The 5 Horsemen of the Apocalypse

The forefathers of this great country wrote the Constitution of the United States as the basis in which this country should be founded, but were smart enough to realize that what they wrote would need to be adapted as time would pass because nothing is unchangeable and what made sense twenty years ago might not be too wise today. That is the beauty of our Constitution and why it has served as a model for democracies all over the world.

During the last 225 years, there have been many amendments to the Constitution. The idea that the Constitution is unchangeable (like the Bible) is outrageous and preposterous, only the Tea Party and extreme libertarians can believe that the law that ruled the nation two centuries ago can be applied today as originally intended.

According to Mitt Romney’s website, he believes that the Constitution’s words “have meaning,” as if the Constitution didn’t mean a thing for the rest of us. As usual, Romney has to appease the extreme right that, having no other alternative, is backing up a Mormon they would not even give the time of day if they had a choice. The Tea Party is supporting Mitt Romney in his candidacy for the Presidency regardless of how much they dislike him because they dislike President Obama even more. But Mitt knows that if there were a White, Evangelical, Right-Wing nut that would decide to run at the last minute, those campaigning and donating money for him would reverse their support in a blink of an eye, for that reason he has no alternative but to repeat like a parrot what the Teapers believe and stand for. That is why Mitt Romney is now implying that the Constitution should be kept as it was written in 1787.

Mitt Romney asserts, “The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government.” Where does it say that in the original Constitution? The Constitution clearly defines what the roles of the three branches of government are, including the Legislative Branch. There is no mention whatsoever about “restrains on government” but on Article V, there is definitive assertion about the legality of Amendments to the Constitution, but Teapers don’t like that article very much and I am sure that if they could, they would probably erase it.

Mitt continues to say, “At times over the past hundred years, some justices of the Supreme Court did not carry out that duty. There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.” I am very glad Mitt feels that way, to tell you the truth so do I, why on earth these Right-Wing Justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) came up with constitutional rights for corporations, rendering to them the same rights of a person? Can corporations (1) create life (2) donate organs (3) be executed (4) get divorced (5) be unfaithful (6) go to church (7) cry (8) laugh (9) get married (10) die for this country? Yet, corporations for the first time in Global history are considered a person and all thanks to the Right-Wing Justices appointed by G. W. Bush and Reagan before him.

On his website, Mitt promises to nominate more judges like the ones that ignored the Constitution and who are enjoying their appointment for life to such lucrative and influential position, which by the way… where in the Constitution does it say that Supreme and Federal Justices are appointed for life? In Article III, Section 1 it reads: “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” It seems that “good behaviour” translates into life but why? I truly believe that we have been fooled into believing that we are stuck with the morons that wear the ropes in the Supreme and Federal Court. We must demand their destitution particularly from the Supreme Court on the grounds of "bad behaviour", borderline treason, having stripped our constitutional rights over the rights of corporations, going against the Constitution. No Judge should be serving for a life-term, not a Supreme or a Federal Justice. We have accepted what a bunch of attorneys have said Article III means, but even the Legal Definition of "good behaviour" does not translates into a life term. This is the definition of “GOOD BEHAVIOUR” according to a Legal Dictionary: "Conduct authorized by law. Surety of good behaviour may be demanded from any person who is justly suspected, upon sufficient grounds, of intending to commit a crime or misdemeanor. Surety. for good behaviour is somewhat similar to surety of the peace, but the recognizance is more easily forfeited, and it ought to be demanded with greater caution. 1 Binn. 98, n.; 2 Yeates, 437; 14 Vin. Ab. 21; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t. As to what is a breach of good behaviour, see 2 Mart. N. S. 683; Hawk. b. 1, c. 61, s. 6 Chit. Pr. 676. Vide @Surdy of the peace."

We already have five Conservative Supreme Justices; they already hold the majority and we can’t afford more of them. We need to change the length of time a Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court; maybe they should serve for the same length as the president, perhaps 10 years but definitively not for a lifetime. No Judge should serve for a lifetime; no one should possess such power!

Note:  I am using the same spelling as that in our Constitution for the word "behavior."

You say Mo-NATO and I say No-NATO

NATO was created in 1949 and this year the NATO Summit was held in Chicago, Illinois for the first time. Leaders from 60 nations visited the windy city as well as thousands of people that traveled to Chicago to participate in the protest against this Summit.

Forty-five Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans threw away their "Global War on Terror" medals, symbolizing with this gesture their opposition to this false war on terror. These veterans marched alongside Occupiers, arm in arm with Afghans for Peace and side by side to women of all ages that called themselves Grannies at the G8 or Nanas at NATO who were marching to voice their discontent for war and for the war conservatives have declared against women.  Together were the young and the old, women and men, Black, Asians, Latinos, Whites and Native Americans, united as one to express their disapproval for the never ending war in Afghanistan, the mistreatment of the Afghan people and the use of drones by the military that indiscriminately kills innocent lives in order to destroy one al Qaeda or Taliban member.

As it has become the norm, the riot police welcomed the unarmed protesters in full riot gear. Once more, the police was armed by their inseparable baton but, as far as I know, this time they left the pepper spray at the police station. As it has happened before, protesters were physically hurt by abuse of power of the police that didn't hesitate to use their batons against the occupiers. Again, the street of a city was stained by the blood of its citizens for exercising their constitutional right. This country has paid with blood for the freedom and the right to assemble; we have the constitutional right to peacefully protest for that which we don't agree and against this Summit that I don’t care the name it's given it is a meeting about war.

I find appalling that during these difficult financial times where many nations are on the verge of bankruptcy – particularly Greece, this meeting took place and “defense” deals were secured and everything was business as usual. The participating NATO Countries all belong to the Northern Hemisphere, after all NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Several other countries were invited to participate in the Summit as guests as well as the member countries of ISAF. It is odd that China wasn’t invited, one would think thy have an interest on what is taking place after all, they are practically financing the United States but no, not one representative from the Socialist Republic of China received an invitation perhaps the invitation was lost in the mail.

It is my personal opinion that NATO is nothing more than a club of powerful nations that together confabulate to control the world while interchanging strategies and weapon contracts that will bring them closer to that goal. We cannot expect that they will openly admit this, so the meeting gets camouflaged as an alliance of countries for the security, peace keeping and partnership among the 28 countries that form NATO.

No one can expect for any country to abandon all their weapons and I am not suggesting that, every country must have the capability of defending themselves, and that includes our enemies; what I can’t comprehend is how, at a time where almost every nation is bankrupted and unable to even pay their debts or fulfill their obligations to help the citizens that are struggling to survive in each of these countries, including ours, these nations have the money to purchase these drones and armaments which price tags are in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. I can’t understand how the United States can continue ordering weapons such as these and go on with a war no one wants and even threatens Iran with a military intervention if they do not stop their nuclear experiments. How can we continue on this ballistic path? How can the United States finance the rebuilding of the countries we have destroyed while our own infrastructure is falling apart? How can we continue to indiscriminately borrow more and more money to finance these absurdities? Wouldn’t it be easier, simpler and more efficient to end these fucking wars once and for all, stop investing in these drones and other extremely expensive and unnecessary weapons while we have people that have nothing to eat in our own backyard and all over the world? How many nuclear bombs do we need to destroy one another? Would we ever be armed enough? Will the scientific community ever invent an antipsychotic medication strong enough to finally treat the paranoia of the leaders of the United States, the NATO countries and any other country on this planet? I love my president but I can’t support wars it goes against every fiber of my being, after all, I am all for peace and love, not wars.

Members of NATO
Invited Non-NATO countries
Members of ISAF
Sponsoring Corporations