Justice for All?:
The Rules are Changing
Under Barack Obama


Victor Edward Swanson,

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721
The United States of America

copyright c. 2013

April 26, 2013
(Version 26)
(Draft version)

    Despite what some "liberals," such as Marxists, communists, and socialists in the United States of America--in essence, members of the Democratic Party--might say, the United States of America is a land that operates under the rule of law; today, some people say for example, the country does not extend rights to all persons in the country, and that is wrong.  The basis of law in the United States of America is a document entitled The United States Constitution, and, for one, it sets up the basic structure of the United States of America and gives citizens rights that are clearly stated in words, which exist in a section that is commonly known as "The Bill of Rights."  The "rights" for the individual spelled out in The U.S. Constitution do not change over time for the individual, but there are people, such as Barack Obama (currently, the U.S. President), who believe The U.S. Constitution is a document that can be ever-changing through laws that are enacted and who believe The U.S. Constitution is a fluid document, whose meaning can change on a whim, and people exist in the country who believe, since The U.S. Constitution is old--over two-hundred years--it has rules that are outdated.  To change The U.S. Constitution, people in the U.S. Congress or the U.S. President must present amendments, pass the amendments, and have those approved by a vote of the people of the states, but some, people, such as Barack Obama, are working to change The U.S. Constitution indirectly, such as by avoiding The U.S. Constitution and the meaning within The U.S. Constitution and by changing the types of people who are judges in the courts of the country, especially the federal-court system.  When a person becomes the U.S. President, one of the duties of that person is to nominate persons to become some of the federal judges in the country, and since Barack Obama has shown himself to uphold the ideologies of Marxism, communism, fascism, and socialism and not uphold the values of The U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama will very likely be instrumental in appointing people to judgeships who uphold at least some of his values, if not most or all of his values, and the new judges, some of whom will serve for life, will be able to place their values into "case law" and into the ways of law of the country, whether or not those values fit with what is thought of as "the rule of law."  This document shows how Barack Obama and his associates, such as the U.S. Attorney General, have been affecting the the federal-court system of the country and changing it for the worse through their actions or enactions since January 20, 2009.

* * * General Information * * *

    Through this document, I cannot give a detailed explanation of law system in the country, since, to cover that, which is a complex topic, it would be necessary for me to write enough material to fill a large book, but, anyway, this document is not designed for complete novices of the law system in the country or for children.  Yet, I present this section of general knowledge, which can act as a refresher for those who have sort of let slip from memory some thoughts about the court system in the country, having little need for the information on a daily basis or having had little need for the information for a long time.  And I provide this section so that the other sections will very less likely be misunderstood by someone who is only partially aware of the general themes of the court systems of the country--a person who is not a child or a novice of the law system.
    The first bit of review is about the structure of the government of the United States of America.  The country is made up of three main units--the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch.  The Executive Branch is headed by the U.S. President, and the Executive Branch is made up of many agencies (such as the Environmental Protection Agency) and fifteen departments, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice (often simply called the DOJ), each of which is made up of parts.  The Legislative Branch is made up of the U.S. Congress, the two main parts of which are the U.S. Senate (which made up of fifty senators--each state is represented by two) and the U.S. House of Representatives (which is made up of 435 members), all of whom get their jobs through the election process.  The Judicial Branch is the federal court system.
    Generally speaking, if you look at the entire country, the court system of in the country is made up of the federal court system and the court system of each state (which is made up of various types of courts, the highest of which is some type of "supreme" court, though not necessarily named a "Supreme Court"), and since the courts of the states are not the subject of this document, they will not be discussed or described here--I only care about the federal court system.  It can be said that the federal court system is made up of two main groups of courts.  One group is what can be called the "Article III" group of courts, since these courts have creations tied to "Article III" of The United States Constitution.  The hierarchy--from the lowest to the highest--is the U.S. District Courts (where federal cases are tried related to, for instance, federal crimes and which is made up of  684 courts or "seats"), the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (where, for one, people who were convicted in district court can go for appeals), and the U.S. Supreme Court (which is the high appellate court in the land and which usually deals with cases that have national significance or stature, such as a state-versus-state suit).  The other two main courts that exist in the "Article III" group of courts are the U.S. Court of Claims (which handles cases against the government, such as for compensation) and the U.S. Court of International Trade, both of which need not be discussed for you in this document.  All the judges of the "Article III" group of courts are nominated by the U.S. President and only acquire jobs by being confirmed through a majority vote of "yes" in the U.S. Senate, and, in essence, such judges hold their position till, for example, they die or resign.  The other main group of courts is made up of courts that have been set up by the U.S. Congress, and this group is made up of the magistrate courts (which handle criminal and civil cases), the bankruptcy courts (where all bankruptcy cases are tried or dealt with), the U.S. Court of Military Appeals (the final court of appeals related to the Uniform Code of Military Justice), the U.S. Tax Courts, and the U.S. Court of Veterans' Appeals, the last three of which are considered "Article I" courts, and the judges for these courts, who hold their jobs for a set period of time, are appointed by the U.S. President.
    Let me show you some general facts of the "Article III' group of courts, going from the lowest-in-statue court system to the highest.  There are 94 U.S. District Courts, and each state is the location of at least one such court, but, in some states, there is more than one such court.  In relation to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the country has been divided in two twelve regions, and there is one of these courts in each region, and there is one more such court in Washington, D.C., and that means there are 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.  The U.S. Supreme Court is made up of nine persons, who are based in Washington, D.C..
    In addition, the U.S. military has a military court system.  One reason to have this court system is to deal with issues pertaining to the military and U.S. military personnel, and one case that would be handled in such a court is a court-martial case.  Also, the country has "military tribunals" and "military commissions," which are used to deal with, for one, prisoners of war or prisoners of conflict, who are seen to have violated the law or war (and people who have been convicted in a military tribune or a military commission are unable to take up appeals in the regular court system, but the U.S. President may take up the matter of appeals).

    I must report here through an aside that there are two main types of court cases.  One type is a "criminal case," in which the government (often thought of as "the people") charges someone with violating a government law; for example, the federal government may charge someone with doing something that goes against federal law, and that someone then would be involved in a criminal case related to federal law.   The other type of case is the "civil case," in which some person or entity (such as a group of persons) brings about a court case against another person or a group of persons.

    Now that you are aware of the federal court system, let me provide you with information about one of the departments of the Executive Branch of the federal government--the U.S. Department of Justice.  In essence, this is the department that is involved in the prosecuting process when people or entities are charged with criminal offenses, and this is the department that is involved in defending the federal government in cases brought against it by people and entities.  The head of the U.S. Department of Justice is a person called the "U.S. Attorney General," who is nominated to the position by the U.S. President and confirmed for the job by a majority vote of "yes" by the U.S. Senate.  In essence, the U.S. Attorney General can make the final decision about whether or not to bring up a case against some person or entity (though the U.S. President can actually be involved in determining whether or not to prosecute or bring a case against a person or entity), and that means the U.S. Attorney general can block a case being brought up against a person or entity or not.  The second in command at the U.S. Department of Justice is a person called the "U.S. Deputy Attorney General" or, simply, the Deputy Attorney General.
    "You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney during questioning.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.  Do you understand these rights.'--this statement, which may in some states contain a few more words, is known as the Miranda warning or the Miranda-rights statement.  The Miranda warning or Miranda-rights statement is stated by police to people who are being arrested for some type of crime or misdemeanor and used to give the people a general idea of their U.S. Constitutional rights; the process of giving such a warning became the law because of a court case known as Miranda v. Arizona of 1966.  Between 1966 and early 2009, it was a rule that the Miranda warning or the Miranda-rights statement was given to only citizens who were being arrested for some type of crime or misdemeanor within the country.  In early 2009--for the first time--U.S. military began to issue the Miranda warning to enemy combatants, such as in Afghanistan, because it had become policy set down by U.S. President Barack Obama.  (For more information about giving the Miranda warning to enemy combatants, you are urged to see information related to U.S. Congressman Mike Rogers in my document entitled A Little History of Barack Obama Events: A Show of Deconstruction, which can be reached by using this link: History.)
    If a person is arrested, the person may have money enough to pay a person--a lawyer or attorney--to represent the person in court, or the person, lacking money, may have a non-paid person represent the person in court, and that person is often called a "public defender."  A "public defender" could be an attorney who is employed by a government entity (in what might be informally called a "public defender's office"), such as the federal government or a local government, to represent people who are defendants in court cases, or a "public defender" could be an attorney who works for a nonprofit or not-for-profit entity (which is not an entity that is a part of a government entity), and such an entity could be considered a "legal aid society."  It has been since 1963 that a court has been required to provided a person who lacks money with an attorney; Gideon v. Wainwright was a 1963 case in the U.S. Supreme Court in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must provided legal counsel to persons charged with crimes who cannot afford legal counsel.

* * * Necessary Background Material * * *

    This part of the document is used to pass along information about several big non-government entities, which have to be understood at least a little so that the remainder of this document can be understood.  The several big non-government entities, which might be considered "nonprofit" or "not-for-profit" entities, are generally considered corrupt or have been involved in fraud or corrupt events, or they have been involved in unethical practices or are dubious in nature.  The entities are informally called the ACLU, ACORN, and the SEIU.

    Let me present two statements that I found presented at the Web site for the American Civil Liberties Union (or the ACLU):
    "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guaranteed everyone in this country."
    "The ACLU works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities."
    Now, you are aware of the stated--publicly stated--general principles of the ACLU, which was founded in 1920.

    ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and it was founded in 1970, and since the 1980s at least, it has been heavily involved in what it might call voter registration drives.  It is noted that this entity has been involved in fraudulent activities in relation to voter registration.  Also, in September 2009, it became public knowledge that several offices scattered around the country were willing to give advice to two persons (undercover film makers) about how to defraud the government and conduct illegal activities, such as run a prostitution enterprise using underage women.  (Note: For more information about this entity, you should see such documents of mine on the Internet as A CALL TO ATTENTION: Barack Obama's Private Army?, World Tyranny: Warnings about the Insane Who are Trying to Create a Communist World Country, Never Forget These Media "Darlings" (?): A Guide for the Individual in the United States of America, THOUGHTS AND PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual woman and the individual man, Mark Levin Interviews U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann: The Main Topic is ACORN, and T.H.A.T. #66.)

    The SEIU stands for Service Employees International Union, and it was founded in 1921 as the Building Services Employees Union and took on the current name in 1968.  On November 20, 2009, I went to the Web site for this organization and found this statement about what the union is: "We are the Service Employees International Union, an organization of 2.1 million members united by the belief in the dignity and worth of workers and the services they provide and dedicated to improving the lives of workers and their families and creating a more just and human society."  The SEIU is made up of workers involved in health care, such as nurses and doctors, people working in the cleaning and security industries, and people in public-service jobs, such as bus drivers and public school employees, and the members exist in the United States of America, Canada, and Puerto Rico.  One problem with SEIU is it has had underfunded pension systems or pension plans related to members.  An article of November 6, 2009, that was posted by WOVR-TV, Channel 13, Sacramento, California, and entitled "State Worker Beat Up at SEIU Meeting" told a story about about Ken Hamidi, who was beaten by SEIU members for, it was alleged, wanting to expose corruption at the SEIU (he was beaten up in Sacramento).  Since 1996, the president of this union has been Andy Stern, who is a known "leftist" or Marxist; on June 15, 2007, while speaking with Bill Moyers on PBS, Andy Stern made such comments as: "...And we are beginning.  We have offices now in Australia and in Switzerland and London, South America, Africa.  We've been working with unions around the world.  And what we're working towards is building a global organization, because, cah, workers of the world unite.  It's not just a slogan anymore, it's a way we're going to have to do our work...." and "...We're trying to use the power of persuasion, and if that doesn't work, we're going to use the persuasion of power, because there are governments, and there are opportunities to change laws that affect these companies.  I'm not naive.  We're ready to strike...." and "...There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power, and unions and government are part of the solution...."  In 2009, Barack Obama and Andy Stern met a number of times at the White House.  [You must remember Karl Marx was a communist (who lived from 1818 to 1883), and his famous book is entitled The Communist Manifesto (which was published in 1848), and one of the statements contained within the book is: "Workers of the world, unite!"  Some people call Karl Marx a "statist," who is a type of person that thinks government should have complete power over the people, but I call him an "enslaver."  Karl Marx professed, in essence, making people slaves to a government or the government--a small group of people (elitists).  Karl Marx's thoughts were put together--not in the United States of America, which had a government controlled by the people and not a government in which the people were slaves to the government--but elsewhere (Germany, where Adolph Hitler was a evil and deadly dictator in the mid-1900s).  Karl Marx was just another defective thinker in history.  I say that, in reality, Andy Stern is an enslaver, and it seems to me Andy Stern wants to be one of the elitists of Marxism, one who controls with an iron fist many around the world, and that is a sign of a man with an ill mind, a dangerous mind, and Andy Stern is closely associated with Barack Obama.]

   Through a Web-site link at The American Spectator, I was able to read a letter of October 5, 2009, from Anna Burger, who was the International Secretary-Treasurer of the SEIU, to U.S. Representative Barney Frank (a Democrat related to Massachusetts), who was the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the letter noted how much the SEIU had given to ACORN for various reasons.  The letter noted that SEIU gave ACORN $190,000 in 2008 and $25,000 in 2009 for "Contributions (including General Support,  and ACORN Projects like Voter Registration)" and gave ACORN $1.4 million in 2008 and $220,000 in 2009 for "Contracted Services (including services such as the Organizing Apprenticeship Program and Childcare Worker Organizing Campaigns)."  The final paragraph in the letter was: "While SEIU has contracted with ACORN for voter registration, community mobilization efforts, and organizing work, we have suspended all active work with ACORN while former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshburger conducts is review of the organization."

    You are urged to see my document entitled Left-Wing Entities: Their Basic Fundamentals are Communism, Socialism, and Marxism, a link to which is at the end of this document, since it gives more left-wing entities that exist in the United States of America.

* * * Interpol in the U.S.A. *  * *

    The previous section gives information about a number of left-wing entities that are operating in the country, and the section is necessary background information to know, and this section is another section with necessary background information to know, and it covers Interpol.  What is Interpol today was created in 1923, but the current title of the entity was not adopted till 1956.  Interpol is sort of an international police organization at which police agencies from around the world can exchange information about persons who are or might be considered criminals, such as international criminals.  On December 16, 2009, Barack Obama changed an existing Executive Order related to Interpol (which had been made on June 16, 1983, by U.S. President Ronald Reagan), and now the order, in essence, allows Interpol to work within the country with complete immunity, which puts it out of the reach of, for one, rules contained within The U.S. Constitution.  This section presents an interview done by Frank Beckmann (of The Frank Beckmann Show) on WJR-AM (in Detroit, Michigan) on Thursday, January 7, 2010, of a man named Andrew McCarthy, and here is most of the interview in text form:
    Frank Beckmann: "...The man on the other end of my line was going to be with us on Monday, and he wound up in the hospital, ah, and so, ah, we're happy to say he's Okay, he's out, he sounds fine, he seems to be doing fine, he's a writer at National Review, former federal prosecutor in New York, was involved in the original prosecution of al-Qaeda from the World Trade Center attacks back in 1993, Andrew McCarthy on the end of our line.  Hi, Andy!"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Frank, how are ya?  Ah, ah, Happy New Year."
    Frank Beckmann: "Happy New Year to you.  How are you feeling?  You Okay?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "I'm, I'm feeling great.  Thank you.  It's just one of those, ah, weird mishaps--ah, a little bloody nose we couldn't get under control, but, ah--and not one caused by my wife, you'll be shocked to know."
    Frank Beckmann: "Happy to hear that.  And do you know, by the way--gonna to get into this later--in France, if you shout at your wife, you can now be charged with a crime?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Really?"
    Frank Beckmann: "Yeah.  New law.  If, if you fight in a domestic dispute, that's called psychological violence within a marriage, and there's a new law against that."
    Andrew McCarthy: "Maybe, I need to move to a Shariah country then."
    Frank Beckmann: "It may be saver.  I don't know.  Andy, you were the one who wrote first about this, ah, Interpol in America.  You were going to be on on Monday to talk all about this, this, ah, Executive Order Number 12425, which President Obama amended, which gives Interpol, according to everything we have read and as you pointed out us absolute immunity here in the United States, and, and sovereignty--they're, they're not under the watchful eye of the FBI, of any law-enforcement agency, the Justice Department, nobody."
   Andrew McCarthy: "Right!  The, the Executive Order, Frank, basically, puts them, ah, above and outside the reach of The United States Constitution, which is fairly breathtaking, ah, for a police agency that works with our government, and, ah, you know, we have sort of cruised along for almost thirty years, ah, with those protections intact.  Ah, you know, the reach of the Fourth Amendment [of The United States Constitution], ah, the reach of the Freedom of Information Act, the reach of American law is what stops police agencies from becoming tyrannical.  Ah, of course, our police agencies are filled with honorable people.  I, I had the privilege of working for them and for, and with them for many, many years, but in the United States, we don't depend on people's honor, we, we depend on, on the check and balances of law.  And, ah, it's breathtaking to me, ah, that we would wanna take a foreign police agency and put them outside the parameters of U.S. law.  And, you know, look, I don't like to be a conspiracy theorist--even though I was a fairly successful one at one time, I suppose--but, hum, you know, what people really want is just a rational explanation from the Obama administration about why this was suddenly necessary.  There was certainly no human cry for it.  Why did we need to do this?"
    Frank Beckmann: "Andy, this is an administration which continues to tell the world--We have to try terrorists in domestic courtrooms, civilian courtrooms to show that we're a nation of laws, and, yet, when it comes to our own base laws and The Constitution, we ignore them."
    Andrew McCarthy: "Yeah!  And we don't tell anybody about it either.  You know, it, it turns out, Frank, that if you're a--you know--if you're a piece of classified information that was generated during the Bush administration, ah, and you're a national defense secret that's necessary to the protection of the United States, they can't push that out the door for everyone, including al-Qaeda, to read fast enough, but when you're asking about the inner workings of the Obama administration--why they make the decisions they do, ah, what goes on in the, ah, smoke-filled rooms that we once promised were going to be on C-SPAN--hum, what we're getting is a big stonewall, and this yet another indication of it."
    Frank Beckmann: "So, what are the potential ramifications of this, ah, this, this carte blanche for Interpol?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Well, it's, it's, it's really, it's, its hard to say, because, you know, once you take, ah, a police agency and you put it outside the reach of American law, you know, you can, your own imagination is the only thing that can contain how bad it could be.  Hum, to me, practically speaking, one, one ah, one consequence is the, ah, Interpol office in the United States is physically located within the Justice Department, ah, so now that its, ah, operations and its archives have been placed beyond the reach of not only, ah, judicial process but, ah, Congressional investigation, ah, you know, it's, it's odd to me that we already have a Justice Department that's stonewalling on this, that, and the other thing.  Now they have a physical stash within the Justice Department that actually is beyond the reach of American law.  And the other thing I'm quite concerned about is I've, I've been saying from the beginning that I think what the Obama administration is doing is trying to push as much information about Bush [former U.S. President George W. Bush] counter-terrorism policies out the door as they can, ah, so that these, ah, anti-war organizations, like the Center for Constitutional Rights, can try to get Bush administration officials indicted overseas.  They've been running around Europe trying to find a court to return charges.  Hum, those countries work very closely with Interpol.  Hum, so, you know, take it from there."
    Frank Beckmann: "So, so, but the U.S. is not a part of the so-called Rome statute [Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court], the U.S., ah, ah, United Nations treaty that established the International Criminal Court [in 2003].  We've, we've always been able to, to avoid being any part of that.  Is, is that now changed?  Are, are we almost by, by this Executive Order, ah, becoming a signatory to that?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Well, we're certainly assisting it, and when Attorney General Holder was in Europe in the spring, ah, he indicated a willingness to cooperate with the investigations that are going on overseas.  Ah, that's not an International Criminal Court investigation.  Those are investigations going on by European law-enforcement authorities.  But you're quite correct to be concerned about it.  There's a lot of people in the Obama administration--not least Hillary Clinton and Harold Coe, who's is the, ah, the top lawyer at the State Department--who very much want us in the International Criminal Court.  I think Presz, President Obama wants us in the International Criminal Court.  Ah, we haven't done that because it would be a major surrender of, of American sovereignty to a foreign tribunal that is really unreachable, ah, in terms of accountability to the American citizen, the American voter.  Hum, but I think slowly but surely, they're trying to push us in that direction."
    Frank Beckmann: "Is there, is there any advantage to having Interpol immune from American law.  I'm trying to think of one reason why I would say--You know, this is really a good idea, and, and, it is validated by The Constitution, I could make a case for that.  Can you see any way?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "I, I've been straining my brain for it.  And I think there are people smarter than me that, that maybe can come up with one.  You know, look, Interpol seemed to get on fine for thirty years without the immunity that President Obama gave them.  And people like you and I watch this sort of stuff closely, there was no outcry that for some reason or other Interpol's operations were being compromised by the fact that they were relegated just like American, must like every American police agency is relegated, ah, by the force of American constitutional law.  Hum, why this was necessary all of a sudden, ah, is beyond me, and there might be a sensible explanation for it, but we've been asking for one for two weeks, and they don't want to give it to us, and that, you know, that, that does make you sort of suspicious about what's going on here."
    Frank Beckmann: "Where's the ACLU?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "They're probably, ah, you know, too busy suing the, ah, you know, the National Security Agency over, ah, trying to intercept enemy communications to have their eye on this ball."
    Frank Beckmann: "Or, ah."  He sort of laughed. "Or.  Well, I don't want to get into the, ah, the CIA...what's happening with the now because...."
    Andrew McCarthy stepped on Frank Beckmann's statement.
    Andrew McCarthy: "Well, we, you know, we don't know.  That's yet another thing.  It's, it's interesting you bring that up, because, you know, the President complained the other day about connecting the dots.  Right.  But since he's been in--for, for almost a year now--we've created a climate where the CIA is basically being told that, if you do your job, you may be indicted.  Ah, if you create a climate where, where that's the message coming from above, I don't think you ought to be very surprised that dots don't get connected."
    Frank Beckmann: "And, and the other part, he [Barack Obama] has now taken the CIA and told them to use their--this is another, ah, Executive, ah, decision, ah, and it's, it's approved by Leon Panetta over at the CIA--to use their spy satellites to track climate change--not to track international terrorists, not to track people like this al-Awlaki [Anwar al-Awlaki], or, ah, the radical cleric who's over in Yemen, not to track this, ah, the, the bomber who, who tried to take out Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit--to track polar bears."
    Andrew McCarthy: "Yeah, well...."
    Frank Beckmann: "Come on!  What are we thinking about?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Well, you know, I don't know what we're think about sometimes.  We do know from, ah, everything that's broken in the news in the last couple of months, ah, that the science behind, dah, climate change, which they now call climate change because they were too embarrassed by the fact that global warming, ah, didn't appear to be happening.  Ah, but we know that's a, you know, that's a very dubious body of science.  Ah, at the same time, ah, we also know that, ah, al-Qaeda operatives seem to be able to get on our airplanes with chemical bombs and, you know, ah, with all due respect to the folks running the country now, I, I sort of think that we ought to be concentrating on the chemical bomb and let the academics work out global warming."
    Frank Beckmann: "Well, speaking of those people, ah, bringing the chemicals on the plane for explosives, ah, the, the "Underwear Bomber" has been indicted here in Detroit, and, ah, you, you had an observation on this when we spoke off the air a little bit earlier today.  Tell me what it was?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Yeah.  I'm going to have a, ah, a column about this today, but I think, you know, the interesting thing about the indictment, ah, which came out yesterday, is that it's a very bare-bones seven-page instrument--charging instrument, as we prosecutors call it.  Hum, usually terrorism indictments are scores-of-pages long.  I think, ah, the one in the embassy-bombing case was well in excess of, of, of a hundred pages.  The one in the my...prosecution was about eighty-pages long.  Hum, this one was about seven-pages long, and it contains only six charges, and it portrays, ah, Abdul Mutallab [Umar Farouk Abdul Muttalab]--the, ah, the guy who's, ah, in custody--ah, as, as basically the lone-wolf actor that the Obama administration preposterously portrayed him as, ah, in the opening hours after his arrest on Christmas Day.  Now, we know since then, hum--in fact, I think we knew very quickly after this all happened--ah, that this is an al-Qaeda operation.  He told us that, even in the, the few hours we got to talk to him before they had to turn him over to his lawyer, ah, and al-Qaeda in Yemen has claimed credit for it.  Ah, but none of that is in the indictment.  If you're looking through the indictment, you want to find the words 'al-Qaeda or 'Jihad' or 'Islamist terrorism,' you won't find them.  Ah, he's basically portrayed as a lone wolf, and I think the reason for that is because we elevated criminal prosecution over the much more important imperative of getting intelligence. Hum, we haven't gotten the intelligence.  And prosecutors can only put in an indictment, ah, what they're sure they can prove.  At this point, hum, all we can prove is the lone-wolf stuff.  Ah, and I think again it shows that we've compromised our intelligence gathering."
    Frank Beckmann: "How could that have changed if we had put him into military customy, custody and charged him as an enemy combatant?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Well, you, you don't have to charge him with anything if you hold him as an enemy combatant.  We're entitled to hold, ah, enemy operatives in war times.  Ah, it's something we've always done.  It's something the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2004.  And what it would mean most importantly is that you wouldn't to give him a lawyer.  You could interrogate him for as long as it took to get whatever useful intelligence he had.  And it's important that your, your listeners understand.  I'm not talking now about water boarding him or any of that other stuff that they like to jump to.  I'm simply talking about competent, ah, interrogation that we do all the time with military captives, hum, which during war time, you're allowed to do outside the context of the criminal-justice system, and what that mainly means is you don't have to give him a lawyer who can shut down the interrogation, and you don't have to make concessions to him and plea bargain with him in order to get information.  Ah, and when we do that, ah, we've done it on many occasions where you actually hold the guy sometimes for years--we held this guy al-Amori* actually for seven years, ah, as an enemy combatant before he was finally turned over to the justice system and prosecuted.  I don't think President Obama should be prosecuting, ah, our terrorist enemies in the criminal-justice system.  But even if you want to do that, if you insist that's the way you want to go, ah, there's nothing that prevents you from doing that, ah, but you can still hold the guy for as long as you need to as an enemy combatant to make sure you get that life-saving intelligence."  [* = For this edition, I use "al-Amori," because that is what the word sounded like, and I do not know what should actually be presented.]
    Frank Beckmann: "Ah, meantime, the final report on the Christmas Day bomber is going to come out today, and the White House is already warning us through National Security Advisor James Jones that we are going to feel a certain shock when we read the account being released.  Ah, ah, could we be shocked any more than, than what we already, ah, know about all this?  That there was information on this fellow, that, ah, we knew while he was in the air--on the plane--we got word over here, this was a bad guy, and, and we simply said, 'Oh, well, we'll talk to him when he's on the ground.'"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Well...."
    Frank Beckmann: "...I don't know how much more I could be shocked."
    Andrew McCarthy: "No, I think you're absolutely right about that.  I mean, you know, look, there's likely to be bad stuff in there.  Ah, you know, when, when it becomes clear at a very early stage that they've made major screw ups, hum, you can rest assured that, once people start looking hard at it, ah, you're going to find some really mind-boggling screw ups, ah, and, as a result, we'll probably get some of those today, but, you know, the fact is, Frank, this is going to continue until we come to terms with what it is that causes his problem in the first place."
    Frank Beckmann: "Amen!  If you don't identify the problem, you can't attack it, can you?"
    Andrew McCarthy: "Yeah.  And, and everything we're doing now is artificial, so I don't know how surprised we are to be it doesn't work."
    Frank Beckmann: "Andy, really appreciate the time as always...."
    That covers the main part of the interview, and what is missing is the good-bye material (and now that you have read the text, I urge you to see my document entitled Sharia Law, Shariah-Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and Barack Obama, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document, and you should see my document entitled "CAP AND TRADE" and Carbon Dioxide Facts and Nonsense, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document).

* * * Personnel of the DOJ * * *

    I have already explained the main functions of the U.S. Department Justice (or the DOJ), and now I will pass along information about people who work at the U.S. Department.  This explanation of particular jobs that exist at the U.S. Department of Justice is not an explanation about the DOJ being made up of secretaries, paralegals, t cetera, since such information would use space in telling what should already be known information.  This part of the document will look at some persons who work at the DOJ.
    At the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney General is Eric Holder, Jr., and here are two notes about him.  This man was the U.S. Deputy Attorney General under U.S. President Bill Clinton when, in 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton gave clemency to 16 terrorists who wanted to make Puerto Rico as Marxist-Lenisist dictatorship.  In May 2009, under Eric Holder, Jr., the U.S. Department of Justice dropped charges on some members of the New Black Panther Party, which is, in essence, a radical group that hates "whites."  (You should see the "Eric Holder, Jr." section of my document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", and the "Eric Holder, Jr." section of my document entitled "Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, links to which exist at the end of this document, and you should see the "New Black Panther Party" section of my document entitled Left-Wing Entities: Their Basic Fundamentals are Communism, Socialism, and Marxism, a link to which is at the end of this document).
    The Deputy Attorney General is David Ogden, who is the second in command at the DOJ, and U.S. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden has shown himself to be a person who believes the U.S. Supreme Court should base decisions related to interpreting The U.S. Constitution--at least in part--on laws and traditions of other lands, as is shown through events that took place in relation to a court case known as Roper v. Simmons, which was a death-penalty case related to a juvenile (Christopher Simmons), who had killed a person is St. Louis, Missouri, in 1993 (Groves, Steven.  "Deputy Attorney General Nominee David Ogden: Questions on Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution."  The Heritage Foundation, 2 February 2009, Web Memo #2285.).
    The third in command is Thomas J. Perelli as Associate Attorney General, and it was Thomas Perelli who actually gave the orders to the attorneys in the Civil Rights Division to end the case--drop the charges--against members of the New Black Panther Party who had been involved in what appeared to be voter intimidation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 4, 2008; the U.S. Department of Justice under U.S. President George W. Bush had started the case against the New Black Panther Party members.
    The Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division is Tony West, who around 2002 acted as a lawyer for the "American Terrorist"--John Walker Lindh, who had converted to Islam in 1997 and had been captured in November 2001..
    Incidentally, on Friday, February 26, 2010, members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee--seven Republicans--sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for information about lawyers who were involved in defending detainees at Guantanamo Bay in recent years and now were working in the U.S. Department of Justice (or the DOJ), and on this date, it was known that at least ten persons were working at the DOJ had represented detainees, and there was supposed to be a response by March 12, 2010..
    In my document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", I give information about people who are close associates of Barack Obama's, and when a person reads the document, the person can see what Barack Obama is, since the document shows all the cruddy, corrupt, defective, and dangerous people that Barack Obama has at his side, and, in essence, this section has added a little bit more information that would well fit into that document.

* * * A Court Action to Remember * * *

    How far do you think the Barack Obama administration would go to stop people who want to stop his bad political policies?  On March 23, 2010, Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which is designed to give the federal government monopolistic control of the health-care industry in the near future, and soon after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 became a law, the Attorneys General related to a number of states began the process to challenge the law in court.  On May 24, 2010, the head of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of the federal government, Kathleen Sebelius, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that was designed to have a court case that had been started by the State of Virginia blocked before it really got going, and one reason given to have the case stopped is "A state cannot...manufacture its own standing challenge a federal law by simple expedient of passing a statue purporting to nullify it."  It must be remembered that it is the states that created the federal government; for example, in the 1700s, it was thirteen states (colonies) that signed on to create the entity known as the United States of America.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 has a section that notes that citizens are required to buy health-care insurance, and the law is the first law that has ever been enacted that mandates that citizens buy something from other people or from entities, and that is one reason court cases were started against the act, because those who started the cases believed and believe it is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that a person buy something from some other person or from an entity, but Kathleen Sebelius proposed in the case that "The Commerce Clause" of The U.S. Constitution does allow the federal government to force citizens to buy something (Note: Since March 2010, I have heard Mark R. Levin (a constitutional lawyer, a radio talk-show host, and a man who worked in the U.S. President Ronald Reagan administration) say that "The Commerce Clause" cannot be used in such a way).  Think about what Kathleen Sebelius was trying to get a court to do--She was trying to get a court to say that a state cannot challenge a federal law.  If the court would rule in favor of Kathleen Sebelius--really the Barack Obama administration--the court would set a precedent, which could be used in the future; for example, in the future, no federal law could be challenged by a state and, certainly, not federal law could be challenged by an individual citizen, who is supposed to be, really, one of the owners of the federal government.  If the court would rule in favor of the federal government, the action might be challenged through more court action, that which would, ultimately, end at the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it is challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, that court could rule in favor of the federal government, since, by the time the court case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems that court could be made up of at least four persons who follow blindly the ways of Barack Obama and rule in favor of him, and, actually, it is possible five justices of the nine that exist could be found to decide in favor of the federal government.   Remember: The underlying theme of the whole argument put forth by Kathleen Sebelius is that a state (or the people of a state) cannot challenge a federal law.  (Note: If the federal government gets the power to make you purchase one thing, such as health-care insurance, the federal government--particularly the corrupt Barack Obama administration--is very likely to work to set down rules that make you purchase other things!)

* * * Thoughts about What a Judge Should be * * *

    On Tuesday, June 22, 2010, Mark R. Levin interviewed U.S. Senator John Kyl (a Republican related to Arizona), and the main reason for the interview was to talk about a meeting between John Kyl and Barack Obama in which Barack Obama showed he was not eager to secure the border of the United States of America, especially in the Arizona area, and information about some of what had been said at the meeting can be found in my document entitled Illegal Aliens and Immigration: The Focusing is Protecting the Home--The United States of America, which can be reached by using this Illegal link, but the two men also talked about the currently ongoing conformation process related to Elena Kagan's maybe becoming a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, and here is some of what was said:
    Mark Levin: "Here's my concern, and I think I speak for a lot of people--obviously, I don't speak for a lot of people--but I think I speak for a lot of people, and it's this.  If you don't have an 'originalist' approach to interpreting The Constitution--that doesn't mean, ah, a result-oriented approach--an 'originalist' approach where even 'originalists' disagree without comps, then you're not qualified.  In other words, if you're not gonna look at that Constitution and try to determine exactly what was meant, then start searching behind it if you need to, going to the Convention, going to the Ratifying Conventions, looking at the legislative record when you have statues, you know, really trying to decern--regardless of the outcome--what the elected bodies were trying to do and, and compare it to The Constitution and draw your conclusions based on that, I think we're just going to feed this statist, ah, judical oligararchy that gets bigger and bigger and more powerful and making more and more decisions about what's going on in this country, and we have Obama trying to populate with the most radical judges immaginable.  I mean, to me--and I'm not a senator, so I don't presume to tell you what to do--but, for me, if you're not an 'originalist' and one, in, in one way or another, if you can't commit to that, then you're not qualified."
    John Kyl: "Well, Mark, I think, ah, there are two basic points of view about judging.  One of them is, is very closely rela, or it encompasses among other things the pure 'originialist' point of view, but you don't have to be an, an 'originalist' in the Scalia, ah, mode, for example, to share the same basic philosophy, which is you, you decide the law based upon the facts of the case, the applicatable law, and if there's a constitution provision involved, the proper and careful reading of that provision, which frequently takes you back to what the, what the founders intended.  A, a person like Justice Solito, like Justice Thomas, like Justice Roberts, um, certainly, like Justice Scalia, all, ah, tend to approach cases in that way.  If it's the way that Roberts' described what a judge should do--We're kind of like the umpire calling the balls and strikes.  The other point of view is characterized by some of the other members of the Court, and I believe, um, the question for, ah, attorney or Solicitor General Kagan is--Which, which do you fall in?  And this is the view that Obama--President Obama--describes as, ah, one in which empathy should play a role and one should be concerned about how the little guy comes out against the big guy in litigation, and which clearly is an expansive and interpreted results-oriented, very--quote--progressive--unquote--approach, and, to me, that's the question we have to basically set before Elena Kagan.  And the problem is she doesn't have a judicial record that she can point to to say, 'No, no.  Look, when, when I was on the court, I, I did just fine as a judge.'  She doesn't have that, so she's gonna have to bare that burden of proof with other evidence."
    Mark Levin: "I agree.  I just feel that the standard needs to be a little less flexible than it has been with Republicans in the past because our government's getting so massive--this, ah, statism is really being pressed now in every direction, whether it's health care, cap and trade, and all the rest.  And if we have judges and justices who are just gonna start rubber stamping this stuff 'cause they have a perverse view of The Constitution, legal positivism, Fourteenth Amendment, dah, Second Bill of Rights.  And you know this is all out there.  It's going on in all the law schools and so forth.  Then, the only way to put an end to it is to put an end to it."
    John Kyl: "That's right.  And it takes, um, it takes enough senators who are willing to say 'no' to nominees that prevent that nominee from going forward, and that is not to say that President Barack Obama, a Liberal Democrat, isn't entitled to nominate Liberal Democrats to the bench as long as they understand the rule as a judge is not to be a Liberal Democrat but to be a judge."
    Mark Levin: "I agree, because from my point of view, these words 'liberal' and 'conservative,' they get lost.  To me, if you are taking an oath to uphold The Constitution, then by God, uphold it.  Don't start, don't start looking into the atmosphere for all kinds of legal theories, it's my job to pursue equality and justice and democracy.  That, Senator, is your job, and that's the President's job as elected officials.  If these judges are going to behave this way, then I'm a little confused about the differences between the branches of government, and I know you think this way to."
    John Kyl: "...Exactly right.  We're supposed to set the policy, and that too much of what people like in Justice Marshall said, for example, of, this respects the rule of the legislature, in effect--and, and on one occasion, he said, something to the effect, 'Look, I decide what's right, and then I let the law catch up.'  Well, if you're a legislator, that's just fine, but not, not if you're a judge."
    You should see through the material presented, if a judge is going to rule for the individual and stand for the individual and decide matters based on rules that apply equally to every individual, the judge will have to be like a "originalist" and cannot be someone working on feelings and whims of the moment, feeling, for example, one party should win because the party--though wrong in the case in relation to law or laws--has had hard times or is part of a group that may have been discriminated at one time, and you should see through the material presented that a judge should not be concerned with "social justice," a vague term used by communists and the like to justify--supposedly--the taking of money from one party and the giving it to another party so that the two parties will be equal or more equal, which is a defective idea or defective policy.

* * * "Legal Positivism" * * *

    I have heard it said by some lawyers that law schools have been teaching law students ways in which to circumvent The United States Constitution or ways in which to make The United States Constitution a useless document, especially when such law students end up a judges, if they can become judges, and, of course, the teaching of such nonsense is being done by "enslavists' (such as Marxists and communists) who wish to in the future make the United States of America something that is not defined by rules and ideas that happen to exist The United States Constitution, which is designed to block "enslavists" (such as a person who wishes to be the head dictator of the country) from getting free rein over the citizens of the country, as Barack Obama has clearly shown since January 2009 that he wishes to do.  On Thursday, May 19, 2011, Mark R. Levin--a "conservative" and a well-known constitutional lawyer--brought out the subject of "legal positivism" on his nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Mark Levin Show, and he did that in conjunction with a recent vote (which had been held earlier in the day) in the U.S. Senate that, in essence, blocked a man named Goodwin Liu from becoming a judge on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Mark R. Levin noted, for one, that all but one Democrat voted to proceed with the process to possibly confirmed Goodwin Liu, but the vote--a procedural vote--ended up going against Goodwin Liu, and Mark R. Levin said some words that you should read: "...They're not going to be able to proceed.  Now, I want you to think about that.  I am told every Democrat but one voted to bring up Mr. Liu's nomination so he could [be] confirmed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he would be sitting on cases involving all you folks in that circuit, which includes California, of course, when the radical ideology--comes right of the law schools--it's called 'legal positivism.'  Now what 'legal positivism' means broadly is that rather than that The Constitution saying that the government cannot do these certain things, we're gonna turn it around and say the government must do these certain things.  And what must the government do?  The government must institute a socialist left-wing agenda and constitutionalize it.   That is, make the case--if you have the votes on the court, that's all you need--make the case that The Constitution compels Obamacare, it compels tax hikes, it compels environmental justice and 'cap and trade.'   There are no limits to what the central government can do--no limits to intervention and so forth--that the courts can be involved in.  Absolutely radical crazy!  And yet this is the so-called cutting-edge legal philosophy--constitutional philosophy--on the left in our law schools, which they now want to put on the courts.  Obama nominated this man to the Ninth Circuit, so Obama clearly shares his philosophy, right?  This is way I think all these things are linked--your attitude about our society, your attitude about our Constitution, the rule of law.  These are really 'ends justifies the means' kind of people, aren't they?  Answer---yes.  But the Republicans mustered enough votes--and Nelson of Nebraska as well--to make it clear that they were prepared to filibuster this nominee, Goodwin Liu.  Even McCain and Lindsey Graham said this is enough--we got to draw the line here...." and "...These are radical, radical philosophies of governing and adjudicating!...."

* * * Elena Kagan, Yesterday and Today * * *

    The topic here is Elena Kagan.  In 2009, as the Solicitor General of the United States of America, Elena Kagan became involved in the U.S. Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (the decision to which would come in January 2010), and in mid-2010, Elena Kagan became a nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court and ended up in U.S. Senate confirmation hearings.  Here, I show two problems with Elena Kagan that showed up during those events.
      In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court case entitled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was already ongoing when Elena Kagan became the Solicitor General, gaining that job through appointment by Barack Obama, and when Elena Kagan became the Solicitor General, she became the head attorney arguing the case for the federal government before the U.S. Supreme Court.  During the case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg happened to bring up a topic during oral arguments that led to Justices talking about the government's possible ability to ban some books.  What I show here is a text version of a tiny bit of talk that took place during oral arguments when books came into the discussion (and I could have presented more than what I present):
    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg: "...If Congress could say, 'No, ah, TV and radio ads,' could it also say, 'No newspaper ads, no campaign biographies...."
    Elena Kagan: "Eh, eh, the government's view is that, although 441B does cover full-length books, that there would be a quite good as applied challenge, ah, to any attempt to apply 441B in that context, and I should say that the FEC [Federal Elections Commission] has never applied 441B in that context, so, for sixty years, a book has never been at issue.  There has never been an enforcement action for books.  Nobody has ever suggested--nobody in Congress, nobody in the administration apparatus--has ever suggested that books pose any kind of corruption problem...."
    Notice that Elena Kagan was noting that books are covered but that the FEC has never applied 441B to books so you should not worry.
    We now move up in history.  On Tuesday, June 29, 2010, Elena Kagan was sitting before U.S. Senators and answering questions from U.S. Senators--it was the U.S. Supreme Court conformation hearings for Elena Kagan to become a U.S. Justice to the Supreme Court.  At one point, Elena Kagan was being interviewed by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (a Republican related to Oklahoma), and here is a portion of what they did in speaking together:
    Tom Coburn: "Well, I guess the question I'm asking is--Do we have the power to tell people what they have to eat every day?"
    Elena Kagan: "...eh, Se, Senator Coburn, um, I, I...." [The first case of "..." in this line is where there was sort of silence and then she stuttered (and I knew not how to present the mess in another way).  The second "..." is where she stalled, and Coburn then spoke up.]
    Tom Coburn: "I mean, what is the extent of the 'Commerce Clause'?  We have this wide embrace of the 'Commerce Clause,' which these guys who wrote this never ever fathomed that we would be so stupid to take our liberties away by expanding the "commerce clause" this way."
    Elena Kagan: [Basically. Elena Kagan had no answer.]
    The two events, which are only small, small parts of all that exists, show that Elena Kagan is a woman who seems to promote as good the banning of some books and who it seems would say that the federal government can tell people what they can and cannot buy, and I say that in other words.  You can see through the information presented that, in the future, if Elena Kagan became a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and if a case about banning a book or books showed up before the U.S. Supreme Court, she would be very likely to find a way to rule that the federal government could ban some books, which, to the serious thinking man, would clearly be a violation of the First Amendment of The U.S. Constitution.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which was made a law in March 2010, has a provision that compels ever citizen to purchase health-care insurance (when the provision becomes active), and the act is the first law to ever be passed that forces a citizen to buy something from someone else or some entity, and you can see through the information provided--Elena's Kagan's no answer to Tom Coburn's question--that, if there was a lawsuit challenging the federal government's ability to force a person to buy something from someone else or some entity, Elena Kagan probably would find a way to rule that the federal can compel a person to buy that something--the federal government's telling you what you could or could not buy would be a first and would set a precedent in which the federal government could tell you could and could not buy in all matters in the future, and that is would bad and be tyranny.
    Note: I urge you to see my document entitled Fairness?: A Guide for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be by using the link at the end of this document.

* * * Information about Judges * * *

    It has been the belief in the United States of America that judges should follow the law and work on the principles of the law, the underlying overall law of which is The United States Constitution, and it has been the way that judges should be making rulings based on law, such as those enacted over time by the Legislative Branch and those made in the past by rulings of courts and have become precedent, and that judges should not be making rulings based on the whims of the moment or the feelings of the moment, which are not based on logic established over time, such as decades.  "Legislating from the bench"--this set of words is often used to describe what judges should not be doing, which is making laws instead of making rules based on established laws or practices, and when judges seems to be legislating from the bench, they can be considered "activist judges."  For the good of everyone in the country, a person should want the court system--especially the higher levels of the federal court system--to no have "activist" judges, since activities judges are very unlikely to treat every person who comes before the court equally--no matter, for instance, what the race or sexual identification of the person.  Law that is equal for everyone is better than feelings or whim or empathy.

    On Sunday, March 2, 2008, Barack Obama, while in Ohio during the presidential campaign, said: "I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through."

    On May 1, 2009, Barack Obama made a surprise appearance before the press in the White House, and the subject was the retirement of  U.S. Supreme Court Judge David Suter.  Barack Obama made a statement, and some of that statement was: "...I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and intrigity.  I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook.  It is also about how our laws affect daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.  I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes...."

    Soon after Judge David Suter of the U.S. Supreme Court announced his retirement, a woman named Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to become the replace for him.   In the days leading up to the confirmation vote, it became public knowledge that one reason she should not be confirmed is that she is a racist; for instance, it was shown that, in October 20101, she had said, "...Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white man who hasn't lived that life...."  In addition, it was shown that she would very likely legislate--make laws--from the bench.  On Thursday, August 6, 2009, the U.S. held a confirmation vote about whether to confirm or not confirm for Sonia Sotomayor to be a new judge of the U.S. Supreme Court (and here are the Republicans who voted "yes" for Sonia Sotomayor: Lamar Alexander (Tennessee), Christopher S. Bond (Missouri), Susan M. Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire), Richard G. Lugar (Indiana), Mel Martinez (Florida), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), and George V. Voinovich (Ohio).  (You now know what Republicans--in name only it seems, since they acted like "liberals"--sided with Barack Obama, and you are urged to see the entry for May 27, 2009, of my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama and my document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, links to which exist at the end of this document.)

    On September 17, 2009, Gerard E. Lynch was approved by the U.S. Senate to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

    On September 29, 2009, Jeffrey L. Viden was approved by the U.S. Senate (in a 99 "yes" to 0 "no" vote) to be a judge for the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

    It was on October 13, 2009, Barack Obama nominated Rosanna M. Peterson to become a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

    On November 9, 2009, the U.S. Senate approved Andre Davis to be a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District; in 1995, he had become a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

    Dave Hamilton has been a member of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (having been Vice President for Litigation in the late 1980s), and he was a fund raiser or canvasser for American Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN), and it was in June 2009 when David Hamilton was approved by a committee in the U.S. Senate to be put up for a vote in the U.S. Senate to become a United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh District.  On Tuesday, November 17, 2009, the U.S. Senate was involved in the confirmation process related to judge nominee Dave Hamilton, and what happened was a vote was taken to end debate about Dave Hamilton, and the vote passed, meaning no filibuster could then take place.  On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the U.S. Senate voted on the confirmation of Dave Hamilton (of Indiana) to be in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, and the vote was 59 for "yes" and 39 for "no" (and the only Republican who voted "yes" was Richard Lugar (a Republican--it name only, it appears--related to Indiana)), and, at the time, there were yet 21 vacant seats of the 179 that existed in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
    By  the way, it was through Mark R. Levin, the host of The Mark Levin Show (a nationally syndicated radio show) that, on the evening of November 17, 2009, I first heard about what Republicans voted (on November 17, 2009) in favor stopping debate in the U.S. Senate on Dave Hamilton, then a District Judge in Indiana, to become a federal appeals judge based in Chicago, Illinois (the Seventh Circuit).  Mark R. Levin reported that 58 Democrats vote "yes," and two Independents voted "yes," and 10 Republicans voted "yes."  The 10 Republicans were: Lamar Alexander (Tennessee), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Susan M. Collins (Maine), John Cornyn (Texas), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire), Orin Hatch (Utah), Richard G. Lugar (Indiana), Lisa Murkowski  (Alaska), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), and John Thune (South Dakota).

    Wednesday, March 3, 2010--this day may go down in history as one of the biggest days of 2010.  In the morning, Barack Obama made a big public push to urge the U.S. Congress to pass a health-care bill, hinting that the members should stop debate and pass the health-care bill soon, which would include using the "budget reconciliation" process of the U.S. Senate.  Later in the day, The Weekly Standard reported that, on the same day, the White House announced that U.S. Representative Jim Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr., was a candidate to be a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (McCormack, John.  "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?  Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court."  The Weekly Standard, 3 March 2010, 6:15 p.m.).  In the evening, on the same day, Barack Obama had U.S. Representatives Jason Altmire (a Democrat associated with Pennsylvania), Allen Boyd (a Democrat associated with Florida), Lincoln Davis (a Democrat associated with Pennsylvania), Frank Kratovic (a Democrat associated with Maryland), Betsey Markey (a Democrat associated with Colorado), Jim Matheson (a Democrat associated with Utah), Scott Murphy (a Democrat associated with New York), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (a Democrat associated with South Dakota), Heath Shuler (a Democrat associated with North Carolina), and John Tanner (a Democrat associated with Tennessee) meeting him (and probably his staff) so that he could persuade them to vote "yes" for a national-health-care bill, which Barack Obama was hoping to get passed by having the U.S. Congress use a means that would involved the "budget reconciliation" process of the U.S. Senate, and these members of the U.S. Congress who were invited to the meeting were those who were undecided about voting "yes" for a national-health-care bill.

    On Monday, May 10, 2010, Barack Obama appeared before the press to announce that he was nominating Elena Kagan to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.  At the time, Elena Kagan was the Solicitor General for the United States of America, and she was involved in the court case tried before the U.S. Supreme Court known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (to learn more about the court case, you should see the document entitled Fairness?: A Guide for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which, for one, gives information about a court case in the U.S. Supreme Court of 2009 and 2010 that, if it would have been won by the federal government, would have allowed the federal government to censor or ban such media products as books and DVDs).  Again, Barack Obama nominated a person who seems to put feelings before rules, such as the ways of The U.S. Constitution.
    On Tuesday, May 11, 2010, the Senior Advisor to Barack Obama, David Axelrod, made this statement: "...On the same day that you're asking me that, you know, there are people on the right who are hammering her because she clerked for Abner Mikva and she clerked for Justice Marshall that excepted his view that the court should, dah, stand up for the least of us, and, you know, ah, she has a long history here that should give people some sense of what her personal sensibilities are, but what the President was looking for above all was a, a justice who believed as he believed that we have to respect the Constitution, uphold the Constitution, do it in a way that makes sure that everyone gets a fair shake, not just the powerful but everybody gets a fair shake and that's a view that Elena Kagan reflects...."
    And it was on Saturday, August 7, 2010, that Elena Kagan was sworn in as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Note: You should see the "Elena Kagan" section of the document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document, and you should see it, since it shows some of Elena Kagan's mind and thinking processes, as shown through her exchange of talk with U.S. Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Kennedy during case known as the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which was decided on January 21, 2010.

    In 2001, Barack Obama was interviewed at WBEZ-FM (Chicago, Illinois), and here is some of what Barack Obama said: "...If you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court.  I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people so that I would have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order. As long as I could pay for it, I'd be O.K.  But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues, such as political and economic justice in society.  To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical...."  You will find more of this statement in my document entitled A Collection of Words--Just Words--That Show Dangerous People, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document, but from what is presented, you can see Barack Obama would like to use the court system, especially the U.S Supreme Court, to redistribute the wealth of the country--not to right real wrongs related to the rule of law and established ways of man.

* * * More on the New Black Panthers Case * * *

    On  Wednesday, June 30, 2010, Megyn Kelly interviewed named J. Christian Adams on the Fox News Channel, and J. Christian Adams talked about the incident of November 4, 2009, in which members of the New Black Panthers were clearly intimidating potential voters and voters at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  In January 2010, a federal court case was started against a number of members of the New Black Panthers, and that was during the U.S. President George W. Bush administration, and, ultimately, the case ended with a "default judgment," which is a judgement that is given when a defendant does not show up in court to put up a defense.  After the "default judgment was issued," what next had to be done is a sentence had to be set down, but, in May 2010, the case was dismissed, a move that was made through orders handed down by some top-level executives in the U.S. Department of Justice, which was now controlled by the Barack Obama administration (Barack Obama had become the U.S. President on January 20, 2010, and had made a man named Eric Holder the head of the department).  By June 30, 2010, J. Christian Adams had resigned from the U.S. Department of Justice, which had been done a few weeks previous to taking part in the interview referred to June 30, 2010, and here are some of the statements made by J. Christian Adams in the interview:
    In answering a question about what was at the heart of the case, J. Christian Adams sad, "Yes.  The 1965 Voting Rights Act protects voters from voter intimidation.  You're allowed, you're supposed to be able to vote without somebody with weapon shouting racial slurs at you like these folks were doing in Philadelphia."
    In answering a question about what the guys said at the polling place, J. Christian Adams said, "Well, they said, 'You're about to be ruled by the black-man Cracker.'  They called people 'white devils.'  They menaced.  They tapped their baton.  They tried to stop people from entering the poles."
    In answering a question as to whether or not there was an doubt that what the men did was violate the law, J. Christian Adams said, "No, nor anybody who worked on the case.  It's the easiest case I ever had at the Justice Department.  It doesn't get any easier than this.  If this doesn't constitute voter intimidation, nothing will."
    In answering a question as to what happened once the case was started, J. Christian Adams said, "Well, you cruise along.  The defendants didn't even appear.  They, they didn't even answer.  They just ignored the charges."
    In answering a question as to what happened when the defendants did not show up in court, J. Christian Adams said, "The court had already filed and entered default against the defendants.  So it was done.  All we had to do is tell the judge what we wanted for punishment."
    In answering a question as to what happened at the Justice Department while the sentence was being determined by the judge, J. Christian Adams said, "Well, the case was dismissed on May 15.  All  the charges were dropped against three of the defendants.  And, and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid, a timid restraint."
    In answering a question as to what happened to get you where 'you literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,' J. Christian Adams said, "Sure, well.  I mean, what happened was--and it's been, there's been testimony--we were ordered to dismiss the case.  We, we were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party."
    In answering a question about who ordered that the case be stopped, J. Christian Adams said, "Well, the, the, the testimony has been that Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, two political officials at the department ordered the dismissal of the case.  Of course, that was the first story.  Eventually, it was, it was revealed, ah, that there were more people involved.  But originally Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, two political appointees, did."
    In answering a question about what J. Christian Adams understood the reasons to be that people stopped the case, J. Christian Adams said, "Well, you know, the Department has said that the facts and the law don't support going forward on the case.  Now, obviously, that's false.  Anyone with eyes can see that the facts and the law would support this case.  Ah, there's video...."
    In answering a question as to whether or not the case was reviewed properly by officials at the Department of Justice while the sentence aspect was be considered, J. Christian Adams said, "Yeah.   That, obviously, that's false.  Under the Vacancy Reform Act, they were serving in a political capacity.  This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case.  It's one of other examples in this case where the truth simply is, is becoming another victim of the process."
    [Commentary: I must bring up a thought here, since the idea might not come to your mind.  Barack Obama was elected to be the U.S. President on November 4, 2010, and the case against the members of the New Black Panther Party was started in January 2010.  It seems to me the members of the New Black Panther Party did not show up for the trial, because they were aware the trial would sometime soon be shut down or dropped, because there would be new people in the U.S. Department of Justice, appointed by Barack Obama, who would cancel the case.  Sometimes, people "telegraph" what is going to happen--out of, for example, arrogance]

* * * The Nature of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder * * *

    On Thursday, April 24, 2013, Eric Holder--the U.S. Attorney General at the time--was at a Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund event.  He spoke before the crowd.  One thing that he said is: "... Creating a pathway for earned citizenship for the eleven-million unauthorized immigrants in this country is absolutely essential.  The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and to move out of the shadows transcends the issue of immigration status.  This is a matter of civil and human rights...."  Through the few words, Eric Holder showed himself to be a lawless man, a man who does not support the laws of the United States of America, though he is supposed to be the biggest supporter of U.S. laws by being the U.S. Attorney General.  "Unauthorized immigrants" are actually criminals or people who are in the country illegally and are violating federal law (all countries have immigration laws, which are designed to determine who may or may not enter the country), and, in essence, Eric Holder's idea is "unauthorized immigrants"--who are violating federal immigration laws--should be given citizenship in the country since it is a "civil right" a "human right" for them.  Eric Holder's idea of "civil right" and "human right" in this instance is idiocy!  Giving citizenship in the United States of America is not a "civil right" or a "human right," an example of which would be the right to not be beaten for being a follower of Christianity, as happens in some countries of the world.

* * * Testimony from Christopher Coates  * * *

    It was on Friday, September 24, 2010, that more information about with the New Black Panther Party incident and the U.S. Department of Justice became public knowledge, and the information was related to testimony given by former Voting Chief Christopher Coates to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission on this day, and the information showed more evidence that the Barack Obama adminstration is a racist adminstration.  For example, newspapers reported how former Voting Chief Christopher Coates said that superiors were opposed to making cases against minority perpetrators of the Voting Rights Act," and publications presented such quotes from Christopher Coates as "...The election of President Obama brought to positions of influence and power within the [Civil Rights Division] many of the very people who had demonstrated hostility to the concept of equal enforcement of the [Voting Rights Act].." and "They have not pursued the goal of equal protection of the law for all people...." (Foster, Daniel.  "Coates Testifies at Civil Rights Commission."  National Review, 24 September 2010, 2;5 p.m.; Steffen, Jordan.  "Former Justice Official Blasts Superiors."  Los Angeles Times, 24 September 2010, 2:50 p.m.).  Also, people could read a document on the Internet with Christopher Coates' testimony before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and see such statements as "...This practice of not enforcing Section 5's protections for white voters includes jurisdictions, such as Noxubee County, Mississippi where the Ike Brown case arose, where white voters are in the racial minority.  It is in those jurisdictions the Voting Section's failure apply Section 5's protections for the white minorities particularly problematic.  On two occasions, while I was chief of the Voting Section, I tried to persuade officials at the CRD [the Civil Rights Division] level to change this policy so that white voters would be protected by Section 5 in appropriate circumstances, but to no avail.  I believe that present management in both the CRD and Voting Section are opposed to race-neutral enforcement of Section 5 and continue to enforce those provisions in a racially selected manner...." and "...As important as the mandate in the VRA is to protect minority voters, white voters also have an interest in being able to go to the polls without having race-haters such as Black Panther King Samir Shabazz whose public rhetoric includes such statements as 'kill cracker babies' standing at the entrance of the voting place with a billy club in his hand hurling racial slurs.  Given this outrageous conduct, it was a travesty on justice with the DOJ not to allow attorneys in the Voting Section to obtain nation-wide injunctive relief against all four of the defendants."

* * * The Judge Against the Many People * * *

    In November 2008, the people of California voted on a law called "Position 8," which was the "California Marriage Protection Act," and the proposal passed by a voted of about 7-million "yes" votes to 6.4-million "no" votes."  After the results of the election took place, the law was challenged in court, and the case--Perry v. Schwarzenegger--became the job of Judge Vaughn Walker--the Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The case began to be heard on January 11, 2010, and one of Judge Vaughn Walker's first action was the try to get the entire case heard and seen through a YouTube presentation, but the U.S. Supreme Court would block that action.  On August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker released his decision on the case.  Remember: A reasons for a decision should be based on law or on sound judgment and not on guesses or predictions or feelings.  The ruling was set down in a 138-page document, and Judge Vaughn Walker, who is gay, said--or, really, wrote--at one point within the document statement, "...Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.  Indeed, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples...."  What statistics or survey results show to Judge Vaughn Walker that, in the minds of California voters who voted "yes" for Proposition 8, was that "opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples...."?  Notice how the statement has nothing to do with law--it was a belief he had in mind, which was not based on anything substantial.  Judge Vaughn Walker pulled a thought out of the thin air to overrule a vote made by citizens in California.  Yet, another statement in the decision was: "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.  The evidence conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples...."  And yet another statement from Judge Vaughn Walker was: "...Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 vilolates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...."   (The Fourteenth Amendement has nothing to do with "sex" and "marriage." and ever has)   And Judge Vaughn Walker made more defective statements--"irrational statements"--in his document (which will not be presented here).
    Note: I strongly urge you to see my document entitled Illegal Aliens and Immigration: The Focus is Protecting the Home--The United States of America so that you can see another bad judgment made by a federal judge, which is this case was set down on July 28, 2010, and was related to the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act in Arizona, and the document can be reached by using this Illegal link, and I also strongly urge to see "Special note #54" of my document entitled Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which talks about a court case related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act involving, for one, Virginia (the Commonwealth of Virginia) and which can be reached by using this Health link.

* * * A County Judge Oversteps * * *

    One of my documents that you should see and read is Conservatives and The United States Constitution Versus Enslavers and Enslavism (or Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), because it explains what the enslaver or enslavist is, but here I note that an enslaver or enslavist is a person who works to enslave others, and, today, members of the Democrat Party, especially Barack Obama and members of the Democratic Party who are a part of the U.S. Congress, are enslavers, but members of the court system can be enslavers too, and it is easy to identify enslavers who are members of the count system in the country since they make decisions that go against, for example, commonsense and The United States Constitution.  On March 18, 2011, a county judge in Dane County, Wisconsin, showed what type of judge the judge is, or since the judge was a woman, the woman showed everyone what type of person she is.  The judge was a county judge named Maryann Sumi, and what she did was issue a " temporary restraining order" related to a bill about public workers and collective bargaining (related to everything except wages) that had been enacted by the state legislature and the governor (Scott Walker, a Republican) recently in a process to get that state out of a roughly three-point-six-billion dollar deficit; the case had been brought to her by the District Attorney in Dane County, Ismael Ozanne (a Democrat).  In essence, the county judge said that the State Senate had violated the "opening meetings law" or had violated its own rules when putting the law together or passing the law.  What happened is a county judge--not a state judge or federal judge--decided what the state legislative branch could have for rules for doing business or could not have for rules.  No law was violated, though.  Since I am not a lawyer, I waited for Mark R. Levin--a nationally known attorney--to discuss the matter on his nationally syndicated radio snow on the evening of March 18, 2011, so that I could learn more about the matter and pass along information about the matter to you, and Mark R. Levin did cover the issue at the beginning of his program (which is known as The Mark Levin Show).  Read some of what Mark R. Levin said about the decission that had been made earlier in the day by County Judge Maryann Sumi: "...Now, here are the four elements for a temporary restraining order--at least forms I'm used to in federal court.  And the plaintiffs--that is, the hack Democratic ex-state legislator--had to prove these four elements.  Not one, not two, all of them!  Number one, likelihood of success in the merits.  Well, they say--What is the basis of this case?  They say that the Senate Republicans didn't follow the rules--the transparency rules, the open-meeting rules.  And yet they got a ruling from the bureaucrat--the state civil servant--parlimentarian that said they could do exactly what they could do.  That's what they did.  And, by the way, that guy advised Democrats, too--or gal.  Likelihood of success on the merits--the judge said they're [the plaintiffs are] likely to success on the merits.  So, sounds to me she's already made up her mind.  That element--likelihood of success on the merits--is really supposed to be a slam dunk!  Not a fifty-five proposition!  Not a sixty-forty proposition!  A slam dunk!  Number two, irreparable harm.  So let me get this straight.  If this law goes into effect, there's irreparable harm.  How?  So, Mark, we'll lose some of our collective bargaining rights.  Now, you can go to court and sue and challenge the law, but this is a restraining order to prevent it from going into effect!  In other words, it's, it's, in essence, an emergency order, because the situation is so, so dire.  Number three, that less harm will result if the defendant--...that the temporary restraining order issues--than the plaintiffs, if it does not.  Well, this is very interesting to me.  The plaintiff in this case [Ismael Ozanne]--I don't even know how this guy has standing.  What's his standing?  You can't just roll in to court and challenge something as a taxpayer or a party member or an ex-official.  What is the guy's standing?  And, number four, that the public interest is anyways in favor of the restraining order.  The state's almost four-billion-dollars in hock!  The elected officials have decided this is what they need to do to get spending under control at the local and state level.  What they have done is not unethical!  It's not immoral!  It's not illegal!  It's perfectly legitimate!...."  And Mark R. Levin noted that County Judge Maryann Sumi is an example of an "activist judge," and I call her a "rogue judge" and even a "lawless judge."
    Note: To see Conservatives and The United States Constitution Versus Enslavers and Enslavism (or Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), use this link: Enslavism.

* * * The Law and One Religion * * *

    The United States of America is not a country with a law system that is based on one particular religion, and the United States of America should be a country with a law system based on one particular religion, or the United States of America should not become a country in which one particular religion can influence decisions made by any judges, since that would be discriminatory or, simply, a bad idea, given the country is made up of citizens who follow all types of religion.  However, on March 3, 2011, a Hillsborough Circuit Judge named Richard Nielsen (in Florida) made a decision, which included this statement--"This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."  The judge noted that he is going to use rules of one particular religion to make a ruling, and, in essence, what he is doing is setting a precedent in which, in the future, people who do not follow Shariah, such as those who follow Buddhism, could be subject to a ruling in which Shariah takes precedent over laws that have been established in the country for all types of men and women over decades and decades, such as The United States Constitution, which is counter to the ways of Shariah, since The United States Constitution is based on the individual and not one particular religion.  Judge Richard Nielsen has now changed the rules in the country--for the worse.

* * * A U.S. Supreme Court Justice Puts Down The U.S. Constitution * * *

    A U.S. Supreme Court justice--before taking office--swears to uphold the ways and protect The United States Constitution, but it does not mean that a person who swears such an oath really will protect and uphold the ways of The United States Constitution.  On Monday, January 30, 2012, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was shown making a comment through an Egyptian television outlet--Al Hayat TV--that showed she has disdain for The United States Constitution; she said: "...You [the people of Egypt] should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.  Um, I would not look to The U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012...." (to see more of the quotation, see my document entitled T.H.A.T. #94, which can be reached by using this link: T.H.A.T. #94).  In essence, an enemy of the country--that being Ruth Bader Ginsburg--is sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

* * * Terrorists of September 11, 2001 * * *

    Since the early 1980s, people--defined by me as "terrorists", despite what Barack Obama might name them--have attacked the United States of America, such as the U.S. Navy ship known as The U.S.S. Cole while in port at Aden, Yemen, on October 12, 2000, and the biggest attack, which took place on soil of the United States of America, was the attack of September 11, 2001, when, for one, a number of terrorists flew two big airplanes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and it was on March 1, 2003, when the ring-leader of that attack was captured, and that man was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Over the next six years or so, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was held as a captive of the United States of America, mostly at a detention camp, which was opened in 2002, at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, where, for example, he was interrogated by CIA interrogators who were hoping to extract from him information that could help them protect the United States of America (I note, here, that I discovered that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "waterboarded one-hundred-eighty-three times in March 2003).  On Friday, November 13, 2009, it was publicly announced that the five persons who who were being detained in Guantanamo Bay as "enemy combatants" would be put on trial in New York City (New York) soon for--it was alleged--taking part in the attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and the five persons were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi in U.S. District Court for the Soutern District of New York.  Yes, what is going on is Barack Obama and his U.S. Department of Justice, which is headed by Eric Holder, Jr., are doing something that is highly irregular--trying terrorists in a civil court.

    Consider two bits of information.  It was around March 19, 2009, the public became aware that the Obama administration was no longer using the word "terrorism" regularly and was using "man-caused disasters," and it was, for example, the head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who helped note that change.  In late August 2009, Eric Holder, Jr., made the public announcement that the DOJ was going to do an investigation of interrogation techniques used by CIA interrogators at Guantanamo Bay during the time of the U.S. President George W. Bush administration.

    Here is an aside.  When a person is going to be put on trial, there is a preparing phase that is informally called "discovery."  It is a phase during which the prosecution searches for and tracks down information and in which the defense searches for and tracks down information, and both the prosecution and the defense can request information from the other that it seems will be pertinent to the case.  During the phase, subpoenas can be used to get information, and people can be interviewed, such as through legal interviews known as "depositions"

    Look at problems that Barack Obama is causing--purposely probably--by trying terrorists in a civilian court.  The terrorists were not treated as U.S. citizens when they were apprehended--they were not given the Miranda warning--so will information that they later put forth through interrogations be thrown out of court and turned into something that cannot be entered into evidence?  Will the terrorists be able to call witnesses, such as the soldiers who captured them?  Will they be able to talk about their treatment by CIA interrogators?  Will the event be televised to the world and will the televising be done in such as way as to make the United States look bad--purposely?  Will the case be thrown out of court for some legal technical issue?  If the terrorists are convicted, will they be able to appeal the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme, which could be, by the time that happens, filled with enough judges who are beholden to Barack Obama that the convictions will be overturned?

    The idea of the Barack Obama administration's having Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi tried in a civilian court instead of a military court was not well received by many people in the country, one of whom of U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham (a Republican associated with South Carolina).  On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, Eric Holder, Jr., had to answers questions posed by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham as part of an oversight hearing of the U.S. Department of Justice by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate.  Here is some of the back-and-forth dialogue between the two men:
    Lindsey Graham: "...If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?"
    Eric Holder, Jr.: "He would certainly be brought to justice."
    Lindsey Graham: "Where would you try him?"
    Eric Holder, Jr.: "Well, we'd go through our protocol, and we'd make the determination about where, hum, he should appropriately be tried."
    Lindsey Graham: "Would you try him, why would you take him someplace different than KSM?"
    Eric Holder, Jr.: "Well...that might, that might be the case.  Ah, I don't know...."   (The first set of three dots indicate that I left out some stuttering.  The second set of three dots is where Lindsey Graham was talking over him, and it was hard to determine what was said by both persons.)  "...all of the evidence, all of these.  Well, indicting.  He's been indicted already...."
    Lindsey Graham: "Does it matter if you, if you use the law-enforcement theory or the enemy-combatant theory in terms of how the case would be handled?"
    Eric Holder, Jr.: "Well, I mean, eh, eh, bin Laden's, ah, ah, an interesting case in that he's already been indicted in federal court."
    Lindsey Graham: "Right!":
    Eric Holder, Jr.: "We have cases against him."
    Lindsey Graham: "Right.  Wa, wa, where would you, where would you put him?"
    Eric Holder, Jr.: "Ah, it would depend on how...."  (Lindsey Graham spoke over Eric Holder, Jr.)
    Lindsey Graham: "Let me ask you this question.  Okay.  Let's, let's say we capture him tomorrow, when does custodial interrogation begin in his case?  If we capture bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?"
    Eric Holder, Jr.: "Again, I'm not that all, all depends...."   (They both talked at the same time, and it was hard to understand what was said, so some words of both persons is missing from this text.)
    Lindsey Graham: "...if you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that, the moment custodial interrogation, ah, occurs, the defendant--the criminal defendant--is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.  The big problem I have is that your criminalizing the war.  That if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we are mixed theories, and we couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, or military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States, and you're confusing the people fighting this war...."
    You should see, despite on important the case and the subject, Eric Holder, Jr.,  could not give a clear and useful explanations

    In at least October 2009, people were seeing a public battle between the Barack Obama administration and the Fox News Channel, and one thing that Barack Obama was trying to do was degrade the importance of the Fox News Channel in the eyes of the public (for a bit of information about the battle, you should see my document entitled T.H.A.T. #67, which can be reached by using this link: T.H.A.T. #67).  Yet, the Fox News Channel did do an interview with Barack Obama on Wednesday, November 17, 2009, when Barack Obama was in Beijing, China, and the reporter was Major Garrett.  Here is a portion of the interview in text form:
    Major Garrett: "Can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of an American citizen?"
    Barack Obama: "I don't think, ah, it will be offensive at all when he's convicted, ah, and when the death penalty is applied to him."
    Major Garrett: "But having that kind confidence in the conviction."
    Barack Obama: "Hum."
    Major Garrett: "I mean, one of the purposes of doing, ah, the, the justice system, going with justice, going with, ah, the legal and not the military court is to show off to the world our status of our court...."
    Barack Obama: "Well..."   (They were talking over each other.)
    Major Garrett: "...But you're also...."
    Barack Obama: "...let me..."
    Major Garrett: "...You also now just said he's going to be convicted and given a death sentence."
    Barack Obama: "...Look, ah, what I said was that people will not be offended if that's the outcome.  I'm not pre-judging it.  I'm not going to be in that courtroom.  That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury...."

    Here is a fact from the past.  On September 27, 2006, U.S. Senator Barack Obama made a statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and here is some of this statement: "...The irony of the underlying bill as it's written is that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is gonna get basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.  He's gonna have counsel, he's gonna be able to present evidence, he's gonna be able to rebut the government's case because the feeling is that he's guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Convention.  I think that's good that we're gonna provide him with some procedure and process.  I think we will convict him, and I think he will be brought to justice.  I think, ah, justice will be carried out...."

    Now, let me add to the previous paragraph by presenting words spoken by Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary.  First, in the United States of America, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Second, in relation to civilian-court system, if someone in government says that we will try suspect/defendant in court and then will we put the suspect/defendant to death for his crime, a person who hears that statement could think that the someone has already planned to execute or kill the suspect/defendant before the trial takes place.  Look at this statement made by Robert Gibbs on State of the Union, a program shown on CNN, on Sunday, January 31, 2010: "...Well, let me just tell you what Plan A is for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice, and he's going to meet his maker."  And Robert Gibbs also said: "He will be brought to justice, and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of three-thousand Americans...."  Read and study those two pieces of quoted material again.  I think a defense attorney could go before the court and say, "See what was said in public by, no less, the spokesman for the U.S. President.  My client cannot and could not get a fair trial.  He has already be convicted and sentenced.  Death has already been pronounced!  In addition, how can a fair and impartial jury be found, since it has been publicly reported that my client is guilty.  People have already been corrupted and have taken on the idea that, no matter what happens in a trial, my client should and will meet his maker."  I could argue well that the U.S. President is working to set Khalid Sheikh Mohammed free.

    Who is really going to be on trial--the terrorists or the United States of America, especially as it was under the George W. Bush administration?

    It was on November 17, 2010, that a civilian-jury trial for Ahmed Ghailani ended (except for sentencing, which was scheduled to take place in January 2011).  Ahmed Ghailani, who had been charged with 281 charges related to bombings of embassies in 1998, was convicted of one count of conspiracy--conspiracy to destroy a government building.  And that was that for that trial.

* * * The Lawless U.S. President * * *

    On Wednesday, March 2, 2011, Mark R. Levin did his weekday nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Mark Levin Show; Mark R. Levin is involved with the Landmark Legal Foundation and is an lawyer who supports The United States Constitution, and Mark R. Levin was a Deputy Solicitor in the U.S. Department of the Interior during the U.S. President Ronald Reagan administration.  On this day, Mark R. Levin passed along some of this knowledge and experience about the federal government in relation to left-wing groups and the Environmental Protection Agency.  Mark R. Levin noted how the Environmental Protection Agency under the Barack Obama administration encourages, as it has in the past, left-wing environmental groups to bring up lawsuits related to environmental issues against the Environmental Protection Agency, and when the court cases are underway, the Environmental Protection Agency will sort of give up and settle out of court, and, then, to the public, it looks as if environmental groups were instrumental in getting the federal government to do something--change rules--when really the change came from actions inspired by the Environmental Protection Agency.
    The previous paragraph is my different way in which lead into a very important topic--Barack Obama is a lawless U.S. President and supports lawless and behavior.  On January 31, 2011, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is unconstitutional and is null and void, and yet the Barack Obama administration continued to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011, which is an action that can be deemed a lawless act.  Then, on February 7, 2011, another U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Barack Obama administration was in "contempt of court" in relation to a drilling ban imposed on the country, meaning that the Barack Obama administration was involved in a lawless act.  And, then, on February 23, 2011, the Barack Obama administration announced that, in essence, it would no longer defend in court provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, feeling the act was "unconstitutional," and that shows Barack Obama upholds what laws he likes and does not uphold laws he dislikes--picking and choosing at he own discretion, like a dictator.  (For more information, you should see the ninety-second entry of the document entitled A Little History of Barack Obama: A Show of Deconstruction, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document.)
    Note: A "stay" was finally issued on Thursday, March 3, 2011, in relation to the subject of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, allowing the federal government to keep implementing the law, but there was a big stipulation put on the "stay," requiring the federal government to start an appeal of the "unconstitutional" ruling within seven calendar days (and to learn more, you should see "Special Note 74" of the document entitled National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which can be reached by using this link: Health).
    I say again that Barack Obama supports lawlessness and acts like a dictator!

* * * More Lawlessness by Dictator Barack Obama * * *

    Since January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama officially gained the office of the U.S. President, Barack Obama as created dozens of "czars" who are tied to the Executive Branch of the federal government--the branch that he directly controls--to do various jobs, and they "czars," like the heads of the major "departments" of the Executive Branch do not have to be confirmed for their positions through a process involving the U.S. Senate, so Barack Obama can put all types of communists and radicals into the "czar" positions to make rules and do things, and that, in a way, allows Barack Obama to avoiding using the heads of the departments to do things.  On Thursday, April 14, 2011, a bill to complete the funding of the federal government through the end of fiscal year 2001 passed through the U.S. Congress and was sent on to Barack Obama to be signed (or not signed); the bill was touted as something that was cutting the spending for the year by about thirty-eight billion, but it was really only cutting spending by about three-hundred-fifty-two-million dollars, which angered "conservatives" because they had been deceived about how much the cut would be.  On Friday, April 15, 2011, Barack Obama did sign the bill into law, but, on that day, Barack Obama issued a statement that noted that he would not abide some some of the provisions in the new law, and one of the provisions is Section 2262, which ends the funding or pay for some of the "czars" that Barack Obama had appointed.  In essence, Barack Obama stated publicly that he would not abide by parts of the law, and two quotes from his public statement was--"The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance to his supervisory authority" and "The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from the executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it.  Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President's ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisors violate the separation of powers by undermining the President's ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  Since I am not a lawyer, I will let you see an explanation about what President Barack Obama is doing with the help of real lawyer and or "constitutional" lawyer--Mark R. Levin (the author of Men in Black and Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto).  On the evening on Friday, April 15, 2011, Mark R. Levin said, during the second hour of his three-hour nationally syndicated radio show, that Barack Obama "does not have the authority to create czars!"  Mark R. Levin said: "...Nobody's saying the President can't have advisers. What they're saying is [what the U.S. Congress is saying is] you need to have the sort of advisers that are legal, that are constitutional, that are accountable, that fit within the jargon, nomenclature, the classification processes of the federal government, which have been practiced by all past presidents.  But he [Barack Obama] doesn't want to do it.  You want to know why?  He wants to run the government--in fact, the country to the extent he can--out of the White House.  Doesn't even what to use these agencies.  Now, what's the point of having the Senate confirm presidential nominees to head agencies and departments if the president is running those agencies and departments through these individuals--these czars--which contravenes the entire system?...."
    Note: Mark R. Levin also said during the show: "...The other day there was a story I couldn't get around to it that they're purposely meetings, having meetings with outside groups--special interests--outside the White House so when these requests come in for the Secret Service list of whose been visiting the White House, those names aren't on it, because they're visiting off site.  Also, they're withholding names that are on the list...."

* * * A Report on the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ * * *

    Since January 20, 2009, evidence has been made public that the Civil Rights Division of U.S. Department of Justice does not practice equal justice for all, and, in fact, it does not even come close to practicing equal justice (remember the case involving The New Black Panthers).  After four years or so of investigation, on Tuesday, March 12, 2013, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice  released a report on the workings of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, which was a reported that later made U.S. Representative Frank Wolf (a Republican related to Virginia) say that it is a "rat's nest of unacceptable and unprofessional actions, and even outright threats against career attorneys and systemic mismanagement."  The report--which was called A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division from the Office of the Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division, March 2013--noted that, in essence, the Voting Rights Section was purposely not pursuing cases involving white victims.  And the report showed up more of the nature of Barack Obama by showing up the nature--which is a bad nature--of some of his close associates, those who happen to be in control of the U.S. Department of Justice.

* * * Bibliography * * *

"Acorn."  Wikipedia.com, 11 November 2009.

"American Law Institute."  Wikipedia.com, 7 November 2009.

"Andre M/ Davis."  Wikipedia.com, 18 November 2009.

"Andrew C. McCarthy."  Wikipedia.com, 16 November 2009.

"Andy Stern."  Wikipedia.com, 17 November 2009.

"Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates."  Wikipedia.com, 15 October 2009.

"California Proposition 8 (2008)."  Wikipedia.com, 5 August 2010.

"Conservative Leaders Oppose David Hamilton's Nomination."  The American Spectator, 9 November 2009, 7:17 p.m.  (http://spectator.org/blog....)

"Dave Hamilton (judge)."  Wikipedia.com, 17 November 2009.

"David W. Ogden."  Wikipedia.com, 18 October 2009.

"Discovery (law)."  Wikipedia.com, 3 November 2009.

"Feds sue New Black Panthers for voter intimidation."  WorldNetDaily, 8 January 2009, 1:06 p.m.  (http:/www.wnd.com....)

"Gerard Lynch."  Wikipedia.com, 18 September 2009.

"Geneva Convention."  Wikipedia.com, 16 November 2009.

"Gideon v. Wainwright."  Wikipedia.com, 17 November 2009.

"Gitmo Detainee Cleared of All but One Charge."  FOXNews.com, 18 November 2010.  (http://www.foxnews.com....)

"Guantanamo Bay detention camp."  Wikipedia.com, 20 November 2009.

"Jeffrey L. Viken."  Wikipedia.com, 24 October 2009.

"Karl Marx."  Wikipedia.com, 21 November 2009.

"Legal aid society."  Wikipedia.com, 24 August 2009.

"Legal case."  Wikipedia.com, 16 October 2009.

"Malik Zulu Shabazz."  Wikipedia.com, 28 May 2010.

"Miranda warning."  Wikipedia.com, 18 November 2009.

"Military tribunal."  Wikipedia.com, 14 November 2009.

"1993 World Trade Center Bombing.  Wikipedia.com, 4 January 2010.

"Osama bin Laden."  Wikipedia.com, 14 November 2009.

"Pentagon Says Former Detainees Continue to Return to Terror." VOANews.com (English), 6 January 2010.  (http://www.voanews.com....)

"Prop 8 Ruling: Read The FULL TEXT."  The Huffington Post, 4 August 2010, 05:21 p.m. (updated: 10:45 p.m.).  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com....)

"Public defender."  Wikipedia.com, 22 October 2009.

"Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."  Wikipedia.com, 27 December 2009.

"Roper v. Simmons."  Wikipedia.com, 17 November 2009.

"Service Employees International Union"  Wikipedia.com, 20 November 2009.

"Sonia Sotomayor."  Wikipedia.com, 14 November 2009.

"Thomas J. Perelli."  Wikipedia.com, 28 September 2009.

"Thomas Perez."  Wikipedia.com, 12 March 2013.

"United States Department of Justice."  Wikipedia.com, 17 November 2009.

"USS Cole bombing."  Wikipedia.com, 13 November 2009.

Vauhghn R. Walker."  Wikipedia.com, 5 August 2010.

"Workers of the world, unite!'  Wikipedia.com, 10 November 2009.

Adams, J. Christian.  "Breaking: Inspector General Report on Racialist Dysfunction inside DOJ."  PJMedia.com, 12 March 2013, 11:21 a.m.

Bliss, Jeff, and Tony Capaccio.  "More Ex-Detainees Resort to Terror, Officials Say (Update 2)."  Bloomberg Press, 6 January 2010, 16:35 EST.

Caldwell, Geoff.  "Sebeliuis files for dismissal of Va. Health reform lawsuit (motion text and author update)."  Examiner.com, 25 may 2010.  (http://www.examiner.com....)

de Franceschi, Jela.  "Justice Department Probe of CIA Interrogations Fuels Debate."  VOANews.com, 22 September 2009.  (http://www.voanews.com....)

Fletcher, Michael A.  "Liberals Knock Obama over Judge Nominees." CBSNews.com (from Washingtonpost.com), 16 October 2009.  (http://www.cbsnews.com....)

Fletcher, Michael A.  "Obama Faces 90 Federal Judge Vacancies." CBSNews.com (from Washingtonpost.com), 16 October 2009.  (http://www.cbsnews.com....)

Frieden, Terry, and Chris Kokenes.  "Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faced New York Trial."  CNN.com, 13 November 2009, 2:01 p.m. EST.  (http://www.cnn.com....)

Garrett, Major.  "Obama Pushes for 'Empathetic' Supreme Court Justices." FOXNews.com, 1 May 2009.  (http://www.foxnews.com....)

Graham, Tim.  "Obama-Speak: Homeland Security Secretary Replaces 'Terrorism' With the Term 'Man-Caused Disaster.'"  NewsBusters, 19 March 2009, 15:19 ET.  (http://newsbusters.org....)

Groves, Steven.  "Deputy Attorney General Nominee David Ogden: Questions on Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution."  The Heritage Foundation, 2 February 2009, Web Memo #2285.  (http://www.heritage.org....)

Helderman, Rosalind S.  "Obama administration asks judge to dismiss Viriginia suit against health-care law."  The Washington Post, 25 May 2010,

Karl, Jonathan.  "Republicans Slam Attorney General Eric Holder Over Terrorist Defense Lawyers at Justice Department."  ABC News, 26 February 2010.  (http://www.abcnews.go.com....)

Levesque, William R., and John Martin.  "Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership."  St. Petersburg Times, 22 March 2011, 10:44 p.m.

Lewis, Bob (Associated Press Political Writer).  "Virginia's challenge to health coverage: U.S. asks court to dismiss case, denies state has standing." Cleveland.com, 24 May 2010, 8:14 p.m.  (http://www.cleveland.com....)

Lewis, Neil A.  "Stark Contrasts Between McCain and Obama in Judicial Wars."  The New York Times, 28 May 2008.  (http://www.nytimes.com....)

MacAskill, Ewen.  "US justice department to investigate CIA over interrogation methods."  The Guardian (U.K.), 24 August 2009, 20:18 BST.

Margasak, Larry.  "David Hamilton Survives The Senate As Democrats Crush GOP Filibuster."  The Huffington Post, 17 November 2009, 06:07 p.m.  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com....)

McCullagh, Declan.  "Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post."  Cnet News, 6 January 2009, 2:55 p.m. PST.  (http://news.cnet.com....)

Messner, Thomas."  "Supreme Court Already Overturning Prop 8 Judge's "Eleventh Hour' Decisions."  The Heritage Foundation, 15 January 2010m, 11:01 a.m.

Molin, Teo.  "The Judicial Nominee You're Not Hearing About: David Hamilton."  Human Events.com, 15 June 2009.  (http://www.humanevents.com....)

Newsmax Wires.  "Gaffney Lambastes Florida Judge as 'Unfit' for Decision to Follow Shariah."  Newsmax, 22 March 2011.

Ocamb, Karen.  "Breaking: Supreme Court blocks cameras in Prop 8 Trial."  LGBT POV, 13 January 2010.  (http://www.lgbtpov.com....)

Powell, Michael, and Patrick Healy and Michael Cooper.  "Strong Words in Ohio as Obama and Clinton Press On."  The New York Times, 3 March 2008   (http://www.nytimes.com....)

Powers, Doug.  "The DoJ's Civil Trial Balloon Pops; Update: Bush's Fault, of Course."  Michelle Malkin, 17 November 2010, 11:11 p.m.  (http://michellemalkin.com....)

Pringle, Paul.  "Midwestern SEIU official resigns."  Los Angeles Times, 12 February 2009.  (http://articles.latimes.com....)

Richey, Warren.  "Senate OK's David Hamilton to be US appeals court judge."  The Christian Science Monitor, 19 November 2009.  (http://features.csmonitor.com....)

Sheppard, Noel.  "NPR Shocker: Attorney General Holder Stumped By Lindsey Graham."  NewsBusters, 18 November 2009, 17:51 ET.  (http://newesbusters.org....)

Smathers, Jason (The Associated Press).  "Judge blocks contentious Wisconsin union law."  The Bellingham Herald, 18 March 2011.

SteveK.  "Obama Appoints Judicial Radical David F. Hamilton." The National Scene, 27 April 2009, 7:56 a.m.  (http://thenationalscene.com....)

Tapper, Jake.  "President Obama Issues 'Signing Statement' Indicating He Won't Abide by Provision in Budget Bill."  ABC News, 15 April 2011, 6:28 p.m.

Vadum, Matthew.  "SEIU divorces ACORN?"  The American Spectator, 6 October 2009, 6:09 a.m.  (http://spectator.org....)

The Wall Street Journal.  "Andy Stern's Pension."  The Wall Street Journal, 16 July 2009.

The Washington Times.  "EDITORIAL: Jesus, no, but yes to Allah." The Washington Times, 3 November 2009.  (http://www.washingtontimes.com....)

Note: On November 18, 2009, I used information available on the Web page known as "U.S. Courts: Understanding Federal and State Courts," which is a page put together by the federal government.  (http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/fedstate_lessonplan.htm)

Note: On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, I visited to the Web site for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana or the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.

Note: On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, I visited the Web site for the American Civil Liberties Union

Note: On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, I used information from the White House -- the Office of the Press Secretary that was entitled "President Obama Nominates Rosanna M. Peterson to Serve on the District Court Bench," which existed on the Internet.  (http://www.whitehouse.gov....)

Note: On Friday, November 20, 2009, I used information from the Web site of the Service Employees International Union.

Note: On Friday, November 20, 2009, I went to the Web site of KOVR-TV, Channel 13,  and used as a source a story entitled "State Worker Beat Up at SEIU Meeting," which had been posted on the Internet on November 6, 2009.

Note: On Friday, November 20, 2009, I went to www.wikio.co.uk/video/1915853, and I saw clips of Andy Stern (the head of the SEIU), and I put the text of most of his statements in the video clip in this document, and the Web site noted that Andy Stern has been a frequent visitor to the White House to see Barack Obama.

Note: On Friday, September 24, 2010, I saw a document--made up of 19 pages--entitled "Testimony of Christopher Coates" on the Internet, and the document was related to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and was dated September 24, 2010.  The document was reached through a link provided by someone identified as "jazusamo" on a Web page related to Free Republic and Pajamas Media that was called "Full Text of Christopher Coates' Testimony to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (PJM Exclusive)," and the main address to the document was http://www.freerepublic.com....


    Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on November 20, 2009.

    Note: This document is known on the Internet as www.hologlobepress.com/justice.htm.

For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Fairness?: A Guide
    for the Individual Woman and the
    Individual Man in the United States
    of America, which can be reached by
    using this link: Fairness.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Conservatism for
    Children and What Conservatism Means,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Madness in a President
    and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see my
    document entitled Nonsense Statements
    and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
    can  be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Never Forget These
    Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
    Individual in the United States of
    America, which can be reached by
    using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled A Little History of
    Barack Obama Events: A Show of
    Deconstruction, which can be reached by
    using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Lessons for Children
    about Politics and Dangerous People,
    which can be reached by using this
    link: Children.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled The Next Elections:
    What Has to be Done to Protect the
    United States of America, which can
    be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled World Tyranny:
    Warnings about  the Insane Who are
    Trying to Create a Communist World
    Country, which can be reached by
    using this link: World.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled entitled THE CRUD
    Rule--"Like Minds Get Together",
    which can be reached by using this
    link: Crud.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled "Political Lessons
    for the Individual Woman and the
    Individual Man in the United States
    of America, which you can reach by
    using this link: Lessons.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled T.H.A.T. #66, which
    can be reached by using this link:
    T.H.A.T. #66.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled A CALL TO
    ATTENTION: Barack Obama's
    Private Army?, which can be reached
    by using this link: Call.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled THOUGHTS AND
    PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual
    woman and the individual man, which
    can be reached by using this link: Logic.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Mark Levin Interviews
    U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann:
    The Main Topic is ACORN, which can
    be reached by using this link: ACORN.
For further reading, you should see my
    document entitled Left-Wing Entities:
    Their Basic Fundamentals are
    Communism, Socialism, and Marxism,
    which can be reached at this link: Left.
For further reading, you should see my
    document entitled "CAP AND TRADE"
    and Carbon Dioxide Facts and Nonsense,
    which can be reached by usng this
    link: Carbon.

Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.

To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
    Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may click on this link now: