Tag Archive for Congress

An Open Letter to the US 10th District Congresswoman Barbara Comstock

Today’s post directly addresses an email sent out by Congresswoman Barbara Comstock of the US Tenth District to her constituents (pasted at the bottom of this post).  Specifically, it poses an intellectual challenge to her sponsored legislation promoting institutionalized discrimination against males.  I for one am tired of the double standards that these false “social justice” activists are promoting.  They claim they want equality for all, but in fact, only want to establish preferential double standards.  These standards of social justice have nothing to do with the betterment of society and certainly do not represent justice in any way for the people.  In fact, the imposed double standards of the social justice movement are divisive and wholly self-serving for the political Left.  The goal is not to see true justice or equality, but to institutionalize the power of the Left Wing Establishment over “the masses.”  In practice, that means a miserable life under totalitarian rule for everyone to include “liberal Democrats.” 

Point by point, issue by issue, using reason I will destroy their every argument.  This won’t be my last article.  I will call out every one of these traitors on Capitol Hill.  Congresswoman Comstock is just the first.  I level the challenge to our mainstream media outlets to include papers like the Washington Post and New York Times to unbiasedly address these issues.  These liberal media organizations control the message that is received by the people supporting these insane initiatives and have for years been the major proponents of these policies.  However, these policies are destroying our country and we all will pay the price liberal and conservative alike.  We need to drop the partisanship and realize that a truly radical extremist element has hijacked this nation and we must all ban together to destroy it.  Our differences will remain, but we must challenge the divisive and destructive false narratives or risk losing our country. Read more

Today the Republic Dies with the Passage of the TPP: Welcome to the reality of debt, poverty, and serfdom compliments of your new global corporate leadership.

There are times when even the most dedicated amongst us have to sit down, take stock, and regroup.  I am physically ill from the treason that just occurred today in the halls of Congress.  No republic dies of a single blow, but dies many deaths before it is finally exhausted.  Today obliterated what was left of our Republic as the Senate voted 60-38 to approve the TPP.  With barely a blimp in the headlines crowded by relentless lunacy about the Confederate Flag and gay rights the Senate just approved a trade bill that will now go to the President to be signed into law.  In the dark of the night when no one was paying attention, this legislation was jammed through via political strong arming and corrupt buy-offs of Congress even though up to 90% of polled Americans opposed the legislation.  The passage of this bill will prove to be one of the major acts of America’s demise and mark a point where our nation descended into true tyranny. Read more

Oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Deal

We have been told by our nation’s leaders that the never ending free trade agreements being drafted and approved in secret are great for America.  However, the reality is that these trade deals have all been at the expense of America.  The free trade deals have all but obliterated American jobs and industry and are being written by global corporations concerned solely with the bottom line of their most senior executives.  Most of us can at least remember Ross Perot’s famous “sucking sound” comment in reference to the disastrous effect the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would have on our economy.  He was laughed at then by Bush 1, but we aren’t laughing now as our battered economy barely maintains a pulse and Perot was proved correct.  Today we are being faced with the face tracking of the most egregious deal yet, the TPP, which will utterly destroy the last vestiges of American industrial power and ultimately bring down our economy.

As I warned over a year ago (see article), the TPP will utterly finish off what little remains of American industry and global dominance.  For those still willing and able to take the fight to Congress, now is the time to oppose this rotten deal that has been done in complete secrecy at your expense.  Even worse, the Republican controlled Congress has sold you out by aiding and abetting President Obama to get this deal passed without public scrutiny.  These traitors are accomplishing this by voting to cede Congress’ constitutional authority to approve trade deals to the sole discretion of the President.  So much for checks and balances John Boehner.  I have said it many times, if you think for a second that a Republican controlled government is any different and will stand up for our Constitution and the rule of law you are badly mistaken.  The difference between Democrats and Republicans is generally just semantic now and it would be better to refer to the parties more accurately as the communist party and the socialist party respectively.  Aside from a very few hold outs, Congress is completely bought and sold and you will pay the price for it if your apathy prevents you from action.  However you can find a way, raise hell with your elected leaders and demand that Congress retain their authority to review trade deals and that the TPP is stopped. Read more

Why No One Should Serve in the US Military: Your leaders are incompetent and your next Secretary of Defense is no exception.

The face of your next wartime leader...really?

The face of your next wartime leader…really?

As a combat veteran of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I am going to be very blunt.  Lives depend on being direct and the need for military personnel to come forward and tell the truth.  In fact, it is chilling that no one has called out the insanity taking place before our very eyes within the ranks of the military.  The senior military leadership is incompetent to lead.  Our failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan bare this out.  Today’s testimony by the soon to be next Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter should make it blatantly clear that no one should consider joining our military.  For current active duty and reserve members, run for the door and get the hell out as soon as your obligations allow. Read more

The Next Manufactured War: China and the Pacific Theater Take Center Stage

As we have exhaustively written and warned in previous articles, a new war will need to be manufactured to continue to justify the continued redistribution of billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex financed by the big banks.  The titans of the defense industry and the loan sharks of the banking world cannot afford peace and will stop at nothing to create fear and war to ensure their wealth is secure.  The United States economy has not made a true comeback as has been touted by the media and falsified government reports and soon the bubble the Federal Reserve created will have to be deflated.  To keep the public distracted and the money flowing, a new plan to create fear, instability, and possibly war in the Pacific has now begun.

It is becoming increasingly clear that no matter what deal is or is not struck in Afghanistan respective of continued troop deployments, NATO and the US forces are going to be forced to retreat within the next 12 to 18 months.  The Taliban’s (Pakistan’s) strategic victory is all but assured now, which will make future occupation by U.S. personnel impossible.  Further, the movement toward war with Iran by way of Syria has been temporarily checked by Russia until Israel can build enough clandestine support behind the scenes to sabotage any future peace deal or unilaterally attack Iran.  As such, the military-industrial complex has turned back to its fear mongering and war propaganda to begin conditioning the public that North Korea and China are again dire threats that must be stopped at all costs and that war could break out at any moment.  Of course this hyperbole is used to justify the “need” for new advanced weapons, continued funding of obsolete, redundant, or unnecessary defense systems, and to generally control the masses.  As a nation we have witnessed this ploy over and over resulting in unnecessary wars from Vietnam to Iraq that have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars worldwide.  The wanton destruction wrought by these industry power plays can’t be understated.  For example, as we reported in the spring of 2013, North Korea was rebranded as a strategic missile threat overnight and then only weeks later forgotten after the defense-aerospace industry scared Congress and the public into refunding their missile defense programs that have been wasting billions of tax dollars and were rightfully on the sequester chopping block.  The fact that the bankers and defense propagandists nearly started World War III didn’t matter a bit because no matter whether or not war broke out, it was you and I that would have to bleed, pay, and die for their fortunes.  This process of fear mongering and dangerous brinkmanship is a trademark defense industry ploy used to make sure you continue to write them checks for billions of dollars without question.  Without question, it is one of the most diabolical, destructive, despicable, and immoral of all lies repeatedly pushed on the citizens of nations.

Fortunately, the American people have to some degree grown war weary and have been sensitized to the lies of war propaganda.  This is good and bad.  It is good in that the simplest of lies will no longer suffice to convince the American people to once again go to war and bleed and pay for the elites to become wealthier.  However, the elites recognize this and will conduct even more aggressive and despicable acts to create the conditions for war.  For illustration, just this year in Syria, a false flag chemical weapons attack was launched against innocent civilians in an attempt to frame the Syrian regime and justify the US becoming involved in yet another war in the Middle East.  It is important to note that this attack using weapons of mass destruction was resorted to after numerous lesser attempts to “convict” the Syrian regime in the minds of the public and precipitate a war had failed.  This included launching mortar rounds into Israel and Turkey, launching air attacks into Syria directly from Israel, directly providing training and weapons to known terrorists operating in Syria, repeatedly violating Syrian airspace so that they would shoot down a NATO jet, and persistently trying to brand the radical Islamic jihadists of the revolutionary forces as a peaceful, unified, pro-US, Free Syrian Army.  All of these acts were designed to either directly or indirectly illicit a defensive response from Syria, which Washington could then spin into an act of “aggression” to justify retaliation and war.  The Syrian example is just one of many illustrating to what deranged extremes our hijacked government will go to to force the US into another unnecessary war and is a cautionary tale of things to come.

Relative to the recent wars in the Middle East, a war in the Pacific promises to be far more devastating and has the real possibility of involving nuclear weapons and electromagnetic pulses designed to wipe out all unshielded electronics.  However, “devastating” translates to windfall profits for the defense industry and their financiers on a scale not seen since World War II.  A war or even the threat of war with China would mandate trillions of new defense spending financed through loans to the US government (ironically, this new debt would probably be bought by China).  New high tech weapon systems would have to be fast tracked into service and even more draconian surveillance and cyber warfare systems would also be justified to “protect” the homeland.  The Defense Department would once again get a blank check unlike any before from Congress to pursue an entirely new portfolio of overpriced defense programs, many of which, would target the American people as much as foreign entities as the current “War on Terror” has demonstrated.

The march toward war in the Pacific will be far more costly and devastating than even the worst case scenarios for the Middle East if allowed to move forward.  Not only will the US suffer a total economic collapse, but unprecedented death and destruction if the game of brinkmanship is overplayed and China and or North Korea call our bluff.  China is not an ally of the US, but is also not any more of a threat than we decide to create.  If you want to check China, it will be best done through effective economic competition and by strengthening our freedoms and liberties at home.  Runaway defense spending will only weaken the US.  Stop giving China preferential trade status, stop creating massive debt at home, stop educating China’s military scientists, stop allowing China to steal our most sensitive secrets, stop providing China and North Korea aid, and hold the line on our sphere of influence.  At home we have to cut taxes on citizens as well as reduce the overwhelming bureaucratic weight of endless regulations and taxes on businesses.  We need to protect our workers, our products, our technology, and our industry by not undermining them with imbalanced trade deals favoring offshoring and overseas manufacturing.  We also need to secure our borders, dismantle the surveillance state, cut the size of government, wean the population from state dependencies, and become as individuals and a nation much more self-sufficient.  Cutting the Defense Budget will go a long way to neutralizing the financial influence the military-industrial complex has over US policy and would strengthen, not weaken the security of the US.  All of these actions will go far toward reigning in massive and unnecessary spending and debt.  The media must also be returned to its watchdog status of the government and be purged of its recently assumed role as the public relations arm of the political parties.  No American interest is served by a biased media.  Failure to provide honest, unbiased, and factual news to the American people will lead to further deceit, loss of liberties, degradation of our quality of life, and potentially devastating wars.

Once again we are here warning the public of what is transpiring behind the scenes and are the first to bring it to you.  The best way to battle this latest escalation toward war is to become informed, know the facts, and make sure others are educated as well.  Neither the media nor the government can lie to you if you independently have sought out and found the truth.  Take this truth to the internet, the airwaves, the cable news programs, your local clubs…anywhere you can find an audience.  By exposing the lies and replacing them with knowledge and facts you can collectively disrupt and stop the plans of the defense and banking industries and their puppets within the government.  Those of you who serve the government; especially in the military, have an obligation to the American people and the Constitution to also speak out, to refuse to become an active participant, and to stop these unconstitutional and thus illegal and immoral actions.  Only through action can we overcome these true threats to the US, the gravest of which, have originated internally.

By Guiles Hendrik 

December 11, 2013

All rights reserved.

The Disenfranchisement of America and the Plan to Reverse It

The Constitution says that the number of representatives shall not exceed one representative for every 30,000 constituents.  This ratio was roughly equal to the actual ratio of representatives to the population at the time the Constitution was ratified.  However, today, most states have less than one representative per 700,000 people.  The result of this massive dilution of federal representation in Congress has been a near total disenfranchisement of the population and consolidation of power within two establishment political parties.  In order to begin restoring the balance of power to the people, breaking the party gridlock within Congress, and restoring liberty we must build popular support to overturn the arbitrary limit of 435 representatives set in 1929.  The sooner we build awareness and draw media attention to this issue, the greater the pressure will be on Congress to increase its size and begin to return the power to their constituents.

To begin, for a republic such as the United States to have a functioning representative government, there must be adequate and real representation of the citizen body.  The representatives must be answerable to their constituents and not political parties.  The notion today that a single representative can adequately represent the interests of over 700,000 people is lunacy normalized through decades of slowly eroding the individual’s political value to the point of nonexistence.  Further, the faux representation perpetrated upon the American people today has only been possible because politicians realize that their power is proportional to the number of people they represent.  The exact opposite is true for citizens.  The fewer citizens that are represented by a single representative, the more direct representation and influence the citizen possesses.

The Founding Fathers of the United States had much to say on the topic of what fair representation at the federal level would look like.  James Madison understood the danger of too few dictating to the many and adequately summarized his thoughts as the smaller the House, relative to the total population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion or myopic groupthink.  In contrast, “Numerous bodies … are less subject to venality and corruption.”  [James Madison, 14-August-1789]   Federalist Paper Number 56 (February 19, 1788) describes this ratio stating, “…it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the [House of Representatives] both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.”  Note that the number “THIRTY THOUSAND” was capitalized in the papers for emphasis.

Melancton Smith’s observations deserve special attention as he, perhaps more than any of the other delegates to the Federal Convention, understood the gravity of the situation.  He knew that the power to determine the number of representatives could not be left to the ruling elite, which all too often become addicted to power.  This would be “a power inconsistent with every principle of a free government, to leave it to the discretion of the rulers to determine the number of representatives of the people.  There was no kind of security except in the integrity of the men who were entrusted; and if you have no other security, it is idle to contend about constitutions.” [Melancton Smith]  Smith elaborates on his valid and time proven point that we cannot expect the House to unilaterally increase the number of representatives.  “To me it appears clear, that the relative weight of influence of the different states will be the same, with the number of representatives at sixty-five as at six hundred, and that of the individual members greater; for each member’s share of power will decrease as the number of the House of Representatives increases.  If, therefore, this maxim be true, that men are unwilling to relinquish powers which they once possess, we are not to expect the House of Representatives will be inclined to enlarge the numbers.  The same motive will operate to influence the President and Senate to oppose the increase of the number of representatives; for, in proportion as the House of Representatives is augmented, they will feel their own power diminished.  It is, therefore, of the highest importance that a suitable number of representatives should be established by the Constitution.” [Melancton Smith]

Alexander Hamilton, an opponent of writing limits on representation into the Constitution, provides interesting insights into his logic.  For starters, it appears he neither conceived nor intended the federal government to have the sweeping powers that it possesses today.  “The subject on which this argument of a small representation has been most plausibly used, is taxation.  As to internal taxation, in which the difficulty principally rests, it is not probable that any general regulation will originate in the national legislature.” [Alexander Hamilton]  How Hamilton would have reacted to the reality of the Federal Income Tax, Obama Care, and the litany of other internal taxes levied since the ratification of the Constitution is anyone’s guess, but based on his above statement, one could surmise he would have altered his position on the need to include specific representational limits in the Constitution.  This conclusion is further supported by Hamilton’s statements respective of his belief that the federal government’s powers were limited and would never extend into one’s private life.   “The powers of the new government are general, and calculated to embrace the aggregate interests of the Union, and the general interest of each state, so far as it stands in relation to the whole. … Were the laws of the Union to new-model the internal police of any state; were they to alter, or abrogate at a blow, the whole of its civil and criminal institutions; were they to penetrate the recesses of domestic life, and control, in all respects, the private conduct of individuals,—there might be more force in the objection; and the same Constitution, which was happily calculated for one state, might sacrifice the welfare of another.” [Alexander Hamilton]  Of course we know now that the federal government has grown so oppressive and omnipresent as to invade every aspect of one’s private life.  As such, Hamilton’s grounds for objection, however implausible he may have believed them to be at the time, turned out to be the very grounds that time has proven most required the Constitution to dictate an equitable ratio of representatives to constituents.

Based on the rather clear intent of the individuals ratifying the Constitution, one may wonder how did the number of Representatives become fixed at 435?  The answer is rather simple; because Congress passed a bill in 1929.  The bill sought to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 unless Congress, by affirmative action, overturns the formula and abandons the policy enunciated by this bill.  Respective of the number 435, there is no real reason other than that was the number of representatives at the time and the House found it advantageous to their political power to limit the growth further.  Of course the population of the United States has massively grown since 1929, which in effect increased the representation ratio to such an astronomically large number that the mere notion of representation was utterly destroyed.  However, this has only bolstered the power of the representatives and political parties, which have gerrymandered districts to the point of making the election of independent, grassroots connected representatives nearly impossible.  Except for those who are independently wealthy, election and reelection campaigns in super-sized districts require that the representatives raise huge sums of money on a nearly continuous basis.  This makes representatives beholden to the parties and big donors that funded their campaign instead of the constituents they purportedly are there to represent.  In short, this allows special interests, lobbyists, and other corrupting elements to highjack the representative.

To put the state of disenfranchisement in perspective, it is worth noting that Russia as compared to the United States has over 50% better representation of its people.  In fact, the United States has the second worst ratio of population to House representative in the world.  Surely as the “leader of the free world” the United States could muster better representation.



Challenging this notion one may surmise that a larger House would result in even more gridlock in Congress.  However, with an approval rating consistently below 10% and the inability to so much as even pass a budget, it would be hard to imagine a more dysfunctional Congress.  Further, if the above maxim that a smaller legislative body would be much more productive held true, then the Senate would certainly be very efficient.  However, the Senate is as dysfunctional as the House when it comes to operation.  In fact, there are rarely more than a handful of Congressmen from any chamber present during session and even fewer actually engaged in meaningful debate.  In part, this is because the work of the Congress is broke down into committees, which would be no different if the House increased its numbers.  As for anyone that doubts a large body could pass legislation, California is often used as proof this is untrue.  In fact, California has for decades effectively voted on hundreds of propositions.  If the millions of people in California can effectively vote on legislative initiatives, it should be simple for even ten thousand representatives to vote on similar legislation.  Naysayers may also point out that the government is too big already and adding more Congressmen will just make it worse.  This is also untrue and in fact just the opposite would most likely be the outcome.  As the number of representatives increase, Congress will have to become more representative of the people.   The House will be more, not less motivated to reduce the size of the government.  This is because the representative will be far more accountable to their constituents, which will be much better able to monitor their actions.  It is also worth noting that an increase in actual representatives may be closer to an overall neutral growth in government employees because fewer staff members are required to support smaller districts, which would balance against larger staffs to support larger districts.

Each state is guaranteed at least one representative, no matter what its population.  States with a single member in the U.S. House of Representatives are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.  The District of Columbia has a non-voting delegate in Congress who has all the powers and rights of a representative, but is not permitted to vote.  Currently, the approximate number of constituents to a representative is around 705,000.  If the ratio was closer to 1:50,000 we would have a House with about 6,100 representatives.  This increase could be dealt with by regionalization of Congress much like the Federal Court Districts, which could have interactive debate via the web and electronic voting.  It would also mean your vote once again counted and you would have real influence at what approximated to what most experience at the state level of politics.  It would once again be difficult for any one party to control Congress.  It would be even more difficult for special interests, big businesses, and lobbyists to buy off Congress simply due to the sheer number or representatives, which would require immensely large sums of money and unavailable financial and manpower resources to gain a majority of support for pork legislation.  The result would be a more accountable, more effective, and more representative Congress.

The notion that we could once again have realistic representation in Congress is not a pipe dream.  It is an obtainable goal that is well within the feasible realm of effective change initiatives liberty minded citizens can unite around.  We must build the awareness of the population that the status quo is unacceptable and that the 1929 law that disenfranchised us today must be overturned.  We need to all write our Congressmen, get on talk shows and radio, use social media, and empower the grassroots movements around this nation to take this goal on as a part of the platform.


By Guiles Hendrik

December 9, 2013

All rights reserved




The Debates in the Federal Convention

August 6, 1787

As the proportions of numbers in different States will alter from time to time; as some of the States may hereafter be divided; as others may be enlarged by addition of territory; as two or more States may be united; as new States will be erected within the limits of the United States, the Legislature shall, in each of these cases, regulate the number of representatives by the number of inhabitants, according to the provisions herein after made, at the rate of one for every forty thousand.

— Reported by James Madison

Why You Should Fear the Government When You are Not Doing or Saying “Anything Wrong”

Source: http://www.newworldnews.com/news/tag/irs/

Source: http://www.newworldnews.com/news/tag/irs/

When educating people about the dangers of broad and unchecked government surveillance, sadly, it is all too often that “educated” people will say that they are not concerned because “they have nothing to hide” or that “they aren’t saying or doing anything wrong.”  To say these people are missing the point is a dangerous understatement.  Naiveté aside, these people are parroting media programmed responses without applying the least bit of intellectual rigor to their statement.  Not only is history full of very good reasons to fear overly intrusive police states spying into your private life, but current events also provide more than enough justification to worry.  The truth is that the United States Government has been and will continue to egregiously violate law-abiding citizens’ rights and terrorize political opponents until it is checked on all fronts by a united population that demands accountability and punishment for the criminal abuses of power.

Literally tens of millions of people have been put to death in China, the Soviet Union, and Germany for doing, saying, or believing things that are perfectly legal, lawful, and peaceful.  Under Stalin, being educated was enough to have you shipped off to the gulags.  In China, the mere appearance of not adhering to the government’s political agenda earned you a bullet to the head.  In East Germany something as simple as a neighbor reacting improperly to a political speech or a child’s comment about his parents’ dinner time conversation to a teacher could earn the unsuspecting offender a night time visit from the Stasi.  Many would quickly say this is not a comparable case since the U.S. is far different than these governments.  However, more and more frequently, it appears that the U.S. Government is indeed singling out peaceful, law-abiding citizens for nothing more than their personal beliefs, religious convictions, or political ideology.  The targeted citizens are many and includes veterans, gun owners, Christians, those that do not believe in condoning abortion or homosexual activity, whistleblowers, conservatives, farmers, hunters, fisherman, coal miners, war re-enactors, small businesses, and parents that believe in home schooling.  The price these law-abiding citizens, businesses, and organizations are paying for their beliefs are becoming steeper and steeper as the government incrementally consolidates powers and eliminates any opposition.

The pattern of U.S. Government sponsored terrorizing of citizens to force political agendas is disturbing and is becoming more and more common.  Most recently, it was exposed that the Obama Administration has known since 2011 that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been systematically targeting conservative political groups and Jewish organizations for additional tax scrutiny.[i]  These people were targeted for government harassment not because of illegal activity, but because of their constitutionally protected beliefs that were contrary to those held by the ruling elite.  Instead of demanding resignations and criminal trials for the blatantly illegal actions by members of the IRS and Obama Administration, the White House has instead chose to label the actions as “inappropriate.”  “Inappropriate” is by default the White House condoning the terrorizing of citizens that hold different political or religious beliefs.  Remember, Jewish groups were also targeted by the government.  One need only remember what happened in Germany to see where this kind of unchecked activity leads.  Even businesses as innocent and innocuous as Chick-fil-A have been recently targeted for holding firm to their legal and constitutionally protected religious beliefs.  Chick-fil-A’s refusal to cave to government harassment and terrorizing threatened to put a widely loved American restaurant chain out of business for nothing more than opposing the cult of Obama’s political correctness.

If the Obama Administration is allowed to get away with these repeated criminal abuses of power, there will no longer be any legal obstacles to the ruling elite using whatever government force it wants to “force” compliance with its agenda and ideology.  No matter what political party one may currently affiliate with, you have a responsibility to hold your party to account and should demand they take action.  Failing now means that when another party comes to power, as it inevitably does, you will be the one whose political or religious beliefs are targeted.  If you fail to act now, then you can guarantee your cries for help will go unheard and you will have no one to blame, but yourself.  Those that think that “doing nothing wrong” means they will be safe are not only ignorant, but also will be some of the first victims when government oppression progresses from harassment to total control and terrorism.  Please act daily to inform your circle of friends and urge action.  Contact your elected representatives and demand they take legal action immediately.  If the politicians fail to listen and act, make sure that they know this will be the end of their political careers and make doubly sure they are not re-elected.  In fact, if the party as a whole refuses to act, make sure to vote for none of the above and find a qualified independent candidate that is willing to break the death grip the parties have on our country.

By Guiles Hendrik