So interesting was the seminar that we have not been this intellectually stimulated since our days at university. Today most of us here at TCT were treated to a conference given by experts in their respected fields of discipline – all of which agreed to the notion that – in their lifetimes they have not witnessed such a left-leaning liberal bias in the main-stream media.

One of the first examples they used was apparently from 60 Minutes aired this past Sunday night (September 23, 2012) where Barack Obama openly admitted that he accepted the notion of, “…a few more bumps in the road…” within the same reference as the terrorists attacks in Libya, Egypt, and other areas where an American Ambassador and two Navy Seals were murdered.

A lot of time was spent on this profane subject insofar as the incidents clearly lacked adequate support on the anniversary of 9_11_01; furthermore, when attention waned to the moment of President Obama making his presence on the television show The View rather than giving full attention to the president of Egypt, who just happens to be a member of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood who are getting quite uppity about $1.6 billion dollars in military aid sent to them for free (same as 20 years ago).

Much of the focus was directly on the main-stream media who continues to bleed ink onto their front pages about anything that Romney could possibly do, whilst at the same time for what the president openly admitted to never reached a paper!

For Black America A Time For Choosing: Belief In The Democrat Party Or Belief In God’s Laws

The following line of stories were discretionately collected from around the Internet that we feel are worth the time and energy to read.
Democrats have had a war against African-Americans for 200 years. The Democrat Party’s most notable “Founding Father” was Aaron Burr a man who plotted with Democrat Andrew Jackson to steal the Louisiana Territories to break them up and make new slave states out of them.

James Polk a Democrat President actually traded in slaves while he was president and fired the permanent civil service staff so he could have his slaves wait on him in our White House. Through the years Democrats have picked up guns to maintain slavery and formed the Klu Klux Klan to keep freed slaves in virtual bondage after they were freed.

Health Insurance Premiums Surge Despite Obama’s Promise To Cut Them

Health insurance premiums have shot up by more than $3,000 per family in the past four years — despite Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to reduce them by $2,500.
The cost of the average policy has risen by $3,065 since then-candidate Obama made his pledge, an Investor’s Business Daily survey reveals. They have gone up by $2,370 since he entered the White House in 2009.
“What’s more, premiums climbed faster in Obama’s four years than they did in the previous four under President Bush, the survey data show,” the Daily reports.

The newspaper says that Obama promised in February 2008, “We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president.” He made similar promises throughout the campaign. (Read more at News Max.)

Whose Side Is Barack Obama On?

If this video is seen by enough voters, it will do what the Romney Campaign has been unable to do — take down Barack Obama. Any rational American who sees this clip will not vote for Obama.



Freedom of speech demands Political Correctness..?

Freedom of speech demands Political Correctness..?

Mayor Peter Swiderski addressed a letter to the entire village of Hastings on Hudson, New York, making clear his conviction that facts which offend the sensibilities of the left must be condemned as “deplorable, hateful and morally repugnant” as they do not “reflect the ideals of [the] community or…of [the] nation.”

That would be good and well enough said when addressing an entire national audience. But no, this typical politician continued to talk and therefore left it without addressing the issues.

At issue to the mayor is an ad placed on a series of billboards in Westchester County, Metro-North stations by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The ad states that there have been “19,250 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01 and counting,” and continues on with the fact that, “It’s not Islamophobia, it’s Islamorealism.”

Oddly enough, Mayor Swiderski does not question the truth of the group’s claim. Rather, like so many dhimmis, which translated means “the people of the dhimma or people of the contract”) is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with Sharia law, across the country, he simply finds it disgraceful to “tar a faith and its followers because of the actions of a few.” (A-hem.) Remarkable how viciously active those “few” are, given 19,250 attacks took place even though the Mayor’s contends that “…the vast majority of believers in [Islam] (and all other) major religions, embrace peace and do not endorse the violence wrought by [those] fanatic few.”

We’d like to remind the ostensibly clueless mayor that his example of a few (19,000 plus) is an oxymoron. Furthermore, although his heart may be in the right spot, he his further hurting his and Islamic causes by coming out with disinformation.

The executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative is Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs fame. It was a series of anti-Israel billboards and kiosks that inspired Geller to begin the “Islamorealism” campaign in the Westchester Metro stations. Sponsored by Henry Clifford, co-chairman of the Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine, the ads “… featured maps of Israel from 1946 through 2010 focusing on the expansion of Israel at the expense of Palestinians.”

Neither Mayor Swiderski nor members of the Hastings on Hudson, Board of Trustees took offense at the anti-Israel postings. Apparently none of these pillars of the Westchester community consider attacks on the Jewish state to be either “deplorable” or offensive to “the ideals of the community!” And this notion we feel is very, very poor indeed.

Geller responded to claims about the inappropriate nature of her group’s advertisements by stating, “Jihadists worldwide make recruits among peaceful Muslims by portraying themselves as the exponents of true Islam. Rather than being offended by my ads, Muslims who genuinely oppose jihad should be joining me to fight against it and challenge the jihadist interpretation of Islam.” Not surprisingly, she was ignored by the left as its members pressed their attack. We hate to admit it…but this is the way of those renegade factions with a mobocracy mind-set.

“Apparently, after legal review, this ad did not qualify as hate speech and falls under First Amendment protection,” moaned Mayor Swiderski as he provided Westchester residents with the name and address of the Metro-North chairman. Beseeching his offended townspeople to complain to the chairman about Geller’s unacceptable use of her 1st Amendment rights, Swiderski made it clear his interpretation of free speech rights mirrors that of every other liberal. That is, say something with which I agree and I’ll not consult with attorneys about your despicable example of hate speech!

And rightfully so…we fail to see where information rendered on facts amounts to anything but the truth – and therefore is not hate speech. Furthermore, we firmly engage in the notion that pursuant to the 14th amendment there have been far too many issues that involve misplaced hate and protected classes of people. Even as we write this article we are listening to how Janet Napolitano is now giving “protected status” to Syrians.

All in all, just another example of the true American spirit brought to us by the dimmest of New England!

How by having an unclear separation of powers is the liberty of the people lost?

How by having an unclear separation of powers is the liberty of the people lost?


We are not in the position of telling people how they feel insofar as who are we to know what someone else may be living? Moreover, when we look at the certifiable travesties of life and then compare or contrast how people react to them, then we must endure our humanity and use empathy and hopefully feel for that person who may be suffering.

Much hullaballoo has been made about the recent boycott versus appreciation day for Chick-Fil-A; this is a response to a stimulus made by mayors of two different cities with the compilation of a string of personal abuses going on at the hands of our own government.

When it becomes common knowledge that critical intelligence leaks are coming from the White House there is a cause for shaky national security much the same as 15 million people crossing your borders with help and assistance from again, the White House.

It should not take anyone to long to figure out that the real abuse is in the form of squeezing the human rights out of those who stand up for and those who are Americans. Therefore how do you feel lately as your rights are being squandered, limited, or abused?

Invariably or so it seems that immediately we need to look at the symptom, identify it, then go about treating it to ensure that it will never happen again. Based on this model of diagnosis tracking, the symptoms appear to be manifest in an apathetic nation based on its economy; with sustained periods of unemployment, moreover, not being able to find a job people begin to look at those who are given over to “Stimulus packages” and call them the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and go on about their day conspiring ways to increase more government spending. Okay one problem has been identified; how then do we prepare to treat it?

At this point folks – this is where we find the ugliest forms of human nature that could possibly be enacted by individuals or more precisely, an individual.

Our first thought was, we should ask ourselves what it is about having separation of powers that allegedly ensures good government and prevents tyranny.

The separation of powers helps to ensure good government at the same time it guards against tyranny. Independent in function but coordinated in the pursuit of justice, the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—must each have enough power to resist the encroachment of the others, and yet not so much that the liberty of the people is lost.

Unfortunately we need to ask our reader’s if this institutional design of separation is working. As for our input, No! We do not feel as though the independent branches of government are doing nearly enough to stop a particular branch of abusing its powers.

When you are feeling neglected or your government is not responding the way that it should – look around if only for an instant – and in most cases it will be either protection from the potential encroachments of the other branches, or in the House it very well could be other members of your party or another party creating factions within the same house. The Majority Leader of the Senate Senator Harry Reid comes to the forefront of our minds.

This institutional design allows the sovereign people to observe and to know which branch is responsible for which actions in order to hold each to account. The sense of mutual responsibility built into the separation of powers is a reflection of the moral and civic responsibility all Americans share.

As for us, the sooner that Americans begin to take hold – firmly of their rights, responsibilities, and giving back – indeed more than we are taking into account, the shaky and undetermined future of America rests with those who involve themselves in self-government.

However, and as we all know this is not happening within the United States government now or certainly for the last almost four years. The executive branch will not even attempt to work with the legislative branch and vice-versa. The dear president feels that what he had to do to get his universal health care — Obamacare — passed into law…well, we’d all feel pretty guilty about the way it was done. And insofar as the legislative houses want to desperately cut spending everything they’re sent to the executive has been denied or vetoed.

This is where it gets very interesting – the potential encroachments of the other branches, or in the House it very well could be other members of your party or another party creating factions within the same house, mentioned earlier becomes clearly recognizable.

We find ourselves lately torn by how President Barak Obama has placed himself above the law and has decided to begin making new ones that are more conducive to his style. In a nutshell the problem is he does not have the authority to do these things without having the law-makers – Congress – those representatives who are supposed to putting the need of their constituents above this type of rubbish. It only gets worse from here…

So much more tomorrow…


Caught in the act…trying to use “Special Rights”

How many times have you witnessed us waning on the side of caution when matters pursuant to freedom of speech start getting batted around like a the October Classic in baseball. And in this situation it only gets worse.

Perhaps Rahm Emanuel took his duties as the President’s Chief-of-Staff and really started believing that he was in the know – or in fact believed he was making a difference in his friend’s business of wreaking the entire United States. Bexause in the right scope of things he’s doing the exact same thing to Chicago.

Ladies and gentlemen we are here to offer our little rebuttal of the abuses of the First Amendment. Sure it says, “Congress shall make no law  respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  That of course is the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. There is also the Freedom of Speech and of the Press that says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” However, here’s our little, yet extremely important treatise when it comes down to people talking.

It should be remembered quite well that the entire way in which the Amendment is construed is a two-way street. Therefore, let’s each one of us critically think with copious amounts of dedicated reflection before our mouths become unseasoned as it were, lacking both consistency and old fashioned manners. Both Chicago and Boston are deciding to boycott new franchises – of new businesses in their cities – and for what? Because of what a person said? He has the freedom to do that! Or perhaps both of these wing nuts are taking their cues from the White House itself.

Chicago and Boston might want to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities but that doesn’t mean they have the right to do so, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Chick-fil-A President, Dan Cathy’s, recent comments supporting the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman has led to calls by gay rights advocates to boycott the chain. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have recently promised to stop further expansion of the restaurants in their cities. Emanuel weighed in after Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he intends to block the chain from opening its second Chicago location because of Cathy’s remarks.

Legal experts said the cities’ push to stop Chick-fil-A doesn’t stand a chance because barring Chick-fil-A over the personal views of its owner is an “open and shut” discrimination case, Fox News reported.

We find it extremely interesting that blurb about an “open and shut” discrimination case. This is precisely where Barack Obama has run into more trouble than he’s worth. We believe that Fox News is maintaining their position that the owner of Chick-fil-A was merely stating an interpretation of what the Bible has already said. It would be appropriate for one to assume that the legal experts at Fox News were implying that the minute that either Chicago and/or Boston are prepared to bring evil to a man for speaking his mind is not only a crime against his First Amendment guarantee; but also it would pare off the polarization and literally bring faction versus faction.

Moreover at issue here is more of a prosecutorial matter against the words a human being used to simply state an opinion – something that both people and the media – have a right to do within reason.
Yet there does seem to be more involved than that of “Biblical definition.” Several of our cohorts are asserting plain and simple foul play by these mayors of Chicago and Boston. Furthermore, they seem to be inciting the choir as it is; what we’re trying to establish is the notion that if something – Anything – that doesn’t serve the liberal agenda or wondering why this or that faction is crying “boycott! and foul play…” certainly gives rise to the notion of whether or not those involved with them are as committed as they would want anyone to know, or otherwise.

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”

Lastly if on the other side of the road, as it were, if a person or group of people merely stated something — along the lines of which these gay rights advocates have initiated —  and fired the first shot do they even think about the ramifications that might, and we mean might, could come to bear on them? And yes! We are suggesting that the extremist liberal right is more than used too receiving “Special Rights” that without reason or otherwise serve to advance their agenda.

Why not just sit it out and let the Government think for us..?

Because like it or not that is what is precisely going on in our country. Our government has maneuvered itself into every aspect of our lives; moreover, they’ve even suggested or even regulated what we should be doing. Let’s look at the “through no fault of their own” syndrome.

When it comes right down to the ideals of Comprehensive Immigration Reform we readily admit that there are some issues that either by hook or crook or unforeseen disingenuous circumstances haven’t even been given a thought. Well one might ask, what is the difficulty now? Actually it is an identifiable symptom that has been here forever, and that unchanging.

As we look at the public education system in this country; moreover, the lack of certain life skills that an individual needs to live as reasonable and as prosperous as they are able to do, we foresee this aspect as potentially one of our greatest resources – once people can speak freely without threat or regulation that dictates otherwise.

The reason we were alarmed at the public education system and its failure to educate even the most essential skills has indeed cornered us into a most heinous, unethical, and lack of moral turpitude that stymies even those with thinking skills. Therefore, seeing that moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals…” we would appeal to anyone the following notion:

How and even why is it that at the end of the academic year we see high school graduates in a colorful array of regalia holding signs that read, “What Now or What do we do now?” Make no mistake about it, we have always been offended by these colorful sign carriers insofar as they seem to be asking, “…okay now what do I do…”

Here is our problem with this out of control mess. Has the U.S. federal government put so many regulations a la the Fourteenth Amendment and protected status so as to inhibit educators, teachers, administrators, and especially counselors from being able to make inquiry and assist these potential victims. Or has it been a situation of willful discrimination to hold these students back from their aspiring dreams because the government wants them to be dependent upon them?

We would agree that to do nothing in their plight is unethical and simply wrong. Indeed going this far into history imitating an ostrich with its head in the sand regarding a dysfunctional immigration program is about as inhumane and morally crude as anyone could ever be.

Therefore, all of immigration reform policy should be dedicated to these potential victims. Two things about loyalty I can’t seem to ever forget, nor do I want too: If we educators took some time and mentioned available options to their students is very much like the ancient Chinese proverb that states “…Buy someone a fish sandwich to eat…you have purchased the person a meal; however, by teaching that same person how to fish… you feed him for a lifetime.” Therefore, knowing at the limited amount of time, say 1986 up to now in 2012 or 26 – years has created a dependency problem for the child immigrant and average American taxpayer albeit local and federal taxation.

Now insofar as the federal government and or their parties of representation want or seem to want nothing to do with it — working toward improving America’s hopeless immigration problems — wouldn’t it therefore be equitable to legislate some kind of program where the Democrat or the Republican Party national foundations should be assisting to exonerate America from this problem? Look at what has been spent thus far on the election per individual: Barack Obama has spent approximately $200 million whereas Mitt Romney has spent around $150 million. Since the last amnesty granted by President Reagan — 26 years ago — there have been 2 Republican presidents for a total of 12 years; likewise we have had 2 Democrat presidents for a total of 12 years and one Democrat president whose granted amnesty again for about 1.5 million people.

And by a huge measure far worse because one either inherits a quasi-literate person dependent upon the federal government for entitlements, or, copious amounts of extra crime, discontent, and civil disobedience.
Somewhere and somehow one must come to the conclusion that this mess needs to be eradicated immediately. The way that it is now the government has created intergenerational dependence which is never acceptable and gets more costly.

And from this point it only gets worse. Hasn’t anyone ever asked a person who is illegally in the country at the behest of their parents; “So what have you done to straighten out this type of problem you’re in? Have you gone to see a school counselor? Have you spoken with your parents about it? Have you made independent inquiry from the government and its trusty bureaucratic agencies like, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)? How about ICE or Border Patrol Agents? Why not ask the Department of Homeland Security?

Well we have! Primarily because it is hard for us to understand how or why anyone could leave at least 75% of their lifetime totally up for grabs. Or would we be better off with the attitude of “…okay you’ve finished high school, now go back to your country of origin…”

We believe that with the intervening federal government into every aspect of an individual’s life – including, but certainly not limited too – questions that can be asked versus those that can’t be asked; no level-headed educator wants to get sued for asking someone they’re trying to assist with the hereafter high school dilemma…oh but they will!

And please…we published an earlier article that suggested the availability of parental assistance with the notion that these children who are in America as “no fault of their own” rather because of what their parents did we would like to suggest a quid pro quo scenario. (Please click here for much needed reading!)

The Way in which it was done…

We are positive that anyone who frequents this site is well aware of just how many articles we’ve produced – not placing judgment about Obamacare – more so we are appalled at the way the bill was passed by the House of Representatives, and then the ever-present wheeling and dealing that resembled the Chicago mob, and even the pettiest back-door deal making in the Senate although, we were promised the exact opposite would occur.

I vividly remember how America was being portrayed by the international media whilst wondering to what further lengths the government in charge would go to in order to see this smoldering excrement of a bill get passed.

In the House deals and negotiations were made with The United States Council of Catholic Bishops, which in short once the support of Catholics was given, then the unwritten bill began taking on new clauses regarding state paid abortions and especially the violations of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion statute. At any rate we started long ago trying to keep tabs on just how and why our country – and virtually every sector that comprises her – were faced with some kind of grief. The following is just a brief synopsis to date:

PROMISE: Candidate Obama Pledged All Health Care Negotiations Would Be Televised On C-SPAN. OBAMA: “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies – they’ll get a seat at the table … But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” (For further reading click here.)

Furthermore, as reported by the then candidate Barack Obama spewed some ridiculous figures about who was to receive various monies for their own state coffers. Moreover, this deal making process provides an additional $8.5 billion over the next decade for 11 states and the District of Columbia to help them pay for the more generous Medicaid assistance they have been providing low-income residents. These states are Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

BROKEN: PolitiFact Rates This Promise Broken: “Obama promised — repeatedly — an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn’t delivered. Instead of open talks of [sic] C-SPAN, we’ve gotten more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there’s a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken.” (For further reading click here.)

Obama And His Advisers Brokered “Behind The Scenes” Deals To Pass Health Care Reform. “In pursuing his proposed overhaul of the health care system, President Obama has consistently presented himself as aloof from the legislative fray, merely offering broad principles. Prominent among them is the creation of a strong, government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers and press for lower costs. Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and his advisers have been quite active, sometimes negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president’s rhetoric.” (David D. Kirkpatrick, “Obama Is Taking An Active Role In Talks On Health Care Plan,” The New York Times, 8/13/09)

Health Industry Lobbyists Negotiated With Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) as well as The Obama Administration “In Tandem.” “Hospital industry lobbyists, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House, say they negotiated their $155 billion in concessions with Mr. Baucus and the administration in tandem. House staff members were present, including for at least one White House meeting, but their role was peripheral, the lobbyists said. Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.” (David D. Kirkpatrick, “Obama Is Taking An Active Role In Talks On Health Care Plan,” The New York Times, 8/13/09)

Obama’s Aides Were Present during the Deal Making Process To Pass Obamacare In The Congress: Obama tried to publicly distance himself from the deals, saying he wasn’t in the room when they were struck, even though some of his aides were. The president rankled Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by criticizing them for doing what generations of their predecessors have done: cut deals.” (Carrie Budoff Brown, “Obama Wants Side Deals Out Of Bill,” Politico, 3/10/10)

The Final Passage Of Obamacare Left In Place The Louisiana Purchase. “Retains $300 million in extra Medicaid aid for Louisiana, which had helped win support for the Senate health bill from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. The state is still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.” (“Cornhusker Kickback Gets The Boot In Health Bill,” The Associated Press, 3/18/10)

Retains $300 million in extra Medicaid aid for Louisiana, which had helped win support for the Senate health bill from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. The state is still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.

Keeps $100 million included in the Senate bill that is expected to go for a public hospital in Connecticut sought by Dodd, who is retiring. Preserves language won by Baucus permitting many of the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., to qualify for Medicare benefits. Some of them have asbestos-related diseases from a now-shuttered mine.

In addition, the pledge maintains a Senate-approved provision giving extra money for hospitals and doctors in North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. (Click here for further reading.)

To help win the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., the massive measure the Senate passed on Christmas Eve had included $100 million that only Nebraska would get in added federal Medicaid assistance.
Immediately mocked as the Cornhusker Kickback, critics called it the epitome of special Washington dealing, and even Nelson advocated ending his state’s special treatment. Under the changes announced at a later date, the Nebraska provision would be deleted and all states would get additional Medicaid help from Washington. (Please read on by clicking here.)

During this wheeling and dealing for seeing to it that his healthcare package was supported in the Senate,  the White House last week singled out projects from Montana and Connecticut as items President Barack Obama wanted removed. There was resistance, however, from two influential committee chairmen, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and their projects have survived. Now seeing what has happened with the threat of this person and his gangland Chicago cronies being reelected, I still am overwhelming confused at how this mess of legislation made it under the purview of the United States Supreme Court.

It may soon be the “It- thing” to do…

Inasmuch as the wealthiest 5 percent in our nation are paying approximately 93% of all taxes it certainly does not surprise us that Denise Rich has opted to do what she’s done in renouncing her United States citizenship. As one reflects on how skewed this data is we only would ask,” What would you do?”

When one considers that those who are in these wealthiest categories most likely because they’ve had the foresight and initiative to put it all on the line – and in most cases – lost, only to get right back up and start again. Most of us are familiar with Bill Gates, the proprietor of Microsoft who, as some may not know spent a fortune defending himself against every imaginable anti-trust lawsuit ever imagined.

Yet it is not incumbent upon any wayward politician to tax or otherwise take from those who have earned their money and either redistribute it or use it because of some jam that wayward politicians have created and executed themselves. Solyndra comes to mind here.

And as we sit reflecting more caution should be going out to everyone in America:

Nowhere does it seem ethical or moral or even noteworthy to punish someone for the efforts of their hard labor. When we, as a nation say – “oh it’s okay”—to punish those who have all right, title, and interest to be rewarded for their hard work this is where the political machinations of order and power come in to stop those who feel empowered to take what does not belong to them.

Most individuals will take to the airwaves or any means possible a la the “Occupy Movement(s)” to express their discontent with what is ostensibly causing inequality and disunity because what they don’t understand is the very basic principle of profit motivation – something our own government hasn’t seen nor been entitled to see. So why take it from the 3 to 5 percent of the whole?

Denise Rich, songwriter, socialite and the former wife of a pardoned billionaire, has given up her U.S. citizenship, and will reportedly thus save millions in U.S. taxes as well. This is very much the same as Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin made headlines when gave up his U.S. passport and became a citizen of Singapore, just before the social network’s May initial public offering of stock (IPO).

Interestingly about the Rich saga is reported from Reuters in that Rich wrote songs for Aretha Franklin and Jessica Simpson, but she’s best known as the ex-wife of Marc Rich, who fled the country in 1983 after being indicted for tax evasion, racketeering and trading oil with Iran. Furthermore, a House of Representatives committee concluded that Denise Rich helped bring about her ex-husband’s pardon through donations to the Clinton library and campaign. In a shocking turn-about of events President Clinton pardoned Rich, a big Democratic donor, on his last day in office in 2001.

What we are trying to muster support here is for when we start thinking that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has a very unconstitutional basis of support – ostensibly taxing individuals for not having medical insurance and then assessing that tax against the citizenry is just plain ugly.

We also look to muster support against making it a crime (punishable by taxation) for assisting in the now infamous “American Dream.” If those who allege they are trying to run this country don’t wake up, we won’t have to worry about immigration reform since there will not be anyone in search for what America has in abundance…