Our press who failed to investigate Obama, to investigate ties thoroughly and repeatedly pursued angles that assured Obama would not be vetted...Why?

The Fairness Doctrine.

Obama means that the Fairness Doctrine will be passed.  This means no more conservative talk radio criticism of the Mainstream Media, no more checking their facts, and no more proving when they lied.  The Mainstream Media need this to survive.

However, let us not forget that the Mainstream Media hides behind the 1st Amendment to protect their sources, and, since they are permitted by government to operate as a news agency, with a public purpose their paramount goal, that when these agencies decide not to act in the best interest of the public by unbiased and fair reporting, there is an accountability they invoked in asking for those 1st Amendment protections.

Instead there needs to be a self executing legal standard, so the news agency volunteered to a change in their legal status ("act includes omission").  No longer will these be viewed as a news organization, but, depending on the climate:

1)  They will be viewed as a political organization and have agreed they abandoned their public responsibility; or,

2)  They will be viewed as a social organization, and no longer have any privileged public status or access.  This includes all news organizations including the Associated Press and Reuters, etc.; or,

3)  They will be viewed as an advertising agency, subject to the rules of advertising and publication for advertising purposes; or,

4)  They will be viewed as a domestic terrorist organization if their failure resulted in a negative impact on our society or government and such failure was by mutual agreement of the principals of such organization.


Thus all licenses to distribute their information are subject to review, all access to public news sources such as API, and all communications with their sources are subject to scrutiny, or, these agencies will have committed a misdemeanor to a felony crime against the public.

See if they want to hide behind the protections of the First Amendment then they need to be an unbiased organization from their core outward to the reporter on the ground, seeking out all the information and reporting it without couching and infusing their personal beliefs or opinions.  But of course as liberals they want it both ways, and of course, as conservatives, we make allowance, and over time the people are automatons by habit, and the liberals used this very means to ignore the President-Elect's judgment as an issue, for to do so would mean 4 more years of talk radio holding the biased network media to account for it's lies, for it's made up controversies, and willingness to attack solely on the basis of a reporter and editor's personal bias, nothing else.

A free press can't have themselves being held accountable to genuineness, to fairness in reporting, to the idea of being unbiased in fact, and reserving all opinion for the opinion page, for then it'd be Journalism and not self interested propaganda.

Thank you for reading.

Just like the President-Elect is doing all they can to make their left the "new center" already, with "We may change...." repeated pretty regularly in the celebratory speech, so too the "Fairness Doctrine," which has never been discussed as applicable to print media or television, attempts to redefine what is "fair" or "balanced" or even "centered."

Case in point:  FoxNews.

Many claim FoxNews is "right wing," and "run by a neocon, Murdock, it's all conservative."  And often group after group of organizations which do not lean left in the first place will explain the balance of negative McCain and Obama advertisements, or the balance of democrats and conservatives 31% democrats, 39% republicans, which means 30% independent, which is a far cry from CNN and it's 15% republicans and 51% democrat audience.

The point being that "normal" and its relativity is what's going on here.

CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. cater to their market.  FoxNews caters to it's more balanced market, with a slight edge toward republicans (who tend to be conservative).

Talk radio is mostly listened to by older people, conservatives.  These stations are merely catering to their market, both advertiser and listener.

The Fairness Doctrine therefore is an imposition on and impediment to commerce by interfering with a media business in keeping it's message on point to the needs and desires of it's audience and advertisers.  This appealing to the known audience is done no less than any other media, newspapers, television or cable.  Thus imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine," to be genuinely fair, needs to be upon all media, not just talk radio.  This is because the Fairness Doctrine is imposing on talk radio that they appeal to a market that doesn't listen to them, doesn't care about what they have to say. 

In this same way CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. need to be forced to appeal to those who do not watch them as well.  I watch FoxNews, haven't paid attention to network television for quite a while.  The Fairness Doctrine, to be fair, needs to impose upon these network media the same "other opinion/opposing view" or this law is a certain and specific misnomer.  If the "Fairness Doctrine" is imposed on talk radio alone, it should be renamed the "Suppress Opposing Views Having Their Own Media for Their Own Voice Doctrine."

Until conservative voices are being imposed upon Network News, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and the like, there is no one assuring that the views expressed on talk radio, that appeal to mostly elderly people, are expressed or can be expressed anywhere else.  Without this "balance" to assure that the Freedom of Speech rights of conservatism and it's one outlet are not suppressed by an authoritarian American Government under liberal leadership, there is no fairness whatsoever to the "Fairness Doctrine."

However considering President-Elect Obama has an attitude of "what the government must do on your behalf," I am sure the elite authoritarian rule is about to commence, the same one that brought us Eschelon (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml).

Get a clue that government will expand at every opportunity.  The nature and direction of such expansion is what's important, whether it occurs for purposes of national emergency or behind a presidential seal claiming "national security," or worse, merely under the table as the Eschelon program has by being located in Europe.  The latter here oppresses Americans but due to the listening post being on foreign soil of a nation we are not at war with, there is nothing Americans can do about it.  Note also that Eschelon claims 97% of all communications worldwide are stored and reviewed by them, a way of saying that American's aren't being unfairly monitored.  This was before modern technology, before George Bush was even running for President!  Eschelon was entirely funded by the United States of America under Bill Clinton, and once implemented other countries joined in so they could get access to information vital to their country's governments.  Free Speech TV, a Noam Chomsky influenced group, did an entire article on Clinton's use of military intelligence to intercept his rivals advertisements before they aired in the 1996 campaign, to then craft and televise a response before the rival advertisements had shown.  However I guess no one cares about these things since government is out of their control, and thus in control over them, that America died a long time ago, the Fairness Doctrine just a procedural act to demonstrate perfection of government domination over it's people in America.

Here is a link to the proliferation of intelligence agencies.  http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel.html  The number of agencies showing under the military intelligence link has grown of course since 911 however the area of "strategic intelligence" has only grown by a few links in these last 8 years.

So while I know many were well intended please understand that emails and the internet are also about to be taxed.  Now some may find that the issue, but it is not.  What is the issue is that by taxation of these means of communication our personal lives can and will be reviewed by government to assure we are in tax compliance.  Of course any questioning of the tax after the fact will require we produce the items in question and thus government review of them by some bureaucratic taxing authority and their minions.  See it's the message behind the message still too:  This means government doesn't trust us either.  Should we be in that relationship with our government?  How can it be of, by, and for the people, if we are the opposing view to government versus it's director since we are the governed and history has proven that every time government runs for it's own purposes the people are oppressed?

Disagree all you want, I can appreciate your kind heart and genuinely honest motives.  The trouble is that the Fairness Doctrine is a means of government directly violating the First Amendment, unless of course, pursuant to equal protection of the laws (not equal oppression), the Fairness Doctrine is instituted across all media, radio, television, cable, satellite, and those news sources of information on the internet.  Anything less is merely the muting of voices of opposition after an election on the ambiguity of "change," something you expect in Venezuela, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., China, and North Korea, something that happened in Germany some 70+ years ago, not something done in a free society, unless of course those doing it are trying to destroy that free society to assure a "lead boot" authoritarian rule as described in the story 1984.

May the face of humanity not be stomped on in this way, majority rule not assumed to mean all disagreement must be silenced and means to voice opposition destroyed.  Let us just hope the lessons of The Enlightenment that all people are sentient, the inspiration that lead to a nation whose people are trusted to govern themselves called America, that this precious principle of freedom is not destroyed by the return of overzealous government.

I hope we all make sure that "center" isn't redefined and we recognize those acts of government that are using powers reserved to us by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and will assure we aren't oppressed as a people -- Government denying any voice, any philosophy a venue to be heard is oppression.

Liberals should be proud of this sacrifice, of assuring the opportunity of oppression so they can get $500 dollars the government assures them came from someone wealthier than they are.

Thank you for reading.

That is the headline that should be on every newspaper tomorrow, for the clock is getting turned back to just after the Civil War, or at least before the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

The electorate so busy taking out vengeance on conservatives has forgotten the devil is in the details, they haven't any care or concern with the tax shelter haven that Obama has promised to create for the billionaires who assure him a means to have this much money to buy our election.

All they had to do was appeal to the anger of the last 2 elections.  No one cares about the issues, about the 500 billion dollars surrounding Obama now, his friends so long as he give them the benefit they seek:  Tax Shelters.

I guess when liberal education breeds and raises Godless liberal values into every aspect of existence it only stands to reason that the people of a nation have no reason to care about their country.  Personal narcissistic interest take precedence over anything else.  I'd site history but what's the use.  Many an American will have died in vane in a few short years, and those who believed will continue to believe even while all that's meant anything of America is evaporating from existence.

But I guess there is a pride to being angry and then the sacred right to vote of all the nation's people being bought for 600 million dollars and sacrificing the Foundation of America.

Should this trend continue throughout the night I am certain the left will enjoy this moment, but moreso, they will enjoy it into the years, for they never admit wrong doing, FannieMae and FreddieMac have proven this.

Hang on folks!  Here comes Carter's 2nd term!

John McCain has been on the side of the middle-class for a very long time, taken from a February 2000 New York Times Article:

"MR. McCAIN'S tax-cut plan is valued at $238 billion over five years and $500 billion over 10 years. Its centerpiece is an expansion of the lowest income tax bracket, 15 percent, to cover higher incomes.

"Under the plan, the ceiling for the 15 percent bracket would rise to $70,000 from $43,050 for married couples filing jointly, and to $35,000 from $25,750 for single taxpayers. The effect would be to give a $3,504 tax cut to a couple with taxable income of $70,000 or more.

"Mr. McCain's plan would also double the child tax credit to $1,000 a year, expand tax incentives for savings and investment, reduce the tax on large estates and reduce the marriage penalty for some people by increasing the standard deduction for couples. Mr. McCain would offset a portion of the tax cuts by closing corporate tax loopholes.

"His pitch is that the plan is modest enough in size that it leaves plenty of money from the surplus tax revenues to deal with other needs. By expanding the 15 percent bracket to cover millions of additional taxpayers, he says, his plan amounts to a start on creating a system of flatter tax rates. And he argues that his plan gives much less of its benefits to the wealthy than Mr. Bush's plan does.

''I want a balanced approach,'' Mr. McCain said in the South Carolina debate. ''The difference between Governor Bush's proposal and mine is that I put a whole lot of money into Social Security, Medicare and paying down the debt. He puts a whole lot of money into tax cuts.''

"An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice found that only 1.8 percent of the benefits of the McCain plan would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. Most of his proposed tax cuts would go to a broadly defined middle class: more than 52 percent to taxpayers making $65,000 to $130,000, and 21 percent to taxpayers making $39,000 to $65,000.

"Mr. McCain's plan, however, would do almost nothing for taxpayers with incomes below $39,000. Mr. Bush asserts that Mr. McCain's plan would leave too much of the surplus in Washington, where, Mr. Bush says, it would inevitably be spent not on Social Security but instead on bigger government and wasteful programs. And Mr. Bush regularly criticizes Mr. McCain's plan, contending that it would not help the working poor."

What I find really good here is that this problem they found with McCain's plan in 2000 he fixed this time around, by adding to his proposal what Bill Bradley suggested in 2000:

"As a former member of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the fathers of the 1986 overhaul of the tax code, Mr. Bradley arguably has more experience with tax policy than any of the other candidates...

"....The only specific tax cuts he backs are tax breaks on health insurance payments, an expansion of the earned-income tax credit for the working poor and an expansion of the child care credit in a way that would help low-income people."

Senator McCain also incorporated an issue from Al Gore regarding Research and Development:

"Mr. Gore has proposed allocating $250 billion to $300 billion to tax cuts over the next decade for specific goals. In particular, he supports expanded tax incentives for education and retirement savings....a permanent extension of the tax credit for corporate research and development."

The entire article is located here:  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DC1F30F934A15751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


Additionally John McCain promises a ban on Internet taxes and Cell phone taxes, from his website:

"Ban Internet Taxes: John McCain believes we must make a farsighted, robust, and fervent commitment to innovation and new technologies to sustain our global competitiveness, meet our national security challenges, achieve less costly and more effective health care, reduce dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil, and raise the quality of education in the United States. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity.

Ban New Cell Phone Taxes: John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message - and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes."

The main thing missing right now is the raising of the income the lowest tax bracket, and I believe that's probably a good thing since, we have quite a bit of government debt to afford right now.

The point of this is to show that John McCain learns from his past, he does pay attention to the American People, that with all this talk of corporate lobbyists, there remains this man who only had a corporate tax benefits even 8 years ago of 1.9% to corporations.  Admittedly 8 years ago our corporate tax rates were competitive, they no longer are.  Look at how aggressively McCain's 2000 tax plan pursued getting the lower tax rate into the lower and upper middle-class incomes (70,000 a year) in 2000.  I am certain that once our economy recovers John McCain will pursue raising the income level that the 15% tax covers, to "start on creating a system of flatter tax rates."

And McCain will do this without creating the corporate tax shelters that Obama does:

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk Obama says this at almost the end of the conversation.)

McCain is keeping the 15% capital gains tax in place, while phasing out the alternative minimum tax.

So the question boils down to:  Is 500 or 1000 dollar checks (essentially an economic stimulus) the answer to our economy, or, providing a framework of growth by generating wealth for decades into the future?  The answer to this is clear to me, John McCain.


Thank you for reading.

Obama has earned America's distrust.  It's the tail end of Obama's pitch to Joe the Plumber.  Obama walks right up to Joe to get his question.  Then Obama puts forth a number of his beliefs and expresses his logic to conclude a tax increase of 3% on "those making over $250,000" is necessary to give a tax break for those making less, asserting it's the government's role, the government's job to assure our incomes meet our personal needs -- that government's control of our personal input will improve our personal output.

The following transcript of what Obama said during the entire interview with Joe Wurzelbacher,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk. I wanted to keep the entire train of thought together so I omitted what Joe said, however I referenced it for context in brackets where the context would be lost, so without further delay I give you by transcript, what Senator Barack Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" when he believed there were no open mics:

"If your revenue is above 250, then from 250 down your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that, say for 250 up, say from 250-300 or so....you'd go from 36 to 39% which is what it was under Bill Clinton.

"So the uh....and the reason we're doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250, and so what I want to do is give them a tax cut I wanna give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I wanna give them a tax cut and so what we are doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250, that that marginal amount above 250 that they are going to be taxed at a 39% instead of a 36% percent rate.

"Here's a way of thinking about it, um....How long you been a plumber?...Okay so over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current Tax Code.

"So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful....through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much, which I understand. But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks, who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they're bein taxed to the higher rate than they would be under mine.

"So, what I'm doin is...put, project yourself back 10 years ago, when you were only makin...whatever, 60 or 70, under my tax plan you'd be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be having lower taxes, which means, you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are [now] faster.

"Now look, nobody likes high taxes, off course not. So...But what's happened is, we end up, we cut taxes a lot, for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven't given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last 8 years. So all I want to do is, I want to....I've got a net tax cut. The only thing that changes this, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and with the 5% of the folks who've been doing very well, even though they've been working hard, and I understand and I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts.

"Now....I respect the disagreement, I just want you to be clear it's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody, who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too.

"I'd be open to it [a flat tax] except for, here's the problem with the flat tax, the uh...is that actually if you put a flat tax together, you probably, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that's the value added, making it up [making up for the lost revenue]. Now some people say 23 or 25 but in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it.

"So....I do believe that, for folks like me, who are, you know, have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's things were slow and, she can barely make the rent, you know, because.

"My attitude is if the economy's good for the folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so that business is bad for everybody and I think, when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody. But I, listen I respect what you do and I respect your question and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still going to be working hard on your behalf cause I want to make sure...Small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it."

Obama utterly reverses himself in this last paragraph with Joe the Plumber.  Is rich $250,000?  I mean, Obama himself doesn't seem to think so.  It is Obama who uses this amount as his example in making a specific mention of this "elimination of capital gains" to Joe, numbers relative to Joe's situation, Joe's business and Joe's hard work -- remember $250,000 is the line for "rich" when Obama is imposing his 3% tax increase.  Yet Obama has said small business will get a "tax cut" under his plan.  Well with this last paragraph, that certainly is a tax cut and on those making over $250,000, "the rich."  Now using the same figures as Obama did, the tax increase Obama proposes is $7,500 on income taxes while the capital gain tax amount would be around $37,500 of capital gains taxes -- a net loss of $30,000 to the government!

Of course this means government will come up with a large shortfall, and, the solutions will range from lowering the definition of "rich" below $250,000 to increasing the tax upon them to 5% or 10% or more, they become our source of income over time, maybe even entirely.  The government would become beholden to these wealthy, to their influence and job creation, as the source literally "over and above" the American People.  The free enterprise system and Our Will, the will of the many, would lose its authority to the will of the majority of wealth -- the top 5%.

In other words, the great "change" that is about to happen, if we take Obama's word for it, is to make the people, the poor and middle class, of this nation pay the taxes while providing the upper .1% of this nation with the largest tax cut in the history of the United States of America because of the amount of wealth they already hold.  This explains very well the list of those supporting Obama: George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, the majority of Exxon Mobile executives, and a host of others including Wall Street Banks.

These elite of wealth and power are finally going to have a President who recognizes their right to control to achieve a complete enslavement of the American people.  They will be justified if we vest this right in these elite by voting for their candidate, to be subjected to their influence on him, their will.  This is, by Barack Obama's own words, the future if Obama becomes President of the United States of America, according to this capital gains tax cut to those making over $250,000 as Obama notes to Joe above.  Please understand that those making well more than $250,000 will be able to eliminate 150 million dollars of tax on every billion they make merely by creating small businesses as tax shelters.   This capital gains tax cut creates a Ponzi Scheme for the rich, growing numerous entities, to split them again and keep them small businesses.  Mass accumulations of wealth without any responsibility to pay anymore than the tax code provides, which will be less than these billionaires would pay on their consolidated wealth.

It will look good folks, very good, but this will be short lived because the government shortfall will be so great that the threshold of the increase in income taxes will need to be lowered, lowered to include everyone who doesn't have any capital gains.  The 1986 Tax Reform Act is what brought an end to income tax shelters for the wealthy.  Are we now going to bring them back and give the wealthy elite even more places to hide their money?

This is what one must believe in light of Obama saying what he did to Joe and believing there were no open mics at the time. I have no reason not to believe Obama either considering the 600+ million dollars Obama has raised for his campaign -- Obama is just another bought and sold politician, his price was just 6 times higher than anyone else, and the above paragraph reflects his promise to the wealthy.

For weeks now I've been posting this with a variety of notions it brings up, the reason is simple:  If you read the entire transcript, or listen to it, and noticed the last thing Obama said to Joe, you can't help but walk away wondering which part is the lie.  However now I realize it's all true and this is an even greater threat to America than European socialism.  This here is the creation of a communist politburo.  We the people to be reliant on those whose wealth is so great that their desire to lead cannot be denied, they just needed a candidate willing to sell out on principle, sell out on America.  Senator Obama's election to identify with his African roots, to read angry black authors and associate with people who wish to see America and/or it's systems, especially capitalism destroyed, is that candidate.

I am convinced Obama is going to do both because his esteemed backers need recognition, and We the People whose will has defeated them time and time again must be put in our place -- what better way to do that than if we elect to be slaves?

Do the math...

Is Obama going to tax the rich or is Obama going to give the rich a break, or both and enslave 95% of Americans?

What's the truth?

The following transcript of what Obama said during the entire interview with Joe Wurzelbacher,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk. I wanted to keep the entire train of thought together so I omitted what Joe said, however I referenced it for context in brackets where the context would be lost, so without further delay I give you by transcript, what Senator Barack Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" when he believed there were no open mics:

"If your revenue is above 250, then from 250 down your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that, say for 250 up, say from 250-300 or so....you'd go from 36 to 39% which is what it was under Bill Clinton.

"So the uh....and the reason we're doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250, and so what I want to do is give them a tax cut I wanna give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I wanna give them a tax cut and so what we are doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250, that that marginal amount above 250 that they are going to be taxed at a 39% instead of a 36% percent rate.

"Here's a way of thinking about it, um....How long you been a plumber?...Okay so over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current Tax Code.

"So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful....through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much, which I understand. But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks, who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they're bein taxed to the higher rate than they would be under mine.

"So, what I'm doin is...put, project yourself back 10 years ago, when you were only makin...whatever, 60 or 70, under my tax plan you'd be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be having lower taxes, which means, you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are [now] faster.

"Now look, nobody likes high taxes, off course not. So...But what's happened is, we end up, we cut taxes a lot, for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven't given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last 8 years. So all I want to do is, I want to....I've got a net tax cut. The only thing that changes this, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and with the 5% of the folks who've been doing very well, even though they've been working hard, and I understand and I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts.

"Now....I respect the disagreement, I just want you to be clear it's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody, who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too.

"I'd be open to it [a flat tax] except for, here's the problem with the flat tax, the uh...is that actually if you put a flat tax together, you probably, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that's the value added, making it up [making up for the lost revenue]. Now some people say 23 or 25 but in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it.

"So....I do believe that, for folks like me, who are, you know, have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's things were slow and, she can barely make the rent, you know, because.

"My attitude is if the economy's good for the folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so that business is bad for everybody and I think, when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody. But I, listen I respect what you do and I respect your question and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still going to be working hard on your behalf cause I want to make sure...Small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it."

Do the math...

Is he going to tax the rich or is he going to give the rich a break?

What's the truth?

You read that right.

Sean Hannity just offered to give Obama's half brother in the outskirts of Nairobi $10,000 if Barack Obama will agree to be interviewed by Sean Hannity.

Of course his long standing offer to send $1,000 if the Obama Campaign will send Hannity his address still stands.

I posted this because I believe there are people coming to TownHall who might be able to make something like this happen.  Obama's half brother lives on very little and Hannity has been offering for months, in the interest of helping Obama's half brother out to send $1,000 for the address.  Tonight was the first time I heard him offer $10,000 if Obama will be interviewed by Sean.

If you are a democrat and could make that happen please contact Sean Hannity so he can help out Obama's half brother, who Obama appears to have not helped at all.

The following was taken by compiling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34yRmKPnDQ&feature=related, each of which edited what was subject to consideration, yet together I found them to reasonably complete Obama's statements for the area of the conversation, around 40 minutes into the interview.  There were 3 guests and a moderator, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was one on of them.  I almost entire solely quote Obama here:

"The court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.  And to that extent, as radical I think that people try to characterize the Warren Court...uh, it wasn't that radical.  It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you -- but it doesn't say what the state or federal government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And one of the, I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused.  I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power, through which you bring about redistributive change and, in some ways we still suffer from that."


Now a caller asks if it's too late to use the court for "reparative economic work to take place...or would it be legislation at this point?"

"You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I'm not optimistic about bringing about...uh, major...uh, redistributive uh...uh..chang...uh through the courts...um...Yea the institution just isn't structured that way...um, you just look at very rare examples where in, during desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order...uh...uh...you know changes that cost money to a local school district, and the court was very uncomfortable with it, it was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out.  You start getting into all sorts of separations of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time, um, the courts just not very good at it, and politically it's just, it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.  So I mean, I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think you can...Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.  I think just as a practical matter our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it."


The commentator at the radio station found that many times the court is "ratifying the status quo," and in effect, she explains "....the court makes redistributive decisions, or distributive decisions all the time," to which Obama replies with an affirmative "right."  She continues with an example, "The court considers whether it's okay to take the program, um, the federal medicare program that provides compen...you know that recompenses people by insurance for every medical procedure they can have except abortion, and it [the Supreme Court] upholds that and say 'we can except abortion from that.'  Well that's a decision about what kinds of subsidies we are willing to uphold and what we're not."

Obama replies:

"Although typically, I mean the court can certainly be more or less generous in terms of interpreting actions and initiative that are taken by the legislature, but in the example, for example funding of abortions or medicare medicaid the court is not initiating those funding strings.  Essentially the court is saying is at some point okay this is a legitimate prohibition ,or this is not.  And I think those are very important battles that have to be fought, and they do have a distributive aspect to them."


In my view Obama completely reversed himself from his previous statements about the court venturing into redistribution of wealth, yet, that was a rebuttal in reply to an argument that the court had done so as posed by another guest.

Further, in light of Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, the 10th Amendment, and the 13th Amendment it seems to me that Obama had hoped the court or some redistribution plan would reinstate slavery but against the slave masters, as though that would be the only way to make the slaves whole.  Essentially he'd hoped the court would violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 by imposing a direct tax, by using powers not granted to the United States Government and reserved to the States or the People under the 10th Amendment, and by doing both of these things, have committed the most radical of moves in reinstating slavery but with the Government as the master, this of course would overturn the 13th Amendment.

Obama doesn't seem to understand that this would not help anyone to maintain a system that has proven morally wrong on all levels, even as revenge.  The only way to get rid of this mentality and the racism from it is for no one to perpetrate it and eventually it's not even a consideration of how we'd treat another human being.  But this approach seems lost on Senator Obama.

However, please understand that the 2001 radio interview segment here shows more than anything else the contradictory ability of Barrack Obama, for he contradicts his earlier statement about the courts, while, at the same time, he reaffirms what he said before but on a different scale, using an altered context.  I've found this the great frustration with Senator Obama because it's similar to discussing with a conman when you will get your money back.  No straight answers, and often they ask you to send them more, hoping that after they do this to you multiple times you'll figure out you're being had and there is no way you are getting a penny back.

Hope this helped out anyone that could use it.

Thanks for reading.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

"No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration here before directed to be taken."

However, Obama wants to imagine powers vested in the federal government by his interpretation of the Constitution, remember that's not the job of the President, but of the Judicial Branch:

"[T]he Warren Court interpreted .... that generally the constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you -- but it doesn't say what the state or federal government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."

In fairness, the Illinois Senator's comments on WBEZ were a rebuttal to another of 2 other guests being interviewed at the time, and in particular the notion that the U.S. Supreme Court had ever attempted to be involved in wealth redistribution.  The other guest suggested , in summary, that the Supreme Court had attempted redistribution regarding the agency providing hearings before denying welfare, but due to money allocated for that purpose versus the actual benefits to people, the Supreme Court reversed themselves 5 years later.

However this is meaningless since the Constitution addresses these imagined powers in government which Obama questions the court for not having used.  I cite Article 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is on top of prohibitions against slavery under the 13th Amendment, which government taking from one person or class by using government's unbridled taxing authority, to then merely distribute directly to another class, is "absolute power over life, fortune or liberty of another," the definition of slavery. 

This is particularly true in light of the 10th Amendment and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, the latter makes a direct tax illegal period, the former directs that any other power and/or purpose to tax is not vested in the United States Government.  Please understand that taxation must inure a benefit to the payor or it is outright theft. 

Note that Senator Obama wanted to make sure we are viewed as investors in Wall Street, in regard to the 700 billion dollar bailout, while, however, when it comes to his "Spread The Wealth" program, the wealthy are not to be deemed investors in those less fortunate.  Instead the wealthy are source targets who pay and receive no benefit whatsoever.  This to me is a very distinct difference between John McCain and Barack Obama in regard to their actual regard for the American People.  We all seek success and this type of program, though it appeals to the younger generation who rebel against authority, like Bill Ayers did in his youth, is a disincentive to the pursuit of success.

Over time the "Spread The Wealth" program is a cruelty upon those less fortunate.  Obama's tax program enslaves those dependent on government programs already, while, by providing no benefit to those paying the amount, he is enslaving them as well.

"Spread The Wealth" is a travesty against civil rights progress in America that sets us back 145 years.

All emphasis, typos, and grammatical errors above mine.

Thank you for reading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU&feature=related


ACORN's reward is pretty clear now isn't it. The 20 billion from the $700 Billion Bailout doesn't matter for sure. Obama wins, they'll get everything they've been after.

I mean here is a guy, Obama, that spends 2 years making campaign promises that everyone believes, political rhetoric that no politician follows through with.

But the fact that over the course of 20 years Obama was surrounded by, acted, and had at least a three year friendship with a thief, terrorists, Black Liberation Theologists, Muslim leader, or was studying angry black poetry, people do not think this is an indication at all of who he really is or what he really believes in, stands for. As much as people like to pretend there is deep racism, there is a deeper reverse racism of extreme import in believing this man who has said virtually the same thing for 2 years to us in running for President, and yet those same people will not assess, let alone believe, his actions of 20 years, tantamount to the proverbial stink that attracts the low life flies.

Even here, seeing the video above where Obama invites the Community Organizers, the ACORN portion of which are being investigated in 11 states, to help him make policy "before my inauguration," while we also know about the 20 billion dollars for ACORN in the first version of the $700 billion dollar bailout, those who are following Obama's illustrious psych, the will of The Obama, will not shake the spell.


Thank you for reading.

The trick to redistribution and socialism is, in simple terms:

socialism = controlling the means of production, right?

When person A, who produces nothing, asks the government to get what person A needs to survive from person B, who produces more than enough for themselves (because they like it that way, which would seem to be up to them since it's their work and negotiating effort that resulted in lucrative activity) then government is controlling both person A's means of production and person B's reliance on receiving what they negotiated to receive for work performed, or their productive generation of the means of production for person A, the government, and themselves -- everyone's means of production reliant on person B alone. Government controlling person B by taking anything away from them for any reason is exercising control on the means of production overall.

Thus redistribution is socialism.

Understand by the rolls of people who have been on welfare, food stamps, or other social aid most of their lives, sometimes some 30 and 40 years or more (though occasionally taking a job so as to at least appear they are trying to be on their own), there is a pattern and appearance of just being in the character of person A above, always ready to claim entitlement from others.

Often this is due to antecedent resentments that politically are exploited every 4 years, generally by liberal democrats playing on the person A people who resent those who have more than they do.

This occurs even if liberal programs such as Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the financial meltdown, their quasi government status used to strong arm banks, these institutions assured encouragement of banks to loan to those who cannot pay back due to the potential of lawsuits filed by lawyers such as Barack Obama who was chosen by ACORN to be their lawyer just for such lawsuits, lawsuits alleging discrimination on the basis of the bank wanting to not loan to people who cannot pay the loan back. Let us not forget Fannie and Freddie used our money, some 180 million dollars, to lobby for political favor, which essentially resulted in Barack Obama getting an 80% pay raise as a U.S. Senator from Fannie and Freddie alone.

In other words, the success of banks, in the role of person B above, is subjected to the whim of person A via lawsuit, resulting in a financial catastrophe that negatively effected person B further, government has no idea how or what to do to fix it, and, by the election polling data in this election, it appears will only result in person A being able to demand more from anyone who pursues to be the productive person B.

The "socialism" in another way here is the conditioning over time of no one wanting to be person B and everyone wanting to be person A because there is little value in being the producer without having a say over what happens to what you produced, be it the product or the wealth you hoped it would provide, for yourself to determine the distribution of. This conditioning of course, in the future, passes all power to the government to determine who of those not producing can be taken from, for other reasons than production, in order to give to the new person A people so as not to discourage them from pursuing being non-productive whim demanding whiners. Eventually the government has only to determine minor differences amongst large groups of person A people, who, now reliant on government, are docile and haven't any fight left in them. The government becomes the "bank" for everything their complete control created by the premise that person A, who, like a spoiled brat, doesn't want to produce, but is erroneously deemed to be of authority to use government to demand from person B. -- Government the arbiter, and dictator, of criterial determinations, or as known in the former Soviet Union: The Politburo.

Thanks for reading.

Reviewing the web for information to use with another article I found the following, just click them to enlarge:

B1

B2

B3

These texts are quoted from the brochure images above:

1) "Year after year, the same politicians offer the same tired campaign promises, which are quickly forgotten after Election Day. It's easy to lose hope and faith.

Barack Obama believes that working together, we can change the ways of Washington.

As President, Barack Obama will be committed to solving the tough issues we face because they aren't just political issues.

They're moral issues."


2) "Barack on the power of prayer."

I believe in the power of prayer. Through prayer, not only can we strengthen ourselves in adversity, but we can also find the empathy and the compassion and the will to deal with the problems that we do control. What I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act on those things that I can control. And that's what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government. We've got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions."


3) "Committed Christian"

"Guided by his Christian faith, Barack Obama is the leader we can trust to challenge the ways of Washington and change the way our government does business. He will bring together Republicans and Democrats to address the problems facing our nation.

Please compare these with the following:

SENATOR OBAMA: "This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that on of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?"

SENATOR O'MALLEY: "Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.

SENATOR OBAMA: "Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

"The Second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of constitutionality.

"Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present."

All emphasis above is mine.


Note that at no time did Barack Obama mention any existing provision of law protecting infants born alive after a botched abortion either in the debate that occurred on the Illinois Senate Floor on March 30, 2001 I quote above, nor during the entire course of debate where the above was taken from, and found on the web at this link http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf (pages 84-87). In fact in the last paragraph of the debate above Barack Obama is stating that there is no such law:

"...I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill."

His excuse of an existing law, though true, is just an excuse after the fact in an effort to keep people from looking up the floor debate on this issue, to see the genuine lack of compassion and Christian core values he displays so eloquently to argue against a bill that re-affirms the commitment of the state to Born Alive Infants of a botched abortion.

I submit that this floor debate testifies to Barack Obama's lack of faith, lack of integration of Christianity into his values and beliefs, that he is guilty of failing to "pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act on those things that I can control" and a Barack Obama is a key contributor to "what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government." His argument unequivocally demonstrates Barack Obama's absolute inability to "express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions" and thereby has demonstrated Christianity for Barack Obama, is a means of convenience, a means of influence and, as used in South Carolina, a way to get votes.

From the above as well as other areas where Obama is "creative" I've found he represents the "same politicians" who "offer the same tired campaign promises, which are quickly forgotten after Election Day" for he failed to recognize that abortion is and always has been one of those issues that "aren't just a political issue" nor a "passionate issue " where one could not "belabor the point," if "guided by Christian faith." Of the issues listed in B1 above where Obama's conscience won't rest, abortion is not listed, in the Christian value, the Christian sense of the term and it's moral implications, that abortion is a moral issue, Barack Obama is silent. His argument above shows just how he truly feels about abortion and believes in the Civil Rights of the Child. Barack Obama could care less, the constitution and a woman's right to choose to kill her baby even after it's born is far more important since those are key constituencies to his party. A party man is what you vote for in Barack Obama, nothing less.

Thus rhetoric is all he is spewing, from every facet of what he has to say, out of both sides of his mouth. Anyone who can find a way to believe Barack Obama needs to back away and review how objective they can be for it is obvious to me from the above and the erroneous "Iraq $79 billion surplus" (http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.5.3)that The Obama is either entirely inept or even more willing than Bill Clinton to lie directly to the face of the American people.

Thank you for reading.

Remember this?



Let's see what Malcom X has to say about that:

"No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I'm not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver -- no, not I. I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare." (Emphasis mine. See http://www.historicaldocuments.com/Ball ... lcolmX.htm, paragraph 9.)

Here is a more complete video of what happened http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o

I guess Obama is upset that we didn't recognize this for the social statement he was making in admiration of one of his heroes that he discovered while seeking out his African-American roots.  This type of thing may very well be what Bill Clinton was suggesting, that it is Obama who is playing the race card.  In light of Malcom X's comment and Barack Obama's study of Malcom X, I tend to believe Bill Clinton is correct.

The flag pin controversy as well as the Obama Presidential Seal Stunt come to mind in this regard as well.

Thank you for reading.

Quoted as a Matter of Public Concern and National Security from Social Policy Magazine, Winter 2003, Vol 34, No. 2, Spring 2004, Vol 34, No. 3, also as a matter of artistic license I will I provide italic, underline, and bold emphasis in combination or separately:


"Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign

By Toni Foulkes

   

ACORN's history of nonpartisan electoral work (voter registration and voter turnout) and leadership development combined during the March, 2004 primary season to make a big difference in the level of participation of our communities in that important election.


ACORN is active in experimenting with methods of increasing voter participation in our low and moderate income communities in virtually every election.  But in some elections we get to have our cake and eat it too: work on nonpartisan voter registration and GOTV, which also turns out to benefit the candidate that we hold dear.

The March primary was not particularly important for the presidential race, as Kerry was just in the process of clinching the Dem presidential nomination.  But it was critical in the U.S. Senate race.  On March 16th, State Senator Barack Obama won the right to represent the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate campaign.  Jack Ryan won the Republican nomination that day, but went on to self-destruct over sex club revelations in his divorce papers.  Sen. Obama went on to keynote the Democratic Convention in July and was catapulted to the national stage. As Sen. Obama puts it, how did a skinny kid with a funny name become the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, with 53% of the statewide Democratic vote in a seven-person field?




[Photo of Obama sitting at table in discussion with ACORN members here.]




Obama started building the base years before.  For instance, ACORN noticed him when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project.  He was a very good organizer.  When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act, also known as motor voter.  Allied only with the state of Mississippi, Illinois had been refusing to allow mass-based voter registration according to the new law.  Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won.  Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year.  Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them).

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office.  Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.  And along about early March, we started to see that the African-American community had made its move: when Sen. Obama's name was mentioned at our Southside Summit meeting with 700 people in attendance from three southside communities, the crowd went crazy.  With about a week to go before the election, it was very clear how the African-American community would vote.  But would they vote in high enough numbers?

It seemed to us that what Obama needed in the March primary was what we always work to deliver anyway:  increased turnout in our ACORN communities.  ACORN is active on the south and west sides of Chicago, in the south suburbs and on the east side of Springfield, the state capital.  Most of the turf where we organize in is African American, with a growing Latino presence in Chicago's Little Village and the suburbs.

ACORN members were involved in three activities around the primary:

1) Block captains were identified, as early as the summer before the March primary, and provided with lists of registered and unregistered voters and voter registration materials.  We attended trainings and accountability meetings to receive our materials and make plans to get the people registered.  Then we came back to report on our progress. We also hired voter registrars in the final three weeks to work the supermarkets in our communities.  By the February 17 voter registration deadline for the primary, ACORN had registered 12,984 new voters.  This was an organizational best for us.  (As of this writing, we have added over 27,000 new voters).

2) Block captains then went to work to turn out the vote.  They were all volunteers until the last few days, when we received funding to pay some of our block captains in some precincts of the 24th ward (North Lawndale) and  the 15th ward (West Englewood) to get out the vote on the last Saturday before the election and on election day.

3) In some precincts in the 15th ward, we were able to hire canvassers to work on voter turnout for a full two weeks before the election.  Each canvasser worked two to three precincts during that time.

The results of this activity were very interesting, and mirror what Professor Donald Green of Yale University has found about voter turnout work: where we were able to run a crew of paid and supervised canvassers for two weeks before the election, we did very well.  In those targeted ACORN precincts in the 15th ward, voter turnout improved by an average of 50% over the previous year's city election (the only other election since the redistricting).  Citywide turnout increased by only 14% over the same election.

The way the canvassers approached each door was important. Instead of a speech about a candidate they engaged the potential voter in a conversation about the issues, relating their issues to the importance of voting, and moving them to a commitment to vote in the primary.  In addition ACORN leaders were making the rounds talking to their neighbors about the election.  I am proud to report that the combination of a paid canvass and my volunteer work was especially successful in turning out the vote in my two precincts (34 and 51).  In those precincts we boosted turnout by 82% (precinct 34) and 90% (precinct 51) over the previous year’s turnout. ACORN leader Denise Dixon again paired with an effective canvasser, increased turnout in her precinct by 131%.  The best performing precincts were the ones with a canvasser and a leader who worked at least Election Day and the Saturday before.  There is a noticeable difference between these precincts and those that only had a paid canvasser in it, who wasn't a local community leader.

We're not ready to prove anything yet with our data, because we have not run a scientific test, but we believe Green's results showing that door-to-door field work for two weeks before an election yields significant results, and we believe that there is a correlation with strong local leaders assisting the paid canvassing in winning even more dramatic increases.

The 24th ward has traditionally had higher voter turnout than in the 15th.   The work leading up to the election in the 24th Ward was done by leaders who volunteered their time.  Some were paid for two half days of door knocking, election day and the Saturday before.  Turnout increased in ACORN precincts in the 24th ward at a rate higher than the city average, but not at the rate at which it increased in the 15th.  Overall turnout was still higher in our 24th ward precincts than our 15th ward precincts, but the rate of increase was not as dramatic.

None of this is rocket science, but it is important.  Good door-knocking by community residents for even two half days can impact turnout.  Good door-knocking by paid and supervised canvassers for two weeks can have dramatic impact.  And a combination of the two, especially with experienced community leaders working with the paid canvassers, can make a huge difference.

As it turned out, Obama won the primary handily, pulling white wards as well as African American.  But no one knew that that would be the case.  In each election we must act as if our work is critical for our communities.  That is what we did in the primary, and we learned something in the process.

Toni Foulkes is a Chicago ACORN leader and a member of ACORN's National Association Board."


My Thoughts

Note the "Since then..." at the start of one of the first few paragraphs above.  That date is 1992.  Since 1992 Obama has been "invited... to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office.

This is the certainty of a conflict of interest and the rest an explanation of ACORN as a member in good standing of Daley Machine style politics.  This is the politics of "change?"  Machine politics of Mayor Richard J. Daley Senior from the 1960s?  Of course it is a change, there will be a "patronage system" such that Obama attached to College tuition credit in his statement in this 3rd debate:

"I will give every student a $4,000 tax credit, on condition they participate in a community organization." 

Yes, I paraphrased and likely poorly, yet the point of the statement is that it makes the tuition credit subject to the student acting in a manner that the government prescribes.  Sure the government has other requirements it prescribes but those details are irrelevant.  What is important here is that the community service requirement by government of a citizen is purely in order to have the privilege of using a tax credit of $4,000.  This requirement teaches people only to give in exchange for something, not to give for the sake of giving, which, is the whole point of community service organizations, from Red Cross to Rotary International.

You may not see this as any relation to ACORN however his lying about the relationship consistently, to claim working a court case for them and that's all, is reason to suspect a form of Machine Politics in the Mayor Daley tradition.  This especially holds true when considering the number of states investigating ACORN for voter fraud, as well as some of their actual volunteers explaining registering 73 times in order to get paid.

This is why I emphasized the "compensated canvasser" portions above, for the compensation seems to taint the system.

Lastly, ACORN defends itself by claiming these large numbers of voters they registered with pride, some 1.3 million.  Well if, in fact, some of their people are filing 20 registration forms, when you divide the 1.3 million into 20 you land at 65,000 actual participants.  The point being that, due to the number of their operations across the nation that appear to be committing this fraud, it would seem they are admitting to adding 1,235,000 illegal votes to support the candidate they prefer, as they mentioned above, "...we get to have our cake and eat it too: work on nonpartisan voter registration and GOTV, which also turns out to benefit the candidate that we hold dear."

Apparently there is a "bipartisan partisanship" that's okay so long as you're ACORN.

To Read the original article with photo, please see http://www.socialpolicy.org/index.php?id=838. I had to register as a member to get to this article.

Note please that Toni Foulkes, the author of the article from Social Policy Magazine is an Alderman today in Chicago.  I wonder how much ACORN and Senator Obama "got out the vote" for him.

Thank you for your time and reading this entire.

The original trascript is located here http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

Pg 84-88, 03/30/2001 in the Illinois, 92nd General Assembly


"ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:

Senate Bill 1093.

(Secretary reads title of bill)

3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentleman of the

Senate. Senate bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion

procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending

physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born

child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a

physician other than the physician performing or inducing the

abortion who shall assess the child's viability and provide

medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if

There is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing

an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for

the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the

physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately

assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the

[P.84]

child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a

result of an -- of -- of an abortion procedure shall be fully

recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection

under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good

medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical

records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the

child. I'd be pleased to answer any question there may be.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

Any discussion? Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for

questions?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

He indicates he will.

SENATOR OBAMA:

This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary

Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just

make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is

about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during

the committee indicated that on of the key concerns was -- is

that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where

the -- the fetus of child, as -- as some might describe it, is

still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns

that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not

being properly cared for during that brief period of time that

they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate

sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the

way children are treated following their birth under these

[P.85]

circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my

opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that

appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of

the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it

deserves under the Constitution of the United States.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of

members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an

abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that

your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the

testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to

craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect

to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this

fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and

so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much

difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not

going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we

define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the

equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution,

what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that

are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to

a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to

term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by

a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it

would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection

clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a

child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that

purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The

Second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is

that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide

[P.86]

treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however you want to

describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the

Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or

cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor

that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as

possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is

necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably

crossing the line in terms of constitutionality. Now, as I said

before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the

last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of

here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it

was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh

Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I

-- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important

to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we

might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt

with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child

was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're

going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I

think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we

often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting

Present.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

Further discussion? If not, Senator O'Malley, to close.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the

Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this

is a passionate issue. And -- however, I don't think it's

challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was

described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution

does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and

be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be

[P.87]

born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we

need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois and,

frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of

Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect those

rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure

and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in

America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate

your support.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

The question is, shall Senate Bill 1093 pass...."


I kept the line endings the same as they are in the official transcript.

Apologize for typos if any found.