This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Power of The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel
It is easy to forget that the United States Government and its citizens have distinctly different relationships with the law. While citizens and corporations look at statutes to see what they are prohibited from doing, governments must look to statutes to see what they are specifically authorized to do. In effect, the United States must ask for permission rather than beg for forgiveness when undertaking action. As one might imagine, this has a very particular effect on how the lawyers that work for the general counsel's office of various government agencies and departments go about doing their job.
In a corporation, the general counsel spends a lot of time pointing out that "doing that will probably get us sued." Their job is (or should be) to protect the company from liability, or to reduce that liability if the company wades into it. While governmental lawyers deal with claims litigation as well (defending against wrongful discharge and employment discrimination being a big portion of this effort since sovereign immunity applies to a number of cases) senior attorneys are generally more concerned with penning opinions on the authorization a given agency or department has (or does not have) to undertake actions of one type or another.
Clever Zero Hedge readers will quickly recognize the conflicts of interest and the potential for "capture" that plague the halls in government General Counsel offices. The issue, however, rarely surfaces in the public. The last major spotlight probably coincided with the scrap over memos tied to Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo, then at the Department of Justice, which authorized enhanced interrogation techniques and warrantless wiretapping programs during the Bush Administration.
One sympathizes with senior government attorneys just a little. Being a stick in the mud in the face of an administration badly wanting, needing to squeeze their agenda through the maze of statutory and constitutional restrictions is likely to result in a short career in government service. Someone will probably write that memo even if they don't. Of course, don't feel too bad as lucrative lobbyist positions generally follow senior governmental attorney positions.
To give you an idea of the power held by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel we need only turn to the September memo from that office which gutted then Federal Housing Finance Agency Inspector General Ed Kelley's power to investigate fraud, wrongdoing or mismanagement at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result, there is presently no independent auditor at either GSE- not that the FHFA Inspector General (appointed by the executive and approved by Congress) was ever necessarily "independent" for any definition of that word one might choose to adopt.
Unsurprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel had an interesting perspective on the prospect of the GSEs (and the FHFA for that matter) operating without an Inspector General.
Insofar as the absence of an Inspector General creates practical difficulties for the FHFA, we note that the Reform Act authorizes the FHFA Director to "delegate to officers and employees of the [FHFA] any of the functions, powers, or duties of the Director, as the Director considers appropriate...." As you have suggested, this authority might permit the Director to give designated employees certain responsibilities for auditing and monitoring the FHFA's activities.
Could it be that with all the noise and motion that seems to accompany discussions on Corporate Governance and oversight of banks and public companies that we are moving in exactly the opposite direction with respect to two agencies which arguably blew up the mortgage market and which, even now turn, chin up, mouths open, gaping hungrily for another $15 billion in taxpayer cash to make up for another quarter of eye-popping losses? And even this totally ignores the fact that the FHFA, also lacking independent oversight at the moment, has become the new Mr. Bubble of the housing market.
President Obama has assured the public that he will "get right on that" little Inspector General problem since Fannie and Freddie have lacked a formal auditor for 15 months now. Of course, the Office of Legal Counsel started to rattle Ed Kelley's cage just four months after Obama's coronation, so we aren't holding our breath on that one. And after all, there is probably nothing to worry about. The FHFA (which just fired its own Inspector General) accepted the CEAR Award For Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability, the Federal government's highest award for accountability reporting, this last Spring. (Zero Hedge waits with bated breath to see if the United States Securities and Exchange Commission will extend its streak of three straight CEAR wins next spring. The Department of Labor has won eight CEAR Awards in a row). What could possibly go wrong? The Huffington Post has a decent article on the entire Inspector General situation from earlier this week.
Getting back to the central issue, the GSEs currently represent something like three fourths of all taxpayer losses due to mortgages, a figure that will likely only grow. Assuming that an Inspector General with a staff of two and a $150,000 budget could have been effective at all in a sprawling GSE complex (though certainly someone seemed to suspect so), one might credit the Office of Legal Counsel with one of the great cover-ups of all time. Time will tell.
Still, government lawyers aren't just weapons for eliminating troublesome investigations. As it turns out, at least in some agencies, the role of the government attorney has become so much of a rubberstamp joke that the "yes man" role is well woven into agency culture. Attorneys at the IRS apparently often joke about their "Section Zero" authority, referencing a fictitious (and presumably empty) section of the United States Code from which they derive authority to authorize just about anything that comes across their desks with little or no scrutiny. We somewhat doubt that a FOIA request for material referencing "Section Zero" authority would be fruitful, but members of Congress may wish to ask about this particular term of art when next they have occasion to write IRS Chief Counsel William J. Wilkins, who, as he is also officially attached to the Office of the General Counsel for the Treasury, technically reports to George W. Madison, General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury.
Similar questions might be well directed to George W. Madison himself. After all, how likely, exactly, is the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service to suffer to be written in his office and on his watch a memo halting a Treasury program?
Heretofore, government attorneys have enjoyed both statutory and a form of de facto immunity from scrutiny or legal process. The latter because sunshine seems rarely to penetrate the marble office walls of the many Offices of General Counsel in the beltway. Perhaps this should change.
We wonder exactly how the state bars and various state attorneys general would view the wholesale conflict and malpractice implicit in bad-faith rubber stamping of Federal programs of questionable authority. In this connection, Zero Hedge is particularly interested in the names of attorneys at the IRS, the Treasury and Scott G. Alvarez's Legal Division at the Federal Reserve Board who wrote legal opinions suggesting that the Treasury and the Fed were authorized to undertake programs (PPIP comes to mind) which essentially put them in the position of writing options- taking just one example. That might, at least, expose this sector of government "oversight" to some much-needed scrutiny. But this is only one step.
Last year former Department of Justice attorney John Yoo was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Jose Padilla over his "torture memos." Yoo immediately moved to dismiss the suit citing, among other things, sovereign immunity. The court was having none of it, denying almost every element of his motion to dismiss and permitting the case to proceed.
Government attorneys, take note.
»
- 5098 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I've been long fraud and deception since March.
ZH is trying to activate a stop on my trade :(
Yes, the nerves in those fuckers ....
Wait ... What ...
On a more serious note ... Excellent analysis Marla. The distinction between the governments position in the legal system and that of an individual should have been explained long ago, since it is clearly visible that the lack of knowledge shared by many, on both sides, had clearly impaired their judgment and their actions.
I hope many will read this article and, hence, get a better picture of the overall situation; that is if they did not know what is being presented by this article.
Again +10000000000 and thank you ...
"The distinction between the governments position in the legal system and that of an individual should have been explained long ago.."
LOL
Cheeky, I know you're not defending but simply explaining. So this is not directed at you.
Maybe in some alternative universe it would have been explained long ago but most certainly not in the USA. IMHO, the purpose of the public school system in America is not to educate and inform but to indoctrinate and homogenize. Practical information and techniques that could be used to actually live the life of an involved and productive citizen are not part of the equation or curriculum. Consumers are all that are wanted or needed.
The only purpose of education in America is to crush the independent and creative spirit of children as they come into the system at 5 so that when they're pushed out at 18, they've been molded as perfectly interchangeable cogs to fit into any assembly line corporate machine.
Any critical thinking skills that might have developed before 5 years of age are suppressed if not outright washed clean 12 years later. Propaganda is substituted for history, unquestioned obedience to authority is installed and any independence shown is immediately beaten out of the child with mind numbing exercises of mathimatical manipulations and projectile vomiting of useless factoids and conventionial thinking.
And if you ask real nice I'll tell you what I really think on this subject.
i.e. Copper Tops
LOL
Another Matrix fan I presume?
But not just any old copper top. No sir. We are a grade A number 1 genuine country bred apple pie eating freedom loving democracy spreading extraordinary super duper exceptional worlds best copper top with gold contacts to ensure good electrical contact plus fully rechargeable for an extra long life of mindless charge and discharge.
Only we Americans can be proud of this insanity. If you're going to be a copper top, be the best god damn copper top you can be! I'm an AMERICAN COPPER TOP and don't you forget it.
I agree completely. I had the good fortune of being schooled at home until grade 9, at which I was thrust into US public high school (As a side note, I entered with a 31 ACT score, and left only two points higher - with three years of public schooling under my belt - Hardly showing effectivity).
The only addition I wish to make is that I don't think its necessarily as intentional as you made it sound. However, results are what counts, and I ahve no disagreement with your results.
The other possibility is that it is a system that is effective in preventing real, un-(government)-biased, critical learning simply because it is. The natural evolution of a system, if you will. Had it developed any other way, it would not be here today, because it is a govenrment system, and people would be critical of it. Instead, a re-enforcing generational cycle is produced in which the expansion of government power in the last generation gets written into each textbook for the next as a forgone conclusion.
I have a hard time debating issues with people from my own generation (I'm 27), precisely because they assume that govenment in the US is the grantor of resources. Not only has their relationship in their own lives with the goventment been along those lines, but all textbooks "clearly" laid out exactly how true this is, and why it works, Go, America, Go!
"The only addition I wish to make is that I don't think its necessarily as intentional as you made it sound. However, results are what counts, and I have no disagreement with your results."
I agree up to a point, that point being the powers that be who make the big decisions. 90% of the people working as teachers and admin are hard working well intentioned people who feel they are making a difference in the lives of their students.
But these people make no decisions as to direction or methods or curriculum used. They are simply following orders, just as a soldier does. It is unfair to blame the soldier for the actions of his or her government that is still involved in 2 wars. The soldier is simply doing a job and I'm sure a very good job.
Most people don't understand the degree to which the Federal government dictates so many things at the local level. They use money to get their way. If a local school board or district doesn't want to follow the "no child left behind" initiative they can. But the state will get less Federal dollars which means locally they get less dollars, which means locally they will need to raise property taxes to make up for the loss.
Whoops, better not fight it and just go with the flow. After a while, the product of the schooling is making the decisions and the circle of dead brains is complete.
+100...this is why my better half and I home school our 3 kids...
I am an Indian who went through an American grad school, a decently ranked one, during which time I was a teaching assistant for undergraduate classes. I found that most freshman students have the math skills of a 12 year old. If you put them in and Indian school, they will not pass middle school. The schooling system in the US must seriously suck if they operate on such huge budgets but still produce such poor students.
Self esteem and confidence are other things that the schools seem to teach very well, with the idea that self esteem and confidence produce achievement which is confusing cause and effect. Lastly the school system seems to instill a bad idea of 'everybody's opinion is correct' or 'it is just an opinion'. Critical evaluation of ideas in any field takes a back seat. That is why the most technologically advanced country has state schools in which creationism is a valid scientific theory one that is better than the theory of evolution, which is 'just a theory'. Of all the people in the world, Americans are the one people who are the most ill informed about the rest of the world despite having easy access to all the information.
A lot of the budget and energy of schools is directed towards non academic activities to produce 'well rounded' individuals aka consumers who are indoctrinated to buy useless stuff, and worship rich celebrities. If ZH wonders why Americans do not demand strict regulation and why they just make a few cursory noises against big finance companies, it is because they cannot seriously criticize the rich Gods they worship. After all every American is taught all his life that they too can become rich and famous one day.
Everything I learned in school comes down to these seven lessons.
I had two children in the Maryland A.A. county school system for a while. Want to know what Gifted and Talented
is? The teacher puts one advanced student in a group
with several average and one special needs student. The 'grade' is communal. Always a A or B. the advanced student either surrenders and stops work. Or gets frustrated and is recommended for Ritalin therapy. My son did a science fair project in 5th grade. Took a 1900s' farmers
formullary and did a half dozen of the adhesive
compositions. His presentation was canceled as too advanced so not relevant. Winner? De-icer salt kills grass.
Marla, et al:
Whatta 'bout Federal Judge Bybee? This ****** is arguable worse!
"The secret law that Bybee sent to Rizzo was unusual in that it was a law for one particular person. It was even more specific than that. It claimed to apply to the treatment of one particular person under an elaborate set of circumstances. If the situation was altered, the law would not apply. The individual who received this personal legislative treatment may not have considered himself a lucky man, since it was 18 pages of descriptions of torture techniques that it would be "legal" to use on him."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/bybee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bybee
Marla--its not up to the Bar to determine malpractice. The only thing they worry about is whether the rules of professional responsibility were followed.
(Yeah I know, don't get you started)
The Nuremberg defense.
Mine was not to question why, mine is simply to follow the letter of the law and the rules to the letter because that's the safe default position all mindless and immoral cogs in the machine of fascism (or more accurately corporatism) follow.
My sister is a lawyer. I didn't like her before but now I have reason to. :>)
I didn't like her before but now I have reason to.
You'd think it would be the opposite ("and now I know why I didn't like her" :)
I've always known why I don't like her. She's an arrogant know-it-all asshole, just like me. Only she won't admit it or even consider the possibility. After all, she's an attorney.
That, by the way, is how she ends all discussions in which she disagrees. She doesn't provide logic or conjecture or even opinion to support her case. She's a lawyer damn it, why aren't we bowing in her presence? An officer of the court, in the greatest land money can buy.
She burned through 2 other professions (in other words, her peers black listed her) until she found other self centered narcissistic blood suckers like herself who welcomed her to the fold.
But other than that she's a nice person.
At first I was about to take exception when you were decrying arrogant know-it-all assholes, and then I saw your qualification about admitting it. Phew. Thats a relief.
So that makes three. Myself, my sister and you. Phew, that's a relief.
“Striking the proper constitutional balance here is of great importance to the Nation during this period of ongoing combat. But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship. It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.”
Hamdi v. Ashcroft
The District Court's response to Yoo's Motion to Dismiss in the Padilla case was excellent reading... and it was interesting that the District Court chose to include in their Introduction the above snippet from another relevant case. Let's give a little thanks to our balance of power and that our founding father's included the judiciary as the third leg on the stool.
MnNice, It is amazing how we all learn about and laud those that actually hit the Power Ball and/or MegaBucks Lotteries. I agree that in the legal context it is marvelous reading and provides the sustenance to continue, in practice interpretation by the executive is where the rubber is hitting the road.
Maybe WH got an advance read of this post?
DJ ) 11/13 08:53AM *WSJ: White House Announces Departure Of Counsel Greg Craig
too bad the mao loving anita dunn's husband will take his spot. greg bauer has also done extensive legal work for acorn
how nice to see all the crooks keep a tight circle
hey hey hey HEY HEY !!!! .... dont you disrespect Mao by mentioning him in the same context as Anita Dunn or her husband.... please ...
Lizzy, Greg announced within the administration six or was it seven months ago.... Check your calendar for the pipeline at that time for proper analysis.
Bated breath. Baited breath is when you eat earthworms or get a tied-fly tongue piercing.
Indeed! Thanks!
Oh, Marla. For shame. Grammar check.
I am Chumbawamba.
LOL
Watch out Chumbawamba, if you bait her breath with your grammer check comment, she might beat you with her bad ass Louisville slugger bat and you will have become bat...ed breath.
:>)
The value of any system of government is measured by how many aspects of private life are completely outside the reach of the legal system. Place your faith in the federal court system at your peril. They might throw us a bone every now and again, but they are as complicit in our current condition as Congress. By the time you get to court you've already lost.
Truer words were never spoken.
Echoes of Martin Armstrong.
I am Chumbawamba.
As you said, hitting the power ball not withstanding.
"One sympathizes with senior government attorneys just a little." No, One doesn't. Damm, I'm only charging $350 an hour. I need to up my rates.
The IRS and the legal system are soooo conveluted. It reminds of Imperial China pre Mao. Total bureacratic breakdown. This is why though I liked FC, Brazil is a better moniker/crystal for our times.
Now to the point....you cannot sue the gov't. or the gov't reform itself. This is well said M, Dearest Leader has the same sense...circumvent the bureacracy with Czars. Trouble is it only make the peanut butter spread on the backs of the citizens thicker.
TD, Marla, and Staff / Very good piece. We sincerely are impressed with your depth of thought provoking topics. Topics in which the public and masses rarely (other than on ZH) has the opportunity to explore. Good work...
It's Bush's fault.
Despite the accusations of the Bush admin running roughshod over most aspects of liberty, at least they had a defense that it was in response to a threat of terrorissm that required action.
I am afraid to guess what the motivations are for Prez. Utopia and his band of minions, but it is not a good picture.
You still believe the terrorist bullshit? Find Aaron Russo's interview discussing his relationship with Nicholas Rockefeller. It's a eye opener.
While citizens and corporations look at statutes to see what they are prohibited from doing, governments must look to statutes to see what they are specifically authorized to do. In effect, the United States must ask for permission rather than beg for forgiveness when undertaking action.
At least theoretically.
This is why people are calling to see bankers and politicians dangling from lamp posts.
There is no effect without cause.
I am Chumbawamba.
Broad and sweeping statement alert.
IMHO the real purpose of the 8 years of the Bush Administration was to eviscerate any remaining checks and balances constricting the executive branch as laid out in the constitution, other legal documents or silly popular myths er... propaganda.
Until recently, most people could logically argue there were 3 co-equal branches of government in America. That is no longer the case. I never really considered the egregious over reaching of the Bush Administration to be that dangerous for various reasons but I was much more concerned what future administrations would do with the unchecked power of a de facto emperor or dictatorship. Of course, we do understand the actual Presidency is window dressing, a pretty cheerleader, don't we?
The financial "collapse" and subsequent abandonment of any remaining resistance (see Chrysler bond holders etc) to one branch rule by the Federal Reserve ... er...President justified in the name of crisis (which by the way is the next never-ending-boggy-man that will hang around for 10 years, just like 9/11 was used for 8 years) will afford endless entertainment for the distracted masses and other malcontents.
Whew, thank God I got that off my chest.
The federal unitary executive in purpose and practice.
Interesting perspective. What Ron Paul (and now Alan Grayson, among others) has been trying to draw people's attention to is a precise reading of Section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act. I suppose general counsel at the Federal Reserve has given a rather "expansive" reading to its charter authority to do anything and everything in the Open Market, but a narrow reading of its enabling legislation certainly does not support about half of what the Fed has been doing. Its arrogating unto itself all this authority to intervene seems way, WAY beyond its charter. No one reels them in, of course. It's almost like the Supreme Court deciding that it has the "inherent right" to review the constitutionality of legislation - an "assumption" at that level of importance.
Those functions were subordinated to a large degree to The Solicitor General of the United States and the OGC at DOJ due to the matter of the banks and markets coming under Presidential Executive Order/s and National Security Findings.
How is the United States Government different from a dictatorship again?
The only differences are in the name/descriptive terminology used and our desperate attempts to remain in denial regarding the fact.
I pledge allegiance to the Banana Republic of the United States of America.
In a typical dictatorship, you know the dictator's name.In the US, the ones who call the shots are well hidden.
There it is. Government in this situation is simply a tool to be used via nominees. A real dictatorship is a true leader state.
String theory USA style. He who pulls the strings..........
In a typical dictatorship, you know the dictator's name.In the US, the ones who call the shots are well hidden.
Perhaps so but I can give you a few hints to his many names...Abaddon; Accuser; Adversary; Angel of the bottomless pit; Beast; Beelzebub; Belial; Deceiver; Devil; Dragon; Enemy; Father of lies; God of this age; King of Babylon; King of Tyre; Lawless one; Leviathan; Little horn; Man of sin; Murderer; Power of darkness; Prince of the power of the air; Ruler of demons; Serpent of old; Son of perdition; Tempter; Thief; Wicked one
There is only one calling the shots in the US and yes he is well hidden and yet right out in the open at the same time for the whole world to see.
Uhhh... hmmm.
"It is easy to forget that the United States Government and its citizens have distinctly different relationships with the law. While citizens and corporations look at statutes to see what they are prohibited from doing, governments must look to statutes to see what they are specifically authorized to do. In effect, the United States must ask for permission rather than beg for forgiveness when undertaking action. As one might imagine, this has a very particular effect on how the lawyers that work for the general counsel's office of various government agencies and departments go about doing their job."
Marla--where in God's name do you get this idea? The notion that the Federal Government is a government of limited powers is laughable in the modern legal environment.
You don't vote for kings!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
Best Monty Python clip ever!
Here's the reality of the hell Britain is descending into:
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gu...
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."
Talking about laws and statutes, I immediately thought about this presentation. I stumbled acrossed it when looking for something else. It's British but I imagine that most of it is true for the US. I want to ask a lawyer what his take is on it. Fascinating.
If the links don't work, look for John Harris on YouTube, Beacon Film Studios.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jtxpp4rQo&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mExeq5Yyg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIUMOyp-Pj4&NR=1
EU security proposals are 'dangerously authoritarian'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5496912/EU-security-proposals-are-dangerously-authoritarian.html
EU funding 'Orwellian' artificial intelligence plan to monitor public for "abnormal behaviour"
The European Union is spending millions of pounds developing "Orwellian" technologies designed to scour the internet and CCTV images for "abnormal behaviour".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html
How about the government attorney who waived the conflict of interest law and regulation for Hank "the Goldman Sachs mole" Paulson to openly help Goldman Sachs. Paulson had a screaming conflict of interest which should have disqualified him from serving a U.S. Secretary of Treasury. Could Treasury Secretary Paulson be expected to investigate and prosecute Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson?
Even early in his term, when Paulson was under a supposed conflict of interest requirement, he was acting in Goldman Sachs interest. Then in the fall of 2008 Paulson's charade needed more cover because Paulson had to be even more brazen and blatant in his efforts to save Goldman Sachs. So, a government attorney provided a tissue-paper fig leaf to Pauson by "waiving" his conflict of interest requirement. The government attorney and Paulson both need to be charged with flagrant violation of federal conflict of interest laws and regulations.
SCOTUS has decided that any citizen serving in a policy position my seek the advice of persons outside of government and that those interactions are fully protected from suit or disclosure.
The concept I believe is referred to as legal precedence.
What ever happened to common law, where the simple and uneducated can apply the smell test and determine quickly right from wrong. I don't long for the simpler days, it's the powers that be who long for complications that disguise their blatant criminal behaviour.
So warm and fuzzy to be able to hide behind legal niceties. Red tape and legalities always obscure the truly brilliant crimes. The real crime is all of us standing around with our hands in our pockets while exclaiming "Duh, what happened to my country?"
What I want to know is what's happened to all those public servants who pledged allegiance to the constitution? That was an oath, not a promise you made while you crossed your fingers. So, when the going gets tough, you don't need to act? I don't see the job description as saying you only uphold your oath when the coast is clear and there's no professional or personal danger to you. Grow some balls and act. Or resign. Because as long as you hold those positions of public trust and do nothing, you're enabling this wholesale theft of America from Americans.
+1000
Excellent effort Marla.
(Insert picture of gagged person attempting to respond, turning blue in the face jumping up and down in a silent scream)
Another excellent piece Marla, thank you for it.
Off topic: would love to read a look from you/ ZH into the US goverment's "conspicuously covert " Raptor and Echelon programs; the "secretive" programs of almost 60 years now, which were the true brainchild's for John Poindexter's DARPA.
you're enabling this wholesale theft of America from Americans.
There is nothing American about those responsible for the systematic destruction and plundering of our once great nation. Ours is a very foreign enemy enabled and supported by traitors to our constitutions, to our values, to our fortunes and to our sacred honor. Traitors to the concept of man.