Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years


Remember the 1773 Tea Party? They led 13 colonies to revolt against the greatest nation on Earth—and created an even greater one. The 2013 Tea Party missed the mark because they forgot the mission.
Over the last couple of years the current crop of Tea Partiers somehow got the idea that what they were supposed to do was join the political thugs raping America by running for office. If they looked back at the 1773-75 Tea Partiers, they would see that their job—their sole job—was to use the clout of "We The People" to keep government on the "straight and narrow" by exposing the unconstitutional wrong-doing of the political thugs and financial opportunists who became part of those who threatened the nation and recall them, run them out of office on a rail, or jail them for malfeasance or other crimes and misdemeanors. Anyone who wants to be part of today's Tea Party, one would think, would want to understand what the original Tea Party stood for because that's where liberty came from.

What we know today as the Boston Tea Party was an outlaw political protest against the British government which found itself bankrupt in 1772. The Hapsberg Austro-Hungarian expansion across central Europe began in 1600 led to Queen Elizabeth I's involvement in Europe's very expensive Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) four years before her death from blood poisoning. The cause of the Thirty Years' War was the rebirth of central Europe's feud between the Hapsburgs (who sat on the Protestant thrones of England, Austria and Hungary) and the Catholic Bourbons (the French). The Thirty Years' War ultimately dragged almost every nation in Europe into the fray based on whether they were Catholic or Protestant.

In the end, the war shifted from theological prejudices to altering the balance of power in Europe. And, like in all wars, the farmers suffered first. The consumers who needed to buy the produce, dairy products and meat raised by the farmers suffered when the harvests failed to come in, the farmers the merchants and the consumers found their own livelihoods deprived. Most did not have the the money needed to buy the sundries they needed—if they could find anything to buy.

The major consequence of a continent-wide war was continent-wide devastation. It makes paupers of all men—including the royals who hid their lack of wealth behind their palatial opulence and the tax collectors who took what little the people had left. Queen Anne of Great Britain, daughter of King James I, an unpopular Catholic who became monarch on the death of Queen Elizabeth. Because Parliament hated Catholics, it enacted a law that banned any Catholic from inheriting the throne of England. Childless at death, Anne's husband, Charles of Denmark, being Catholic, was ineligible to ascend to the throne. Anne's second cousin, George I of Hanover (Germany) became King of England. George II, his son was the last imported king of England. George III, who was nevertheless still a Hapsburg (George William Frederick) was the first English born king of Great Britain. He was the king who ordered the hostilities against the colonials in America that history records the American Revolution. He also suffered from mental instability and, by mid-life he was adjudged insane and was unable to lead the nation. His son, George IV, assumed the throne as Prince Regent until his father died from porphyia on Jan. 29, 1820.

Struggling to recover from seven expensive years of war with the French in 1767 and, in 1772, with the bankruptcy of East India Company, the British Parliament needed new tax revenues. Efforts to assess those taxes on the Brits fell on deaf ears in the House of Hanover since the members of Parliament, who wanted to get reelected, decided their citizens had already paid their "fair share." It was time for the colonists in America, who were prospering from a robust New World economy, to pay their share of the cost of protecting America from England's enemies.

In 1767 the British Parliament enacted the Townshend Acts: a series of five punitive laws levied against the colonies: [1] The Revenue Act of 1767; [2] The Indemnity Act; [3] The Commissioners of Customs Act; [4] the Vice-Admiralty Court Act and [5] the New York Restraining Act. The purpose of the Townshend Acts was to raise the revenue the revenue needed to pay the wages of the judges, governors and other how level British snoops and other low level bureaucrats. The New York Restraining Act was created as a punitive measure to punish New Yorkers for refusing to obey the Quartering Act that required citizens to quarter British soldiers in their homes. When the Townshend Act was legislated, it was enforced in 1768 with garrisons of British soldiers in each of the major cities in the Colonies. The first peaceful protest over taxation took place on March 5, 1770, ending with British troops killing five colonial men and wounding six others. The troops, afraid of the unarmed colonials, opened fire without the authority from the military chain of command to do so. To keep peace with the locals, eight soldiers and one officer were arrested and charged with murder.

Paul Revere ignited the flames of rebellion by having an engraving cut depicting the slaughter of unarmed colonials by the Redcoats that would be pulp fodder for Samuel Adams and John Hancock to inflame the masses. The Boston Tea Party was the culmination of peaceful resistance with the British. On the night of Dec. 16, 1773, members of the Sons of Liberty, disguised as Indians, boarded four British ships anchored in Boston Harbor and dumped their cargoes of prime East India tea overboard. In total, seven "tea ships" arrived in the New World in December, carrying 2,000 chests containing some 6,000 pounds of tea. Four anchored in Boston Harbor, and one each in New York, Philadelphia and Charleston, South Carolina. In the view of the British, the American Revolution was started by two men: John Hancock and Samuel Adams. In 1773 the tea in the four chests that the Sons of Liberty threw into Boston Harbor was worth £18,000. Today's value of that tea would be £2,023,200.00. In US dollars, the tea would be worth $3,091,667.00. The entire cargo in the six ships would be valued at $7,225,554.00 in today's dollars.

In reality, the Revolution didn't start over tea, nor the tax imposed on it. That angered the colonial subjects of King George III, but that's not what made America mad enough to go to war. The Revolutionary War started over the restriction of the inherent right of the American people to control their own destiny, their own government and their own monetary system rather than living under a punitive chattel system with a government that rigidly regulated what the people could or could not do. (Sounds a little bit like the United States today under Barack Obama, doesn't it?)

The Founding Fathers of the United States created a nation with a government of the People, by the People, and solely for the People of the United States of America. That excludes illegal aliens who sneak across our borders at night. The Constitution specifically mandates that the federal government of the United States protect its borders from human leakage. TeaParty 1773-2009.jpgThose points, today, are not lost on the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who literally own the politicians who write, and administer the laws, and the judges who adjudicate them. They bought them with legal bribes called "campaign contributions."

The wealthy elite in America today, just like the wealthy elite in the 18th century, bought the best governments money could buy. Not in the sense of placing in office honest men who understand the constitutional principles mandated by the founding precepts within that document, but the best at skirting those principles and making the princes of industry and the barons of business and banking wealthier by exempting not only the rich from the laws the rest of us are obligated to obey, but the lawmakers who write the laws are exempt as well.

When the modern day Tea Party magically sprung up out of the veneer of Americana in 2009 like someone's fairy god mother with a magic wand as the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Congress initiated a series of town hall meetings to convince the idiots on Main Street USA that free healthcare for those who didn't want it while making middle class America pay twice what they were currently paying for healthcare was better than a stick in the eye for everyone. When the Tea Party movement was born, there was no "what's in it for me?" in the spines of those who stood up in the left's town hall meetings and took on the social progressives. It was all about fixing the nation.

Here's the important "why" in this synopsis—why isn't the Tea Party doing today what the Tea Party did in 2009 and 2010 and should be doing today? Demanding to know, from Senate Democrats, why they are letting Harry Reid pigeon-hole every single piece of legislation the 113th Congress has enacted?

The birth of the Tea Party was as shocking in 2009 as it was in 1773. Only, in 1773 the foreigner at the head of that terroritorial government knew who instigated it, or at least, had someone specirfic to blame. John Hancock and Samuel Adams. In 2009 the foreigner at the head of our government initially decided to publicly blame its birthing on the tobacco industry, several special interest PAC groups, the Koch Brothers and the Heritage Foundation, who financed many of these new, totally inexperienced GOP political candidates, and of course, every middle class American conservative and Reagan Democrat voter in the United States.. In reality, it was still Adams and Hancock, and Smith and Jones. Only, for the most part, their first names were more like Jane, Betty, Linda and MaryAnn instead of John and Samuel. Women, with an eye on the future their children would live in, and the phone and the pen that wrote the checks which manage the household, were the dominant force in the birth of the Tea Party. I guess it was a natural position in American life, since women give birth and most of them are even better at making a cup of tea. Oh, and by the way, I've asked a lot of housewives if they have any contacts with the tobacco industry or the Koch Brothers, and I've not spoken to one who has had any contact with the Koch Brothers or anyone who worked for, or represented, them. The only contact any of them have had with the the tobacco industry is from smoking (although most of them had quit, or they were getting there by kicking the hump off the camel's back).

While they ignited a movement that has frightened the federal government, they are also largely the reason why the GOP is not likely to take back the Senate in either 2014 or 2016. The Tea Party groups, which began on the right track, very unwisely veered sharply right and convinced themselves that if they toppled a centrist or left of center GOP incumbent in the primary in a centrist or left wing State, that they could replace them in the general election. That turned out to be a tragic misnomer. The role of the original Tea Party was to aggravate the British and keep them looking in the wrong direction. Think of their role as the pre-primer of Saul Alinksky's "Rules for Radicals"—only, the radicals in this case are the conservatives confusing the social progressives who weren't expectring the polite soft-spoken right totake the high ground and demand an accounting from the left..

In open primary States, inexperienced Tea Party candidates, with the help of State Democratic Party (as they did in the Commonwealth of Virginia which easily topple popular incumbents who could not be beaten in the general election). Democrats then win that popular incumbent's seat and the Tea Party, who deliberately sabotaged the incumbent, are disappointed when their candidate doesn't win the general election, believing, next time, they'd find a little bit stronger, better known candidate. They just don't get it. When the GOP candidate is nominated by Democrats, the Democrat will win the general election and the Tea Party advocates who backed the weak candidates will always lose. And the social progressives who engineered the Tea Party candidate's victory over a strong centrist GOP candidate will always winther general election if for no other reason than they cheat.

On June 10, 2014 the Tea Party-backed US House candidate David Brat, a completely unknown and completely inexperienced professor at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, VA. BratBrat knocked off House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the most historic primary race in memory. The Tea :Party forgot the first rule of success in any occupation: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Whatever Tea Party genius decided to back Brat should be obligated to trade their Tea Party credentials for a Democratic voter's registration card, because they rallied the Democrats to vote for Brat. Eric Cantor was so strong a candidate that the Democrats did not even field a candidate for the 7th Congressional District. TrammelShockingly, the other ticket to Eric Cantor's seat went to another Randolph-Macon teacher, Dr. Jack Trammel, not because Trammel is better qualified, but only because he's a Democrat in a State with with more Democrats than Republicans. In Cantor's case, he is a centrist, which means he pulled moderate Reagan Democrat votes as well as the conservative votes. Brat, a far right candidate, will pull votes only from the extremist right. At best, in the general election, Brat will pull 35% of the votes. The Tea Party failed to think beyond the primary.

History has already shown that Tea Party candidates can win primaries but, if there are more registered Democrats in the State than registered Republicans, they will always lose the general election and the Democrat will always pick up that seat. But more important, you have to look at the ideology of the Republican incumbent the Tea Party conservative beat, and the ideology of the candidate who stomps the life out of the Tea Partiers. The Tea Party candidate usually beats a Republican centrist, always labeled as a RINO (Republican in name only) and the Democrat who "whups" the GOP Tea Party candidate is almost always a communist (whitewashed by the term "progressive." Surprisingly, the Tea Party candidate is usually a RINO, too, since more times than not, he's a Libertarian.

The true Republicans, in the party created by Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and Madison, were called the Democratic-Republicans. As the left revised history, the Democrats claim they birthed the Democratic-Republican Party when, in reality, philosophically, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay remained the most powerful Federalists in the nation. Had Aaron Burr had not shot and killed Hamilton in a duel, Hamilton would likely have been the 6th Vice President under John Quncy Adams instead of John C. Calhoun, and the 7th President of the United States. After eight years of Hamilton, who would have ignored precedent and would have been running for his third term, America would have changed dramatically—for the worse. Like it is today. We would have lost the America the Founding Fathers created. Like we are today.

Eric_Cantor.jpgHouse Majority Leader Eric Cantor was considered to be the likely successor as House Speaker, replacing John Boehner in January, 2015. How does an unknown Tea Party-hyped nobody defeat the second most powerful man in Congress? On his own? He doesn't. Ever.

Virginia is one of 19 States with open primaries. In those States, Democrats (the majority party) enacted the laws that let them vote in the Republican primary and nominate the weakest candidates to challenge an otherwise unbeatable incumbent. When it happens, the Democrats will always win that seat in the general election. Open primary laws are designed for one purpose—to allow the opposition political party the opportunity to defeat an incumbent in the opposition party's primary whom they can't defeat in the general election when Democrats, Republicans and minority party adherents can vote for any candidate on the ballot, or write in the name of someone else who is not even on the ballot.

Open ballot laws are never initiated by Republicans. They are always instigated by the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business working through the Democratic Party at State level. The princes of industry (who are actually the fathers of the free enterprise system) prefer greedy, dishonest social progressive congressmen and senators who will kowtow to their wishes—not the wishes of the electorate.

In 2012 Cantor won reelection with 58% of the vote—his lowest result ever. Speaker John Boehner's unfavorable appeal with a growing number of conservatives rubbed off on primary voters, which explains why the Tea Party thought they could knock off the only Republican Jew in the House of Representatives—the man who very likely would have replaced John Boehner as the Speaker of the House in January, 2015.

The only problem is, they failed to analyze the consequences of their stupidity. Why wasn't the Tea Party fighting the battle in the State legislatures to kill open primaries in every State in the Union? Or, is it they just like the little loophole that gets their candidate a helping hand in the primary? Because, at that point, they've done their job. They dumped the incumbent they wanted to get rid of. The rest, I guess, is up to the Tea Party candidate who couldn't win even if he had no opposing party opponent. And, in Eric Cantor's case, he didn't—at least, not until Cantor lost to David Brat. Thinking he just won a freebie, Brat is about as qualified to be in Washington as Barack Obama. The only other Democrat who filed in time to get in the race was Trammel.

The Tea Party took advantage of the loophole to kill the strongest Republican in Washington and replace him with a school teacher—either a Republican, but more likely, a Democratic one who learned how to obediently play follow the leader at Randolph Macon. It's not the job of the Tea Party to define the candidates. That's the job of the voters. I wonder, would anti-RINO candidates have voted for Gov. Ronald Reagan [R-CA] in 1976? Or, would they have voted for the Libertarian RINO Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964?

Reagan ran in 1976, but the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives viewed him as a RINO. So, their choice that year was an appointed President who had never been elected—Rep. Gerald Ford [R-MI] who had already proven he was worthless. In 1964 the far-right nominated Gov. Barry Goldwater [R-AZ] over RINO Gov. Nelson Rockefeller [R-NY], Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge [R-MA] and Sen. Margaret Chase Smith [R-Maine] who apparently never read Article II of the Constitution which not only disallows Indonesian citizens born in Kenya from being President, it also cites 22 times that the President must be a male. Interestingly, Article I which provides the qualifications for Congressmen and Senators does not make that gender distinction.). The gender distinction exists only in Article II.

What does that tell you? Why has the Tea Party not brought Obama's lack of citizenship to the streets? Because, it appears, thanks to Tea Party Nation , run by attorney Judson Phillips who is in the game for the money, people listen to him as though he is the head of the Tea Party movement. Philllips and the heads of the Tea Party PAC groups have listened to the birth certificate debate. Most believe the issue will cost them credibility they need for the bread and butter issues, so they avoid the issues concerning where Obama was born.

When he scheduled the first Tea Party National Convention, two of three of the key speakers, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and Michelle Bachmann threw Phillips under the bus. When Blackburn discovered that Phillips' purpose for organizing the National Tea Party Convention on Feb.4-6, 2010 was, she indicated, solely to make money for his PAC group. Phillips, who is purportedly disliked by most of the Tea Party group organizers since he views himself as the "leader-of-the-pack," has been trying to organize the independent Tea Party groups into a single organization run, of course, by him. Rumors surfaced in 2009 that Phillips had filed, or attempted to file, for a trademark on the name Tea Party, but that exclusivity was denied because the phrase "Tea Party" has been in common use since 1773.

Phillips filed for a service mark on May 29, 2011 under Trademark application #85333216. The applicant was Judson Phillips at 2550 Meridan, Suite 200; Franklin, TN 37057. The lawyer filing the application for the SM was John Allmit, Esq. in Encino, California. The first time Tea Party Nation actually used the Tea Party phrase as a ™ was likely when they first applied for trademark status, on Nov. 1, 2009. Their request for a SM would have read National Tea Party ConventionSM. The request exempted the words "National" and "Convention" which appears to have been a run around the block that would allow them to to insert the initials SM after Tea Party and claim exclusivity to the phrase. I was told by two different Tea party groups at CPAC 2010 that Phillips wanted to charge every Tea Party group in the country a fee for using the phrase "Tea Party" in their organization's name.

In Judson Phillips mind, forging the Tea Party groups into a single unit on a political party would create a third national political party. There was only one thing wrong with his thought processes. When the United States was born, there were no political parties, just Americans striving to build to nation on common believes. Socialists whose parents and grandparents were members of the Illuminati and the Jaconbins, an offshoot of the Illuminati, would ultimately control the US Congress and the White House in March, 1861. The Northeast Democrats were Federealists. The Southern Democrats were liberal slave owners with a belief in the Constitution. The Free Soilers, the Anti-Masons and the Northern elites from which America's wealthiest families arose, were Jacobins.

By 1856 only two political parties were strong enough to control Congress and elect a President. The Democrats (North and South combined), and the Jacobin Republicans, They had become the two strongest political parties in the nation. To be elected to Congress or the White House, you had to be one of them. That's not changed.

The Tea Party lives in a make-believe world in which their conservative candidates (who, hopefully, aren't school teachers who actually understand the political system) are more than just good guys. .They aren't socialists or RINOs and, of course, they can actually get elected. Which is just about zero..

The Tea Party works best when it does what it did from 1773 to 1787. Screwing around with elections is not what they do best. Applying Saul Alinksky's RULES FOR RADICALS against the leftwing radicals is what they do best.because the left never saw it coming and they didn't know how to counter it except to blame the tobacco industry and the Koch Brothers. The question is, who's "we the Person"who thinks he knows how to pick candidates better than "we the People?"

We learned from the media in 2010 that someone was endorsing liberal candidates as "Tea Party" for a fee—even if they were running against conservative candidates who earned the right to be reelected. The left was willing to pay to split the conservative vote so the Democrat in the dog fight could win—and did.

All is not fair in love and politics. Political chicanery is the most popular game in town during the politicking season. This is a game of win or lose. Those running for office are concerned which candidate is better for the nation. Those running are concerned only about what's best for them. Since Teddy Roosevelt brought his socialist penchant into view I will likely never forget Barack Obama's words in a 2008 campaign speech when he said: "We live in the greatest country in the world...help me change it." That was the only truth I've ever heard the man speak since I first heard his name.

Even though the Tea Party conservatives were correct in their belief that the social progressives who now control every department and bureau in Washington, DC and the bureaucracies of every social progressive union-controlled States, they are too naive to understand the true nature of politics. They believe Barack Obama created a national healthcare system to insure the impoverished third of the population without coverage. They just don't realize yet that healthcare ever was Obama's objective. Variations of that plan has been in-and-out-of-mothbills since 1933. Socialized medicine is not, and never was, nor never will be, about providing healthcare.

The Rockefeller-Morgan cartel that engineered the plans for the Federal Reserve System also created the Social Security system to provide financial benefits for the elderly which, like every other nation on Earth that offers pensions for the elderly also required an Old Age health insurance plan, too—to make sure the elderly didn't live too long beyond their average actuarial lifespan. That's why when Sen. Harry Reid took the Senate-killed House bill, HR3590, the Service Members Home Mortgage Ownership Tax Act, Sen. Harry Reid took the Senate-killed House bill, HR3590, the Service Members Home Mortgage Ownership Tax Act, and gutted all the language from the bill except the first line (which appeared in the Congressional Record, so it had to be included) and inserted all of the language found in HR3962, the Affordable Care Act in its stead.

What that means is that Obamacare completely violated the Originality Clause. Since HR 3590, sponsored by Congressman Charlie Rangel passed 416-0 in House on Sept. 17, 2009 every member of the House of Representatives (including 2009 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 2011 House Speaker John Boehner) knew there was no House version of the Affordable Care Act, and the law is unconstitutional. Nine members of the US Supreme Court also had to know the same thing since their clerks would have found the original version of HR3590 in the Congressional Record and reported that fact to the Justices to whom they reported.

The Justices covered their butts by making Reid, Pelosi and Boehner swear an oath that HR35980 originated in the House of Representatives. Why is Obamacare construed as constitutional when it's not?

Because Obamacare exists solely to "fix" Social Security. (A comment, by the way, that Obama mentioned more than once in debates on the 2012 campaign trail over the logic of overloading an already bankrupt Social Security system.) With all this information in the public domain since 2009, why wasn't the Tea Party raising these questions at the Town Hall meetings in 2009 and 2010?

The Tea Party actually controlled the debate and the election results in 2010. In 2012 some Tea Partiers with something like paper mache substituting for brains thought they could actually pick the winners when they actually had no idea how the winners win today. They apparently don't realize that while the voters vote for the candidates running for office, the princes of industry and the barons of banking pick the candidates who will actually stand in the winner's circle in every State where union officials or core Democrat officials service the electronic voting machines and where voters don't need to produce a photo ID which proves they are the real registered voter they claim to be. While the voters in those States may be Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents, when the princes of industry and the barons of banking control the ballot count, those two, three, four parties or more, becomes one—the Totalitarian Party.

The two-party system was designed by the wealthy because it was costing those who buy the candidates they expect to win too much. On top of that they also have to hedge their bets by donating lesser, but nevertheless substantial amounts of money to the opposing party candidate—and two or three other independents besides.

Like all social progressives the ultra rich would prefer only one party and one candidate, but the voters need the illusion that their vote actually made a difference. Most Americans still think they elect the people who assume their House and Senate seats the first Monday of January following the November election. The princes of industry and the barons of banking and business do. They fund the candidates they pay to win. And they fund the media through advertising dollars that pay for the media stories they report.

Third party candidates are added to the race to dilute the votes of the candidate the apolitical money barons, for whatever reason, want—or need—to lose. If the princes of industry need the Republican candidate to lose, they find a mirror image conservative to inject into the race. If the princes of industry have invested in a Republican they need to find a leftwinger more of, or less than, a socialist than the Democrat running so the voters will dilute the vote enough that the Republican wins.

When the princes of industry can't win that way, they throw enough money at the State political bosses to change the primary laws: closed primaries in the States their party controls and open primaries in the States they don't. Virginia is a seesaw State with an open primary. Thanks to the Tea Party, David Brat won the GOP primary because more Democrats voted for Brat in the GOP race in the 7th Congressional District than voted for the Democrat because...well, the Democrats didn't put up a contender against Eric Cantor because they knew there wasn't anyone in the 7th District that could beat him. Thanks to the Tea Party, a Democratic school teacher with a Ph.D will sit in Eric Cantor's 7th District seat until Jan. 2, 2017. Makes you wonder who the Tea Party in Virginia was working for, does it? They certainly weren't working the American people who vote Republican. The Tea Party gift-wrapped Cantor's congressional seat and handed it to Obama on a silver platter.

Before the Tea Party began treading on political ground they may have known little or nothing about—not just [a] whether their State has an open or closed primary. They also needed to [b] study voter demographics and the history of voter turnout in the past ten elections (primaries and general elections) in the State they were running a Tea Party-selected and/or independent third party candidates and determine how they fared against the the primary party incumbent. And most of all, [c] they needed to be smart enough to understand how the princes of industry and the barons of banking masterminded the political shenanigans that allowed them to criminally rape the American people in the voting booth since 1907.

Naive people operate under the mistaken belief that the politicians they elect run Congress. That is, after all, what the Constitution intended—with those politicians answering directly to "We the People." And, with the people possessing the power to remove crooked politicians like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and most of all, those like Congressman Alcee Hastings [D-FL] (a defrocked federal judge who was impeached and removed from office for accepting bribes from career criminals who paid for light sentences). Where Hastings should have found himself in prison for 20 years for accepting bribes, the Democratically-controlled State of Florida (67% Democrat, 28% Republican, and 5% independent) with a Democratic governor, Bob Graham created a brand new congressional district for Hastings who has represented the 23rd Congressional District for 22 years.

So, what were the Tea Party advocates doing to promote change in the 23rd Congressional District in Florida? It would seem to me it would be more important for good Americans everywhere to get rid of a defrocked federal judge convicted for taking bribes from gangsters in exchange for light sentences than it would be in Virginia's 9th district to use their money and efforts to dump a pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life, Republicans that some idiots in the Tea Party prefer to call him a RINO because he is in favor of some form of amnesty legislation which denies a handout to illegals but grants honest Mexicans who came here illegally a "workmap" to citizenship through service in the US military?

Let's go one step farther and explain why conservatives like Cantor favor some form of amnesty.and why it's critical to the survival of the United States. Beginning with the Democratic Congress of Bill Clinton which successfully enacted as a law called NAFTA (which poses as a treaty but isn't because the Senate refused to take the blame for it) since the Democrats in the US Senate knew the princes of industry intended to terminate a majority of their American workers and shift their factories to the 2nd and 3rd world countries where labor costs are a fraction of those in the United States. And, where the labor laws favor the princes of industry not the paupers of drudgery.

(Which, of course, is why the Democrats under the control of the princes of industry, have refused to enforce immigration laws, in particular, the toughest immigration law ever enacted in the United States—the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952—enacted by a Republican House and a Democrat Senate led by FDR former Vice President, Alben Barkley, was enacted over Harry Truman's veto. The law, which remains on the books to this day was the basis for the Supreme Court finding that the Arizona immigration law was legal. The law, which severely punishes anyone who aids and abets an illegal alien in any way, has never been enforced by any President because too much pressure has been exerted on the Executive Branch by the princes of industry. This link provides all of the details on the law that makes it a crime for anyone, even a Congressman, Senator, Governor or a president with the telephone and a pen, to assist or even feed an illegal alien.)

If the Tea Party wants to kill amnesty legislation in Virginia, or Florida where Sen. Mario Rubio is fighting for it, or anywhere else, they need to do two things. First, they need to dig up every dot and tittle in the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and hold their own tea party rallies to let people know the toughest immigration law in the United States has been the law of the land for 62 years. Any person, groups of persons, businesses, corporations, or advocacy groups will have committed a federal felony under Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, that is punishable by a fine of $10 thousand per infraction or imprisonment in a federal penitentiary for not more than five (5) years—or both. In the case of politicians, the Constitution requires, first, that they be impeached and removed from office, then charged with the crimes they committed and then imprisoned for not more than five years per infraction.

Under the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act persons caught assisting illegals will also forfeit all assets possessed by them which were used by them to assist the illegal aliens, such as their vehicles if they used them to transport illegals. their homes if they harbored illegal's by offering them sanctuary. If illegal's being harbored by advocacy groups who shelter them commit crimes, those advocacy groups can be held liable for damages for the financial losses of crimes committed by illegal's they are shielding under Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii)). The Federal Immigration and Nationality Act provides for treble damages to victims of crimes committed by illegals who would likely have not been in that locality had it not been for the sanctuary group aiding them.

You would think with a law like this in affect for 62 years that we wouldn't still be fighting the battle of the borders. But, the Tea Party would rather dump Congressmen we actually need in Washington than forge alliances with the Congressmen who aren't far enough right for them, and force the courts to enforce the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act. (The reason the centrists in the House aren't trying to impeach those leftwing revisionist judges or the impersonator-in-chief in the White House is because they can't. Let me amend that statement. They could impeach them—Obama included because the House of Representatives impeaches. But it would still be an effort in futility since the Senate tries those impeached. The GOP would need 67 Senators to remove the impeached members from office. They have 45. The Democrats have 53 plus two independent: Senator Angus King from Maine. King would never turn on Obama. He who owns a company that makes worthless, overpriced wind power. He'll die making buttock-sized wind energy, claiming wind is the environmental future when every wind experiment in the world has failed. Global warming and global cooling are caused by solar flares (or the lack of them) of the sun. Man has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or cooling. Furthermore, while the Obama people won't tell you the truth about global warming, NASA will. The temperature departures we experience on Earth are no different than those felt on Mars and Venus.

Sen. King would vote for Obama for the rest of his life if George Soros and Obama's Muslim friends in ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood could create enough chaos to allow Obama to suspend the Constitution and, by force of arms from declare himself president-for-life.. The other Senate Independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a communist, so if the Senate was voting to make Obama Tzar Barack I, Sanders will come in tied with Harry Reid screaming "aye!" Sen, Jay Rockefeller ;D-WV], who no longer wants any part of Obama, resigned from the Senate effective the end of his term. Running for his job is Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito the most popular congressional representative in the State who is the odds-on -favorite to win Rockefeller's seat. She's running against Natalie Tennett, WV's Secretary of State who ran in the special election in 2011 to replace Gov. Joe Manchin who replaced Sen .Robert Byrd, West Virginia's senior statesman who died.

Capito ran for Machin's job. Tomblin, who spent his politicial career playing kissy-butt with the unions in the State, easily won the governorship because the union-favored Democrats control the voting machines.. Capito came in second. Tennett came in third. For Tennnett to win Rockefeller's Senate seat, there will have to be a ton of AFL-CIO/UMW union vote fraud taking place in Charleston and Huntington.

However, with Obama declaring war on the fossil fuel industry West Virginia has been swinging right since 2000. If Capito wins Rockefelller's seat, moderate Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, I suspect, will find it impossible to get reelected as a Democrat in 2018. If Joe Manchin becomes a Republican, I don't think that would bother his deceased father, former disgraced WV Secretary of State and State Treasurer A. James Manchin since it was Democrats who wanted to lynch A. James for investing the State pension funds in subprime mortgage stocks after the subprime mortgage industry collapsed in 2003. Joe Manchin, a popular politician, will likely be the last elected Democrat in West Virginia for a couple of decades.

That leaves two problems in West Virginia. The first is electing a Republican to replace Arch Moore's daughter to WV Congressional District 2. And, that's a problem. In fact, it's a Tea Party ego-trip problem caused by a Tea Partier named Charlotte Lane from Charleston, WV who has a lot of peripheral experience to run for office, and no ability to get elected. Granted, Charlotte Lane served a stint in the WV State legislature. What bills where her name, which did she fight for on the floor of the Assembly, pass through her persuasion, and see it signed into law? I don't recall finding any. She also served as a Commissioner on the US International Trade Comission where she said she stood up to China's unfair trade practices that deprived West Virginians of jobs. How many jobs did Charlotte save. None that I could find. And. finally, she served as the Chairwoman of the West Virginia Public Services Commission. She was not Chairwoman of the PSC when the toxic Elk River spill occurred on Jan. 9, 2014. And she was not part of the passage of the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 or for the fact that MCMH (4-methylcyclohexane and 63,000 other toxic chemicals were exempted from regulation (dumping into America's rivers) because they already existed., but she was the Chairwoman of the WV Public Services Commission when Union Carbide was dumping chemical waste into the Elk River, and may still have been in the PSC when Freedom Industries bought the property and continued the practice (although she was not in the PSC when the newsbreaking story that MCMH found its way into almost every river and stream in West Virgina—with measurable amounts found in the Potomac River in Maryland and Virginia. At some point during the period between when the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 was enacted and Union Carbide spills in the Elk River occurred and likely up to the point when Freedom Industries purchased the facility, Lane was the person responsible for water safety. So ask yourself one question: is it enough to put your chairmanship on your political resume when the rules you helped formulate did not protect the people?

Lane was the woman in charge for a portion of that time, and shares responsibility for the fact that deliberately unregulated toxins were being dumped or accidentally leaked into West Virginia's rivers and streams. To me, including the names of companies or organizations you were in charge of in your career when those companies and organizations were not adequately protecting the American people, why would anyone vote for such a person?. There's enough buck-passing going on in the Democratic Party today without adding any more bureaucrats who think the only thing that belongs on their resume are the job titles they helped and not the performance record they achieved? The buck really does stop at at that desk.

Whether Lane's name appears on the WV ballot as a Republican or a member of the Tea Party, every vote cast for her is actually being cast for Democratic Candidate Nick Carey.[D-WV] In a two party system any vote for a third party candidate is a vote against whichever primary candidate is most closely ideologically-linked to the independent because only the Republican or the Democrat will win the election. Third party candidates never win. They serve one purpose in every election. They are the spoiler that guarantees the candidate you want least wins.

Charlotte Lane pretty much guarantees a Cary win based on the fact that while the political ranks are closing, voting Democrats still outnumbered Republicans by 10% in the 2014 primary. What that means, is that without Lane in the race, GOP candidate Alex Mooney, a former Maryland State legislator who moved to West Virginia in 2013, will likely end up in a 50%-50% win for one of them that will be measured in millimeters.. With Lane out of the race, and with WV's voters—particularly those who earn their earnings in coal or natural gas—against both the AFL-CIO and the UMW that used to control their vote, Capito's seat will remain in the GOP column, where it needs to be.

You've heard the saying, "All politics is local?" Believe it if for no other reason that the political party that controls the county government controls the ballot boxes. And due to the America Vote Act of 2002 [HAVA] which was forced by on Presicient George W. Bush by an aggressive liberal media in 2001, whom they accused of stealing the election of 2000 by dragging the election to the US Supreme Court and letting nine Justices rather than 160 million voters decide the outcome. The political party which controls the county controls the maintenance on the electronic voting machines. Harry Reid would have lost reelection to Sharron Angle in 2010 if Clark County, Nevada did not have a convenient hour long power outage when no voters could vote and no cast ballots not recorded could be transferred to the computer mainframe. When the lights went out in Clark County—conveniently, only where the votes in the voting machines were being tabulated—Reid was trailing Angle When the lights came back on, Reid was magically leading. In 2005 Rory Reid, Harry's son, was appointed Chairman of the Clark County Commission. That same year, Rory Reid awarded a two year contract to service Clark County's electronic voting machines to SEIU. The contract expired in 2008. Sen. Harry Reid used his immense political clout to prevent the County Commission from awarding the contract to anyone else. Few people realized there was a clause in the SEIU contract which allowed them to continue servicing the voting machines until the Commission awarded a new contract to someone else.

Every political pyramid must begin with a foundation strong enough to support the entire political and financial system. The lowest structure on the political totem pole with access to financial and political power is the training ground for tomorrow's political pundits.

When the Tea Party took the initiative to go after Obama's community activists posing as audiences at Obama town hall meetings to ask insignificant questions and applaud the canned answers of the Democratic Congressmen and Senators hosting the Town Hall meetings. What the left wasn't expecting were Republican soccer moms and Reagan Democrats using Saul Alinksky's "Rules for Radicals" against them. It caught them flatfooted and so completely off guard because the last thing the social progressive expected was the verbal assault on liberal spending, but even more, on Obama's planned healthcare system which the Obama Administration blamed on .the Republican Party,Freedom Works, Sen. Jim Demint's [R-SC] and several conservative lobbying groups whom they claimed coached conservative town hall attendees who shouted down the Democratic Congressmen and, in a few instances, initiated demonstrations that resulted, according to the New York Times, in fist fights and some arrests.

It was something the left never expected—Saul Alinksky for conservatives. Rightwing chaos. The community organizer town hall meetings were designed to paint the Republicans as the greedy rich who were willing to deny the poor the same quality of healthcare they possessed. Instead it backfired and took America back to an era where colonial Americans rebelled against a British tyrant and threw 342 chests of prime East India tea into Boston Harbor, an event that preceded the Revolutionary War by some two years. It was the warning shot fired over the bow of the HMS Barack Obama. A second American Revolution was in the making. Just like King George III who had bankrupted his British subjects, Obama was well on his way bankrupting his "subjects" whom he treated as his personal fiefdom.

The New York Times noted the shot over the bow at the time the town hall meetings were going on, reported on a banner ad on Sean Hannity's blog: "Become a part of the mob!" the Sean Hannity banner said. "Attend an Obama Care Townhall near you!" The Times reported that "...the bitter divisions over an overhaul of the health care system have exploded at town-hall-style meetings over the last few days as members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy and taunted by crowds. In several cities, noisy demonstrations have led to fistfights, arrests and hospitalizations. Democrats have said the protesters are being organized by conservative lobbying groups. Republicans respond that the protests are an organic response to the Obama administration's health care restructuring proposals.

The social progressives today, like the social progressives during the Great Depression envisioned a 1932 FDR-style political revolt against the GOP. But America is tired of the tax-and-spend social progressives who are getting rich on the prosperity of the American middle class which has all but vanished today. The left gained control of both Houses of Congress in 2006 using vote fraud deliberately legislated in the National Voting Rights Act of 1993, more commonly known as The Motor Voter Act, (42 USC §§ 197399-197gg-100).

Why was the Motor Voter Act so important to the left? Because anyone who applied for a driver's license was technically eligible to vote. But that didn't stop the Republicans from taking over both the House and Senate in 1994. The Democrats needed a new plan. The Republican, who needed to look at least as honest as the Democrats pretended they were pushed into enacting Public Law 107-252, the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which would change all voting machines from paper ballots and #2 pencils or punch cards to electronic voting machines with a stylus. The Democrats were so happy that most of them wet their pants in glee. Anyone who knew anything about how the electronic voting machine mechanism worked knew they were vulnerable to hack attacks. But the leftwing media gave the technology the full court press, presenting e.voting as the most secure voting system in the world because the apparatus that tabulated the votes were untouched by human hands. In point of fact, the only safe voting system in the world is the paper ballot and the #2 pencil.

Electronic voting machines—regardless who made it—are designed for fraud.. Anyone with an access key and the ability to hack a computer possesses the ability to skew the outcome of any voting precinct—whether a congressional race, a senatorial race or a presidential race. If you have access to the primary collection terminal where the votes compiled and tabulated, you have the ability to reprogram the computer manipulate the votes in any manner you choose. In other, you can pick the winner of the election before the first vote is cast by whatever margin works best for you.

The problem with electronic vote theft is that it is so egregious anyone with an IQ higher than their hat size can spot it. There are more votes than voters. there is fraud. The election needs to be recast—using paper ballots and #2 pencils. When you do that, the candidate who lost in the electronic ballot count will always win when the number of votes match the number of voters. This is what the Tea Party should be doing in all 50 states (or, in Obama's Islamic world, all 57 states)—fighting for an honest vote where every vote counts, and where every vote must have a verifiable vote who is legally eligible, according to the laws of each State, to vote. (When a State law denies a felon the right to vote, the federal government is denied the right, by the Constitution to revoke that statute since the State alone has the right to determine the eligibility (manner) of the voters in that State. The Department of Justice can argue civil rights all they want because more Blacks have prison records than Whites, but the issue isn't civil rights, it is the right of the rule of law.

In 2008 there were 169 million registered voters in the United States. Eighty-six million of them were registered Democrats and 55 million were registered Republicans. Fifty-six-point-eight percent voted. That means, there were 97,992,000 voters who voted. (This was the second national election since the creation of HAVA in 2002.) Strangely, although only approximately 98 million registered voters voted, there were 132,618,580 ballots counted. (Source of data on 11/229/09, FEC website and home page of the Obama White House website.). There were 35,626,580 too many votes. Now, let's look at the vote totals for Obama and John McCain. Obama was credited by the media with receiving 69,456,580 votes. McCain won 59,948,323 votes. Now, since we know that there were 35,626,580 more votes than voters, and since we know that most of the contracts to service the electronic voting machines nationwide were given to labor unions (which always favor Democrats), it is not a reach to assume those fabricated votes in 2008 went to Obama. We are confident that Obama actually received about 33,630,600 real votes in 2008, not the reported 69+ million votes credited to him by the media. Had the Election of 2008 been conducted with paper ballots and #2 pencils, Obama would have received 32.5% of the vote. McCain would have received 63.3% of the vote. Since most of Obama's fake votes came from the large industrial States, the electoral vote count would likely have given McCain 365 votes to Obama's 173.

McCain, who agreed with the princes of industry to be the designated loser in 2008 never contested the obvious fraud that showed for the world to see since it was the Bush-43 Federal Election Commission that put the report together. I reported these statistics on Nov. 28, 2009 when Obama arrogantly had the FEC election results posted on the home page of the White House website as a slap-in-the-face to attorney Orley Taitz who filed a Quo Warranto lawsuit against the occupant of the Oval Office, demanding to know by what authority he claimed to rule. Taitz somehow thought she was going to force Obama to produce a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate (or wave the white flag).. He did neithert. His reply, in the form of the FEC filing,wordlessly said, "By winning the election." What Attorney Taitz did was flush out the first of two fake birth certificates, signed by then Hawaiian governor Linda Lingle who, although the governor, had no authority to sign birth certificates. The second was a fake so poorly constructed, a high school student imported the document into Adobe and pulled the fake layers apart.

The Tea Party existed at that time, but the tea partiers, primarily homemakers and soccer moms were more concerned with what Barack Obama was doing with their money. Obama, like every social progressive in the world, believes the money the middle class earns with their sweat equity investment of time and labor doesn't belong to them until the IRS takes its share, the Welfare gurus takes their share, and the State and county governments take what's left. And, we get to keep just about what Barack Obama promised us in 2008—change. Pocket change.

The Tea Party needs to change its focus and stop thinking about nickels and dimes or how to elect some dimwit because the House Republicans can't get any legislation past Gen. Stonewall Jackson Harry Reid. And, instead of figuring how to jettison the leadership of the Republican Party, those intelligent housewives and soccer moms who brought political awareness to the couch potatoes, need to take off their own uniparty dunce hats and put on their universal thinking caps and start campaigning against the social progressives who are much closer to converting America to a totalitarian State than you are to vacationing next summer in the Hamptons.

Sen. Harry Reid [D-NV] , who was well on his way to defeat by challenger Sharron Angle in his Senate race in 2010 is still the leader of the US Senate (and currently sitting on over 325 House bills proposed by the same GOP that Tea Party imbeciles in the 113th Congress are trying to dump because they, like Barack Obama and the leftwing media, are pointing fingers at those that Obama, the leftwing media and the Tea Party refer to the GOP as the "do-nothing obstructionists" who are preventing any bills from getting through Congress, theoretically forcing the community organizer to use his "telephone" and "pen" make anything happen on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The only problem is, Public Law 107-252 violates Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution which says:The Times, Places and Manners of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed by each State Legislature. Congress, however may, at any time, alter the regulations with respect only to the day (singular, nor plural) the election takes place. Once you change the nature of the election (i.e., the manner of the election, you need to amend the Constitution). The manner and places where the elections are held are the sole prerogative of the State. What does that mean? It means Congress can change the date (singular) when the election is held. To change the date (singular) to dates (plural) by granting voters early voting rights, you encourage fraud [as in the case of the Election of 2012],where Democrat ringers were given the unchallenged right to vote Republican voters ballots with absolutely no one checking to verify they were the voter they claimed to be. By doing so, both the precinct officials and the fraudulent early voter committed a felony and all of them should be in prison today.

If the voters in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century without automobiles and public transportation could get out and cast their votes in one 24 hour period, voters in the super fast 21st century should be able to do the same thing. To change Election Day to Election Month(s) requires a constitutional amendment. Congress can change Election Day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the first Saturday after the First Friday, or any single day of any month of the year—but they cannot change the manner in which the votes are cast, or where those local voting precincts are located. That's the sole prerogative of the State.

Their job of making sure the elections are conducted honestly is the the job of "we the People." In other words, that's your job—keeping the elections honest and, most of all, keeping the politicians honest.

The job of the Tea Party has always been to be the voice of dissent. They are the John Hancocks and the Samuel Adamses of the 21st century. Adams used scores of pen names to urge the colonials to rebel against England. No one knows for sure how many pseudonyms he wrote under, but he was one of the most prolific voices for liberty in North America, arguing over and over again that it was not a question of "if" Americans should throw off the shackles of British serfdom, but "when" they would do it. When the Tea Party moms showed up at the town hall meetings they became a thousand Sam Adams all named Mrs. America.

The Democrats never knew what hit them. Not even after-the-fact. They thought the Republicans were doing the same rope-a-dope they do—buy their audiences and bus them in to their "town halls" for media photo ops designed to make it look like both the blue and white collar working class: black, brown and white actually agree with the social progressive agenda that was enacted would help, not rape, the American people of their hard-earned "wealth." The working class that is scraping by with a paycheck that almost lets them just about make it from month to month still doesn't get it. They keep hearing Barack Obama talk about making the rich cough up more money. They don't realize that, in the social progressive world if you have two dimes and a quarter to rub together after the bills are paid, you;'re part of the well-to-do. You're the rich middle class guy Obama wants to "pay his fair share." You aren't stupid enough to think Obama meant that the really rich people should pay more taxes, did you? Don't be silly. You're the rich person he's talking about.

If they have a paycheck and a little pocket-change at the the end of the week—even if both dad and mom have to work two or more jobs each to keep food on the table and juggle the utilities well enough to keeps the lights, phone and cable from being shut off—they're part of that rich middle class Obama expects to give a hand-up to the lazy class who refuses to take any job that doesn't pay as much as Mr. Fat Cat down the street.

Interviewed by Hardball host Chris Wallace after an August, 2009 "town hall" on Obamacare, Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA] told Wallace that the media needed to "...take a look at what's going on here," insisting that the healthcare protests were GOP instigated "...to hurt [Obama], and to change Congress." The people who were disrupting the townhalls, she insisted, were rent-a-protesters for the Republican Party "...in limes and pinks and Brooks Brothers suits" who, she contended, showed up the health care town halls all over the country on cue from the bigwigs in the Party, wearing Dockers and short sleeve sport shirts, or dresses, shorts and tank tops and flipflops to protest.

Then White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs referred to the Tea Party protesters who suddenly appeared at the town halls as a form of "manufactured anger" to make it appear that the American people were against Obamacare when, he noted, all of the polls showed the American people favored the theft of their money and totalitarian control over their lives. Blaming the national GOP organization, then Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse went much further than Gibbs by branding the protesters as "angry mobs of rabid rightwing extremists." The Democrats well know from experience, when you want to disrupt the message of the opposition, you bus in protesters. And well they should know. They've been doing it since the FDR New Deal years.

Remember this: there are 50 States participating in the 2014 mid-term elections (even though Obama seems to think there are 57 States). Before you go out to vote this year, take the time to examine, in your mind, not only the candidates running for the House and Senate, but what they guy in the White House has done since 2009, and how many of his campaign promises has he kept—that you could keep your current healthcare insurance, and that the price would drop dramatically when instead, it has risen cataclysmic?

Ask yourself if you think Barack Obama should be impeached. If you think he should be, you have a choice. You can elect a school teacher or you can lead a national protest that forces his impeachment, his trial, his conviction and his twenty-years to life prison sentence. The effectiveness of the Tea Party is what they did in 1773 and 2009, not what they are doing today. The role of the Tea Party is to define the issues that are important to America, and get the couch potatoes off their butts and into the streets, not get school teachers nominated for an office they will never win. Well, for whatever it's worth, once again, you have my two cents worth on this subject. Until next time...





Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved