The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - Presidents, that is

A friend (and relative by marriage) just sent me an email that addresses some opinions voiced by former Secret Service agents about our Presidents, going back as far as John F. Kennedy. It is instructive, and quite believable.

  Subject: Think you know the Presidents?

If you want to know what a rich man is like, ask his servants….. If you want to know what a President is like, check with the Secret Service (after their retirement)   Here are snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" of Secret Service personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.   JOHN & JACQUELINE KENNEDY   *A philanderer of the highest order. * *She ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over wine during State dinner, mixed with fresh wine and served again during the next White House occasion.*   *LYNDON & LADYBIRD JOHNSON  *Another philanderer of the highest order. In addition, LBJ was as crude as the day is long. Both JFK and LBJ kept a lot of women in the White House for extramarital affairs, and both had set up "early warning systems" to alert them if/when their wives were nearby. Both Kennedy & Johnson were promiscuous and oversexed men. * *She was either naive or just pretended to "not know" about her husband's many liaisons. *   *RICHARD & PAT NIXON  *A "moral" man but very odd, weird, paranoid, etc. He had horrible relationship with his family, and in a way, was almost a recluse.* *She was quiet most of the time.*   *SPIRO AGNEW * Nice, decent man, everyone in the Secret Service was surprised about his downfall. *   *GERALD & BETTY FORD  *A true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity. He had a great sense of humor. * *She drank a lot!*   *JIMMY & ROSALYN CARTER  *A complete phony who would portray one picture of himself to public and very different in private, e..g., would be shown carrying his own luggage, but the suit cases were always empty; he kept empty ones just for photo op's. Wanted the people to see him as pious and a non-drinker, but he and his family drank alcohol a lot. He had disdain for the Secret Service, and was very irresponsible with the "football" nuclear codes. He didn't think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great distance. Often did not acknowledge the presence of Secret Service personnel assigned to serve him.* *She mostly did her own thing.*   *RONALD & NANCY REAGAN *The real deal --- moral, honest, respectful, and dignified. They treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor. Thanked everyone all the time. He took the time to know everyone on a personal level. * One "favorite" story which has circulated among the Secret Service personnel was an incident early in his Presidency, when he came out of his room with a pistol tucked on his hip. The agent in charge asked: "Why the pistol, Mr. President" He replied, "In case you boys can't get the job done, I can help." It was common for him to carry a pistol. When he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase. Upon learning that Gary Hart was caught with Donna Rice, Reagan said, "Boys will be boys, but boys will not be Presidents." [He obviously either did not know or forgot JFK's and LBJ's sexcapades!]* *She was very nice but very protective of the President; and the Secret Service was often caught in the middle. She tried hard to control what the President ate, and he would say to the agent "Come on, you gotta help me out." The Reagans drank wine during State dinners and special occasions only; otherwise, they shunned alcohol; the Secret Service could count on one hand the times they were served wine during their "family dinner". For all the fake bluster of the Carters, the Reagans were the ones who lived life as genuinely moral people.*   *GEORGE H. & BARBARA BUSH  *Extremely kind and considerate Always respectful. Took great care in making sure the agents' comforts were taken care of. They even brought them meals, etc. One time Barbara Bush brought warm clothes to agents standing outside at Kennebunkport; one agent was given a warm hat, and when he tried to nicely say "no thanks" even though he was obviously freezing, President Bush said "Son, don't argue with the First Lady, put the hat on." He was the most prompt of the Presidents. He ran the White House like a well-oiled machine.* *She ruled the house and spoke her mind.*   *BILL & HILLARY CLINTON *Presidency was one giant party. Not trustworthy --- he was nice because he wanted everyone to like him, but to him life is just one big game and party. Everyone knows of his sexuality.* *She is another phony. Her personality would change the instant cameras were near. She hated with open disdain the military and Secret Service. She was another one who felt people are there to serve her. She was always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton.*   *ALBERT GORE * An egotistical ass, who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his only son that he needed to do better in school or he "would end up like these guys" --- pointing to the agents.*   *GEORGE W. & LAURA BUSH *The Secret Service loved him and Laura Bush. He was also the most physically "in shape" who had a very strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service. *She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest; she never had any harsh word to say about anyone.* *KARL ROVE was the one who was the most caring of the Secret Service in the administration.*   *BARACK & MICHELLE OBAMA *" Clinton all over again" - hates the military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and cunning; looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you, but turns around and does the opposite---untrustworthy. He has temper tantrums.* *She is a complete witch, who hates anybody who is not black; hates the military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants.*

Obama - the face on a three dollar bill

I have stated, on a number of occasions, that I believe Barack Hussein Obama to be gay. I have called him a "faggot", not because I am a homophobe per se (I have had gay and lesbian friends whom I knew to be good people, in spite of my belief that being gay or lesbian is a psychological aberration), but because it is an appropriately nasty comment to make about a very nasty individual who is believed by others as well to be homosexual. Not bi-sexual, but actually homosexual.

We have all read that, supposedly, Obama dated white women, along with one or two black women. It is a well-known phenomenon that gay men will associate with the female gender when they are attempting to cover their actual interests, so it is entirely possible that he has done so. There are quite a few sources - including one who was unsuccessfully sued for libel - who have stated openly and unequivocally that Obama is in fact gay.

I have also written of the fact that there are informed people who have stated that his mentor in his teen years - Frank Marshall Davis, who is half-black - was his actual biological father.  If this is actually true, this would mean that Obama is actually 1/4 black, instead of half, as he claims to be.

These same sources also state that Davis was a pederast. Unfortunately, it is a not-uncommon occurrence for fathers to molest their own children, so if Davis indeed had "short eyes" as the expression goes, the time he spent "mentoring"  young Barry Soetero/Barack Hussein Obama might have included introducing him to "Man-Boy Love". 

There are those who will point to Obama's "marriage" to Michelle, along with their two daughters, as proof that he is heterosexual, but I feel certain it is a sham marriage created for political purposes, to cover his true nature - a very sick, arrogant, egotistical personality who sees no other human being as having the value that he believes himself to hold (which has been re-enforced by his handlers and the sycophants with which he surrounds himself). It will probably never happen, but I would bet a very large sum of money that a DNA test would indicate that their two daughters do not share any DNA with BHO.

Yes, much of this is conjecture, but it is difficult to refute allegations that Obama is gay when a gay man sued for making that claim was able to get the lawsuit thrown out of court. Readers should come to their own conclusions on this subject, but everything I have read - bolstered by Obama's refusal to allow any access to real documentation of his past - leads me to believe these allegations are true.

Will Obama avenge them, or side with his muslim friends?

In Benghazi, Libya, the US ambassador and three staff members have been killed by Al-Qaeda gunman. This is the country that Obama insisted on attacking with our military weapons, and supplying the rebels with weapons - without going to Congress in the proper Constitutional procedure - in order to depose Ghaddafi, so that the muslims who wished to control the country could do so.

The US ambassador and three staff members have paid the price for Obama's illegal incursions into Libya. He is faced with a group of muslims who have killed American citizens, employees of the government, simply because the muslims were angered about a film someone produced. A film that these individuals had no connection with whatsoever, save for being American, and therefore a "legitimate" target in the eyes of these followers of the "Religion of Peace"*.

Will Obama condemn this attack? Will he merely say it is unfortunate that these muslims - who he has openly stated "I will stand with the Muslims should political winds shift in an ugly direction" - were so upset by a mere film that they couldn't control themselves?

I do not feel much sympathy for the ambassador, but perhaps his staff deserved better than this, if they were rank-and-file, as opposed to getting their positions due to political influence. Nonetheless, I believe any other president who has ever served - with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, of the Iranian Hostage Crisis fame - would respond militarily, and move to hammer the muslims involved.

Allow me to predict that he does nothing of any substance to respond to the death of one of our own ambassadors. Perhaps it will be an object lesson for any of the other sycophants who have been given an ambassadorship as a political favor. Maybe serving as an ambassador in any country where muslims exist in large numbers will become a little less desirable. Perhaps - although I doubt it - the outcome will be a further loss of respect by most people in this country for a President who will not avenge the senseless deaths of Americans by muslim animals who believe it is acceptable to kill us whenever they are angered by anything they do not like.

[Islam defines "peace" as submission to Allah, submission to Islam. So the "Religion of Peace" is actually the "Religion of Submission". Remember that any time Obama, some muslim, or some progressive talks about Islam.]

2016: Obama's America, coming soon to your country

This is a movie produced by Dinesh D'Souza and Gerald Molen, who produced Schindler's List (among other great films). It is a presentation of a new - and probably more accurate - explanation for Obama's behavior and desire to reduce America to just another Third-World country, to abase and demean this once-great country which has been a destination and dream for people all over the world. People who have traveled here to gain the freedoms and opportunities to improve their lives that have been the hallmark of America through the many years of its existence.

Better folks than I have reviewed and described this great film. If you haven't already seen it, do so. What I am writing about today is the fact that Obama is getting closer to realizing his dream of cutting America off at the knees. Given another four years, we may no longer recognize the country we live within.

We will be living in a country where we are all experiencing economic depression, due to the obscene and unsustainable debt that he has incurred in our name (a debt which will not affect him in the least, personally. He will still be golfing, and Michelle will still be taking expensive vacations with our money).

We will be living in a country where speaking out against the assault against our natural, G-d given rights is sufficient to get you detained indefinitely without trial, representation, habeas corpus, without any recourse whatsoever. Even if you are an American citizen - perhaps especially if you are an American citizen who is protesting against your own government.

We will be living in a country where gasoline is too expensive for most people to buy, too expensive to drive anywhere, even if you are one of the few lucky enough to still have a job (except perhaps for all the government employees, like the thousands of new IRS agents that Obamacare has mandated).

We will be living in a world where people will freeze to death during the winter - as happens with incredible regularity in England and Europe, especially older people who cannot afford to pay for their heat. Where what energy is available is again too expensive for many to afford.

We will be living in a world where our country is unable to respond with deterrence to a nuclear threat to our country, because Obama has had all of our nuclear weapons dismantled. We had over 5000 in the recent past, but they have been reduced to about 1500, and Obama has stated a desire to reduce them, perhaps to zero. For any of you Patriots who happen to be reading this, tell me now how voting for Romney is no different from voting for Obama. If America finds itself not only fighting its own government, as in 1775, but also Russia or China when they decide to threaten us with nuclear weapons to which we cannot respond, it might be just a little bit more difficult than we had imagined to "restore the Constitution".

Think about it, folks. Would you rather fight the encroachment of socialism with all of its ills because Romney leans that way, or fight the very destruction of our way of life because that is the "change" Obama wants for us? Decide now, because that is your choice. It isn't simply a choice between the lesser of two evils, it is a choice between still having time to turn America around (Romney) and having it be too late to stop the destruction of all of our hopes and dreams (Obama).

"Death to muslims!"

Yes, that does sound over the top, bigoted, a violent statement that marks me as an animal who is willing to condemn an entire group of people for the actions of a few of whom I disapprove. What if it were a muslim saying it, though? A muslim who wanted the death of any muslims who believed differently, such as Sunni against Shiite?

But, wait a minute: what if I was a muslim and I said the same about Christians? What if I was a muslim and said the same about gays? What if I was a muslim and said the same about mentally deficient children and adults?

Consider the case of Rimsha Masih: a young Pakistani Christian child falsely accused of blasphemy, a child who is believed to have Down's Syndrome (which is a crime if your last name is Palin, or you are a Christian in Pakistan). She is accused of having burned an Islamic pamphlet, which by all the evidence never happened. She was severely beaten, as was her family (also Christians).

A local imam broadcast her accusation over loudspeakers from the mosques in the area, and has called for her to be burned alive. During this broadcast, he also called for driving all Christians out of the area, causing the town's Christians to flee to the woods for their lives.

As was written in an article at the Front Page web site concerning Rimsha Masih,

"The imam of the local mosque called for her to be handed over to the mob and publicly burned. As unbelievable as that sounds, consider that just the month before, on July 4, such a mob dragged out of police custody a mentally-deficient Muslim man accused of blasphemy and burned him alive."

So, we are faced with a so-called religion - a cult, actually, said cult having been originated by a child-molesting pederast named Mohammed - called Islam. This cult demands that its members kill any person who is accused of (not convicted or proven to have been guilty of) having "blasphemed" in some way against Islam.

Of course, if you are an infidel - especially a Christian infidel - your mere existence is blasphemy. The Qur'an specifically directs muslims to kill infidels. This is not a myth, it is stated quite plainly in the Qur'an, as has been shown on many occasions by both Islamic scholars and others who have studied the Qur'an.

I have written a goodly number of posts on this web site concerning the pederasty that Islam says is perfectly acceptable, of Islamic "holy men" who say it is acceptable to sexually penetrate even a six-year old child. I have written of the killing of Christian and Israeli infants and toddlers by muslims, who brag about it and are celebrated as heros by their fellow muslims.

How is it that our government can know of these things and still find Islam and the muslims who practice it as acceptable human beings? If a Christian, a conservative, a Jew, or anyone else other than a muslim were to do these things, it would be front page news in the major media, not merely on an Internet web site called "Front Page". How is it that the Left and our own President can know that these things happen routinely throughout the muslim world, anywhere that Islam and Sharia are practiced, and not strongly condemn them?

How can a man named Barack Hussein Obama - oh, I get it. BHO sounds awfully like a muslim name, doesn't it? He has actually said he would side with the muslims any time there were any difficulties involving them, didn't he? In Audacity of Hope, he wrote "I will stand with the Muslims should political winds shift in an ugly direction."

If you are confronted by a rabid dog, do you wait until you are bitten before defending yourself, or do you kill it for your own safety and the safety of your family? If you have seen neighbors, friends attacked do you look the other way, or do you kill the son-of-a-bitch?

muslims (I, personally,refuse to capitalize the name of this cult's followers) are that rabid dog. They have shown a willingness, a desire to rape English girls, Danish and Norwegian women (reportedly 100% of the rapes occurring in Olso are perpetrated by muslims, mostly Pakistanis). They have shown that they enjoy violating young girls, and enjoy forcing young "beardless boys" to have sex with them. They have demonstrated that they feel completely justified in killing Israeli infants and small children. They have increased the number of Christians they have beaten and killed in the Middle East and Northern Africa, also burning their homes and their churches. They believe it is necessary to sexually mutilate their female children and women, even newborn babies.

muslims do this to their own people, not just infidels. We infidels, however, are marked for elimination, right after the Jews of the world are eliminated. So, those of you who perhaps don't care about Jews or Israelis should understand that you are next. The muslims almost took over all of Europe many years ago, finally being stopped at Vienna. They are trying to regain that ground and more today, with more success because they are using "demographic jihad" now instead of open warfare.

Consequently, I ask you: would a declaration as apparently ridiculous as "Death to all muslims!" actually be that outrageous? Does defending your life, and the lives of those you care about become unacceptable simply because we are talking about a very large group of people? I know some will claim that most muslims are not violent killers, rapists and pederasts. That is false - every orthodox muslim, who lives by the Qur'an and the Hadith, by the Sura, is a muslim who will kill infidels, rape infidel women, beat and kill their own female children ("honor" killings), sexually mutilate their own daughters, sisters, and wives, and wishes to rid the earth of every Jew and Christian.

In the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints - the Mormon church - there are rules to follow, as in many other religions. I don't know if they speak of them this way too, but Mormons who drink or curse, or otherwise do not follow the full tenets of the Mormon religion are often referred to as "jack-Mormons". Well, any muslims who do not follow the orthodox demands and tenets of Islam might be called "jack-muslims". And - according to the Qur'an itself - they are apostates, and must be put to death. If these "jack-muslims" really followed Islam, they would not be able to be moderate. Islam does not permit them to pick and choose the parts of the Qur'an they like and the ones they don't.

Taken logically, then, are these people actually muslims? No. So, any time some fool talks about "moderate" muslims, they are obviously ignorant and full of sh*t. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim. There are only muslims and non-muslims. A "moderate" muslim in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would be put to death.

I say that true, orthodox muslims should indeed be eliminated. They are a threat to their own wives and daughters, to any other people claiming to be muslim in any way that falls short of the demands of the Qur'an. They are a threat to Israel, which they wish to wipe from the face of the earth. They want the death of all Christians and Jews. And they have infiltrated the highest offices of our government, as in the case of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's assistant, who has direct connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Just as the Marxists have finally penetrated and gain the highest office in the land, the Presidency, so the muslims are working to do the same. In the form of Barack Hussein Obama, they have gained a powerful ally, even if he isn't actually a muslim (he can't be a muslim - a muslim must worship Allah, not himself), and will side with them.

So, folks, perhaps it isn't quite so unreasonable to think of eliminating this scourge from the face of the earth, instead of Israel and the Jews. There is an old joke about an Arab ambassador telling Gene Roddenberry how much his son loved to watch Star Trek. The ambassador said he was puzzled, though, because he did not recall ever seeing a muslim in Star Trek. Roddenberry looked at him and said, "That's because it takes place in the future."

That, my friends, is a future to be devoutly wished.

Cancer as a metaphor for government

Our government is indeed a cancer. Up until 2008, it has been a slow-growing organism that will eventually kill us, but take many years to do so. The Obama administration is like a testicular cancer, or melanoma (appropriate in his case, don't you think?), which is a fast, raging disease that kills quickly.

Think about it, folks: in the past, our government had to at least give the appearance of legitimacy, going by the rules laid down in the Constitution, although it has found many ways to work around them. Now, however, it completely side-steps all rules that get in its way.

Harry Reid refuses to produce and pass a budget. He changes the operating rules of the Senate at his own whim. He refuses to allow legislation he deems undesirable to his personal agenda to even be voted upon by the members of the Senate.

Obama directs the Department of Justice (what an ugly oxymoron that is) to ignore properly created, passed and signed legislation (such as the Defense of Marriage Act), and writes Executive Orders to circumvent legislation that has been voted down, such as the "Dream Act" making citizens of millions of illegal aliens. The Border Patrol is directed to not arrest, detain, or deport illegal aliens they encounter. BATFE, via the Fast and Furious operation, sells American weapons to the Mexican drug cartels and then tries to blame gun store owners.

The Supreme Court not only determines if a law passed is Constitutional, it creates law by its decisions and majority opinions. (Since when is it right that the opinions of five fallible human beings should constitute the "law of the land" for 300 million Americans?)

Do you truly believe these 545 people are that much more intelligent than 300 million Americans? Even if they were (and they are not), would that give them the right to overrule what the rest of us want?

The system of voting for and electing representatives is corrupted by massive voter fraud, which the politicians currently in office want to perpetuate and grow by denying states the right to demand identification. So millions of illegals vote, millions of people vote more than once, and millions of people long dead vote as well.

Government has grown out of control. It began doing that since it was created, in every form it has taken throughout the history of mankind, but in our case it has been slow, like a prostate cancer that we old guys will pretty much all suffer from eventually, even though most of us will die of other causes before it is able to kill us (although, like government, it will still ruin our quality of life).

Now, however, it has taken the form of a swift and pervasive disease that will disable and mutilate us, make us suffer agony before it kills us. It will kill the old - via the mechanics of Obamacare and the panels which will decide if and when we will receive what little care is available to be doled out to us - and it will kill the youngest, in the form of abortion - including "partial" and even full-birth abortions, where a viable, living newborn baby is killed by the doctor delivering it. (Remember that, those of you who feel aborting a fetus is acceptable. Living, breathing, viable babies get aborted, too. That's a slippery slope that abortion has already slid down.)

Voting is like trying to kill individual cancer cells. Not effective at all. If it were actually possible to vote out every single incumbent (even the few decent ones like the Pauls, Broun, and Coburn), it might work, but the system works to prevent that solution. Radical surgery is required, however I just don't think it is going to happen, short of a complete upheaval or possibly another American Revolution. Even secession won't accomplish it, as the beast that is the Federal government will not permit it, anymore than it would in 1860 when South Carolina was the first to secede.

Obama, and the other tumors our government is riddled with, will kill this country. If we are able to remove that tumor from office, there might still be a slight chance of saving the patient. We are certain to die as a nation if he is given another four or more years to grow.

Whose fault is it, really?

There are many who attribute all of today's problems to one generation. "Kill the Boomers, it's all their fault!" Each generation, as it becomes the current adult generation, could make the same claim. We could go on to say it was due to those of us who allowed Woodrow Wilson and FDR to push us over the edge into socialism, especially with Social Security and then Medicare, but also with the Federal Reserve system, with allowing the Supreme Court to create law ever since Marbury vs Madison.

Many folks claim it is our fault because we didn't elect the right people. To a certain limited extent, this is correct. We have seen that it is possible to elect people who are not beholden to the Democrats or the mainstream Republicans. We proved that in 2010, with a number of Tea Party candidates being elected. And then look what happened. That's right, nothing. Allen West supported renewing the Patriot Act, NDAA, the Pickford legislation giving billions to blacks who never farmed a day in their lives, and other things which run counter to everything we believed he stood for when he was running for office. With the possible exception of Rand Paul, who does appear to stand firm upon his principles, it was a bust.

The political system in America is a creature that is cunning and survival-oriented. It knows how to manipulate and divide the people of this country so they cannot effectively use the only tool we have available to fix things - our vote. How to deceive people who might vote for the right representatives if they weren't lied to, distracted by false claims and bribed by creating whole groups of people who have been taught to think they are entitled to "free stuff", stolen from the productive.

I read a neat paraphrase of Karl Marx's exhortation: "From each according to his ability. To each, according to his need." It goes like this: "From each, according to his gullibility. To each, according to his greed."

Here is an article written by Charlie Reese that is once again making the rounds of the Internet, although it was actually originally written in 1984, back during the Reagan administration. It points the finger where the blame truly lies, but makes the same mistake of thinking we can vote our way out of the problem. Still, it is a well-written condemnation of Congress, The President (whichever one), and the Supreme Court.

545 vs. 300,000,000 People

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in a foreign country it's because they want them in a foreign country ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

We often deride people who state the problem clearly, but offer no realistic solution. Since I actually do believe voting is worthless - except in this one instance where we simply MUST remove the cancer that is killing America, the Obama administration - I will offer a solution I have written about before. It is the only tool we have left that might make a difference: jury nullification.

We talk about "the Three Percent" - 9 million out of 300 million people. If far fewer than 3% - say 1 million out of the 150 million+ who are eligible for jury duty (one tenth of one percent of that number) - would vote to acquit whenever one of us is being tried for the unConstitutional laws and regulations that we are hammered by every day, it would be sufficient. Go to FIJA.org, read about the process, and do what you can to convince family and friends of how effective this might be. If we can't stop Congress from passing bad laws, if we can't keep SCOTUS from creating bad laws from the bench, if we can't stop the President from writing Executive Orders, or the EPA and BATF from producing bad regulations they can control us with, then we can at least protect each other from the consequences of those laws, orders, and regulations. Think about it, people.