I chose not to embed the following video, I want you to see the number of hits it has received without even one comment, then look at what the poster explains on the upper right of the video on the YouTube page.  Then please watch this video.

You'll find why women's rights is not the issue of import to abortion, nor the most noble "killing of an innocent life."  No instead it is that enemies of the west, of the freedom of man from the church running things, as it was under feudal dominions that continue in other nations and their cultures, these enemies want a world run by religious orders whose followers have no idea of the wealth and power behind their beliefs, the corruption of the original good purposes of these organizations--again the ancient feudal structure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

So while you tout your precious women's rights, those who have this type of thing going on are laughing at you, at our nation, and any nation that embraces such population controls while theirs does not.  See they go to the root of understanding something, and even note the variety of nations declining in power whose greatest similarity is decline in their growth rate.  Found in the game SecondLife, in the profile of someone from Saudi Arabia along with a documentary on who wrote the Bible.  Understand terrorism is not the only line of offense enemies of freedom will use or empower to destroy every symbol of freedom from a centralized power structure to allow a religious order (or lack thereof, a reverse religious order) to control, command, and dictate a culture and its people.

Think of this when Planned Parenthood or any other form of abortion comes to mind.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

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.

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.