The Accountability Act


White House

A lot of people have asked what my platform would be if I ran for president. Aside from eliminating the income tax and imposing term limits upon Congress (one time and you are out), I would champion the Accountability Act.

The Inspector General’s report clearly shows Hillary should be charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which states that the concealment, removal, or mutilation of government documents carries a three-year term of imprisonment and/or fine. Section B also states anyone found guilty shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” This wording is very clear, but the executive claims “discretion” to charge whomever they desire. If it were Trump they would charge him, but Hillary gets a free walk.

I would create the Accountability Act where anyone who misleads or lies to government in any way forfeits all pensions and must leave all government jobs, even as a dog catcher.

I would spin off the Office of Inspector General from the executive branch and restore them as a Roman Tribune, which would mean they could prosecute anyone in government without president approval since that would include him.

*(WHERE IS OBAMA AND THE FBI?)* – Why are terrorist red flags being missed?


A few years ago the Obama administration redacted all the Islamic or Muslim references to Jihad and stopped all training on the subject so it is now almost impossible to actually find anyone prior to their actually doing anything.

Baltimore Six Update – The Case Against Caesar Goodson Begins Collapsing…


When the citizens realize the law is what the government makes it up to be and the cases have no merit then there is no rule of law and that the prosecutors are fabricating evidences and cases for political purposes then the society where this happens is finished and must be replaced.

Lessons From The Obama Administration – The Politics Determine The Political Outcomes…


This is a very good analysis Sundance, and I agree 100% with what you are saying; I come at this transformation being imposed on us from a different direction but the end result is identical. We are in for some very hard times much like that before the Civil War with brother against brother and family against family. The UniParty will stop at nothing to prevent Trump from getting to the White House and I mean that ANYTHING will be allowed including assassinations.

Candidate Donald Trump Interview With Sean Hannity…


Trump gets it — our present government is trying to make changes in our country that the present citizens do not want! Trump will stop the change and Obama and Hillary cannot allow that and therein lies the difference. The citizens against the want a be rulers and Trump is the tip of the spear f.or us.

1800 was Almost the Second American Revolution


Marshall John Chief Justice - 1

Political rivalry in the United States has been taking place since 1800 when the clash between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians pushed the political body of the nation to the point where it teetered on the brink of a second American Revolution. This clash of the Titans was sparked when the Federalists were about to lose power. John Adams tried to prolong Federalist control in direct defiance of the people by stacking the courts with Federalist judges to demonstrate that law was not law; it was driven by bias from the start. The new Constitution was not specific and far too ambiguous in many areas including that of the judiciary.

John Marshall (1755 – 1835) was previously a leader of the Federalist Party in Virginia and served in the United States House of Representatives from 1799 to 1800. He became the Secretary of State under President John Adams from 1800 to 1801, and in a political crisis he became the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1801–1835). Marshall was thrown into the office of Chief Justice in the aftermath of the presidential election of 1800. The Federalists were soundly defeated and their dream of a federal government dominating over the states was coming to an end. They were about to lose both the executive and legislative branches to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans. In a last desperate moment, President Adams and the lame duck Congress passed what came to be known as the Midnight Judges Act. This draconian attempt to install sweeping changes to the federal judiciary to always rule in favor of the Federalists was now at issue. This included a reduction in the number of Justices from six to five to prevent Jefferson from appointing a Justice when the next vacancy in the court arose.

The incumbent Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth was in poor health, and Adams tried to stack the court by offering the seat to ex-Chief Justice John Jay who declined on the grounds that the court lacked “energy, weight, and dignity.” Jay’s letter arrived on January 20, 1801, and there was little time left.

Adams turned to Secretary of State John Marshall who accepted the nomination immediately. At first, the Senate was delayed in hopes that Adams would make a different choice. Nonetheless, the Senate had no choice and confirmed Marshall on January 27, 1801. He was sworn in on January 31, 1801, and officially took office on February 4, 1801. The strange rush meant that Marshall continued to serve as Secretary of State until Adams’ term expired on March 4, 1801, thereby overlapping Marshall’s two positions of Chief Justice and Secretary of State.

Marshall became the longest presiding Chief Justice during the administrations of six presidents: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson. Marshall remained an advocate of Federalism, and, in this capacity, he was the nemesis of the Jeffersonian school of government throughout its tenure. On July 4, 1826, at the age of 90, John Adams lay on his deathbed while the country celebrated Independence Day. His last words were, “Thomas Jefferson still survives.” But Jefferson had died five hours earlier at Monticello at the age of 82. This, nonetheless, illustrated the battle between Federalist and Jeffersonians who believed in state rights and freedom.

Marshall was faced with the fact that the Constitution’s framers left the Supreme Court’s existence and scope of power very ambiguous. For the first three presidential election cycles, there were few matters of any practical concern with regard to law. The midst of this political crisis of 1800 threatened a political revolution, not necessarily among the people, but among the elites. This confrontation led to Marshall’s landmark decision known as the case of Marbury v Madison.

Adams attempted to stuff the courts with Federalist judges. A handful of commissions for Justice of the Peace remained undelivered when incoming Democratic-Republican President Thomas Jefferson came to office. Jefferson ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver any of these appointments since they were clearly political. One disgruntled office seeker, William Marbury, sued to have his commission honored. Marshall denied Marbury his commission because the Act of Congress underlying the suit unconstitutionally sought to expand the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction beyond what it was intended. The case established that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marshall further wrote, “If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” Strangely, Marshall had to rule against the powers of the Court itself.

This epic battle of Marbury v Madison illustrates that law has never really been law. The fight to install judges who will rule in favor of one side or the other proves there are serious problems with law. Obviously, politicians should never appoint judges. Secondly, the fate of any person should never lie in the ambiguous words of statutes. Any law, when enacted, should be passed to a Constitutional Court to interpret what that law means, which becomes binding BEFORE it is applied to anyone. Until we are ready to reform the Judiciary, there will never be any rule of law. Moreover, judges should never have life tenure. Judges should have one term and then they’re out. They must be subject to the same laws they declare.

Unprecedented – President Obama Lashes Out in Seething Tirade Against Donald Trump (video)…


Obama is acting like the cornered rat that he is; Trump knows that he has him on the defense and almost up on the ropes so when Obama realizes that Hillary can not win Obama will get desperate in the coming months and there is no telling what he will do.

Donald Trump and Common Sense…


It makes perfect sense that why Obama and Hillary would never do that!

Donald Trump Speech on Violent Extremism, Saint Anselm College, NH – 2:30pm Live Stream


Good speech until Obama trump put passion in what he says and what he says makes perfect sense as it is also common sense. We really have no choice for as Trump says for if we do not chance our policies there will no long be an America — home of the free because of the brave!

Crime Pays — But Who?


Crime-Money

One of the eye-opening shocks I experienced after I was thrown in contempt was that nothing was what it seemed. Numerous suicides occurred but the press did not report on them, and the few that received coverage were spun to the government’s favor to portray them as having some remorse. The truth is that those who committed suicide were typically the innocent, whereas the real violent criminals, I found, were cowards. They might kill someone else, but they themselves fear death and will appeal until the end. Even those who did something they believe was right, like Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001), opted for death and refused to appeal. The outright murdered was terrified of dying.

Then there is the nonsense portrayed as recidivism (the relapse to criminal behavior). The truth, even in this department, was far from what the press portrayed. I met people who had been imprisoned for 20+ years who were scared to be released. They all said they would commit another crime to get back inside where life was easy. Once a black individual cried in my cell. He asked me to read his paper because he could not read. He was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment when he was only 18-years-old. He said he had no family left. He had no idea what to do and was scared to death of the outside world. I came to learn that prison was not a punishment; it was a change of life. The justice system somehow operates under the delusional idea that increased prison sentences will deter people. That is just stupid. Prison is suited ONLY for those who pose a violent risk to society — no one else.

So now, we have the idea that they will pay people not to commit a crime after getting out. This will help some who are poor who committed some crime for money. However, the whole system is totally screwed up.

EVERY drug dealer I met said the same thing — the police stole half the cash they had. Their court-appointed lawyers told them to shut up because they would face longer sentences if they were found with more money. Just who is benefiting from this system is highly questionable. Then you have prison guards who take the job so they can beat-up people. They are some very sick individuals. Five New York City Rikers Island prison guards ere just found guilty in beating people. All this does is teach people that government is the enemy. When released, they have been exposed to a vast corruption that dominates the entire prison culture. Inmates have far too often been murdered by prison guards and buried in hole in prisons never to be heard from again. The Arkansas prison farm was just one notorious affair they try to hide from the public.

So unfortunately, the press rarely ever exposes the truth. They support government against the people and have abandoned their constitutional role of defending the people against government. Once the press was bought by big business, they then have agendas sold to the highest bidder.


D.C. may pay people not to commit crimes

Under this bill, up to 200 individuals a year could qualify.

WASHINGTON — They say crime doesn’t pay, but that might not be entirely true in the District of Columbia as lawmakers look for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders.

The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It’s based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.

Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.

The bill doesn’t specify the value of the stipends, but participants in the California program get up to $9,000 per year.

Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, a Democrat who wrote the legislation, said it was part of a comprehensive approach to reducing violent crime in the city, which experienced a 54 percent increase in homicides last year. Homicides and violent crime are still down significantly since the 2000s, and even more so since the early 1990s when the District was dubbed the nation’s “murder capital.”

McDuffie argued that spending $9,000 a year in stipends “pales in comparison” to the cost of someone being victimized, along with the costs of incarcerating the offender.

“I want to prevent violent crime — particularly gun violence — by addressing the root causes and creating opportunities for people, particularly those individuals who are at the highest risks of offending,” McDuffie, a former prosecutor, said in a letter to constituents last week.

Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has not committed to funding the program, which would cost $4.9 million over four years, including $460,000 a year in stipend payments, according to the District’s independent chief financial officer. Without the mayor’s support, it would be up to the council to find money for it through new taxes or cuts to existing programs.

The program would be run independently of the police department, and participants would remain anonymous.