I am very familiar with War. I have the scars to remember it by. However, it is precisely that cavalier attitude that drives my reasoning. If you have been there and done that, fine. if not, you are pretty loose with the cost others pay.
This has already been going on for decades. The Declaration of Independence spells out the long train of abuses and the remedies. No where does it say anything about government fixing itself, nor the military being the way. In fact, our founders were very clear about NOT trusting a standing Army since that is the exact vehicle used by tyrants to control those they oppress.
Our founders established a Constitutional Republic designed to limit government, and empower people. The militia and being armed were two bulwarks to check government from operating outside of it charter. Same with Juries and the Grand Jury. Guess what, militia's are gone, the 2nd Amendment has no teeth with government infringing across all rights that enumerated amendment prohibited. The Grand Jury has become a tool of the prosecutor, and Juries are 100% controlled by the courts.
Judges don't just ignore the Constitution, most do not even know the Constitution.
We have an invasion of biblical proportions with the intention of wiping out our Republic, and the core foundation of what it is to be an American.
We have foreigners in Congress, we have Judges overruling POTUS, we have SCOTUS ignoring the very document they are under oath to follow. We now have foreigners breeding to birth American citizens that will grow up being trained to destroy America, not serve or protect it.
I voted for POTUS 3 times. That being said, he is NOT Jesus, and is certainly not infallible. He has made some very stupid choices in appointments and in backing RINO's. He also is just as guilty of ignoring the Constitution when it doesn't support his own actions.
I hope he is able to effect major positive changes, but I also know that the people ultimately responsible to fix the problems we face are the ones we all see when we look into a mirror. Elections will not be secure if we do not make them secure, and not depend on government to do so. Without secure elections, we have no say or control over our government. That means we are no longer the master of government, we are the slaves of it.
I will continue to pray daily, educate those who allow themselves to be educated, and stand on the principles I hold sacred. That is all I can do at this point.
The fact is that government was never granted or delegated the power to use public funds for charity, welfare, relief, aid, or any other term that take from one and gives to another.
The powers delegated are few, enumerated, and limited. If it was not explicitly delegated then government cannot do it. No exceptions.
Charity is an individual voluntary act of love and personal sacrifice to help others.
It is enough to see the "collateral damage" to real people that lose their real freedom or their real lives while the "behind the scenes" plays out. The founders of our Republic understood individual rights and liberty were so precious that they would rather a guilty man go free rather than one innocent man lose his liberty. That is why people elected into public office were at risk of death for violating their oath and betraying the public trust.
I find it alarming how so many people are so willing to sacrifice others (Freedom is not free...), as long as it is others, and not them. That is the opposite of what the framers of the Constitution believed. They understood that liberty could only be secured through personal sacrifice.
How high a price do Americans have to pay before government or the WH's clean house? Why wait? Recent history has proven that the bad guys can start a full invasion of our country with no repercussions, kill thousands through biological warfare, weather interference, poison our food, kill our unborn, etc...... with absolutely no repercussions. Always the time isn't right. Well, when will it be right? When all patriots are dead or in prison? Well, then who will make it happen?
And no, I am not a doomer, nor a shill. I am just a man who has lived long enough to know that time is not a cure, action is. I served my country for several years in uniform and have yet to see government fix itself in my 58 years of life.
SCOTUS cannot grant immunity, nor rights. Government, as a whole, cannot insulate anyone, anything, even themselves, from being held accountable for crimes or for violations of the rights of Americans. The deputy can never be greater than the agent.
Fraudulent Visa abuse is another avenue of foreign invasion and illegal anchor baby citizenship to supplant Americans on our own soil, while also stealing our jobs, etc.
The H-1B and student visa abuse problem is about visa fraud, labor-market abuse, weak enforcement, corporate conflicts of interest, displacement of American workers, loss of control inside American companies, and the long-term consequences of letting temporary foreign-worker pipelines become backdoor immigration systems.
H-1B was supposed to be limited to legitimate specialty occupations. The job itself must require specialized theoretical and practical knowledge and a directly related degree or equivalent. It is not enough that the employer is a technology company. It is not enough that the applicant has a degree. It is not enough that the company prefers a foreign worker. The role itself must lawfully qualify.
That is where much of the abuse is happening. Companies are using H-1B and related visa pipelines for jobs that often are not legitimate H-1B specialty occupations at all. These include routine technical support, customer support, customer success, help desk, support operations, QA, project coordination, business operations, generic IT, and support management roles.
Those may be real jobs, but many are not lawful H-1B roles. A customer support role does not become a specialty occupation merely because the product is technical. A tech support role does not become H-1B-eligible merely because the worker uses cloud dashboards, ticketing systems, escalation procedures, internal tools, or product documentation. A manager role does not become a specialty occupation merely because the manager supervises technical employees.
The legal question should be simple: does the actual job require specialized knowledge in a specific field, and does it normally require a directly related bachelor’s degree or equivalent? If the answer is no, the role should not qualify.
This is how role misclassification works. Companies can inflate ordinary roles with technical-sounding titles, vague degree language, copied job descriptions, and artificial specialty requirements. They can classify routine support, customer success, project, analyst, operations, or management work under a computer-related category even when the actual work is not truly a specialty occupation.
Federal audits should compare the petition against the real job. Investigators should review the internal job description, org chart, ticket queues, actual duties, performance goals, required degree field, wage level, rejected American applicants, and whether American employees perform the same work without a specialized degree.
The labor-shortage claim also needs serious scrutiny. In many of these roles, qualified Americans exist. American citizens, lawful permanent residents, veterans, recent graduates, laid-off technology workers, experienced support professionals, engineers, analysts, and managers are available for much of the work now being routed into foreign-worker pipelines.
The current system fails American workers because many employers are not required to prove they seriously recruited Americans first. That means a company can claim a need for foreign labor without first proving that qualified U.S. workers were unavailable. That is backwards. If a company wants permission to import labor for a U.S. job, the burden should be on the company to prove the role is legally eligible, the duties are genuinely specialized, the wage is not suppressing the market, and qualified American workers were not bypassed.
The abuse is broader than H-1B. Student visa pathways are also part of the problem. F-1, CPT, OPT, and STEM OPT can create a pipeline where foreign students take university seats, obtain U.S. internships, move into post-graduation work authorization, and then transition into H-1B sponsorship. When everything is lawful and honest, that is one issue. When the pipeline uses fake employers, shell companies, false training plans, ghost offices, sham documentation, weak verification, or fraudulent credentials, it becomes a backdoor labor system.
This affects American students and graduates directly. Non-citizens can take limited university seats, compete for limited internships, obtain work authorization through student programs, and then be converted into longer-term employment pipelines. Meanwhile, American students and recent graduates are competing for the same internships, entry-level jobs, and early-career opportunities.
Recent fake-degree reporting connected to foreign credential networks is a warning sign. Reports have described massive numbers of counterfeit academic documents and alleged links to visa concerns. That does not mean every foreign applicant is fraudulent, and it should not be used as an ethnic accusation. But it does show why credential verification, degree authentication, employer verification, and petition audits must become much stricter.
There are also serious allegations from former officials that fraud rates in some H-1B processing environments were extremely high. Those allegations should not be overstated into a claim that every petition is fraudulent. But combined with DOJ prosecutions, USCIS fraud investigations, fake-degree networks, ghost-office employers, and student visa abuse cases, they justify a serious federal investigation into the full visa pipeline.
The upper-management problem is also real. When large numbers of visa-sponsored or non-citizen workers move into manager, director, executive, recruiting, HR, workforce-planning, vendor-management, or sponsorship-approval roles, they can influence who gets hired, who gets promoted, which roles are sponsored, which American workers are rejected, and which foreign-worker pipelines keep expanding.
A non-citizen manager is not automatically acting unlawfully. But companies should not be allowed to build closed-loop visa pipelines where foreign-national managers, staffing vendors, immigration teams, and executive sponsors repeatedly approve more foreign-worker hiring without independent U.S.-worker impact review. it is a real conflict of interest, and should be flagged as violations of the ethics rules most major American employers set as mandatory required annual training for all employee's.
At that point, the concern is no longer just individual visa fraud. It becomes a corporate-control problem. American companies can gradually become dependent on non-citizen labor pipelines, non-citizen management chains, offshore vendor relationships, and internal sponsorship networks that make it harder for American workers to enter, advance, or regain control of critical U.S. business functions.
There is also a data-security and national-security issue. Not all company data is limited to U.S. citizens, but some government, defense, export-controlled, cloud, regulated, contractual, or customer-restricted data may require U.S. persons, U.S. citizens, cleared personnel, or workers physically located on American soil. If foreign nationals are given access to data that is legally or contractually restricted, that is not merely an immigration issue. It becomes a security, export-control, federal-contracting, and customer-trust issue.
The secondary fallout is real. When temporary visa programs are abused at scale, the consequences do not stop with the job opening. These programs bring large numbers of non-citizens into the United States through work, student, internship, and employment pathways that were supposed to be lawful, limited, temporary, and carefully controlled. If those pathways are built on fake degrees, sham employers, misclassified jobs, ghost offices, false petitions, or roles that do not qualify under H-1B law, then the downstream consequences are part of the abuse. That includes pressure on American workers, American students, university seats, internships, entry-level jobs, housing, wages, schools, local communities, and long-term citizenship policy.
The 14th Amendment issue should also be addressed directly. The Citizenship Clause does not say that every person born on American soil is automatically a citizen. It says a person must be born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those words cannot be treated as meaningless. They require more than physical presence. Current court precedent has read birthright citizenship broadly, but that interpretation should be revisited. Lawful presence is not citizenship. A temporary visa holder, student visa holder, guest worker, tourist, unlawful entrant, or other non-citizen remains a national or subject of a foreign country and retains foreign allegiance. Temporary submission to U.S. law is not the same thing as permanent allegiance to the United States.
Birth on U.S. soil alone should not be enough. At least one parent should be a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or otherwise in a status reflecting genuine, lawful, permanent allegiance to the United States. Temporary visa holders, unlawful entrants, fraudulent visa holders, and people present under bad-faith or non-permanent arrangements should not be able to create automatic citizenship by childbirth. The government should not allow birth tourism, visa fraud, sham employment, fake student status, unlawful entry, or temporary labor pipelines to become backdoor citizenship mechanisms.
The original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for freed slaves and those truly subject to American jurisdiction, not to create a global birthright incentive for foreign nationals with no permanent allegiance to the United States. Congress and the courts should restore the Citizenship Clause to its proper meaning: birth, plus true jurisdiction, plus allegiance. The Visa immigration fraud turns into another avenue of foreign invasion on our Republic and our Constitution.
Where there is knowing fraud, false statements, forged documents, sham jobs, conspiracy, or intentional misuse of the visa system, criminal prosecution should be on the table. Where the violation is administrative or civil, the remedies should still be serious: denial, revocation, debarment, back-wage liability, penalties, compliance monitoring, and mandatory review of affected American workers.
Congress and federal agencies should investigate the full chain: foreign academic credential verification, F-1 admissions, CPT internships, OPT and STEM OPT employment, direct conversion from student work programs into H-1B, H-1B staffing firms, ghost-office employers, sham companies, low-wage job classifications, H-1B-dependent employers, corporate managers involved in repeat sponsorship decisions, and access to restricted U.S. data.
The remedy is enforcement. Audit the employers. Verify the degrees. Inspect the worksites. Review the wage levels. Investigate the shell companies. Penalize false petitions. Debar repeat offenders. Prosecute fraud. Protect American students, American graduates, American workers, American companies, and restricted American data.
Lawful immigration is one issue. Visa fraud, role misclassification, labor-market manipulation, corporate capture, unlawful access to restricted data, and backdoor citizenship consequences are another. The United States has every right to enforce the difference.
Fraudulent Visa abuse is another avenue of foreign invasion and illegal anchor baby citizenship to supplant Americans on our own soil, while also stealing our jobs, etc.
The H-1B and student visa abuse problem is about visa fraud, labor-market abuse, weak enforcement, corporate conflicts of interest, displacement of American workers, loss of control inside American companies, and the long-term consequences of letting temporary foreign-worker pipelines become backdoor immigration systems.
H-1B was supposed to be limited to legitimate specialty occupations. The job itself must require specialized theoretical and practical knowledge and a directly related degree or equivalent. It is not enough that the employer is a technology company. It is not enough that the applicant has a degree. It is not enough that the company prefers a foreign worker. The role itself must lawfully qualify.
That is where much of the abuse is happening. Companies are using H-1B and related visa pipelines for jobs that often are not legitimate H-1B specialty occupations at all. These include routine technical support, customer support, customer success, help desk, support operations, QA, project coordination, business operations, generic IT, and support management roles.
Those may be real jobs, but many are not lawful H-1B roles. A customer support role does not become a specialty occupation merely because the product is technical. A tech support role does not become H-1B-eligible merely because the worker uses cloud dashboards, ticketing systems, escalation procedures, internal tools, or product documentation. A manager role does not become a specialty occupation merely because the manager supervises technical employees.
The legal question should be simple: does the actual job require specialized knowledge in a specific field, and does it normally require a directly related bachelor’s degree or equivalent? If the answer is no, the role should not qualify.
This is how role misclassification works. Companies can inflate ordinary roles with technical-sounding titles, vague degree language, copied job descriptions, and artificial specialty requirements. They can classify routine support, customer success, project, analyst, operations, or management work under a computer-related category even when the actual work is not truly a specialty occupation.
Federal audits should compare the petition against the real job. Investigators should review the internal job description, org chart, ticket queues, actual duties, performance goals, required degree field, wage level, rejected American applicants, and whether American employees perform the same work without a specialized degree.
The labor-shortage claim also needs serious scrutiny. In many of these roles, qualified Americans exist. American citizens, lawful permanent residents, veterans, recent graduates, laid-off technology workers, experienced support professionals, engineers, analysts, and managers are available for much of the work now being routed into foreign-worker pipelines.
The current system fails American workers because many employers are not required to prove they seriously recruited Americans first. That means a company can claim a need for foreign labor without first proving that qualified U.S. workers were unavailable. That is backwards. If a company wants permission to import labor for a U.S. job, the burden should be on the company to prove the role is legally eligible, the duties are genuinely specialized, the wage is not suppressing the market, and qualified American workers were not bypassed.
The abuse is broader than H-1B. Student visa pathways are also part of the problem. F-1, CPT, OPT, and STEM OPT can create a pipeline where foreign students take university seats, obtain U.S. internships, move into post-graduation work authorization, and then transition into H-1B sponsorship. When everything is lawful and honest, that is one issue. When the pipeline uses fake employers, shell companies, false training plans, ghost offices, sham documentation, weak verification, or fraudulent credentials, it becomes a backdoor labor system.
This affects American students and graduates directly. Non-citizens can take limited university seats, compete for limited internships, obtain work authorization through student programs, and then be converted into longer-term employment pipelines. Meanwhile, American students and recent graduates are competing for the same internships, entry-level jobs, and early-career opportunities.
Recent fake-degree reporting connected to foreign credential networks is a warning sign. Reports have described massive numbers of counterfeit academic documents and alleged links to visa concerns. That does not mean every foreign applicant is fraudulent, and it should not be used as an ethnic accusation. But it does show why credential verification, degree authentication, employer verification, and petition audits must become much stricter.
There are also serious allegations from former officials that fraud rates in some H-1B processing environments were extremely high. Those allegations should not be overstated into a claim that every petition is fraudulent. But combined with DOJ prosecutions, USCIS fraud investigations, fake-degree networks, ghost-office employers, and student visa abuse cases, they justify a serious federal investigation into the full visa pipeline.
The upper-management problem is also real. When large numbers of visa-sponsored or non-citizen workers move into manager, director, executive, recruiting, HR, workforce-planning, vendor-management, or sponsorship-approval roles, they can influence who gets hired, who gets promoted, which roles are sponsored, which American workers are rejected, and which foreign-worker pipelines keep expanding.
A non-citizen manager is not automatically acting unlawfully. But companies should not be allowed to build closed-loop visa pipelines where foreign-national managers, staffing vendors, immigration teams, and executive sponsors repeatedly approve more foreign-worker hiring without independent U.S.-worker impact review. it is a real conflict of interest, and should be flagged as violations of the ethics rules most major American employers set as mandatory required annual training for all employee's.
At that point, the concern is no longer just individual visa fraud. It becomes a corporate-control problem. American companies can gradually become dependent on non-citizen labor pipelines, non-citizen management chains, offshore vendor relationships, and internal sponsorship networks that make it harder for American workers to enter, advance, or regain control of critical U.S. business functions.
There is also a data-security and national-security issue. Not all company data is limited to U.S. citizens, but some government, defense, export-controlled, cloud, regulated, contractual, or customer-restricted data may require U.S. persons, U.S. citizens, cleared personnel, or workers physically located on American soil. If foreign nationals are given access to data that is legally or contractually restricted, that is not merely an immigration issue. It becomes a security, export-control, federal-contracting, and customer-trust issue.
The secondary fallout is real. When temporary visa programs are abused at scale, the consequences do not stop with the job opening. These programs bring large numbers of non-citizens into the United States through work, student, internship, and employment pathways that were supposed to be lawful, limited, temporary, and carefully controlled. If those pathways are built on fake degrees, sham employers, misclassified jobs, ghost offices, false petitions, or roles that do not qualify under H-1B law, then the downstream consequences are part of the abuse. That includes pressure on American workers, American students, university seats, internships, entry-level jobs, housing, wages, schools, local communities, and long-term citizenship policy.
The 14th Amendment issue should also be addressed directly. The Citizenship Clause does not say that every person born on American soil is automatically a citizen. It says a person must be born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those words cannot be treated as meaningless. They require more than physical presence. Current court precedent has read birthright citizenship broadly, but that interpretation should be revisited. Lawful presence is not citizenship. A temporary visa holder, student visa holder, guest worker, tourist, unlawful entrant, or other non-citizen remains a national or subject of a foreign country and retains foreign allegiance. Temporary submission to U.S. law is not the same thing as permanent allegiance to the United States.
Birth on U.S. soil alone should not be enough. At least one parent should be a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or otherwise in a status reflecting genuine, lawful, permanent allegiance to the United States. Temporary visa holders, unlawful entrants, fraudulent visa holders, and people present under bad-faith or non-permanent arrangements should not be able to create automatic citizenship by childbirth. The government should not allow birth tourism, visa fraud, sham employment, fake student status, unlawful entry, or temporary labor pipelines to become backdoor citizenship mechanisms.
The original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for freed slaves and those truly subject to American jurisdiction, not to create a global birthright incentive for foreign nationals with no permanent allegiance to the United States. Congress and the courts should restore the Citizenship Clause to its proper meaning: birth, plus true jurisdiction, plus allegiance. The Visa immigration fraud turns into another avenue of foreign invasion on our Republic and our Constitution.
Where there is knowing fraud, false statements, forged documents, sham jobs, conspiracy, or intentional misuse of the visa system, criminal prosecution should be on the table. Where the violation is administrative or civil, the remedies should still be serious: denial, revocation, debarment, back-wage liability, penalties, compliance monitoring, and mandatory review of affected American workers.
Congress and federal agencies should investigate the full chain: foreign academic credential verification, F-1 admissions, CPT internships, OPT and STEM OPT employment, direct conversion from student work programs into H-1B, H-1B staffing firms, ghost-office employers, sham companies, low-wage job classifications, H-1B-dependent employers, corporate managers involved in repeat sponsorship decisions, and access to restricted U.S. data.
The remedy is enforcement. Audit the employers. Verify the degrees. Inspect the worksites. Review the wage levels. Investigate the shell companies. Penalize false petitions. Debar repeat offenders. Prosecute fraud. Protect American students, American graduates, American workers, American companies, and restricted American data.
Lawful immigration is one issue. Visa fraud, role misclassification, labor-market manipulation, corporate capture, unlawful access to restricted data, and backdoor citizenship consequences are another. The United States has every right to enforce the difference.
The H-1B and student visa abuse problem is about visa fraud, labor-market abuse, weak enforcement, corporate conflicts of interest, displacement of American workers, loss of control inside American companies, and the long-term consequences of letting temporary foreign-worker pipelines become backdoor immigration systems.
H-1B was supposed to be limited to legitimate specialty occupations. The job itself must require specialized theoretical and practical knowledge and a directly related degree or equivalent. It is not enough that the employer is a technology company. It is not enough that the applicant has a degree. It is not enough that the company prefers a foreign worker. The role itself must lawfully qualify.
That is where much of the abuse is happening. Companies are using H-1B and related visa pipelines for jobs that often are not legitimate H-1B specialty occupations at all. These include routine technical support, customer support, customer success, help desk, support operations, QA, project coordination, business operations, generic IT, and support management roles.
Those may be real jobs, but many are not lawful H-1B roles. A customer support role does not become a specialty occupation merely because the product is technical. A tech support role does not become H-1B-eligible merely because the worker uses cloud dashboards, ticketing systems, escalation procedures, internal tools, or product documentation. A manager role does not become a specialty occupation merely because the manager supervises technical employees.
The legal question should be simple: does the actual job require specialized knowledge in a specific field, and does it normally require a directly related bachelor’s degree or equivalent? If the answer is no, the role should not qualify.
This is how role misclassification works. Companies can inflate ordinary roles with technical-sounding titles, vague degree language, copied job descriptions, and artificial specialty requirements. They can classify routine support, customer success, project, analyst, operations, or management work under a computer-related category even when the actual work is not truly a specialty occupation.
Federal audits should compare the petition against the real job. Investigators should review the internal job description, org chart, ticket queues, actual duties, performance goals, required degree field, wage level, rejected American applicants, and whether American employees perform the same work without a specialized degree.
The labor-shortage claim also needs serious scrutiny. In many of these roles, qualified Americans exist. American citizens, lawful permanent residents, veterans, recent graduates, laid-off technology workers, experienced support professionals, engineers, analysts, and managers are available for much of the work now being routed into foreign-worker pipelines.
The current system fails American workers because many employers are not required to prove they seriously recruited Americans first. That means a company can claim a need for foreign labor without first proving that qualified U.S. workers were unavailable. That is backwards. If a company wants permission to import labor for a U.S. job, the burden should be on the company to prove the role is legally eligible, the duties are genuinely specialized, the wage is not suppressing the market, and qualified American workers were not bypassed.
The abuse is broader than H-1B. Student visa pathways are also part of the problem. F-1, CPT, OPT, and STEM OPT can create a pipeline where foreign students take university seats, obtain U.S. internships, move into post-graduation work authorization, and then transition into H-1B sponsorship. When everything is lawful and honest, that is one issue. When the pipeline uses fake employers, shell companies, false training plans, ghost offices, sham documentation, weak verification, or fraudulent credentials, it becomes a backdoor labor system.
This affects American students and graduates directly. Non-citizens can take limited university seats, compete for limited internships, obtain work authorization through student programs, and then be converted into longer-term employment pipelines. Meanwhile, American students and recent graduates are competing for the same internships, entry-level jobs, and early-career opportunities.
Recent fake-degree reporting connected to foreign credential networks is a warning sign. Reports have described massive numbers of counterfeit academic documents and alleged links to visa concerns. That does not mean every foreign applicant is fraudulent, and it should not be used as an ethnic accusation. But it does show why credential verification, degree authentication, employer verification, and petition audits must become much stricter.
There are also serious allegations from former officials that fraud rates in some H-1B processing environments were extremely high. Those allegations should not be overstated into a claim that every petition is fraudulent. But combined with DOJ prosecutions, USCIS fraud investigations, fake-degree networks, ghost-office employers, and student visa abuse cases, they justify a serious federal investigation into the full visa pipeline.
The upper-management problem is also real. When large numbers of visa-sponsored or non-citizen workers move into manager, director, executive, recruiting, HR, workforce-planning, vendor-management, or sponsorship-approval roles, they can influence who gets hired, who gets promoted, which roles are sponsored, which American workers are rejected, and which foreign-worker pipelines keep expanding.
A non-citizen manager is not automatically acting unlawfully. But companies should not be allowed to build closed-loop visa pipelines where foreign-national managers, staffing vendors, immigration teams, and executive sponsors repeatedly approve more foreign-worker hiring without independent U.S.-worker impact review. it is a real conflict of interest, and should be flagged as violations of the ethics rules most major American employers set as mandatory required annual training for all employee's.
At that point, the concern is no longer just individual visa fraud. It becomes a corporate-control problem. American companies can gradually become dependent on non-citizen labor pipelines, non-citizen management chains, offshore vendor relationships, and internal sponsorship networks that make it harder for American workers to enter, advance, or regain control of critical U.S. business functions.
There is also a data-security and national-security issue. Not all company data is limited to U.S. citizens, but some government, defense, export-controlled, cloud, regulated, contractual, or customer-restricted data may require U.S. persons, U.S. citizens, cleared personnel, or workers physically located on American soil. If foreign nationals are given access to data that is legally or contractually restricted, that is not merely an immigration issue. It becomes a security, export-control, federal-contracting, and customer-trust issue.
The secondary fallout is real. When temporary visa programs are abused at scale, the consequences do not stop with the job opening. These programs bring large numbers of non-citizens into the United States through work, student, internship, and employment pathways that were supposed to be lawful, limited, temporary, and carefully controlled. If those pathways are built on fake degrees, sham employers, misclassified jobs, ghost offices, false petitions, or roles that do not qualify under H-1B law, then the downstream consequences are part of the abuse. That includes pressure on American workers, American students, university seats, internships, entry-level jobs, housing, wages, schools, local communities, and long-term citizenship policy.
The 14th Amendment issue should also be addressed directly. The Citizenship Clause does not say that every person born on American soil is automatically a citizen. It says a person must be born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those words cannot be treated as meaningless. They require more than physical presence. Current court precedent has read birthright citizenship broadly, but that interpretation should be revisited. Lawful presence is not citizenship. A temporary visa holder, student visa holder, guest worker, tourist, unlawful entrant, or other non-citizen remains a national or subject of a foreign country and retains foreign allegiance. Temporary submission to U.S. law is not the same thing as permanent allegiance to the United States.
Birth on U.S. soil alone should not be enough. At least one parent should be a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or otherwise in a status reflecting genuine, lawful, permanent allegiance to the United States. Temporary visa holders, unlawful entrants, fraudulent visa holders, and people present under bad-faith or non-permanent arrangements should not be able to create automatic citizenship by childbirth. The government should not allow birth tourism, visa fraud, sham employment, fake student status, unlawful entry, or temporary labor pipelines to become backdoor citizenship mechanisms.
The original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for freed slaves and those truly subject to American jurisdiction, not to create a global birthright incentive for foreign nationals with no permanent allegiance to the United States. Congress and the courts should restore the Citizenship Clause to its proper meaning: birth, plus true jurisdiction, plus allegiance. The Visa immigration fraud turns into another avenue of foreign invasion on our Republic and our Constitution.
Where there is knowing fraud, false statements, forged documents, sham jobs, conspiracy, or intentional misuse of the visa system, criminal prosecution should be on the table. Where the violation is administrative or civil, the remedies should still be serious: denial, revocation, debarment, back-wage liability, penalties, compliance monitoring, and mandatory review of affected American workers.
Congress and federal agencies should investigate the full chain: foreign academic credential verification, F-1 admissions, CPT internships, OPT and STEM OPT employment, direct conversion from student work programs into H-1B, H-1B staffing firms, ghost-office employers, sham companies, low-wage job classifications, H-1B-dependent employers, corporate managers involved in repeat sponsorship decisions, and access to restricted U.S. data.
The remedy is enforcement. Audit the employers. Verify the degrees. Inspect the worksites. Review the wage levels. Investigate the shell companies. Penalize false petitions. Debar repeat offenders. Prosecute fraud. Protect American students, American graduates, American workers, American companies, and restricted American data.
Lawful immigration is one issue. Visa fraud, role misclassification, labor-market manipulation, corporate capture, unlawful access to restricted data, and backdoor citizenship consequences are another. The United States has every right to enforce the difference.
Well, it is a start, but unless there are some real consequences and follow up, then it is meaningless.
The fact is that you are required to take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution in order to run for any office. Guess what, that has not been enforced for decades.
That communism has infiltrated our federal government is a direct slap in the face to every single veteran that served during the Cold War fighting its evil tendrils spreading across the globe. FDR was the first one to introduce communism, but Obama made it the foundation of both terms of his illegitimate time in the White House to inject it deep into our government institutions.
It is good practice to put out the fire before going after the arsonist, unless you can get two birds with one stone.
How does that invalidate Islam being a direct threat? It doesn't, not by a longshot.
Unless you ever spent time in the sandbox you really don't know what you are talking about regarding the real and legitimate threat Islam poses to our Constitutional Republic.
The fact is that it doesn't matter who sent them. They are here. They are an invasion. And they are intent on subjugating infidels to Islam.
I think we've actually closed most of the gap, and I want to mark where.
You now grant that some men do resist, that it's a fact, that a soldier can think, and that the sacrifice is real. I'll take all three, because they change the nature of the argument. Property doesn't resist. Property doesn't think. Nobody pins a medal on a rifle. The moment you concede a single man can refuse, we are no longer debating whether choice exists; we are debating how many men have the courage to exercise it.
And there you're right, and I won't pretend otherwise. Most people obey. Milgram proved it. About 65% went to the highest level when pressured by perceived authority. I'm not going to insult you by denying human weakness; I've seen it up close.
But read your own evidence again. Not everyone obeyed. And even among many who continued, they sweated, stammered, argued, hesitated, and showed visible distress. Milgram recorded that too. A drone feels nothing. A tool feels nothing. The agony is the tell: that's a conscience present and overridden, not a conscience that was never there.
Change the conditions and the choices changed. Put the learner closer and obedience dropped. Let another person refuse first and resistance increased dramatically. That's not what property looks like. Property can't be persuaded by proximity, conscience, or another man's example. Free men can.
On "they'd have been shot for refusing," that exact idea was confronted at Nuremberg. The world had to decide whether "I was following orders" alone erased responsibility, and it did not. The standard became clear: orders and pressure matter, but they do not remove accountability when a moral choice was possible. The men who claimed they had no moral choice were wrong, and the courts recognized it.
I'll give you the rest freely. The country often runs on national interest, not pure virtue. True. We have allied with monsters to fight monsters. True and shameful. Institutions often reward compliance and are wary of independent thinkers. True. History shows how quickly populations can fold under pressure. True.
But every one of those examples is still a chain of individual choices. Somebody chose to look away when evil happened. Somebody chose comfort. Somebody chose career. Somebody chose obedience. Others chose differently and paid for it. That fork in the road, and the price attached to it, only exists for someone who has the ability to take either path.
And put the heaviest weight where it belongs: on the men at the top. The ones in government who command the military hold a sacred trust. Those in uniform place their lives, their bodies, and their obedience in the hands of leaders who are supposed to be serving them in return.
When those leaders coerce, deceive, manipulate, or spend that trust to cover for evil, they are not victims of the system. They built the system. They are exercising unrighteous dominion over the very people they swore to serve, and they are choosing tyranny while they do it. That is the choice I judge hardest of all.
The person under threat may face a terrible price for doing right. The person who created that situation had no such excuse.
So grant me this much: the high rate of failure does not prove the choice was absent. It proves the choice was hard, and that courage is rare. And if courage is rare, then naming it, teaching it, and demanding it matters more, not less, because the day we tell men "you couldn't help it," we have handed the next atrocity its alibi.
I'd rather hold every man to the harder standard: the man who obeys, and far more, the man who gave the order.
Myself first.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
You're right about two things. Training is hard, and refusing an order carries a real cost, sometimes a ruinous one. I never claimed it was free. I said the opposite. New was court-martialed. Watada faced prison. Soule was shot dead in the street. The price is exactly the point.
But you've got the purpose of drilling backwards, and this is the heart of it. You think Soldiers drill to kill thought, to make a man obey without a second's hesitation. That is incorrect. Soldiers drill so a man can function when every nerve in his body is screaming at him to freeze, panic, or run. Under fire, under stress, in the grip of fear, the thinking mind can lock up. Drill puts the mechanics into muscle memory so that loading, clearing a malfunction, moving, communicating, and protecting the man beside you happen cleanly and precisely despite the chaos. The point is to free the mind, not erase it. You make the hands automatic so the man on top of them is still there to judge. A trained soldier is not a man with his conscience removed. He is a man whose hands won't betray him while his conscience does its work. That's why your whole frame collapses. You keep pointing at obedience and consequences as if they prove ownership. They prove the opposite.
An exception proves the thing is possible. A man who pays a terrible price to refuse is demonstrating the choice was his to make. Property has no price to weigh because property has no choice. The cost you keep pointing to is not evidence of ownership. It is evidence of agency. Only a free man stands at that fork with something to lose by taking the hard road.
Now the medical orders, since you think that's your strongest ground. I'll meet you there too, because I stood in that line myself in the Gulf War in 1991. I was one of the soldiers taking the pyridostigmine bromide pills and receiving the shots we were told could keep us alive against a chemical or biological attack. I was not sitting safely decades later reading reports and judging people with hindsight. I was there. I was young. I was deployed. The threat was real. Iraq had used chemical weapons before, and we believed we might face them.
Here's what most people don't know. In December 1990, before Desert Storm, the FDA granted DoD an unprecedented waiver of the informed consent requirement for certain investigational military medical products. Interim Rule, 55 FR 52814. The RAND Corporation later documented the issue. Read why the waiver was sought: consent from hundreds of thousands of soldiers would have been required, and many might have declined. So they removed the requirement to ask. You do not waive a consent that does not exist. The very act of removing informed consent acknowledges there was something there to remove. The system had to override our agency precisely because we had it. That is the opposite of property. You do not create a federal rule to override the wishes of a rifle, a truck, or a piece of equipment. And the betrayal in it actually proves my argument, not yours. If I were just property, no one owed me honesty. You don't deceive a tool. You don't violate the trust of a machine. The fact that leaders had a duty to give us the full picture, and failed in that duty, only makes sense if we were human beings with moral agency who were owed the truth. Accountability requires personhood.
Last point. You say "I was following orders" is why soldiers do evil. Yes. It has been the excuse behind countless atrocities throughout history. But think about what that actually means.
If a soldier truly were property, "I was following orders" would be a complete defense. It would end the discussion. It doesn't. Nuremberg established the principle that following orders alone does not erase personal responsibility. The man inside the uniform remains accountable because the man inside the uniform was never owned.
A trained man can still think. A pressured man can still choose. The fact that the choice may cost him everything is not the refutation of his freedom. It is the proof of it. In the end, every man answers for his choices. Not to the state. Not to his commander. To his Creator, who judges by His law, and before whom "I was only following orders" has never been a defense.
This behavior needs to be treated as what it is: a foreign atrocity our own government chose to ignore on our own bases.
The reason for our soldiers' PTSD was not solely combat. It was lying in their bunks listening to children being raped by the very Afghan commanders we were propping up, bacha bazi, "boy play." This is documented, not rumor. The New York Times reported it in 2015. Green Beret SFC Charles Martland was pushed out of the Army for body-slamming an Afghan commander who kept a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. The policy was to look away so we wouldn't offend our "allies." That is the evil here, and it was enabled by men following orders who should have refused.
Now to the threat at home, and I'm going to be precise, because precision is what makes this undeniable.
There is an organized political-Islamist movement operating inside the United States that openly seeks to subordinate constitutional law to Sharia. Not a rumor, not an edited clip, named and on the record:
In Texas, imam Yasir Qadhi and the East Plano Islamic Center pushed a 402-acre enclave project ("EPIC City") that the state moved to block in 2025.
On February 10, 2026, a House Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing titled "Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & Sharia Law Are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution."
On November 19, 2025, Rep. Keith Self laid the whole conflict out on the House floor: the Constitution begins with "We the People"; Sharia begins with "Allah has said." They cannot both be supreme. The enemy is not a faith, it's an ideology of conquest, any ideology, of any creed, that aims to replace American self-government with religious rule.
Our Constitution is the Supreme Law of this land. There is room for one. Any code, Sharia or otherwise, that claims authority over it is in open opposition to the Republic, and any movement working to install it is working to overthrow us. So the standard for office is simple and it applies to everyone: your allegiance must be to the Constitution, not to a foreign power, not to a former country, not to any code that aims to supplant it. Break that oath and you are unfit, period. Anyone who gained citizenship or office through deception about that allegiance should face denaturalization or removal, through due process, by the law, the way free men do it. And any court operating outside the Constitution is rogue and illegal.
Fight this in the courts and in the public square. Pull back the veil. Expose the agenda in the daylight, because daylight is where it dies.
This is also exactly why the founders enshrined the militia. The militia is not a fringe idea, it is in the Constitution. The founders understood the militia as the armed body of the people themselves, standing ready against tyranny, against invasion, and against any threat to the Republic when the ordinary machinery of government fails or refuses to act. That responsibility never expired. It is still ours.
I believe we have a spiritual, moral, and personal duty to protect ourselves, our families, our property, and our communities. Everyone should be armed and genuinely trained on the weapons they own. Every household should have an emergency plan and should rehearse it until each person knows their role cold in a SHTF situation. If you have good and dependable neighbors, take it to the next level and coordinate defensive actions across a wider area of responsibility.
That's the heart of it, well-regulated, in the founders' sense of the word: trained, organized, disciplined, and answerable to the law. Form local community militias. Build regional militia networks state by state. Train together regularly. Stand ready to protect your communities from tyranny, from invasion, and from disaster. The storms that just tore through the Southeast made the case plainly: when catastrophe hits, an organized, prepared citizenry is often the only help that comes.
Because when seconds count, the government is minutes away. In a real crisis it's either absent or it's dictatorial. We need to relearn what it means to be neighbors, to build communities of people who actually have each other's backs.
This is lawful, it's wise, and it's the founders' own design. It means we no longer have to rely on a government that won't show up. We can help ourselves and each other.
Rarely in our history, not since the early days of the Revolution and the War of 1812, has the threat felt this close to home. We answer it the way free men always have: clear-eyed, prepared, lawful, and unafraid.
In the end, the choices you make are the ones you answer for, not to the state, not to any man, but to your Creator, who judges by His law. Choose well.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. I'm a former U.S. Soldier who served in combat in Muslim countries, and at no time did I ever feel like a piece of government property. Yes, "property of the state" is a running joke in the military, but a joke is all it is. We were not slaves.
Here's the thing about life: trials and tribulations come for all of us. And no matter your occupation or "station," every one of us keeps the ability to choose. Given an unlawful order, you can obey or refuse. It's that simple. A slave doesn't get that choice. A free man does, and soldiers can exercise it.
Some refused unlawful orders outright; others simply chose conscience over compliance. But every one of them chose:
SPC Michael New — refused to serve under UN command and wear UN insignia.
1st Lt. Ehren Watada - refused to deploy to a war he judged unlawful.
Silas Soule and Lt. Joseph Cramer - refused to fire on the village at Sand Creek, then testified against the man who ordered it.
Capt. Nathan Smith - took the legality of the war to court rather than stay silent.
Desmond Doss - served his country on his own terms, no weapon, and earned the Medal of Honor doing it. The institution bent to him.
Lt. Stanislav Petrov - and yes, a Soviet, which is the whole point. If a man inside the most literal "slave of the state" machine could exercise his own judgment and refuse to start a nuclear war, then "soldier = property" is dead on arrival. Agency isn't issued by a flag.
The inverse? The men who murdered Jews in Nazi Germany and called it duty. Every atrocity in history has the same alibi: I was just following orders. That's the philosophy you're actually defending when you call a soldier property. Property obeys. A man answers for what he does.
And make no mistake, doing the right thing usually costs you. New was court-martialed. Watada faced years in prison. Soule was shot dead in the street for testifying. That's exactly why so few choose it when the stakes are high, and fewer still when the stakes are personal. But that price is the proof. Property has no choice to make. A free man sees the cost, weighs it, and chooses anyway. That's the difference, and it's the whole difference.
And in the end, the choices you make are the ones you answer for, not to the state, not to your commander, but to your Creator. He judges by His law, not man's. "I was only following orders" is no defense at that bar either. Which is exactly why a man is never property. The thing in you that will stand before Him and answer, that was never the state's to own.
It is truly the case. Unfortunately, no one is forcing government to operate within its charter.
The thing is, it is a requirement to understand and know the Constitution to become a citizen, and to run for office.
Also, too many people "know" things that are simply not correct. Especially in regards to the Constitution.
Murder, genocide, treason....... they have Statute of Limitations?
It doesn't mean anything unless arrests are made, indictments happen, and prosecutions end in convictions. Oh, yes, and the rigged election overturned.
So far, that has not happened at scale.
A complete failure of government in its most basic reason for existing, and still people wait for government to fix itself.
Government was never delegated the power to grant itself immunity.
The Framers explicitly rejected the British rule that "the King can do no wrong." In Federalist No. 69, Hamilton wrote that a President is fully liable to prosecution in the ordinary course of law. Article I, Section 3 confirms that criminal liability survives office. Furthermore, the legal doctrine of ultra vires ("beyond the powers") dictates that public servants only represent the state when they follow the Constitution. The second an official commits an unconstitutional act, they step outside their authority. Legally, they cease to act as the government and become a private individual. You cannot claim government immunity for an act that the Constitution forbids. The servant is never more powerful than the master.
“This Constitution... shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” ~ U.S. Constitution Article VI
“A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.” ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809) US Founding father, pamphleteer, author
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” ~ John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Thoughts on Government, 1776
“A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal.” ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809) US Founding father, pamphleteer, author
“It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those that are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.” ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809) US Founding father, pamphleteer, author
“We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land -- nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. That chart is the Constitution.” ~ Daniel Webster (1782-1852) US Senator
“The fundamental principle is this: No matter how worthwhile an end may be, if there is no constitutional authority to pursue it, then the federal government must step aside and leave the matter to the states or to private parties. The president and Congress can proceed only from constitutional authority, not from good intentions alone. If Congress thinks it necessary to expand its powers, the Framers crafted an amendment process for that purpose. But too often, rather than follow that process, Congress has disregarded the limits set by the Constitution and gutted our frontline defense against overweening federal government.” ~ Robert A. Levy (1941- ) Chairman of Cato Institute, author, lawyer
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are preserved to the states or to the people.' ... To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“That this privilege of giving or of withholding our monies is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative, which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shews how efficacious is its intercession for redress of grievances and re-establishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.” ~ Justice David Davis (1815-1886) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1862-1877 Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866) DAVIS, J., Opinion of the Court
“Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.” ~ Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934
“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” ~ Justice Tom C. Clark (1899-1977) US Attorney General, 1945-1949, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1949-1967 delivering the opinion of the Court in MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” ~ Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury The Federalist No. 78.
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” ~ Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Federalist No. 22, December 14, 1787
“Unlike ordinary legislation, a constitution is enacted by the people themselves in their sovereign capacity and is therefore the paramount law.” ~ Justice Frank Cruise Haymond (1887-1972) West Virginia Court of Appeals (1946-1972) Lance v. Board of Education, 170 S.E.2d 783, 793 (1969) (dissent)
“The people are Sovereign. ... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” ~ John Jay (1745-1829) first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, First President of the United States - preceding George Washington, one of three men most responsible for the US Constitution Chisholm v. Georgia, (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @Dall 1793 pp471-472
“In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” ~ U.S. Supreme Court Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).
“In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution.” ~ Chisholm v. Georgia Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471
The surest way to get away with crime is to be elected to office in the federal government. As long as the American people are the target of those crimes, you are good to go.