realize that in a civil suit before a jury, the mere mention of legal fees is often sufficient reason for the opposition to ask for — and get — a mistrial? But how can you expect justice or to be made whole again — the very essence of any reasonable legal system — when legal fees — which frequently exceed the amount involved in the case — cannot be mentioned to the jury deciding the amount to be awarded?

While granting legal fees to the winner of a suit is the backbone of restoring justice to our civil courts, to grant legal fees opens the door to solving another legal nightmare — attorney’s bills. Something lawyers will fight to the death.


Clayton Zolber won a jury award of $67,244.55 for injuries he suffered in an accident. After deductions, legal fees, and medical expenses, he has ended up owing $8,000. His family has lost their house, “When you see this apartment, you see all the assets we have.” he says now. “We’ve got nothing more to lose.”

[_ _____ Glenn Nishimura, Executive Director _]

HALT – Americans for Legal Reform


Would this family have gone broke if the jury had been informed of their staggering legal bills in this suit?


When Eleanor Dunn died, the court-appointed lawyer refused to let the family handle funeral arrangements — and after two month’s “work,” sent them his bill for $14,272 — including $144 for attending the funeral. When the family protested, the lawyer added another $6,393 to the fee for his “work” in defending his original bill.

[_ _____ Glenn Nishimura, Executive Director _]

HALT – Americans for Legal Reform


And you wonder why lawyers worship their system? Because it maximizes their income by allowing each to determine how much their customer can pay and then delaying judgment until the poorer litigant’s money runs out. This generates at least twice the cash splitting only the losers wealth would permit. So how can delaying justice produce money?

If your court system routinely postpones cases 10 times before being heard — and that’s not in the least unusual — that’s 10 letters or phone calls your attorney will bill you for just to keep you informed of the delays and they are not billed at the usual rate and are frequently double or even triple billings for lawyers frequently have a “minimum billable time” element in their system. For instance, their minimum charge for a telephone call might be for 12 minutes or 1/5th of their hourly regular rate — meaning that saying anything more than “Hello” could cost over $100. Then there’s the other side of being screwed:

Suppose you’re in your lawyers office chatting and their phone rings. The moment they pick that phone up they are billing you and the caller. Suppose during your hour long visit they take five short calls. Result? They bill you for the full hour you didn’t get and the five phone calls at .2 hours each for another billable hour. They have billed for two hours in one 60 minute period. And if one phone call is interrupted by a second phone call such that they put the first caller on ‘hold,’ they wind up billing all three customers for the same time.


[_ You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. ____Al Capone _]


[_ Remember, a lawyer with a brief case can steal as much as a hundred men with guns. _____ The Godfather _].


[_ Mister, could you spare a quarter for a cup of coffee? All I have in the whole world is this little gun. _____ NYC Panhandler _]


Panhandlers use Smith & Wesson’s, lawyers use the snazzier, Due & Process. As a trial’s length has nothing to do with the case’s complexity, one way lawyers use to clean out clients is to talk and talk and talk. Or, as Martial noted over 2000 years ago:

My suit has nothing to do with assault, or battery, or poisoning, but is about three goats, which, I complain, have been stolen by my neighbor. This the judge desires to have proved to him; but you, with swelling words and extravagant gestures, dilate on the Battle of Cannae, the Mithridatic war, and the perjuries of the insensate Carthaginians, the Syllae, the Marii, and the Mucii. It is time, Postumus, to say something about my three goats!”


Postumus would be a senior partner in a prestigious law firm today.

Why do we allow such travesties to go on? Because when the shaman of law say, “Trust Me!” we do. Judges frequently threaten to cut legal fees, but rarely do, and why should they? Judges are mere cogs in a money making machine. Even their impotently objecting to the never ending waste of time only adds to the time wasted. Our legal practitioners make a fortune shoveling smoke and it’s unrealistic to think they would consider taking a pay cut for the sake of reason or justice.

Were this a jury trial and the suggested point system in place, would you expect that jury to assign points to this defense attorney? But there are cases where lawyers bill for doing nothing .

During August of 1986, Mary and Frank Miller went to a lawyer to have a simple agreement drawn up. On Saturday October 3, 1987, Frank Miller died. There is no hint that their lawyer did anything on the agreement during the intervening 14 months. The Thursday after Mr. Miller’s death: Mrs. Miller called their lawyer and discharged him. At month’s end she received his bill. He wanted $700 for four hours’ work — allegedly done the Saturday her husband died. She refused to pay and the Bar Association referred her case to fee arbitration. Their lawyer contended his four hours work was destroyed before his secretary could transcribe it. He couldn’t remember the terms of the agreement he said he’d worked on. The arbitrator ruled that Mrs. Miller owed the $700 for four hours work — to be reduced 5% — if she paid within 30 days.

Mary Miller wrote the Bar: “I find it very frightening that the State Bar of California can find ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that one of your colleagues had worked many expensive hours from no more than that lawyer’s unsubstantiated word.

After 14 months of doing nothing, do you think this lawyer started work on a Saturday — the day a man died making the agreement moot? Or, is it more likely that he billed for time never worked once he knew of Mr. Miller’s death? And did you catch his arrogant confidence? He didn’t even fake a document. Forget the document, hell he didn’t even think about what the alleged agreement might have contained if he had written it. Coming down to his word against a widow’s with another lawyer acting as judge, he knew he’d win. Justice?

Fees are what our legal system is about, and with each person paying their own, lawyers bills are un-auditable. A bill may list a never ending column of “.2 hours, review,” etc. That’s 12 minutes. What can a lawyer do for you in 12 minutes? Yet, you are expected to pay it without question. [When asked what they did in this time, one lawyer respond, “If I wrote everything I did down it would take twice as long and cost you twice as much. Take my word for it, it’s cheaper this way.”] Should you win a suit where the opposition paid, a review mechanism to limit fraud would be needed, but until then it’s you against them with other lawyers mediating and you lose.


From a report on The City of New York Bar Grievance Committee:


One typical case concerned a lawyer charged with falsifying documents, withholding client funds and lying about his fee. The lawyer had a long history of similar complaints, which had produced two official warnings and one formal charge of misconduct. Nevertheless, without even investigating the complaint, the committee dismissed it as a ‘fee dispute.’


In exceptions to this rule — such as divorces where the husband traditionally pays both fees — judges get around the ‘bill justification’ problem by asking the wife’s attorney what fee is requested. A fee awarded from the bench is elevated to a judicial decree sidestepping the lawyers’ notes answering the judge’s tacit question, “How much time?” Again, no peeking at the books.

Most professions have a Code of Ethics which addresses billing; and, while they vary, the bottom line is geared to fairness: that hours worked equal hours billed. Engineers, architects, physicians and on and on subscribe to such codes. Law alone ignores such a code, and does so with a vengeance. Yet, it would be so simple to fix. If we think of law as a trade such as plumbers or electricians, we merely have fee disputes reviewed by non lawyers such as accountants. What other trade is above appeal when it comes to billing? Or, how many criminals would be convicted if jurors were selected from a prison population?


An Even Better Way to Bill.


Would you use an accountant who charged 10% of your annual income to fill our your tax forms? How about having a coronary bypass by a surgeon saying, “Let’s see, that’ll saved your life so my fee for performing it will be 50% of your total assets.”? Yet, lawyers bill this way whenever they can because it maximizes their income. Called ‘contingency’ cases, they are justified by claiming they are the only way ‘poor’ people can afford justice as the lawyers are taking a risk in that they are paid nothing if the case is lost. Yet in accepting this faulty logic, society has given lawyers the right to raid our wallets via our insurance premiums, for lawyers do not take cases they are not sure will win.


Lawyers collect as much as $10,000 an hour — the actual fee a lawyer received in a case resulting from the DC10 crash at Chicago’s O’Hare airport in 1979. [His actual expenses for 35 hours work? $244.]

[_ _____ Glenn Nishimura, Executive Director _]

HALT — Americans for Legal Reform


On August 7, 1992, the American Broadcasting Company’s program, 20/20, contained a segment on liability suits against the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania transit system. In it, they mentioned a newspaper article describing a bus accident. Shortly thereafter, three law firms filed suit for ‘injuries’ sustained by 11 clients who said they were passengers on the bus. There was one tiny little problem: It never happened. It was an FBI sting amounting to nothing more than that small newspaper comment. Yet, anyone doing even the tiniest bit of research would have found that — at the spot noted in the newspaper as where the accident occurred — would have just left its garage and been empty. So brazen are these lying law firms.

Frivolous Suits

Who should pay in these real cases?


You can be bankrupted by suits so weird your wildest nightmare might not include them. Let’s start with attempted fraud. A common event.

You have some masonry work done and, on completion, pay the contracted amount in full. Later a bill shows up for work done “above and beyond the contract, $1800.” You refuse to pay and the mason / contractor sues. Congratulations. You have just been screwed by our legal system; respond or they win by default.

You see a lawyer, papers are filed, a court date is set and you have your day in court. IF the plaintiff shows up, you plead your case and win. But what have you won? Winning means you owe the contractor nothing — but you still have your attorney’s bill which is often more than the amount involved in the suit. If the plaintiff doesn’t show up, you win by default. Congratulations again! You save a little billing time.

The contractor presented you with a false bill believing you’d settle out of court because he knew you couldn’t win in court. Would this contractor sue knowing he’d pay your legal fees if he lost? And losing includes not showing up? Of course not. Making legal fees collectible as part of a settlement would eliminate countless frivolous suits, but don’t expect our legal system to allow it: two lawyers would be out fees. In this case the defendant won — if you call paying a $2400.00 legal bill to defend against an $1800 ‘claim’ winning. But it can get worse.

Suppose the lying contractor knows he can’t win and simply fails to appear in court? Now compare the costs! While your bill would still be about $2400 for having to play out our court system’s ritual, the contractor would only be out the few bucks he paid to file his small claims court forms. Not only are such plaintiffs thieves, our entire legal system is aiding, abetting and profiting with them in their thefts.






Judge Leander Perez not only owned Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, he once jailed two men without bail for tearing his picture off a ferryboat’s wall. It took four Louisiana Supreme Court judges to free them.

More than once the judge’s precincts voted in alphabetical order. And a close election might find his county generating 5,000 votes — when 3000 were registered to vote there. On slow count days — read, ‘How many votes do we need?’ — voters were known to include Charlie Chaplin, Charlie McCarthy and the occupants of entire cemeteries. Not surprisingly, when these votes were challenged in court — HIS COURT — he found nothing irregular about them. Pennsylvania Senator, Hugh Scott, said of this, “Louisiana has the best government money can buy.”




Mark Alan Sankey ran a red light in a Tacoma, Washington suburb and struck a car killing three people. He was found guilty of negligent homicide.


Earl Deyette’s pickup truck crossed the center line on a Tacoma bridge to strike an oncoming car killing two teenagers. He pleaded guilty to negligent homicide.


On December 19, 1977, a Pierce County, Washington Superior Court judge sentenced Sankey to ten days in jail and 200 hours of community service. The next day, a different judge in the same court room sentenced Earl Deyette to ten years in prison.


Let’s see, ten years for one, ten days for the other? Like monks with their noses buried in their texts too long, our judges have taken to hallucinating between the lines of our laws and charters. The Supreme Court in particular has taken on the luster of a crap game; a sort of Las Vegas on the Potomac. Still, it may be better than arrogance.

As these and the other cases I’ve presented obviously show — psychopaths have not only entered our judiciary — in many places — they run it; and to accept such decisions is to abandon reason for the English language as it is used by elected bodies to write our laws does not exist in courts where psychopaths rule.




In the mid 1950’s, nine white men were convicted of bombing several Negro’s homes in McComb, Mississippi. But, rather than the death penalty mandated *by law,] _the judge sentenced them to probation because they had been [“unduly provoked.”]_] Mostly by civil rights workers the judge described as, [“of low morality and unhygienic.”*]


Was this judge an intelligent professional reaching a sound legal conclusion based on fact? Or an idiot that fell out of a smoke filled room after an incestuous dalliance between a bunch of scummy lawyers and politians? But perhaps even more troubling is the fact that almost anyone can become a lawyer and almost any lawyer can become a judge.

Could a convicted rapist go from a prison cell to a medical school classroom? No physician I’ve ever asked thought so. But could a convicted bank robber? Not only do felons move from jail cells to prestigious law schools’ classrooms, they do it all the time.


After being detained or arrested some 30 times, Ms. Katya Komisaruk moved directly from a federal prison into a Harvard Law School classroom. She chose Harvard after being accepted by such other hot-shot schools as Stanford and U. of Cal. at Berkeley. Of its 5715 applicants that year, Harvard chose her to be one of the 410 admitted.


Some play God in determining what the law means regardless of what it says.


* The Crucifixion of Max Hardcore

[_ https://www.Shakespir.com/books/view/316239_]



January 2, 2014: In a unanimous ruling, California’s Supreme Court upheld an October, 2013, statute allowing illegal immigrants who came to this country as children the right to practice law in that state. The bill passed the legislature with broad support noting: “We conclude there is no state law or state public policy that would justify precluding undocumented immigrants, as a class from obtaining a law license in California,” so wrote Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye for the court.

Which it to say, FORGET FEDERAL LAW which bars professional licenses from being given to illegals, we the judges of California are smarter than the Feds.

Yet, each and every on of these asses has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof when they picked up their licenses to practice law, and again when they became judges. But what psychopath cares a fig about an oath? Think the Clintons, the Obamas, Nixon . . .






Appointed a Florida’s sixth judicial circuit judge in 1960, he survived impeachment by the Florida House of Representatives [1963] and an investigation by the Judicial Qualifications Commission [1968]. But, reviewing his “weird, capricious and arbitrary” conduct on the bench, led some to think he might be nuts. So our hero had himself examined by the Duke University physicians and . . .

After 14 years as a judge, he was elected to the House of Representatives [1974] as a Republican describing himself as the only judge or member of Congress formally declared sane. But he was also a crook as proven by his conduct in the FBI Abscam sting operation to catch outspread palms.

Kelly had a great excuse for taking the FBI’s money and spending it: he said he’d been running his own undercover operation and had to spend some of the loot to maintain his cover! Kelly was so dumb, some colleagues actually believed him.

Defeated for reelection [1980], he initially won a reprieve when the trial judge, threw out the jury’s Abscam verdict. But an appeals court reinstated his conviction and he spent 13 months in jail.




It seems he took this priceless garment to Washington, D.C.’s Custom Cleaners, and when he went to pick them up, claimed the pants they presented weren’t his — even though the cleaners’ records, tags, and Pearson’s own receipt all said they were. He then demanded that Custom Cleaner’s pay him what — in his opinion — the pants were worth — $1,000! The establishment’s owners — Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y — said, “NO!” And with that, Judge Jackass dropped his big bucks suit in the hopper:

The judge hearing this absurd case said it should go to trial because there were questions about the pants ownership, and the signs outside the cleaners saying, “Same Day Service” and, “Satisfaction Guaranteed,” which Pearson declared, misleading.

With their legal bills piling up, the Chungs tried buying off Judge Stupid: First with $3000, then $4600, and finally, $12,000 — and numb-numb rejected them all. Learning of these offer’s refusal, the trial judge said, “the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith.” Yah think? But while resolving some of the issues in the Chungs’ favor, the judge refused to dismiss the case.

Now, Pierson reduced his demands by $13,000,000 to the ever so much more reasonable sum of $54,000,000. But — at the same time — he added $500,000 in ‘attorney’s fees’ — work he’d done for himself — $2,000,000 for “discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress” — oh those fantastic pants! — and $15,000 for the rental of a car to take him to a different dry cleaner!

Now it’s OUCH time! You see, our hero expected his probationary judgeship to end with a ten-year appointment as an Administrative Law Judge. But after looking into this suit, those reviewing his case thought he lacked the, “judicial temperament,” for the appointment and rejected it.

Having blown a $100,512 a year job over a pair of pants, the now thoroughly pissed Pearson sued again! And who did he sue this time? Why those turning down his appointment of course! Claiming he’d been wrongfully dismissed, he demanded $1,000,000 for lost wages and punitive damages. Oh, yes, he also wanted his job back. That too was dismissed. Now back to our hapless drycleaner:

At the trial, the Chungs’ attorney portrayed Pearson as the bitter and broke pest that he was. And Pearson admitted that he’d only had $1,000 — 2,000 in the bank when he initiated the Chungs’ suit, and now — having lost his judgeship — he was on unemployment. So touching was this testimony that at one point, he broke down in tears; a recess had to be called.

The court’s ruling: Dry cleaner 10, Idiot, zip. The court then took note of Pearson’s divorce proceedings where he’d been levied $12,000 for “creating unnecessary litigation and threatening both his wife and her lawyer with disbarment.

Yup, old numb-nuts sued again. He filed a motion for the case to be reconsidered because the judge had “committed fundamental legal errors” in failing to address his claims, and that the court had imposed its own interpretation of ‘satisfaction guaranteed’ rather than Pearson’s belief that it was an offer of “unambiguous and unconditional” satisfaction. Motion denied.

He appealed to a three-judge D.C. Court of Appeals panel: Denied.

He filed to be heard by the entire nine-judge D.C. Court of Appeals: Denied.

His final option — a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court — he blew by missing the 90-day filing period.

This case was so asinine the Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, took to calling it, “The Great American Pants Suit,” and to Pearson as, “Judge Fancy Pants.”

Fortune Magazine added it to its “101 Dumbest Moments in Business” of 2007, and listed it as “Exhibit 1” in its 2008 article “9 Insane Cases that Prove the US Legal System Is Screwed.”

Citing financial losses etc., the emotionally drained Chungs announced that they’d sold the dry cleaning shop involved in the dispute. [9/19/07] Yet — as far as I can tell — this miserable excuse for a human being is still practicing law.





Walter Louis Nixon Jr. became a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Mississippi [1968] until [1982] seniority made him that court’s Chief Judge. But 1989, found him impeached and convicted of perjury. Refusing to resign, Nixon continued to collect his judicial salary while in jail until legislatively removed from office.

But with so many lawyers crooks, they’ve made revoking law licenses nearly impossible. Thus, when he left prison, he simply returned to private practice — until he was disbarred in 1990 that is.

Appealing to the Mississippi State Supreme Court gained him a ruleing [1993] that, he’d be readmitted to the bar if he passed the exam again. He did, and when last heard of he lives and practices in Biloxi.

Impeached — convicted of perjury — serving time in jail — it seems that nothing a lawyer does can stop their going back to lying for a living.


Alcee Hastings was a judge in Broward County, Florida’s Circuit Court from 1977 until promoted to a Judgeship for the Southern District of Florida in 1979. But 1981, found him charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe leading to his being hit with a 21 count indictment for racketeering and perjury in his testimony about the case. He was only acquitted [1983] when his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify.

In 1988, the Democratically controlled House of Representatives, in a very rare move against a fellow democrat, impeached Hastings for both bribery and perjury. He was convicted [1989] and removed from office, but the Senate deliberately failed to ban him from holding a federal office. So good old Alcee has served as Florida’s 20th congressional district representative in Congress since 1993. So how does this intellectual titan fare in the House?




The Glorious Illogic We Call “The Law!”


How dumb are lawyers? Well, they came up with this which is so far beyond the pale I tend to think of it as, “Law’s Crowning Jewel of Stupid.” So dumb law schools go out of their way to avoid mentioning it. For, unbelievable as it may sound, every word that follows is true. You see, at its foundation, law is little more than a quagmire of illogical concoctions regularly re-brewed to make money for lawyers, and none was ever more illogical than our Supreme Court’s findings on our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The 13th Amendment freed the slaves; the 15th gave those freed the vote; and between these, the 14th established those freed slaves’ basic civil rights and adjusted our Constitution to take them into account as full citizens in determining how many House members each state would have; and there isn’t a shred of evidence in the documentation surrounding the 14th Amendment’s writing and adoption that suggests its having any other purpose. Yet, it begins: “All persons born …” and the genius’ of our Supreme Court screwed it up before getting past word three.


I include this curious gadfly because, of all the twisted minds our legal system has produced over the years, this gem has changed America more than almost any other while being almost totally forgotten. Come on guys! Let’s give, “The Great Bamboozler.” a big hand!!!

Twice, this gadfly turned down appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he accepted a seat on the committee writing the 14th amendment which was written, debated, and ratified on July 9, 1868. Its wording was liked by some, hated by others, and obvious to all until 1882 when this same fellow appeared before our high court to conger up an argument so strange that, to this day, it boggles the mind.

Quoting extensively from the committee creating the amendment’s journal, he proposed that those writing the 14th amendment had specifically used the word ‘person’ in the preamble to include corporations!

In a book anyone with even the slightest pretensions of being a legal scholar should own, *Everyman’s Constitution*‬: Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment, Howard Jay Graham has written:


The theory thus presupposes that the drafters assumed what was really an extraordinary viewpoint: it endows them with remarkable insight and perspicacity … the theory ignores the fact that “person” was really the term employed in the Fifth Amendment, the phraseology of which Bingham [the committee secretary] simply copied.

Not only does it appear as a result of such inquiry that Conkling suppressed pertinent facts and misrepresented others, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he deliberately misquoted the Journal and even so arranged his excerpts as to give listeners a false impression of the record and of his own relation thereto.

The whole argument, in fact, is found to be little better than a shell of inference built up in the course of attempting proof of inconsequential points. Not one but both of his major propositions collapse under weight of facts which he himself cited. Misquotation, equivocal statements, and specious distinctions suggest an inherently weak case — even point toward deliberate fabrication of arguments.


What Mr. Graham and others have forgotten, is that the phrase, legal reasoning, is an oxymoron: for legal reasoning is to reasoning what mud wrestling is to the Fine Arts. Reasoning reaches conclusions based on all of the facts of a situation without contradiction. But our courts tend to reason backwards and by halves: First, they decide how they’ll rule on a question: THEN they dip into that vast morass of previous court decisions to pick, choose and alter as necessary to write a justification of their decision while ignoring anything not agreeing with their preconceived notions. [They alter by selective editing which is a book in itself.] And when our Supreme Court does this, the first thing they ignore is our Constitution, for having left the world of logic to enter the realm of dogma — statements based on nothing — why consider returning to a dusty old parchment limiting their power?

Our founding charters clearly spell out how our elected representatives may enact laws and how the people can change both the laws and the elected officials. BUT NOWHERE is there even a hint of our courts having been given the power to write laws by reading into enacted legislation that which is not there.

In the case of the 14th Amendment, Congress could have defined the word ‘persons’ any time they chose. But knowing Congress would never buy such specious arguments, Conkling used the Supreme Court as a legislative backdoor to silence the will of the people and their elected officials by going around them.

Today, all of American corporate existence rests on our high court’s accepting the laughable logic of Roscoe Conkling to misread one word, in the preamble of a civil rights amendment. And if our courts are so stupid as to allow these simple words to be read this obtusely, one might ask: why bother having a Constitution or Supreme Court at all?

The 14th Amendment is given in full at the end of this appendix, and if you can find an AT&T or IBM in it, you are definitely law school material.

In a 1992 televised debate on abortion, Federal District Judge Robert Bork was asked why our Supreme Court consistently ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments when dealing with such subjects. “They’ve [_th and 10^th^ Amendments] been a dead letter since the New Deal,” he replied, and one might ask: “On whose authority?” You see, our Supreme Court justices have talked themselves into believing that the Constitution — which they are sworn to uphold, protect and defend — no longer exists except at their whim. And where has this absurd new dictionary lead? To a judiciary building on its own mistakes while deliberately avoiding first principles. And like every other group that has self-appointedly become the keeper of a sacred text, they have bent it to fit their needs, whims and desires of the moment.

As former Texas, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen Gardner put it: “It’s [law] our game. We made up the rules. They might not make sense to everybody else, but they make sense to lawyers. Someone who is up against a lawyer is always going to get the short end of the stick.” And our answer to the Stephen Gardners of this world might be the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini:


One must avoid praying when one feels an urge to urinate,

defecate or when one is wearing socks that are too tight.”

[This is a real quote and I simply had to squeeze it in somewhere!]


So why did Conkling want this aberrant interpretation of the 14th Amendment? Well, it seems that if corporations could be made human enough, they could do such things as go bankrupt which would certainly help some of his friends wriggle off the hook on some rather nasty financial problems and …


REMEMBER: If they tell you it’s NOT about money: IT’S ABOUT MONEY!




Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Please note that nowhere in this document do you find the words: “And the courts shall have the right to interpret this amendment until it becomes hysterically funny.”


The Black’s I.Q. Problem



Africa is more noted for the violence and viciousness of its inhabitants than their intellect. Hence, few Africans equal our nation’s average IQ and almost none exceed it. This is substantiated by the stupid people Blacks consistently elect when in the majority. Take


Sheila Jackson Lee

[b. 1/12/50]

This idiot has represented Texas’s 18th congressional district, which includes most of Houston’s solidly Black inner-city, since 1996. Her memorable lines include blunders in almost every subject brought up in the House.




1920: The 19^th^ Amendment banned voter discrimination based on sex.

Jeannette Pickering Rankin ®

1880 — 1973

The first state giving women the franchise was Wyoming in 1890 when, to meet the voter requirement to enter the union, women were added to the voters roles. [Although originally Wyoming females were limited to voting in local elections]

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Montana quickly followed with Montana electing the first woman, Jeannette Pickering Rankin, ® to congress in 1916.

Elected to the House in 1916, she was one of 50 members to vote against our entering WWI. But one House term was enough for her saying, “I may be the first woman member of Congress but I won’t be the last.”

She ran for the Senate in 1918 and lost keeping her out of office until 1941 when she returned to the House to be its only member voting against our entering WWII. This made her so unpopular she became the only member in history needing an armed escort to take their seat. She explained this with the immortal line, “You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.” Among her later gems were, “If I had my life to live over, I would do it all again, but this time I would be nastier.”



From page 25


Chicago Law Prof on Obama: “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified & never attended the faculty meetings”

The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings”:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

This photo of Barack Obama teaching in Chicago was posted in February 2008 at PrestoPundit. In this class Barack Obama was teaching his students the principles of Saul Alinsky. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”):
The heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads “RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign.

Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama was teaching students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles.

Of course, this is not a surprise. After watching the bribes, kickbacks, lies and threats this past year as Democrats fought to take over the health care industry, it’s obvious that the only subject Obama excels at is Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.

More… Isn’t it a bit odd that the only photo we’ve seen of Obama teaching, he’s explaining the Alinsky principles?




Has America Become TOO STUID TO SURVIVE?

  • Author: Arthur W. Ritchie
  • Published: 2016-03-28 18:20:35
  • Words: 17065
Has America Become  TOO STUID TO SURVIVE? Has America Become  TOO STUID TO SURVIVE?