Why I'll be voting for Robert Sarvis for U.S. Senate

      In the race for the Senate seat of Virginia, there is a 3 way battle going on right now. Despite what the media may have told you, there are three men running for the seat. What, the media told you there was only two? Figures, that's a common tactic used by the mainstream media, since they are bought for and the mouthpieces of the two corrupt and long overdue political parties. They ignore 3rd party candidates and therefore, people who only listen to the mainstream media, and nothing else, do not hear about the 3rd party candidates.
     Anyway, back on topic. We have Robert Sarvis of the Libertarian party, Mark Warner of the Democratic party, and Ed Gillespie of the Republican party. The later two will continue to destroy America bit by bit. If you think I'm exaggerating by saying the word "destroy," just look at our country, and tell me it isn't an exaggeration. We are trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt, we are like a crazed psychopath with an unlimited credit card. Our image and strength abroad is the laughing stock of the world. We are the target of attacks because we cannot stop killing people overseas. Our economy is still in shambles, thanks to the crony capitalists and the 1% completely destroying the middle and lower classes of America to gobble up more wealth for themselves. The "War on Drugs" is wrecking havoc through communities around the country, the NSA knows every single thing we do on the internet and the vast majority of Americans don't care, undocumented immigrants pour into this country by the millions, a generation of young adults have no future because of the recession, I mean, if that isn't destruction, then what the fuck is?!
     Warner and Gillespie support all of this destruction. Their parties support and orchestrate all of it, they thrive off it. The 1% has never been better off than they are now. So that's why I'm voting for Sarvis, because he and other libertarians seek to end of all this.
     Here, I'll go by an issue by issue basis, stating Warner's or Gillespie's opinion on the issue, and then Sarvis's, and explain why I like Sarvis's opinion better than the formers.  

     1. The national debt and budget crisis.
     Mark Warner has no problem not balancing the budget, just borrow more money, that's his solution. That, and raise taxes. Because us pesky lower class workers aren't paying enough in taxes, apparently! "Warner told CNN in 2011 that he is convinced that when it comes to managing federal finances, long-term bipartisan planning is a superior way to lowering debt than a balanced budget amendment."
      http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/jun/30/mark-warner/warner-has-changed-position-balanced-budget-amendm/
     Mark Warner has voted with President Obama a whooping 97% of the time. Nothing says lap dog like doing everything your master tells you to. And we all know how much Obama's economic policies have totally wrecked this nation's economy: He's increased the deficit by at least 57%, and he's borrowed 60 TRILLION DOLLARS since taking office.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/
    Warner had a hand in all that....97% of it, to be exact. He thinks going trillions of dollars in debt is perfectly okay. He never stops to think "Hmmmm, maybe we'd better take a look at all of these wealth transferring policies and see if all of them are Constitutional." Damn the Constitution, Warner and his fascist pigs have money to steal!!    
     Conservatives routinely tout that they do not spend a lot and can balance a budget. Apparently they haven't looked at the debt since 2001. Despite stereotypes that Democrats borrow and go into debt and conservatives spend less and balance the budget, the fact is, they're dead wrong. Gillespie was part of the Bush administration, and we all know how well that group of brain dead retards did. Bush increased the deficit by 38%.
     Sarvis won't do what either man did. Straight from his website:

     Let's face it: Neither Republicans nor Democrats, neither Ed Gillespie nor Mark Warner, has any credibility when it comes to protecting taxpayers' money and shepherding scarce resources. Both parties have enacted new, expensive entitlements. Both parties have increased discretionary spending. Both parties have supported wars of choice.

      I pledge to make debt-reduction and balanced budgets a priority. I support simplifying the tax code, reforming entitlements, and cutting bloated budgets—including military spending. And I support a balanced budget amendment and protections against accounting gimmicks.

I’m also the only candidate who supports expanding and protecting both economic and personal freedom—and I understand how they are linked. For instance, our failed War on Drugs contributes to the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world. That’s not only unjust, it's expensive and perpetuates poverty. By unleashing freedom, we will expand economic growth and opportunity, and in turn, reduce the burden on the safety net.

     http://www.robertsarvis.com/debt-spending-and-balanced-budgets

     Sarvis would run the national debt like a person who runs the money of a household. When you have $200 to spend for the week, do you say "Hmmmm, now how to make that $200 last so I don't go over?" or do you say, like a dumbass maniac "Oh I'll just spend all of that and when I need to buy more I'll just put it all on my credit card and after that I'll just get a loan from the bank, etc." 

     A fiscally responsible manages his finances within his budget; a Republican or Democrat says "To hell with my budget, I wanna spend this much, so let's borrow this much right now!"

     2. Civil Liberties.
     Mark Warner and Gillespie see us as cattle, as fodder to grow their sadistic fascist empire. They do not give a flaming fuck about any one of your human rights. If breaking your human rights meaning getting more money or power for them, then they will not think twice about fucking breaking it.

• Ed Gillespie has worked for the Republican party for decades, a party that has persecuted Muslims both here and abroad. He will surely believe he believes in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights when it comes to protecting religion...unless your Muslim. Then to hell with your religion, we're Amurca here! Just type "The Republican party and Islam" and you'll get all the examples you need of how this party persecutes Muslims. Hell, see how the Bush Administration dealt with Muslims here in America after 9/11. 
• Both do not support your freedom of speech. Both Warner and Gillespie support the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the NSA surveillance, etc. If you say anything against them, then you're automatically and without question a terrorist. If they saw this blog, they'd call me a terrorist supporter, even though they're the ones who are supporting terrorism, (we'll get to that in second). So that's the 4th Amendment out the fucking window!
•  Bush created Guantanamo Bay, and Gillespie was part of that administration. Obama loves Guantanamo, keeping it open even though 6 years ago he said he would get rid of it, (when's he going to get that?). Mark Warner has no problem with Guantanamo Bay, after all, he votes with Obama basically all the time, and has been a part of the Democratic party, which has kept the Bay open for years when they could've gotten rid of it. So, both Warner and Gillespie have no problem getting rid of the 5th Amendment if it's in the name of "national security." Oh, and the 6th Amendment as well, that comes under the rights broken by both parties with the creation of Guantanamo and the mass arrests right after 9/11, in which people were kidnapped from their homes in the dead of night, held without charges or access to lawyers. Does everyone just fucking forget about that and act like it didn't fucking happen?!   
• Both parties support asset forfeiture. This is a law that originally was designed to halt drug operations, but now, as usual, the cops abuse this law and use it to legally steal money from people. That's right, if they find you with a large amount of cash, (large amount is subjective of course), then they can say "Oh it's drug money," and without any evidence or a trial, steal your cash. Then, they use it to buy nice and pretty things for their police department. Most people can't get their money back even through a trial, and even then, a trial takes months and months, and all the while, you don't have your money that you legally worked for and paid taxes on. Fucking bullshit.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/09/11/how-cops-got-a-license-to-steal-your-money/ Using cash to pay your landlord because you don't have checks? Better not get pulled over while going from the bank to home, otherwise, you might get robbed  by the boys in blue. Gonna use cash to buy an expensive item and you don't want to use a credit card because of all the identity theft recently? Better not get pulled over coming from Best Buy or Home Depot to home. Sarvis wants to end this fascist and highway robbery rule. He stands up for human rights, saying "No, I don't care who you are. If you don't have evidence that this money is drug money, then you cannot steal it. Every person has the right of personal property, and no one, not even the police, can steal it."  

    3. Foreign Affairs
    This is where libertarianism really shines in comparison to neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Conservatives and liberals are basically identical when it comes to foreign policy, identically fucking retarded. Just take a quick look around the world and you'll see the oppression and destruction wrought by our foreign policy over the decades.

• Mark Warner and Ed Gillespie want the "War on Drugs" to continue. We'll talk about the domestic issues of this "War" in a little bit, but right now, we'll talk about how it affects our foreign policy, more specifically, Mexico, and South American countries, (Yes, Mexico is in NORTH America). Warner, Gillespie, and the whole Democratic and Republican party want to keep giving millions of dollars to the Mexican military and government. People conveniently forget that the Mexican government and military is a fascist machine that oppresses and kills their own citizens. Look at any number of these human rights reports and tell me: Is this where you want your tax money going to?!

          http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/mexico

          http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220667.pdf

          http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/mexico

          http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/LACRegion/Pages/MXIndex.aspx

         Many people refrain from criticizing the Mexican government and military, because "the drug cartels are worse so we gotta support them," or because they don't want to be seen as racist. I say fuck all that shit. Race has nothing to do with it. The Mexican government and military are oppressive regimes that are not in line with American values. They do not deserve our hard earned tax dollars, not because of their race, but because of the specific terroristic and fascist actions their military and government have taken. They take away Mexicans' freedom of speech. They torture innocent people charged with no crime. They do not give them trials. They deny their citizens a way to defend themselves; with only one legal gunstore in all of Mexico, many Mexicans are forced to buy guns illegally to defend their friends and family from cartel thugs and corrupt Mexican "security forces." 

       Not only that, but there are many American "advisers" that actively help Mexican security forces carry out raids and tortures. Now, do you like the fact that armed American men paid by the government are helping a terrorist regime kill and oppress their own citizens? Warner and Gillespie love that. They feed off the blood and suffering of innocent Mexican citizens. They are crazed beasts who's bloodlust is never satisfied. Tens of thousands of Mexicans have died over the decades, and what do Warner and Gillespie say? More guns! More advisors! More repression! Less rights!

      Sarvis is completely opposite of this demonic mindset. He opposes giving military aid to any country, for if no military aid was given, then there is no chance of it being misused for terrorist activities. He opposes military aid, regardless of the race or religion of the country in question. So that means no weapons, ammo, and training for Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, etc, all of these countries who oppress either their own people or another people with U.S. made weapons.
      Not only that, but libertarianism refuses to trade or do business with terrorist governments. Trade and business is taxable, and we cannot allow taxes from our trade and business to be used to oppress and kill innocent people. On principle, that is what we must do. We cannot continue to have innocent blood on our hands just so we can make a quick buck. So, that means no more trade with China, Russia, India, etc, all of those corrupt fascist and/or communist regimes.

      But if we do that, opponents of libertarianism would say, then we would not be able to buy all those cheap goods from these countries, especially China. Good, bring these jobs here back to America, who has plenty of people unemployed or underemployed who would love to work any one of those millions of jobs that would be brought back here. Opponents of this idea would say that the price of these goods would go up, because we cannot make them as cheap as China can. Well in that case, if morales are not involved in the decision process, if we are only going by the price it takes to produce something, then let's reintroduce slave labor in the U.S. to make those goods as cheap as they are made in China. Now you see how stupid it sounds. You support slave labor overseas to make your cheap ass stuff, but then as soon as someone suggests that Americans do the same, then suddenly that's off limits.
     Fact: sometimes you pay a monetary price to stand by your morales. We do that every day by saying no to slave labor, even though slave labor is cheaper than paying a worker to make something. The same must apply to this case: We will pay more for goods in order to stand by the moral of not giving money to terrorist regimes so they can oppress and kill their citizens. Americans are innovative. We will find a way to make those goods in a cheap enough fashion that other Americans can buy them.
     Another plus of libertarian foreign policy is that we only fight if we are being attacked by another country. No more making up data and lies to invade other countries for their natural resources, (Iraq and Afghanistan). No more fighting to keep tyrants and corrupt governments in power, (Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, etc). No more creating enemies so then we have an excuse to fight them (Al-Qaida, ISIS, etc). We have this novel idea that people don't like being bombed for no reason. WHO WOULD'VE FUCKING THOUGHT OF THAT, RIGHT?!

     4. War on Drugs
     So here is where we can talk about the devastating effects the War on Drugs has at home. Warner and Gillespie love the War on Drugs. They want it to be waged forever. They love locking people up for doing actions that affect no one but themselves. Warner and Gillespie have the mindset of "Hey, since I think drug xyz is immoral to use, I'm going to force EVERYONE to think this way by making it illegal!" or "Hey the Constitution says nothing about this drug xyz being illegal. Well fuck the Constitution, fuck Americans' rights, since I think it should illegal, then it is going to be illegal!"

     Both parties want to continue to throw huge amounts of money at this "problem" and it not be solved, ($51 BILLION A YEAR, on average, to be exact). Both of them want to continue to arrest Americans, so many that we have the highest concentration rate of citizens in prison IN THE WORLD. They want to continue to make drugs illegal, even though, if they were legal and taxable, would bring in $46.7 BILLION in revenue annually.
     http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
     Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why the hell do you think it would work for any other drug? Why do you think you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own body? It's not your fucking body!
      Sarvis says "Hey, unless an action is infringing on someone else's human rights, then I don't have a problem with it. It shouldn't be illegal. Things should only be illegal if they break someone else's human rights. Does someone smoking pot have any effect on me? No, so I have no right to tell him/her not to do it." I know, it's so simple that it ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE.      

     Republicans usually have a "holier than thou" complex, especially when it comes to drugs. They think they are doing God's work by prohibiting these drugs from being legal. 1st of all: fuck your religion. This country was founded on the principle that people cannot force their religious beliefs onto other people. So if you think smoking weed violates your religion, fine, that's your interpretation of the Bible. But don't go around thinking that is the only possible interpretation and forcing everyone else to abide by your personal beliefs.
     Democrats have a similar attitude, but without the religious overtones. They think they are so damn smart that they know what's best for you, better than you do. They want to be in control of your personal decisions, not you.

     5. Economics
     Bush tanked the economy, and Obama is continuing to hold it down in the mud. There, that should be reason enough not to vote for either party on the principle of economics, because both parties have shown that they are not able to manage the national economy. They only look out for the 1%, their bloc of power, and fuck everyone else.  Gillespie was part of the Bush administration, the one that, you know, ruined the lives of millions of people throughout the world, but especially Americans with its disastrous economic plans. And Warner votes with Obama 97% of the time. So he's signed off on basically every single economic policy that is continuing the recession, keeping the middle and lower classes down, keeping the underemployment high, etc, etc.  

      Does the above picture make your blood boil? Do you understand the full implications of what it is saying? Bank of America foreclosed, it failed, as a business, it tanked. Done. Finished. But Bush couldn't allow that to happen. So he bailed them out on the taxpayer's dime. So the bank still exists. Even though it failed, even though it's own decisions and policies caused its failure, Bush cheated and gave it another life. It's like a student getting an F on a test because he's a dumbass and didn't study, but the teacher feels bad for him and gives him an A anyway.
    But wait, it gets better. After being resurrected by the sweat of ordinary workers like you and me, Bank of America went through tax loopholes, intentionally ignored by the Bush and Obama administrations, and paid ZERO taxes on the $4.4 billion in profits. The administrations ignore these loopholes, because it is their cronies and supporters who exploit the loophole to pay no taxes. Year after year they leave the loopholes intact. See, if you or I tried to do that, we would be arrested for tax fraud. But if you're a member of this exclusive club, created by Obama, then you don't have to pay any taxes at all. Some capitalism. Some democracy.
     How is this remotely fair? I am dirt poor, yet I still pay about 25% of my salary to taxes every year, if you combine all state, federal, and income taxes together. Yet Bank of America, who made a billion times more money than I ever will, did not pay a single penny on their profits.  
     Warner and Gillespie favor bailouts for failing companies. Where's the taxpayers' bailout? Sarvis, on the other hand, does not support intervention in the economy. He has a Master's in Economics from George Mason University, so I think he knows what the fuck he is talking about. If a company fails in the economy, then that gives an opportunity for another company to take that niche and offer a better service/product in its place. This is how a economy is supposed to work. It's like if the government kept on propping up the carriage companies when car companies were rising in the 20's. We wouldn't have cars because the government wouldn't allow the carriage companies to naturally go out of business and make room for the new company of transportation. If Bank of America failed, then a new bank would rise and take its place, only it would learn from Bank of America's mistakes, hence, be a better bank. They would offer better services at better prices. This artificial propping up of archaic/inefficient companies is only hurting the economy in the long run. Bank of America knows it doesn't have to do good in the economy, because if it fails, the government will just bail it out again. There is not incentive to provide a good service at a good price.

     6. Secure the border.
     Both major parties are not seriously guarding our southern border. That is why we have 13 million plus illegal immigrants in this country. It also means that criminals, gang members, and terrorists can cross our southern border with ease, and cause havoc in our nation. A huge percentage of illegal immigrants commit murder in this country. And terrorists have been caught trying to enter the U.S. through the unguarded southern border: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/07/Report-10-ISIS-Fighters-Arrested-Crossing-Southern-Border
     Each party has its own reason to not put more troops at the southern border. They do not care about the welfare or safety of Americans. Democrats keep it open because they have this totally fucked up notion that keeping illegal immigrants out of this country is somehow racist against Hispanics. Well, then that means every country in the world is racist towards Hispanics, including Hispanic countries, because every single country in the world, including every single Hispanic nation, has immigration laws and procedures. Not one single country has completely open borders, because its national suicide. Its completely logical and rational to have procedures about who and when someone can enter your country. But nope, Democrats are paranoid about even possibly being considered racist, so they leave the border open for anyone, including rapists and murderers, to enter our country without anyone knowing. Apparently, not letting people break international law with impunity is racist. Who would've thought. Democrats also don't want the border guarded because the illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat in elections. Coupled with the Democratic campaign of not having to show an I.D. to vote, this idea is a goldmine to get illegal votes in elections for Democrats.
     Republicans purposely leave the border open so they can bash Democrats for it, using the reasons I just listed above. Libertarians however, realize the rationally and logical benefits of not having a completely open and monitored border. So they advocate for a faster legal immigration process while advocating for a tighter guarded border. For how to more tightly guard the southern border, read my past post The immigration reform that we actually need:  http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-immigration-reform-that-we-actually.html
      If any of this seems extreme, that's because it is. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The two main political parties have allowed this situation to become desperate and extreme on purpose, so that when people like me call for the only real solution to the problem, they can whine "Oh you're a dangerous radical, your idea is racist and would never work." This way, they can continue doing whatever they want, and there is no real opposition to their plans, because anyone who offers a decent solution is a "radical."

     So there you have it, the six main reasons why I'm going to vote Sarvis instead of Warner or Gillespie. I invite anyone to explain why Warner's or Gillespie's ideas on any of these six issues are better than Sarvis's. Usually, I don't get any alternate explanations, only that Sarvis's ideas "are too radical and won't work." Like the Democrats and Republicans' ideas are working?! I mean c'mon. Do you want a continuation of the status quo? It sucks! I'm open to change my mind on these issues if someone can convince me of a better plan, but so far, no one has been able to do so.
                     

   

 
    

It Seems Obama Has Broken Nearly Every Campaign Promise He Made

      I wonder if Obama supporters feel stupid now. They elected him on the premises that he would end America's disastrous wars, fix the economy, end racial and class divisions and inequalities, close Guantanamo Bay, etc, etc. And guess what.
     HE HASN'T DONE ANY OF THAT.
     If I was a Obama supporter I'd be mad as hell, (wait a minute, I'm not an Obama supporter and I'm still mad as hell!). He's a freaking liar. He says whatever sounds nice at the moment, and then later, just does whatever will benefit him and his 1% supporters the most. I mean, how much of a freaking dick do you have to be to do that?!
     Let's just go through the list of things he'd said he would do once he became president, and hasn't:

     1. End the war in Iraq.
     He just launched us into another war in Iraq against ISIS not a week ago! One of his pillars of his election campaign was that he would end the war in Iraq. Well now we're bombing people and sending in hundreds of soldiers on the ground. And don't give me that "Oh ISIS would commit a genocide, we have to stop them in Iraq otherwise they'll attack us here!" Do you guys have amnesia or something? Don't you remember the justifications for the Iraq War in 2003?! It was the same fucking bullshit! You guys act like since this is a "humanitarian" mission, suddenly we "have" to do it, and all past promises about NOT fighting in Iraq are looked over because of the "selflessness" of our character and the "direness" of the situation.  You people are so easily fooled by the government and the mainstream media.
     Wake-up call. America cannot be the world's police. Look at where it's gotten us today. We're riddled in debt and we're the laughing stock of the world. Millions and millions of people downright despise us because of our disastrous foreign policy that wrecks the lives of literally hundreds of millions of people around the world. We cannot save every single group of people that are about to die. We do not have the money or manpower to do so. We're trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, and yet we're spending billions more for jet fighters and bombs. So, yes, I feel sorry for the Yazdis, and we should give them and the Kurds weapons, but airstrikes and boots on the ground is a violation of Obama's promise to end the war in Iraq. It's not a different war, it's just a continuation of the same war we blundered into in 2003. Our actions caused this fucking mess in the first place, and now we're back at it. It's like Hercules continuing to cut off the Hydra's heads. When one is cut, two takes it's place. And yet we're still hacking away, thinking the same policy that failed before will magically work now.    

     2. Eliminate all oil and gas tax loopholes.
     During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to eliminate "special tax breaks for oil and gas companies, including repealing special expensing rules, foreign tax credit benefits, and manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms."
      None of these things were included in the major tax bill that avoided the "fiscal cliff” in January 2013, and when we asked the American Petroleum Institute whether they had been enacted earlier, he said that none have been changed under Obama. (The spokesman also took issue with Obama"s characterization of these as "special tax breaks,” saying that some of the tax provisions Obama cited, such as foreign tax credit benefits, affect many businesses, not just the oil and gas sector.)
     Well OF COURSE Obama didn't do that. That would hurt the 1% that finances and supports his insane rule. He said that back in 2008 to sound all "anti big business" and "for the people." And now, WHAT A SURPRISE, once he's in power, he doesn't do what he said he would. He lets these loopholes exist so the 1% can get away with paying close to nothing in taxes, while the common folk, (hint that's ME and YOU!) are stuck paying a sizable chunk of our meager paycheck in taxes, leaving us close to nothing to live on.

     3. Allow imported prescription drugs.
     During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to "allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S." But such a provision was not included in the final health care law that passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by the president.
     The motivation for the promise came from an existing trend of Americans crossing the Canadian border to buy cheaper prescription drugs. Yet for the most part, it remains illegal for Americans to buy prescription drugs there -- for "safety reasons," the Food and Drug Administration says.
     But in the wake of negotiations with the prescription drug industry -- one of the first big health industry players to support the White House's health care reform effort -- Obama's drug importation promise faded into the background. Now, with passage, it's officially off the table.
     Instead, the drug industry will pay billions of dollars annually in new fees beginning in 2012, and brand-name drugmakers will provide a 50 percent discount on prescriptions filled through the Medicare Part D coverage gap beginning in 2011. 
     OF COURSE he wouldn't keep his promise, that would miss out in an opportunity to tax billions and billions of more dollars for him to waste! Who cares if Americans can't get the medicine they need, he's got the ones he needs!

  

     4. Require employers to provide employees seven paid sick days per year.

     President Barack Obama began his term with significant union support due to the many promises that he made about expanding workers' rights and benefits. Among these promises was Obama's commitment to require employers to provide their workers with seven paid sick days annually. No such requirement currently exists on a national level.
      To accomplish this goal the administration has expressed support for the Healthy Families Act. The bill mandates that employers grant their employees one hour of leave for each 30 hours worked. Workers can use this leave if they are ill, to care for a dependent, or recover if they are a victim of domestic violence. The requirement applies to all businesses with over 15 employees.
      Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced versions of the bill in 2005 and 2009. On both occasions the bill stalled in committee and expired after the new session of Congress began.
      DeLauro reintroduced the Healthy Families Act in May 2011. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, did the same in the Senate. History seems to be repeating itself, however, as both bills are awaiting action in committee.  

     Who cares if the working people, a.k.a. the people who actually create wealth in this country, have any time to rest? Obama can take a break anytime he wants. Congress works 1/3 of the fucking year. Democrats shell out unemployment benefits to their stooges, oh, I mean, "voters," for years. You know who pays for your lazy ass neighbor to sit on his ass and watch T.V. all day? That's right, I do. You do, unless you're that lazy neighbor. 

    5. Grant habeas corpus rights to "enemy combatants." 

    When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he told voters he strongly supported efforts to restore habeas corpus rights to people the U.S. government had deemed enemy combatants.
      Habeas corpus is the legal right, embedded in the U.S. Constitution, which allows any prisoner held by the American government to challenge his or her imprisonment. A president may suspend that right only "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,” according to the Constitution.
       Protecting habeas rights was a priority for Obama early in his career as a U.S. senator. Project Vote Smart, a website that collects public statements by politicians, shows 21 instances where he mentioned it in press releases, stump speeches, media interviews and presidential debates.
      "This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person,” Obama said in speech on the Senate floor in 2006. "By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.”
      At the time of Obama's comments, roughly 400 terrorism suspects were locked up in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base prison in southern Cuba, down from nearly 700 in 2003. President George W. Bush's administration had held those prisoners indefinitely without charging them or trying them beginning in 2002 -- in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Prisoners did have access military tribunals, but the tribunals did not allow detainees to see, hear and contest all evidence being used against them.
      Supreme Court rulings in 2004, 2006 and 2008 confirmed that prisoners at Guantánamo did have habeas rights and the military tribunals were not sufficient substitutes. The U.S. government transferred more than 500 prisoners before Obama took office (166 remained in November 2012). Under the Obama administration, however, the force of those rulings have weakened.
      "President Obama is steadily returning Guantanamo to the secretive and hopeless internment camp that he vilified as a candidate,” wrote Azmy Baher, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an August op-ed in The Washington Post.

     Who cares about the rights of people, who, legally, have not been charged with anything, nor have been convicted of any crime? Obama don't have time for that, he's too busy blowing up weddings in Pakistan or protecting dictators in the West Bank or Iraq. 

    6. Raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. 

     Who cares about the working poor, the people who slave out in the sun or over a hot stove hours on end just to put food on the table for their family?! Obama and his supporters got all what they want, screw everyone else! Minimum wage has to keep up with inflation, otherwise, people cannot live off it. In these hard economic times, there are plenty of adults and people who need to be the #1 breadwinner in the house that can ONLY find minimum wage jobs. In a strong economy, only teenage kids work minimum wage jobs, but in a recession, that is no longer the case.   

     7. Close Guantanamo Bay. 

      Obama loves breaking peoples' human rights. I swear he does it so often and to hundreds and hundreds of millions of people that he must get off to it. He's obsessed with it. And what better way to break peoples' human rights by:

• Kidnapping them all over the world.
• Not charging them with anything in over a decade.
• Not giving them access to a lawyer or a diplomatic representative from their country, or visits from their family. 
• Giving them no trial. 
• Torturing them. 

    I mean, that's his fucking wet dream!!

    Yes, I insulted the president. Why? Because he's a despicable, vile person. If you commit murder, torture, and oppression, then yes, anyone has the right to insult you and call you out on your crimes. We can insult Saddam. We can insult Bin Laden. Why the fuck can't we insult Obama? Just because he's the president? Just give him a free pass on all of his crimes just because of his title? Nope, I don't care who the fuck you are, if you commit a crime, I'll get in your God damn face and say "You have committed this crime." That's no better than giving a policeman a free pass to beat the shit out of an innocent bystander, "Oh he's a policeman so we won't say anything." It's an abuse of power! Call him out on it! What kind of world do we live in that we allow a man to murder, torture, and oppress hundreds of millions of people, don't say anything about it, but then AS SOON as one person insults him, OH, that's suddenly barbaric and unacceptable?!?!  

     

   

How Over-Zealous and Overly Aggressive Homeland Security Policies Can Backfire

(The following was my research paper for my final project for my grad class).

How Over-Zealous and Overly Aggressive Homeland Security Policies Can Backfire

          In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. federal government created new departments, gave more power to and expanded existing ones, and wrote into law new acts. These include creating the Department of Homeland Security, (DHS), passing the Patriot Act, (and later, passing the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA), and augmenting the size, force, and power of local police forces. The government claimed to take these measures to combat terrorism. However reports from news agencies, human rights organizations, think-tanks, and scholarly research have shown that terrorism has never been and is not a major threat to Americans, certainly, there are at least a dozen other causes of death that have caused more American deaths than terrorism. The first part of this paper will analyze the threat and death rate of terrorism against Americans, compared to the threat and death rate of the government against the American people. It will also go into how Homeland Security policy makers dealt with these issues. The second part of this paper will analyze the rights of the American people taken away or being taken away from terrorism, compared to the rights taken away or being taken away by the government, from a Homeland Security perspective. Lastly, this research paper will explore a case study of Homeland Security in action.

          Before delving into the topics, first it is necessary to identify the actors in this issue. The principal actors are government agencies, as they are the ones that enforce the policies. These include DHS, the National Security Agency, (NSA), the Department of Justice, (DOJ), Customs and Border Protection, (CBP), FBI, and all local and state police and sheriffs offices. 

          The two main concerns that privacy advocates and human rights organizations have in relation to federal agencies and local police forces’ actions in Homeland Security is the militarization of police, and the taking away of peoples’ human rights.  The first one is important when talking about the threat and death rate of terrorism against Americans, compared to the threat and death rate of the government against the American people. Here are some statistics that will illustrate this concept:

·         Americans are 8 times more likely to get killed by police than by a terrorist. All emotions and political slants aside, strictly statistically speaking, the American police is more of a threat to the American people than terrorists are, (www.huffingtonpost.com). Not counting 9/11, that statistic jumps to Americans are 29 times more likely to get killed by police than by a terrorist.   

·         SWAT Teams invade more than 100 private homes every day, (www.abajournal.com).

·         The number of police raids has jumped from 30,000 in 1995 to 45,000 in 2001, (same source as the one above).

·         DHS will purchase 450 million bullets over the next 5 years, including 75 million in 2014 alone, (www.businessinsider.com).

·         DHS also purchased 2,500 mine resistant APCs.

          DHS coordinates with the FBI and state and local police forces to achieve its goals of stopping terrorist attacks and disaster response. Some of DHS’s mission statements that pertain to this topic are as followed: prevent terrorism and enhancing security; secure and manage our borders; enforce and administer our immigration laws; and ensure resilience to disasters. Behind the statistics are the policies that result in the statistics. The problem is that current homeland security efforts undermine preparedness every bit as much as they support it. Homeland Security officials and local and state police chiefs also involved top-down management systems and military-style command and control strategies in planning and implementation, often focusing on a doctrine of offense and preemption, (Bach). They are so focused on offense that they lose hindsight of the main goal of homeland security: to protect citizens’ lives and human rights.

          This leads to the first of two articles that form the backbone of looking at the actors’ approach to Homeland Security. Robert Bach and David Kaufman say in the very first sentence of their article that federal, state, and local authorities must work with citizens to achieve security. Constantly attacking citizens, taking away their guaranteed human rights, and ultimately creating a narrative or implying that they are the enemy is not working with them in any sense of the definition. That is why Bach and Kaufman say security has eluded us since the “War on Terror” started.

          So focused on offense that policies set by agencies such as the FBI and DOJ can break trust between the government and its citizens, the fundamental concept that Homeland Security relies on. Citizens cannot trust a government whose policies can be seen as making the citizens the enemy of the government. Such a policy would be the FBI’s and DOJ’s guidelines as what actions could be done by a “potential terrorist”:

Ø  Purchasing anything with cash most of the time instead of a credit or debit card.

Ø  Opposition to war.

Ø  Opposition to abortion.

Ø  Frustration with the two main political parties.

Ø  Buying a large amount of bullets, (doesn’t say what a “large amount” qualifies as).

Ø  Being concerned about your privacy from the government.

Ø  Complaining about the quality of tap water.

(www.publicintelligence.net)

       These actions are what ordinary, non-terrorists do every day. These are actions that many FBI and DOJ employees do. Is the FBI and DOJ calling their own employees potential terrorists? If government agencies want to protect Americans and their rights, a peaceful engagement of communities in collaboration would be much more effective in enhancing the resiliency and security of the nation, (Frazzano).

       This is what the second article talks about: government agencies redefining their cultural and operational identities to accurately combat new and emerging threats. It also introduces a concept called “The Whole Community,” in which “shared understanding of community risks, needs, and capabilities leads to an increase in resources through the empowerment of community members.” Nowhere in the article or in this concept does it suggest that the large majority of American citizens are potential terrorists due to doing ordinary tasks. DHS policies must incorporate the concept of The Whole Community, as this shows that DHS is working with the communities, not against them. 

       In comparing the amount and severity of the American people’s human rights taken away by terrorists and taken away by the government, the only right the terrorists took away have been the 3,000+ peoples’ right to life that they have killed since 9/11 to the present. The rights that the government has taken, is taking, and has the power to take away if it wants to, are:[1]

§  Freedom of speech. For example, protesting certain government policies is called “terrorism,” for which the government can kill U.S. citizens for. Talking against certain police actions or simply asking a police officer questions is called “assault,” or “resisting arrest.” There is no need for the government to convict a person of terrorism, they only label them a “suspected terrorist” and then kill them.

§  Freedom of the press. There have been 7 instances in which a government official has been criminally charged with leaking classified information to the news media, the most during any U.S. presidential administration in history. In comparison, it has only been used 3 times before Obama took office. It has stolen emails, phone records, and tracked the movements of journalists, (Fox News reporter James Rosen, for example), it secretly seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100 Associated Press journalists, and prosecuted sources of journalists with felony charges, (Zongker).

§  Second Amendment. The Obama administration, and many past administrations, has repeatedly infringed on American citizens’ right to bear arms. While it is not DHS policy that affects this right, the police forces are the ones that enforce states’ laws relating to this amendment. Whether it has been trying to ban magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or trying to reinstate the 1994 “assault weapons ban,” (www.whitehouse.gov), Obama has made it clear, through his actions and words, that he does not believe that the second amendment means that Americans can own guns.

§  Fourth Amendment. From allowing home invasions by police and SWAT teams without a warrant, to having the NSA steal personal information from customers of many U.S. companies, to stealing emails and phone calls from ordinary American citizens who haven’t committed terrorism, nor committed any other crime. Some statistics related to this would be, for example, that the NSA surveys 75% of all American Internet traffic, (www.reuters.com), and collected near 100% of American phone calls in 2006, down to 30% today, (www.digitaltrends.com).

§  The Fifth Amendment: The Patriot Act, and later, the NDAA, gives the government to hold an American citizen in prison indefinitely, without charges, or access to an attorney. That effectively destroys the 5^th amendment.

§  Sixth Amendment: Those same two pieces of legislation also takes away an American’s right to a trial, nullifying the 6^th Amendment.

          Examples of some of these rights being taken away from American citizens can be seen in the case study of this paper, which is the case of Sarah Abdurrahman. Sarah, her family, and some friends were returning from Canada to the United States through the Niagara Falls border crossing on September 2^nd, 2013. Sarah, and everyone in her party, are American citizens. They had been attending a wedding of another family member in Toronto, Canada, and now were returning home on Labor Day.

Sarah Abdurrahman

           When they got to the border crossing, they were immediately detained by CBP agents, with no explanation. They were held in a freezing cold room without bathrooms for six hours. Sarah repeatedly asked an agent why they were being held, but he answered “It is not your right to know.” Then they took all of their cellphones after demanding they unlock them. They didn’t get their cellphones back. After about five and half hours in detainment, one of the detained men, Khaled Ahmed, was put into handcuffs, without warning, taken from his family and put into a jail cell. The officers did not inform either Ahmed or his family why he was being taken. The rest of the family was soon released but CBP refused to tell them where Ahmed was. Eventually, they told the family that another “agency” was coming to pick Ahmed up. The agency ended up being the Michigan State Police, picking up Ahmed for an unpaid ticket for a crooked license plate (i.e. not screwed on right) from 2006. After Sarah got home, she tried to contact CBP and DHS to demand an explanation, but they never picked up the phone. Since CBP never gave Sarah a reason for doing all of this, she can only assume it was because of her and her party’s religion, (Sarah wears a hijab), (Reuters). 

          It is illegal for law enforcement officers to perform searches or detentions based solely on your race, national origin, religion, sex or ethnicity. The CBP officers infringed on Sarah’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. CBP and other Homeland Security officers are allowed to conduct stops and searches with no probable cause or arrest warrants at the border, under what is known as the "border search exception." The exception allows for routine searches. However, once you start holding citizens for prolonged detentions, it falls under non-routine searches. For that, the officer needs a particular and objective basis for suspecting that person of illegal activity, (Reuters).

          There are a number of conclusions and observations that can be made from this story. One is that the rapid expansion of and the lack of oversight over CBP contributed to Sarah being treated the way that she was. CBP has grown so fast in the decade that it has existed that government oversight has not kept pace. CBP had 10,817 in 2004. Today, it has 63,560. Therefore, there is no logical reason for CBP to not treat Muslims like they did Sarah. None of the CBP agents in the example even got a harsh comment from any supervisor. Nothing bad happened to them, so in their minds, they are thinking: why should we change our behavior?

          This is not the only time something like what Sarah experienced has happened. Human rights groups, such as the ACLU, have seen that these human rights abuses happen regularly, i.e. it is not an isolated incident that can be blamed on just a few bad CBP agents. No, they infringe on Americans’ human rights daily, meaning it is a DHS policy; the policy makers at DHS and CBP, along with training instructors, are teaching the CBP to act this way. That means certain DHS policies run contrary to the Constitution. There is no other reason why this problem is so widespread and across agencies, not just in CBP. This case study could not capture an agency breaking more Amendments than the Fourth and Fifth. But that doesn’t mean that at other times, in other situations, that DHS and local police forces are not breaking the other Amendments listed on the fifth and sixth and pages.      

          CBP’s actions run in line with the narrative and training that DHS’s approach has to Homeland Security. An overly aggressive Homeland Security doctrine saw Sarah and her party as potential terrorists, hence, their human rights being broken. Citizens are the first line in Homeland Security. Many terrorist attacks have been stopped because concerned citizens report what they heard/saw someone doing to police. That is the vital link between authorities and the communities that Bach and Kaufman talked about. If that link is broken by human rights abuses, and aggressive and rude behavior by the authorities, then the nation as a whole will not be as effective in stopping terrorist attacks and achieving security.  

Works Cited

          “American journalist and family detained and harassed at US border.” September 24^th, 2013. http://rt.com/usa/abdurrahman-npr-border-detain-291/

          Bach, Robert and David Kaufman. “A Social Infrastructure for Hometown Security: Advancing the Homeland Security Paradigm.” Homeland Security Affairs, Volume V, NO. 2 (May 2009). 

          Balko, Radley. “How did America’s police become a military force on the streets?” ABA Journal, 1/8/2013.

          Erman, Michael. “NSA surveillance covers 75 percent of U.S. Internet traffic: WSJ.” Reuters. 8/20/2013.   

          “FBI “Communities Against Terrorism” Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers.” February 1^st, 2012. https://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/

          Frazzano, Tracy, and Matthew Synder. “Hybrid Targeted Violence:

Challenging Conventional “Active Shooter” Response Strategies.” Homeland Security Affairs, Volume 10 Article 3 (February 2014).

          Johnson, Robert. “The Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets.” Business Insider, 4/5/2014.  

          Nield, David. “New reports say NSA phone tracking covers 20-30 percent of calls.” Digital Trends. 2/8/2014.

          Whitehead, John. “Vigilantes With a Badge: The War Against the American People.” Huffington Post, 2/26/2014.

          White House. “Now is the Time to Do Something About Gun Violence.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

          Zongker, Brett. “Report: Obama brings chilling effect on journalism.” The Associated Press. 10/13/2013.  

---

[1] The following bullet points are merely quick summaries of the rights the government has taken away from us, as a whole paper can be written just one of these bullet points.