The Principle of Natural Membership
October 1, 2012 Leave a comment
(vis a vis the Constitution & the Presidency)
The “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” are the source from which the foundational American principles were drawn. Wherever those principles are present in the realm of American law such law is grounded on an invisible foundation. That foundation is similar to a black hole in that it’s there, -its influence is enormous, -but it can’t be seen.
Similarly, those foundational principles cannot be found in any explicit form in the Constitution because its authors weren’t so presumptuous as to think that they had the authority to inscribe them into the constitution of government as though they were within the authority of man to grant. Instead they were so universally accepted by un-enslaved minds that anyone that would undertake to state them, -to state the obvious, would look foolish and juvenile.
Our founding fathers were neither foolish nor juvenile and so they left unsaid those fundamental rights of man on which they built the structure of the nation. *
There are at least ten such rights (which accompany the responsibility to be accountable for one’s own actions before one’s peers, one’s authorities, and the tribunals of man’s creation, (-as well as “the Judge of the World”). Those rights are all self-evident and unalienable, including the rights to: 1.) Life, 2.) Self-defense, 3.) Free-will, 4.) Civil Liberty, 5.) Justice, 6.) Property, 7.) Religious Liberty, 8.) Marriage & children, 9.) Self-governance, and 10.) group membership.
The principle of group membership is the subject that needs national illumination because it’s in opposition to the choice of the voters in the 2008 selection of President. The choice of the voters cannot legally override the principle drawn from Natural Law because it’s inscribed in the Constitution. But the Constitution has been ignorantly, as well as deliberately ignored in regard to the citizenship requirement for the President of the United States. That requirement was influenced by a tragic chapter in the course of the Revolutionary War.
Due to the treasonous back-stabbing by General Benedict Arnold, the founding fathers had experienced the stark and painful lesson that trusted leaders not only can be traitors but sometimes they actually will be.
With that treason still alive in their minds they determined that doing whatever they could do to insure against something of a similar nature would be a wise choice to make when it came to the man entrusted with all the military power of the nation. They also wanted to avoid having sons of British aristocracy being eligible to be President.
Therefore, in prescribing who could and could not serve as President, they determined two things which pertained to the generations to follow those who fought, suffered, and bleed in the Revolution (which included immigrants), and those two things were:
1st; he should be a born citizen, -meaning a citizen from birth, and
2nd; he should be a natural citizen, meaning he must have an American father, -not a foreign father.
Alexander Hamilton had proposed that he must be a born citizen (excluding all foreign-born naturalized citizens).
But John Jay (future Supreme Court Chief Justice) wrote this to George Washington: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”]
He felt strongly that it was not enough to be “born a citizen” because born citizens come in two distinctly different types, One is born only in America to foreign fathers (“native-born”) and granted citizenship from birth, ** while the other is born anywhere on earth but to American fathers (natural born). ***
Those fathered by Americans are the natural Americans, or as Emmerich de Vattel (author of The Law of Nations) described them in 1758; “les indigenes ou les naturels”, meaning natives or natural members, -but those born in America to immigrants are neither natives by nature (since their fathers are natives of a foreign country), nor are they by nature natural citizens of the American nation since the socio-political membership and citizenship they inherited was foreign. Rather, they’re the naturalized-at-birth citizens who are raised by un-naturalized foreign fathers who are not free from the citizenship obligations of their foreign homeland. ****
His suggestion to Washington meant that every President of the next generation (born following the Declaration of Independence), should be a natural “born citizen”, not just a naturalized born citizen,
– i.e., those referred to by the Immigration Bureau as a “native-born citizen” [-none of whom possess a natural right to be a citizen (even though they exited their mother's womb within U.S. borders), because their fathers aren’t natives of America. Only natives produce children who possess a natural right to American citizenship].
[* But the jaded citizens who had experienced the abuses of government knew that what went unsaid and unwritten could and would sooner or later be treated as if it didn't exist, and so they created the Bill of Rights to supplement the Constitution and thereby guarantee that certain unalienable rights would not be abrogated by arrogant autocratic "public servants" serving themselves or their personal idea of what is in the interest of the greater good.]
[ ** The law & custom of at least one colony or state followed American “jus soli” (law of soil) producing citizen “sons of the soil”. Later it became enshrined in the 14th Amendment (which doesn’t require the naturalization of the father in order for his children to be deemed to be U.S. citizens), while the other colonies or states required paternal naturalization first because the nationality of a man’s children (wherever born) followed that of their father.]
Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
…(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
…(b) Naturalization: [paragraph 6] The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or
natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss. (emphasis added) ]
[**** “Citizens are also required [under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code] to pay taxes on their total income from all sources worldwide, including income earned abroad while working abroad.”
“Male U.S. citizens (including those living permanently abroad and/or with dual U.S./other citizenship) are required to register with the Selective Service System at age 18 for possible conscription into the armed forces.”]
One type of born citizen is “superior” to the other even today when it comes to matters of national security. Everyone guarding the President and Vice-President with a loaded weapon (Marine or Secret Service) must pass a Single Scope Background Investigation (nick-name:Yankee White) given by the Department of Defense and FBI in order to receive a security clearance. Obtaining such a clearance requires that they have no immediate foreign background (i.e., a foreign father) which could create the possibility of a dual-divided allegiance. [*5 ]
A similar restriction applies to Americans responsible for the security and launch of nuclear bombs.
Natural citizenship is not defined in the Constitution nor is it granted by it because men cannot grant others that which they already possess as an unalienable right.
Not all men possess that right because some are born to fathers who are not natural members of the society and nation in which they’ve chosen to live. They are immigrants who have left their own homeland possessing no natural right to be accepted as members of another country and society. Instead they rely upon the beneficence of their new homeland to allow their children to be deemed to be members, even though they are not deemed to be natural members.
They cannot be deemed to be natural members because they have no natural right of membership in a society and nation to which their parents have no natural connection via native-birth, rearing, or nationality inheritance, -nor any artificial connection (by naturalization). Instead they come from a source which possesses membership only with a foreign people and foreign nation.
They therefore can only be viewed as “natural members” of their parents country because they inherit what they are. That principle is elucidated in The Law of Nations. *6
And so John Jay’s suggestion was adopted, and the terminology that combined two related concepts (born citizen and natural citizen) came to be permanently inscribed in the Constitution as a necessary requirement to be the President.
While every person with standing to prevent a travesty against the Constitution stood by silently in 2008, a plot took place to advance a non-natural citizen past the glass ceiling intended to protect the nation from a possibly monarch-favoring elected leader possessing conflicted or secret foreign-government loyalty by requiring of him something that was not required of any other elected or appointed leader. And that something was that he be not just a citizen, -be not just a born citizen, but that he be a natural born citizen.
Confusion needs to be avoided by realizing that just as all eagles are birds, but all birds are not eagles, so also even though natural citizens are born citizens, not all born citizens are natural citizens because some are not born to American parents but to foreigners. And still others are born to both.
Some might be confused into thinking that if one parent is a U.S. citizen then the child must be a natural American, but they fail to realize that natural citizens are never the product of a hybrid nationality combination but instead are always the off-spring of parents with an identical national identity, meaning they are both naturally or officially members of the same group or national family.
Examples of unnatural mixed parentage result from Romeo & Juliet combinations of very different backgrounds such as crossing a pure-bred canine with a mutt (resulting in mongrel puppies, -as in Lady & The Tramp), a horse and a donkey (a mule), a Native American and a Spaniard (a mestizo), a Caucasian and an African (a mulatto), or a Capitalist and a Communist, -a patriotic North Korean and a patriotic American, a Sunni and a Shiite, a Jew and a Muslim, a Catholic and a Protestant, an atheist and “a believer”, and on and on.
Unnatural combinations can never produce an off-spring that is a natural member of either parent’s background. They will always be hybrids. Hybrids are always unnatural combinations of dissimilar backgrounds. They are never 100% this nor 100% that, instead they are like 50-50 combos.
The founding fathers wanted and required that the Commander-in-Chief be 100% American and that means that he has no direct connection to foreign heritage, foreign allegiance, foreign monarchs, nor foreign nationality. All of his direct connections must be American, even though they may be artificial American connections through a naturalized father. They allowed that because common sense holds that one’s first and foremost loyalty is to the place where one was raised and the people, -the family & friends and fellow countrymen, that populate it. *7
Throughout most of American history, natural and naturalized American parents have been the 98% or so that produced natural American sons, all of whom were eligible to be President.
So while the founders limitation was firm, it was not very restrictive in real life because there were few to none whom it directly prevented from serving as President. Those who were barred were always a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the citizenry, but the founders determined that sons of foreigners not be allowed to command the United States Army, Navy and Marines.
After all, they were fully unconcerned that half of the natural born population of the nation was not enfranchised to serve in any way. That half was the female half. Then add to them all the unelectable minorities, including Negroes, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Catholics, the divorced, adulterers, and those without property, along with the immature, the elderly, and those without 14 years of U.S. residency. All together they might have added up to 90% of the population. So how could they be concerned about barring the tiny fraction made up of the children of foreign fathers?
They couldn’t have been concerned because the language they used to describe presidential qualification was very exclusionary in nature; “NO PERSON except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible…”. That excludes everyone, -then makes an exception by allowing natural citizens to serve.
Imagine a vast throng of humans of all kinds standing before the Pearly Gates, and they hear St. Peter announce: “NO ONE is allowed in….except Americans.” Or he could put it another way: “Everyone is allowed it, as long as they are Americans” Either way, exclusion or inclusion, the clear intent would be a delineation based on very selective criteria.
But to be analogous to the constitutional prohibition, St. Peter would have to say: “Everyone is allowed in except tiny minority X”, because natural born citizens make-up perhaps 97% of the legitimate citizens of America.
Natural American citizenship is acquired in two ways, -one natural and the other unnatural. The natural way is simply via birth to natural American parents, -the unnatural way is via birth to naturalized American parents. The former is via natural transference of the national membership of the parents to their children, while the latter is via the policy of the government which deems children of naturalized foreigners to be natural citizens even though they were not born to native members of the American nation. That policy is not codified in any form. Instead it’s simply an accepted right of American citizenship. There’s no one who would contest it so there’s been no need to codify it.
Natural American citizenship, unlike 14th Amendment constitutional citizenship, is not granted, nor declared by legal statute, nor court ruling, nor INS policy, nor constitutional amendment. It is not a grant bestowed by the government. The government did not create natural citizens. Rather, natural citizens created the government.
It cannot impose any eligibility requirement nor regulation on their citizenship nor can it rescind their citizenship because they are citizens by nature. They are Americans at birth and by birth just as the off-spring of any animal species are what they are by birth to parents whose nature they inherit.
But those who are citizens by law, or “legal citizens” are not eligible for the office of the President. Only those who are citizens by no legal means whatsoever are constitutionally qualified to be President because all legal means of citizenship involve foreign parentage of some type and therefore the legal avenue that grants citizenship to such persons is a form of naturalization law or policy.
On the other hand, natural citizens possess their citizenship by the principle that is outside of the realm of human jurisprudence. It’s from the theological-philosophical realm of Natural Rights. It’s something they’re born with, and it can’t be taken from them because it’s based on what they are. They are, by birth, citizens by nature.
Unlike naturalized citizens and citizens born abroad who acquire Certificates of Citizenship, native-born citizens have no proof of natural citizenship whatsoever because no system exists which dispenses any form of proof. All they can do is present proof of their native birth.
But that identification is not proof that one is truly a natural born American citizen because it does not verify that the parents were American citizens at the time of birth.
But state birth identification is sufficient for every form of identification including matters related to citizenship because in nearly all cases (except “anchor baby” births) the provision of the 14th Amendment makes clear that those born in the U.S. and fully subject to federal jurisdiction are citizens.
What it doesn’t make clear is who is not a natural citizen and is ineligible to be President. No one has papers or identification that reveals that they are not eligible to be President -except for US Nationals (Samoans) whose passports are stamped “Not A United States Citizen”.
The fact that the 14th Amendment declares the American citizenship of those who are born in America and are fully subject to her jurisdiction (-implying they’re not subject to any foreign power) does not in any way indicate that it’s also declaring that those children are natural born citizens.
Its citizenship clause does not state that they are natural citizens because its sole purpose was to declare that freed slaves are recognized as U.S. citizens, as well as to grant, via automatic naturalization, American citizenship to children of immigrants, -and not to alter the constitutional qualifications for presidential eligibility.
Its purpose and power was to thereby free the children of immigrants from the danger of the government viewing them as foreigners due to foreign patrilineal nationality inheritance [historically foreign brides/future mothers were naturalized upon marriage to American husbands]. But even with the protection of the 14th Amendment legally secured, that protection was non-existent unless the executive branch interpreted its ambiguous language to include children of foreign nationals, which it did not.
As a result, thirty years went by during which the children of immigrants continued to be deemed to be foreigners, -at least those who were born to Asian parents. The Immigration Bureau and the State Department continued to follow the unchanged original federal policy until 1898 when the government lost their Supreme Court case against Wong Kim Ark, the native-born & raised son of Chinese immigrants whom the government had declared to be a foreigner when he returned from a visit to China.
The law is one thing, but clearly, the execution of the law is another. The law can be faithfully executed, -it can be ignored, or it can be misinterpreted, -and even be openly violated based on how the executive branch views its constitutionality.
In some situations Congress has its law, while the CIS (formerly the INS), State and Justice Depts. have theirs. We see that demonstrated in the non-enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act and the assumption that “anchor babies” are legitimate U.S. citizens, -an assumption that the executive branch not only has failed to refute, but has promulgated without any constitutional authority.
But what’s important to understand is that no one who is born a citizen by the authority of the 14th Amendment is eligible to be the American President because they are citizens by law, and not citizens by nature. Their citizenship is based on an ambiguous amendment ratified by the American people, which was misinterpreted by the Supreme Court, -whose opinion was then misinterpreted by the Attorney General, and is not based on the principle of an unalienable natural right from which natural citizenship is derived.
When the Constitution was written, the 14th Amendment did not exist, therefore it has no bearing on the nature of natural citizenship. Back then there was no such thing as constitutional citizenship because the granting of citizenship to children of foreign immigrants was dependent on the law and custom of individual states. Immigration & Naturalization were purely state matters, -not federal.
There was no federal law governing the matter other than what the Constitution allowed, which was a nation-wide minimum-standard uniform rule for naturalization, but there was the federal policy followed by the State Department, and it appears from the government’s case against Wong Kim Ark that it may have been the federal policy from the founding of the nation to ascribe citizenship based solely on the citizenship of the father. That was federal policy at the time of the first Congress, though later it may have been dependent on the attitude of the administration in power.
In constitutional citizenship the residency of the parents is crucial because if they are not legal, officially sanctioned immigrants then they are nothing more than interloping, or sojourning, or sight-seeing, or visiting, or college-attending foreigners, and therefore any child born to them is also a foreigner. The father of President Obama was just such a foreigner, -a Visa Card foreign student who remained under the jurisdiction of the British-Kenyan governments, and the protection of international treaties.
The off-spring of a visiting foreigner is a natural citizen of his father’s homeland only if the mother is also from that homeland or naturalized by marriage. Similarly, he is not a natural citizen of an American mother’s homeland because half of his parentage is alien instead of American and his father wasn’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including military conscription) in the way that citizens and immigrants are.
Alien parentage is not a nullifier of American citizenship, but it is a disqualifier for natural citizenship because that which is an unnatural hybrid mixture of nationalities can never produce a pure and 100% natural citizen of either country.
Like Siamese twins and hermaphrodites, no hybrid is a natural member of any group. There is no natural citizenship group labeled “Unusual” or “Mixed”. There is only the natural-citizenship group, and the other-than-natural group.
There is no natural religious group made up of children of Muslim and Jewish parents. There is no natural racial group made up of children of Chinese and Africans. There is no natural ethnic group made up of Swedes and Mexicans. Likewise, there’s no natural citizenship group made up of Kenyans and Americans.
The group membership of those born with hybrid parentage is never natural but instead is always by allowance, by permission, even if that permission is granted from birth and has been established in a constitutional amendment.
Only parents with the same nature can produce off-spring that are natural members of their species, or clan, or tribe, or nation. That’s a fact of Natural Law, and that’s the principle of Natural Citizenship.
by Adrien Nash Feb 2012 h2ooflife.wordpress.com
[ *5 Individuals up for positions of employment involving guarding the President and Vice-President are required to pass a Yankee White background investigation which includes particular U.S. citizenship requirements and loyalty to the United States alone -with no members in the immediate family having suspicious foreign connections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_White
Their loyalty to the United States must be unquestionable.
Note: “Unquestionable” loyalty translates to having never had any participation in or affiliation with subversive organizations, nor parents or spouses with such a background, nor parents with a foreign background. The background must be 100% loyal American, otherwise it can’t be “unquestionable”.
The use of the term “Yankee” would suggest that the roots of the Yankee White background investigation might trace back to the changes made by the Secret Service following Lincoln’s assassination by a fervent Confederacy revivalist. They probably wanted to avoid the kind of fate that the Prime Minister of India, -Indira Ghandi met when she was gunned-down by one of her own Secret Service guards. When it comes to the chief executive, common sense argues; “one can’t be too careful”.
Persons with the highest and most classified or restricted security clearances, (including those who guard the President), must be born of only American parents. The same as in Britain and other countries. Such clearances are related to either extremely sensitive information, or highly important hardware and the knowledge related to it.
Any country that would hand the key to launching an ICBM (with half a dozen nuclear warheads) to someone born to a foreign father, or foreign parents…well, such a country does not exist. And for darn good reason.
No one who is not a natural citizen of the United States, -who was not born to American parents, -who was born with “mixed-blood” or fully-foreign blood connections to a foreign power and is considered one of that foreign nation’s natural members, is eligible to be entrusted with the knowledge of, access to, keys to and codes to nuclear weapons and their launch systems.
No nuclear nation on earth allows dual-citizens such access and permissions. Would Pakistan allow a Pakistani citizen with an Indian father to control their nuclear weapons, or vice versa? Would the old Soviet Union allow someone born to an American father (like a Russian-born son of Lee Harvey Oswald) to man their nuclear weapons? Not in a million years.
Yet the people of America placed into the position of Commander-in-Chief of all American military power and nuclear weapons someone who could never be qualified to be a commander, nor even a crewmen, in any of our nuclear forces. Were he a U.S. Marine, or a Secret Service agent seeking a position of protection of the President, he wouldn’t be trusted to serve to protect the President with a loaded weapon. Thus, Barack Obama could never pass the requirements of natural U.S. citizenship (-birth to American parents) which is required to protect himself as President.
If immigrant parents from the former Soviet Union or Iran or North Korea had received legal residence in the U.S. and produced children here who were constitutional citizens via the 14th Amendment, those children would never be allowed into the inner circle of Americans entrusted with the keys and launch codes for American nuclear-armed ICBMs, nor allowed to be a member of a nuclear submarine, nor a nuclear bomber squadron. They would fail the test of possessing the necessary background criteria of full American parentage and American roots. They would never be trusted like natural American citizens can be trusted.
[*6 “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law” By Emmerich de Vattel (1758):
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion,
they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[*7 Nevertheless, it is not as much the responsibility of the President to be loyal to his countrymen as it is to be loyal to the Constitution. His oath is not to preserve and protect his country nor his countrymen, but to preserve and protect the Constitution.
The Natural Laws of Membership & Citizenship
Everyone possess a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of the group into which they’re born.
No one possesses a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of a group into which they’re not born.
No natural group has a right to decide that the children of its natural members are not members if they’ve shown no disloyalty by word or deed.
All natural groups have the right to decide when and how non-members are allowed to join their group.
All natural groups have a right to decide that the children of non-members are not members, even if born within the group’s territory.
Regardless of legal rights, the location of one’s birth conveys no natural right whatsoever.
No non-member who inhabits the land of a group not his own and does so without the permission of the group, possesses any natural right to the full protection of the group in regard to defense against enemies or the violation of rights possessed by the members.
Only non-members who have the official permission of the group to live among them are covered by the protections of the group’s rules.
Children born to non-members are not natural native members of the group because they come from a mixed-blood or a foreign-blood origin.
Children who are not natural native members of the group, but are given permission to be members, possess no natural right to be equally eligible to be the Chief of the group. Only natural members possess that right.
There are seven types of people in America:
- natural American citizens,
- naturalized American citizens,
- non-citizen American Nationals,
- Native Americans,
- legal immigrants,
- illegal immigrants, and
- foreign guests and diplomats.
There are seven types of children born in America:
- children born to natural citizens,
- children born to members of recognized Native American tribes,
- children born to naturalized citizens,
- children born to legal immigrants,
- children born to illegal immigrants,
- children born to U.S. Nationals, and
- children born to foreign guests and diplomats.
There are five types of U.S. citizenship:
- Natural Citizenship (via birth to U.S. citizens)
- Naturalized Citizenship (via INS process)
- Constitutional native-born Citizenship (-providing one automatic naturalization at birth),
- Statutory Derivative Citizenship (passed from mother to child when the father is a foreigner, and provided to children born abroad who have a foreign parent)
- Provisional Citizenship (dependent on a child or an American parent having lived a requisite number of years in the U.S.)
Obama’s citizenship is not via the 14th Amendment as written because when it was written his citizenship would have been viewed as being solely that of his British-subject father. His father could not produce a child that was not subject to the same jurisdiction as himself, which, not being an immigrant, was British, not American. Since he was only a foreigner here on a Student Visa and not a legally sanctioned immigrant, his son was born as a provisional British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC subject).
Obama appeared with a highly questionable and almost mysterious citizenship, with a mysterious past, with a mysterious fake non-physical 9-layer birth certificate image, with mysterious hidden college records and accomplishments, with a guarded private law practice, law student/ law lecturer records, with mysterious friends with subversive backgrounds and Marxist affiliations while promising to run the most transparent administration ever. But where is the transparency about himself?
Where are the answers to questions that are not allowed to even be asked? What impartial American panel ever vetted him as being qualified to serve as President, -much less as Commander in Chief of the full military might and nuclear power of the United States? None.
And he remains unvetted to this day. His tenure as President will never be constitutionally legitimate unless the Constitution is changed and the change is made retro-active.
Although he won the Presidency on the basis of charm, cool, sophistication, inspiring rhetoric and the false impression that he was going to fix everything, -which he gave the appearance he could accomplish as the messianically wise, cosmopolitan, dapper, mature adult shepherd of the needy, trusting, optimistic, naive flock of Leftist idealists and true believers, but his words were not like rain.
They did not make the economy grow, The hope he inspired was like a helium balloon that looses its gas and returns to earth. The change he promised is happening but not in the way that freedom-loving, Constitution-supporting American individuals can possible accept as for the better.
They know that it’s sounding the death knell for constitutional government and individual liberty. But far worse than that, it accelerates the fiscal destruction of the future, as the irresponsible debt load becomes unsustainable and inflation becomes the result of the only means to pay the unimaginably huge bills that will be inescapable thanks to the mindless borrowing of generation after generation of politicians whose main priority was to go along to get along, take the path of least resistance, spend money without accountability, and reap the benefits of fat secure retirement pensions (-even if they only served one single term) and extremely lucrative lobbying careers after “public service”. The future they’ve sown we’ll soon reap, and that future is not very far away. -And it will be dire.
by a.r. nash april/sept 2012