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?

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.

A little something that I ran across that, well, when you look at this, you'll see that our interventions often uncover far worse goings on than we realized. For all the debating and nay saying about Iraq, all the political posturing against the war, there remains a moral purpose that exposes itself, one we may find ourselves in the middle of again in Darfur no matter who is elected.

I just....We tend to forget these things, and as has been suggested by McCain, start thinking in a pre-911 mindset. Our guard is dropping rapidly and I contend its due to be so detached from understanding how civility, our way of life, is threatened by tyranny. Our lack of experience with this, even as a visitor to a nation suffering from despotic rule, to not be born with it, born with the notion of "ones place in society" because one is a Kurd, or is Shiite.

Images can shock the conscience and for those who have been against the Iraq war, our continued presence there, and the expenditures made, I submit http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf.


Sure that isn't why we went in, however, if we hadn't gone in Saddam would still be in power, or one of his relatives, and, this treatment, this form of "rule," would very likely have continued.

Some could blame the cause on the west for its mistakes in the creation of the state of Iraq after the British liberated them from the Turks. That very well could be, but, in memory of these 400,000 people who were killed, so their death isn't in vane, I'd suggest not looking for someone to blame, or to recall some conspiracy theory, and instead, note they died, note they died at the hands of Saddam Hussein or those around him which is a power structure he voluntarily, pro-actively, kept in place.

Of course many of these were found with bullet holes in the back of their head though some were not and to me this gives us great reason to consider Sada's account, to take it more seriously:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAWewACnU8E.

Note the type of press he recieves. No MSM and, sadly, due to this MSM blackout of anything positive about Iraq just because it cannot be spun negatively against conservatives, people believe there were no WMD's, irrespective also of the gassing that even liberal organizations are aware of in Iraq, gas that killed 5,000 people in one day. How is that not a WMD?

Anyway, this just seems to have been lost in this whole discussion, and I think that's because George Bush did what doesn't usually happen in wars: He insulated us from negative impact of the War. Some could say this financial crisis is that result I guess. Hope not though, yet it's....there are higher prices to pay for freeing a nation from their leader who killed 400,000 people and exported WMD's to another country in the Arab world.

Thank you for reading.

So it appears a socialist is going to be voted in for sake of personal emotion, that we lack the capacity to see the larger effect, to put our country first, that we fail to recognize we are the final bulwark of our freedoms, a duty our Founders so wisely placed upon us by our Constitution and it's republic element, The House of Representatives.  Maybe they, like we, gave too much credit to the future, though ours by our complacency and taking for granted, and thus we appear to deserve what we get this election.

What is truly sad here:  Obama and his foreign investor contributors, especially George Soros, are merely repeating the blueprint of what's been done throughout the world, Hugo Chavez's rise to power in Venezuela most recently.  This "blueprint" is before us, obvious by the assault on our economy from within (FeddieMac, FannieMae, Paulson, and Congress), a blueprint we're blind to by our selfish emotional reaction to the assault itself. 

I find this sad because America, the one nation in the world that trusted it's people from the foundation of its national government, set aside that trust in us in the name of greed and, what Madison called, "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government." Those elected Administrators of Our Will in Washington, D.C. have repeated the very history of transgressions by the King of England that led to the founding of the United States of America.

What's worse is so much of it is because we the people haven't cared enough to love our country in the first place, because we foolishly have taken for granted these principles of freedom our Founders laid out, as though etched in granite and entitled without earning them, without respecting their meaning, purpose, and exercise. 

Due to our irresponsible behavior we've discounted, even forgotten, our enemies who desire to remove these principles to this day, to claim them a defeated philosophy as they have in recent weeks through their new mouthpieces of socialist agenda, enemies our benevolence and grace have disallowed us to vanquish throughout our nations victorious history.

The future generations of our enemies have arrived, with their ideals firmly in place and a plan to implement them against Our Will.  We've been caught flat-footed, not realizing our Founders battle to establish this great nation was only the beginning, that this battle must continue throughout the existence of The United States of America and we, the Founder's Posterity. 

Though Franklin told us they'd created "a republic if you can keep it," we believed our freedom was secured and irreversible.  We assumed to make no effort of keeping our freedoms, we set aside our guardianship of these most fundamental and sacred principles of freedom that derived from The Enlightenment:  All people are sentient.  And now more than ever we demonstrate otherwise and have grown fat, grown drunk, with the entitlement principle, an arrogant path of almost no effort while expecting to receive great gains. 

Our enemies, those who knew our lust for gain in this manner would buy them political favor as it has every ruthless government system throughout history, especially the one our Founders threw off, are at our door, knocking by the word "change," to further exploit the entitlement principle, perfect our demoralization and annhilate Our Will.

Recognize it is this principle which makes our vote all the more important and at the same time underwhelming as it is cast for the only competitively viable candidate so as not throw our vote away.  Make no mistake, this too is by design of the enemies of the United States of America.

We can only hope that if we save his chance to be President of the United States of America that he will not institute an entirely socialist agenda, though we expect some to occur due to his reaching across the isle.  This hope is more than we can begin to believe at all of the socialist dictator running for office, Senator Barrack Obama.

I wonder what the 56 men who Founded our nation would do right now. 

I'd imagine they'd rally a great clamoring of Americans to physically appear at The House of Representatives.  The Founders would have assured we'd have met beforehand amongst as many of us as possible, proposing solutions and quickly deciding the best one, to then arrive on the steps of the capital together, as the government of this nation we are "of, by, and for the people."

It is We The People's initiative that founded this nation, that organized elective state and national governments, who incorporated influences of the French and those Indian tribes who exhibited a civil society we hadn't seen before and yet had no King.  We designed to institute a government amongst us to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  We did not in any way whatsoever design to institute a government to dictate what these mean, how they'll function and define the limits to our liberty, that we already had in the King of England.

Now is the time we must again seize Our Mantle of Authority that we vested in others, to administer Our Will, that these others fail to recognize, and appear more than happy to destroy along with the very foundations that give us this Right of Will over our country.

Let us act and act swiftly to work out our proposals and then meet in Washington D.C. to achieve our redress of grievance, to demand our proposals be done.  We must re-instill faith in our government by infusing ourselves as the personal guardians of this nation's principles, the Masters of our government that we once were.  Now is the time that we must be what our Founders foresaw of us in authority to defend our nation from all enemies foreign and domestic!

For our enemy is now domestic by claim and foreign by their philosophy, it is time we reigned our nation Proud and Honorable once more.

Thank you for reading.


References:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=08iomNFrzU4

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/shocker-obamas-muslim-outreach-advisor.html

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PsIW7OYHdGo&feature=related