A firm believer in America based on America's Founders, and not those who, would and do, trespass to rewrite the Constitution as though time alone provides wisdom, irrespective of the lack of "lessons learned."  I've found a need to echo some principles that seem long forgotten.

You see these who would easily ignore the Constitution wish to apply the differences of today, changes of the modern era, as justification for changes to The Constitution assume we no longer could have a domestic enemy or the ideas of feudalism and tyranny died long ago.  Sadly they themselves by failing to know our nation, the story that is America, are not from from being that domestic enemy themselves.

Yet many who want us to believe this idea of the modern era, and their obliviosness, are well aware of getting us to believe in them as their means of success, as their way to get us to vote for them, to listen to them.  The fact they are not running for public office, nor do they have any genuine love for America is to be overlooked. That instead they see America as a tool for their own personal gain irrespective of any sacrifice to America which occurs at every encroachment upon the rights of the individual, especially property rights, is absolutely foreign to their thinking of everyone's profits as "public excess."

These people do not see our input of any import, they do not look to what we produce, desire, or our dreams and aspirations, etc., with exception of using these as a means of revenue -- a sort of blackmail (Oregon not receiving enough fuel revenues due to people buying hybrids and the whole Co2 global warming environmental thing who then pay less fuel tax and now the state wants to tax their specific mileage using GPS to track them and bill them!) These people and their propositions are the certain and specific epitome of the Feudal Exchequer.

Contrary to popular public opine, Government however is not a business, well, at least it is not a business in an elected capitalist republic (according to Franklin) featuring an administrative form of government with an arbitration by majority or greater votes depending on the circumstance.

These "liberal ideas" are the remnants of Feudal Tyrannies and their Tyrants, whether called feudalism, socialism, communism, and/or facism, etc., these "forms of government" and economy are entirely and purposefully a business run by government. These are where government is formed under the guise of "the Will of the People" but executes it's actions irrespective of their needs. Eventually everything these governments do is for the sole purpose of protecting the governmental mechanism or control of "the political means." In all cases this means the assumed control of every aspect of property, tangible and intangible, so long as it is controlled and provides a justification, another opportunity to receive more revenues for the government. This more often results in government claims over rights, or protections from and, to intangibles claiming a duty and obligation, that these are a "necessary act of government."

Historically these duties and obligations always seem to come with a form of "generating revenue" for government, government "eating out" our "substance" and new expenditure systems that allow our honorable elected to abscond with funds generated by the new tax irrespective of it's imposition on other grounds.

The above described Feudal Tyrannies and the variety of names in "re-branding" the Feudal ideology of government owning everything it claims any interest in, of course also erects an invisible line, a border, which rises up into infinity from the very core of the Earth. This border outlines the outer edges of every property these governments claim, including we the People, as "resources," and "subject to" their administration of our lives -- to in our best interest but as a means to generate revenue for the government.

And all within this border, as decreed by government of course, is further subject to "schemes" (they use this term in their own government codes) to afford expansion of government within this border -- a condensation of government power -- justified on "the revenues government needs" to "effectively carry on the business of government."

As with when we were under the old Feudal Tyrants and Lords, nothing belongs to us outright, everything by permission, by privileged grant to those who seek it; always a "contingent" or "public" interest in the private lives of the people to claim such permission is necessary and justified, along with the "fee" associated with the permission -- the fee another "revenue."

Some may find this comforting, and I submit that since 911, some information should be shared, but, not for taxation, not for government to adjust it's revenue notions and see how it can spend more (say $700 billion), merely creating a debt on our backs, to justify another assessment and tax under the guise of "to pay off this debt." See it doesn't matter who is bailed out, that's the "red herring."

What does matter is that government, even for a moment, felt it was, it is, so empowered as to agree to such an expenditure at all. This is the Feudal Lord, the King or Queen, the Tyrant, spending and justifying the expense even if there is no means to afford it but to oppress the people. This may have meant killing a number of them merely to not be required to have as much food in storage for the winter. This may mean selling off lands and a noble to another nation so as to increase the Sovereign's Wealth so they can afford that artist's monument to their last conquest, and get it finished before they die so the next in the "blue blood" line doesn't interfere.


In particular to the "$700 Billion Bailout" consider how 95% of America was against it at the time (and 80% still), that this opposition led to failure in the House. This is important because it had no revenue generation provisions in it, it was not a "Bill for raising Revenue" as that requires certain rules, house rules, before such a bill can even reach the floor of the house. This is a protection that we the People want and is in recognition of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 7. To be clear, the original $700 Billion Bailout failed without having any revenue generating provision in it. Our Constitution makes it very clear that....

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." (Article I, Section 7, main body of the U.S. Constitution.)

Harry Reid demonstrated the very essence of feudal tyranny. Even after the house vote on this bill had failed to pass it, in adherence to the will of the people, he used the Amendment Clause to now add revenue provisions to the dead bill (thus the revenue portion did not originate in the House and does not provide the people with the protections they should have been afforded). The Senate then passes this new version of this now $850 Billion Bailout packaging it specifically as an amendment to another bill (the revenue provisions are now 3 layers deep from being legitimate according to the U.S. Constitution.). Harry Reid, knew exactly what he is doing, if you look at the record and what votes they had, the packaging being very particular to pass this bill, you'll find Harry Reid did not care about the Will of the People. See this isn't about if we need the Bill or not, it is about government acting on the basis of what we've indicated we want or do not want versus acting on their own accord, as though our input doesn't matter. This is absolutely the means and control of Feudal Tyranny irrespective of it's brand.

Yet few Americans know anything about the Constitution, other than "I claim my rights under the Constitution" not even realizing that their rights are not subservient to the Constitution, and our rights have never derived from the Constitution. Thus we haven't any idea how or what to do, nor will we act, when government is acting without us, without consideration of us as anything but a vote to keep those in power holding a seat -- power they were meant to have as a matter of carrying out our will, of carrying out the propositions of the The Unanimous Declaration of Independence.


The U.S. Constitution, main body, is the one and only supreme, absolute, and certain directive of administration of the governing the United States of America in a fair and just manner, and yet, the Original 13 Colonies required the Bill of Rights to be ratified with the U.S. Constitution. I must say again, The U.S. Constitution, main body, is the one and only supreme, absolute, and certain directive of the administration of governing the United States of America.

The "Bill of Rights," of course, has become a bit vague as a term since it is used as an affectionate colloquialism we've applied to the ratified First 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This is in contradistinction to the "Bill of Rights" being the title to a particular document with 12 Articles for Amendment, the last 10 of which are the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The original 13 colonies, now forming into states "all-at-once" essentially, found it necessary to require this Bill of Rights Document be ratified in order to assure greater limitation on the centralization of power in a national government, to assure a "Federal" Government, even beyond the founders original main body.

You see after being under Feudal Tyrannies for a good 1500 years, which are a "civilized" form of Tribalism and slavery of one's own people, our Nation's Founders found themselves very unwilling to centralize any power under any form of national government figurehead, be it a prince, singular or even as a body with 3 parts, or just under the banner "government."

This is why our national government is referred to as a "Federal" government." The powers of the federal government are entirely circumscribed by the 10th Amendment where the States, or even the People, claim such right, then such powers are not delegated by the U.S. Constitution to the administration of government in the United States. Now of course the U.S. Supreme Court has found, since around the Civil War, that the National Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land" however, the trouble is that the Constitution itself indicates this in a more limited capacity:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (U.S. Constitution Article 6)

Note the condition, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...." This directs in no uncertain terms the need for every single law, every single act to be in pursuance of The Constitution, a document of limited government powers. Each act must be in pursuance of the proper administration of a government to the principles of the documents whose force and effect is not excluded, and was a legislative enactment by it's own words "In Congress Assembled....The Unanimous Declaration of Independence."

It is important to note that the Declaration of Independence is the only founding document that received unanimous consent, and therefore, has greater authority than even the U.S. Constitution where Rhode Island would not sign.

So now when we go back to Harry Reid picking up a Bill the House had voted down and that had no revenue provisions, thereafter adding another $150 Billion in "Christmas Trees," and adding "Bills for raising Revenue" by amendment, or in itself, making the new $850 Billion Bailout a "Bill for raising Revenue" we find this act is not in pursuance of "This Constitution," the very document that prohibited what Harry Reid did.


This is why our expansion of our national government, cannot be into a central government, and such expansion is not in the best interest of America. This is also why the founders love of freedom and the experiences which forged these principles so strongly in them that they made this written Constitution with such limitations and clauses to assure we, the governed, remain in grant of our consent to the government. This is why this same power has been extended to everyone in this nation by the 14th Amendment.

Understand that there are many who from the Founding of the United States of America miss central government and continue to long for the "Blue Blood" reign. These are people whose families would have loved to have been the dominating Lord of one of the colonies granted by Letters Patent of a Crown Head of Europe. These people have and continue to choose to interpret our Constitution to meet those ends, and not the ends of our Unanimous Declaration of Independence, nor to meet the conditions ironed out over 11 years of discussion, meetings, and secrecy from 1778-1789 to produce the Constitution of the United States.

ChangingWind.Org intends and is meant to preserve this knowledge, this ideology that manifest into a nation through these founding instruments and those who worked so hard, so diligently, to put them together, fight for them afterwards up to this day, and, whose remnant of reasonableness began to be lost to distant memory under FDR. Of course with the passage of time, and something the Feudal ideologists count on, the zeal for freedom, its recognition and defense, has since declined and almost entirely a non existent voice of knowledge and wisdom from the people who brought about the largest wealth redistribution program ever: The Founders of the United States of America.

Our founders know Feudalism under any brand, its properties a defined certainty that cannot be masked, cannot be mistaken for something else, or glazed over. Our Founders, these people who were born into feudal slavery, even as a noble "at pleasure of the King [or Queen]," they fought for better for all of us and, together with Lincoln, did all they can to assure this promise extends to everyone equally. It is up to us to take up this mantle. We must make sure these freedoms and their extension of equal representation, the works of these so very many people beginning in 1641 and continuing through the Founders of the United States to Lincoln, are not lost.

When someone wonders what America is, read the U.S. Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Learn of the life of serfdom and caste society, a structure that insects live by and are born into as well (as we once were, it is nice to be able to write that), "peonage" is the life Our Founders left behind and did all they could to assure none of us would ever experience again as Americans.

Learn about the first attempt to leave the crown in 1641 by 5 of the plantations, and the first codification of laws in 1643. These define America, for they define our Spirit of defiance to oppression. We are defiant of man being viewed, comprehended, treated, and used as a substance and resource subject to the control of other men purely due to their claims of right to do so and without care or consideration whatsoever of our claims that they cannot, that their "sentience" is no greater than my own, irrespective of anything they have to claim -- there is no justification for anyone to believe in any manner they are in the position to determine the fate, the life, the future, of another.

Elite status is a myth, conjured up for those who want to portray importance to whatever they are promoting as granting them an elevated condition over others.

Generally these "elitists" have their "alphabet soup" after their name and are looking to bring others to grant the same significance of meaning to these that these people found in pursuing these letters -- an acknowledging qualification that they believe should grant some sort of authority over those without it. things from those who didn't.

Titles of any kind, be it President, etc. are of similar significance in a free nation and to a free people. These things only command respect out of those who glory in it, who desire to find significance in it. Those who have these titles have no right to force anyone else to recognize this significance and thereby derive no right to dictate others lives, what they do with their property, or if others are capable of managing themselves.

In a free nation there is no criteria but freedom and that, if one is representing government, they adhere to the principles of The Unanimous Declaration of Independence -- our foundation as a nation -- or they no longer have the consent of the governed, no right to "wield" any sword of authority or claim any such right.

Fights for freedom in every form, from our nation's wars with England to a prison riot, are a testament to the value of freedom. And when we act accordingly, when government uses a clear head and reason to achieve results that haven't anything to do with their own best interest, it is at that moment of such achievement that governance is occurring and not "the business of government" -- something that clearly has been forgotten in light of this revenue generation structure where government is guaranteed an income irrespective of nature not providing such guarantee to anyone who they rely upon for such revenue.

This is not to say that there is no government interest involved, it is to say that those representing government have a duty to remember it's place, and theirs in it, as an administrator, and recognize that pursuant to those instruments which founded our government, the source of it's legitimacy: American Government interest is subservient to the States and the People.

This is vital to a free people, free nation, free society, and free markets. Any regulation, even by measure and opining of the importance of the measure, is a threat to freedom by threatening these, a threat that occurs by the slightest suggestion of "normal" or "tradition." America isn't about tradition or we'd have never left the Crowns of Europe, we never would have ceased to continue our vassalage and subject slavery (serfdom).

Thus and so I am guilty of being an American. I am guilty of promoting the Founders Values and Beliefs as the conservative and republican values they actually are. I am guilty of believing a free nation can only remain free if the people are willing to take part, to make it their duty to be informed (This is not to be confused with the ad infinitum conjecture that can and has often developed into a conspiracy theory, usually intertwining with another conspiracy theory, as though knowledge of such things, the "specialness of it," will help anything.)

Reason is a tool that can fool if not used wisely. It is the heart of freedom when adopted by a mass of people who arrived at the conclusion through use of reason and in repulsive reflex to their abject condition, a worldwide right of the sentience of mankind. Reason is the heart of tyranny when used by a few to spread rumor, gossip, and other theory as though fact, "in arguendo," to lead one to believe this suggestive "talk" is true, and only so as to get them to apply reason to such fallacy and manipulate them or a situation.

It is in the repulsive reflext to our abject condition that our nation was founded, and, that a republican named Abraham Lincoln risked this nation in a Civil War to assure these principles have no limit through the administration of our Federal Government.


Lastly, few realize the very essence of freedom, the spirit of this country, derives from capitalism because it is the most significant and symbolic departure from Feudal Europe.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [the People] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

"Security" here is meant everything, that, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are "among" the "certain Unalienable Rights" each of us is "endowed with by their Creator." Thus "future Security" is an assurance that this limited group of Unalienable Rights as well as those not enumerated -- other rights these are "among" -- is defended, upheld, and protected by a government structure designed to do so by written constitutional direction to administer itself with these fair, just, and proper ends as the goal and purpose of the administration of our United States Government.

Our Congress has long since deviated from this principle. Though they have the "Power of the Purse" under the Constitution they continue to carry on "political tradition" and blame the outgoing unpopular President, the most politically "safe" position, for economic woes. Congress cannot, nor will they ever, take responsibility for poor economic conditions, or better said by our Founders in The Unanimous Declaration of Independence, for being poor "Guards for" our "future security."


Thank you for reading.


Toddy Littman

A little something to consider this Christmas when we're all concerned about our economic situation. I believe this is something to help us better understand why as Americans our capitalist system and it's relation to freedom are more important than ever, and, why we must redouble our efforts once more, that the mindset of evil has returned to seek out it's piece of history....


When you are wondering what tomorrow will bring, what job you might have, how you'll pay your bills, remember these privileges were brought to you by capitalism the first wealth redistribution program to come after the tribal (feudal) regimes of central power. Let us make sure it does not get lost in the muddy abyss of the re-branding of this centralized power, or more commonly referred to as "liberalism."

Let us hope we unite as mankind once more and prevail, that this story ends with the final slaying of this beast of atrocity named Genocide which has no place in civilized society or amongst our race entire anywhere in the World.

You all seriously must read this.  Haven't emphasized anything, I'll be doing that on my website.  I just know we here need to be paying attention to this one, as Americans:

"FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Between the 700...oops I mean the 850 billion dollar Tarp bill (150 billion in "Christmas trees") and the amount the "big 3 auto makers" are looking for -- 15 to 75 billion -- as well as the states and their billions they need -- California looking for 15 billion -- it occurred to me: Haven't we already spread the wealth around?

Someone pinch me! How is it that there is any wealth left with a 1 trillion dollar deficit?

Consider also that the labor unions have to give concessions to save the big 3 auto makers.

Yep you read that right, the labor unions....oops again the one union for 3 businesses, United Auto Workers, whose whole purpose is to provide a voice for the auto worker, not dominate these companies and determine their survival, is the key to whether the big 3 get bailout money. Apparently the unions have possession of the wealth that GM, Ford, and Chrysler were built upon, and, hold the future of the employee and employer in their hands. the UAW the balancing fulcrum of social order.

Do any of you remember voting for the government and business to be subservient to the unions as the leaders and sole arbiter of our nation's economic future, and thus our nation? I sure don't. Last I knew we are a capitalist nation, built on our own work and not as laborers forever but to eventually be owners ourselves, employing others. We owned our farms, owned our livestock, our land, we had real property in the idea of reality. Renting was looked down on as a waste of money because of the lack of equity as renting is not an investment where we build equity that we can use to pursue and fulfill our dreams.

Those days have fallen to the wayside with the consumer economy, driven by the internet to an endless payment plan for access, and not even guaranteed access. We sign a one sided "End User License Agreement" where we have no rights at all but are to be subjected to making payment, irrespective of performance by those providing service.

Everywhere you look there is a redistribution of wealth from those who have any to those who are too incompetent to have any and generally because of government support and pursuit of "jobs." and this is irrespective of there being to many jobs where people do almost nothing but get a paycheck. Humorously if it wasn't so sad, these people lose their job and it's everyone's fault but their own. We like to think of ourselves ad productive, we build this wonderful story of ourselves that we tell to others but, in the end, we are producing little and paid far more than what we are worth because, in all honesty we do just enough not to get fired and just below as much as we could so we don't "show up" our fellow employees.

A little honesty about the "job" environment is a good thing. This reveals just how far we've come along to be less than our forefathers when it comes to wealth, real wealth. See when you realize this you know wealth has already been redistributed, and now the 700 billions and the 150 billion in "Christmas trees" added to that, along with the auto bailout and the "stimulus packages" too, you can see wealth redistribution has also already failed.

Make sure to act accordingly over these next 4 years when you hear the President-Elect and Congress wanting to enact legislation to "tax the upper 5 percent" to give money to those with less, for, you'll see the tax is being applied to the very people we've been giving money to, the banks and GM, to save their businesses, their industries, and of course the all important "jobs." It's rather obvious these "wealthy" people who are proving far less wealthy than the American people as a whole.

To me, the cars should be free if we own "the big 3" auto makers, and, we should be paying no interest on loans and have no deductible on insurance since we own the big players on Wall Street and AIG the big insurer as well. I mean, what owner pays for the use of their company products with cash out of their own pocket?

Thank you for reading.

Jan 20th 2009 can't come fast enough it seems, for Obama or the rest of us.

In many ways it's "let's get this show on the road" mostly because of all the uncertainty about him which I view as defiance, a defiance that we decided we don't care about. We appear entirely numb to the idea of a candidate being unwilling to be transparent, to be open and honest during their campaign as indicative to the type of government they will run -- and this does not include all policy done for the mere "photo op" aspect of it. I discuss Obama's defiance to us here http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.18.8

Let's expand this a bit. Bush helps Obama ring in socialism. The crux of the Paulson Bailout is abandoned, and instead the government is buying preferred shares (mostly) in financial institutions, instead of buying the elusive (and illusive) "illiquid paper" on their books, this was the gist of the plan described to the American People and protested against, yet in the end, how the Bailout was sold to America irrespective of the desires of the American People. Understand that Paulson has only spent around 290 billion of the 700 billion and is trying to leave the balance of the funds available to Obama.

Remember Paulson claimed an extreme urgency to getting this 700 billion initially, and how this may not be enough. For me this was an obvious "bait and switch" when I heard the money won't be available to Paulson until 4 weeks later. This was right after the bailout proposal was claimed as passing. I discuss this wonderful sensation of being had here: http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.3.8 and I also explain why the Bailout Bill is illegal here: http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.2.8

So now as we wait for the beginning of the Obama Administration of "change," let's propose some ways Obama doesn't need to spend a dime of the 410 billion dollars Hank Pauslon is saving for Obama:


Preface/Preliminary

First, if you do not know how the federal reserve system works, what I have to say here probably won't make sense. I suggest getting a copy of the American Bankers Association book entitled "Focus On The Bank Director" which has a great illustration of how the federal reserve system works within the first 10 pages.


Solution 1

This understanding of the Federal Reserve System is important because buying a home on credit started from a solid foundation with principled lending practices via the 25% deposit. Funds deposited in an account, generate more funds through a series of lending transactions. For example the bank lends out 90% of the deposit and 10% is retained (the reserve), well that lent amount is then deposited again and the next bank does the same with it. This occurs over and over from bank to bank, diminishing the amount lent while accumulating a reserve equal to the original deposit. This process continues until there is nothing to lend out, but the accumulation of the reserves between these banks equals the amount of the initial deposit, which it then replaces so you can use your deposit however you wish. You can see why banks encourage lending. The total amount lent out exceeds the initial deposit value, which is what affords the home having that value tied up as equity for 30 years.

If homeowners right now who either have a sub-prime loan or own their home outright were to quit claim 25% of their home to the bank and not on debt but instead on condition this is assessed, monetized, deposited into an account at the bank for 90 days, and, that the bank quit claims the 25% interest in the property back to the homeowner at the end of 90 days, a great amount of credit would be generated in the local community. This credit would accommodate the equity (value) in that home while affording the needs of the local economy, thus supporting the equity held in all the properties in the area. Of course I would only do this after discussing it with the bank, they might think I'm nuts but it's how the federal reserve system works to assure there is enough currency flowing to accommodate the rise in price and our desire to spend while providing a means of retention of equity in fixed (or hard) assets.

The reason this will work is the bank is monetizing the 25% property interest into a deposit without a debt because the 25% is actually given with a non value proviso (debt free). This is an all positive capital infusion by the monetization of this 25% interest in the homeowner's property that is then deposited into an account in the federal reserve system, which, by processing, regenerates the initial deposit, meaning the bank can take the money back out and return the interest in the homeowner's property after the federal reserve process has completed (usually 90 days or less). Understand this is not done to "make money" it is done to infuse much needed liquidity to support local economies and fixed asset values.

A Biblical reference to this is Jesus using 6 loaves of bread to feed the multitude. He did not manifest bread for all from nothing, he needed something to multiply the quantity of. Like the soldier whose ear was cut off and Jesus picked the ear up and re-placed it. He never grew an ear where there was none before, nor legs where there were none before, nor had he manifest eyes in the eyeless to see, etc. His was to take what has been given what had come to exist already and as Christ re-grew, re-established these things from God in their purest state to mend what was broken. Our financial system and economy lack their original purity, and it is this return that is necessary for stability. This is also true of our American government.


Solution 2

Another solution is a bookkeeping modification to allow banks to depreciate these "illiquid assets" by 20% once they are worth less than 20% of original value. The rule would further allow this depreciation to be immediately posted as a lendible asset on the books of the bank. This would untie, "thaw," those frozen credit lines, essentially allowing for renegotiation of that equity through new lending. Over the course of about 2 years, if the economy doesn't bounce back quickly, the bank will be able to write off that illiquid asset and renegotiate the entire amount of funds which was subject to total loss previously. This could also be a rather powerful bookkeeping procedure in regard to credit default swaps (derivatives) should that become a more important part of the discussion due to it's potential collapse resulting in an estimated 55-65 trillion dollar hit to the U.S. and World Economy.


Summary

The above solutions could be done together which would certainly revitalize our entire financial system quickly, almost instantaneously. However it will take a sense of country first which means to make certain to use whatever devices are at our disposal to assure the continuance of free market capitalism. If you do not know capitalism is necessary for freedom I strongly suggest you pick up a copy of Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal to assist you. You'll find articles by Al Greenspan in there as well, to help better understand his willingness to be the current fall guy when it is very clear his lack of regulation was mandated by a Congress where liberals did not want to do anything that would hinder FreddieMac and FannieMae so long as they lined the pockets of democrats (Note: The Federal Reserve never had power over FreddieMac and FannieMae, as "quasi" government agencies, they had their own agency powers by the same authority that empowers the Federal Reserve Board, a legislative stalemate that could only be solved by an act of Congress granting the powers to the Federal Reserve.)

I must say it will certainly be "change" for any far left liberal democrat with everything Obama has going for him to not spend 500 billion of the 410 billion Paulson is leaving him, if you know what I mean.


Thank you for reading.

Tenuous!  That's all I can say tenuous at best. AP: Gonzales & Cheney Indicted

I must comment because the story starts with such a nice spin of "well maybe it's on point," and then....

"Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies."

There seems to be no lack of interest in pursuing conservatives with a hatred that one only relates to the child who is sure mom favored their sibling best.  I find it a complete outrage that there is no limit to the imagination, the stretching of the truth, that liberals will pursue out of shear loathsome hatred, and then they wonder why we cannot get along.

I can't believe this constant bias while wearing the face of innocence, as though they do nothing wrong and, whatever they are doing, it doesn't matter what it is doing to others because liberals are sure it must be done.  The absolute nerve!  They can't even wait until the 20th because their prosecutor here lost his re-election bid, thus they must pursue this.  They don't care that they waste taxpayer money on the court's time, on pursuing something with such a slim string, if any at all,....This might as well be Prosecutor Nyphong, or maybe he was the test case and now in Texas, this Guerra, is sure he's got the method of prosecuting when one has no case down to an elite liberal science!

And, whatever happened to William Jefferson, the "100k in the Freezer" man? 

I guess the government only sold out on principles because we did.

Thanks for reading.

Of course liberal Congress needs to hear from their most noted funding source, George Soros, responsible for the organization of 70 millionaires and billionaires to assure Obama's win (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=322)
and to do all they can to put an end to the greatest threat to those who use wealth as a means of dictatorship: gun ownership, irrespective of 2nd Amendment Gun Rights in America.


A Little History

I won't go into one of my long winded discussions of the man who told the poor people of Rosia Montana village in Romania they don't get to own 20% of a thriving gold mine while George Soros has competing gold holdings.  This is after his Open Society Institute destroyed 10 years of work to open the gold mine this village of impoverished Romanians would own 20% of and greatly looked forward to, http://reportfromrosia.com/?m=200707.  A more detailed account of the entire affair is here, http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=46&num=121582.

A Canadian Firm had invested close to 300 million dollars over the last 10 years to open the Rosia Montana Mine in Romania, cell phone tower licensing was in the works since there aren't any towers in the area, however Soros, using the Ministry of Environment, brought their environmental review to a halt indefinitely.  They haven't been denied nor approved, the process just halted.

Soros has been personally responsible for contributing 100s of millions of dollars to various "former soviet block" nations in his "philanthropy."  Few realize Soros is merely throwing money at governments and "almost governments" with almost no economy or stability short of bribery and corruption.  But these are also nations Soros has precious metals or other interests in and will protect from any competition, even if it means starving a village of Romanians further.  Russia used to mine this particular Rosia Montana Mine but after the fall of the Soviet Union the mine has not been worked.  This mine also has a history with the NAZI regime.  The following article goes into the Rosia Montana Mine history more http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/driessen083107.htm.

Of course this isn't the first time George Soros has shown his desire to influence and even control a government, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/bill-hobbs/2007/12/10/soros-using-environmental-scare-tactics-gain-control-gold-mine.


What about American Resources?

Consider the above in light of our own use of our own oil reserves, some of which have been re-evaluated at 9 times what we originally thought, and, MoveOn.org, a George Soros enterprise, making it clear their $88 million raised for Obama requires him to do as he promised them, http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20081105/DC4416105112008-1.html.  And luckily for the liberals George Soros finally gets a win http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.bush.soros.reut/.  Note that this means 300 million people are to be subjected to 4.5 million people's demand that Barack Obama does their will.


Soros:  An Equal Opportunity International Scofflaw

Here is a wonderful International Herald Tribune article about George Soros conviction in France being upheld by their Supreme Court.  http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/24/business/soros.php.  Last I knew France is an ally and a friend of the United States.  I cannot understand letting someone who doesn't honor French laws and courts, and, evades ours law by running a hedge fund off our shores, illegal since FDR, without paying any income taxes due to the United States, or virtually any government worldwide, is allowed to speak before our Congress.

However Soros, who promotes the idea of "spread the wealth" by backing Barack Obama, will not pay the 2.2 million dollar fine for insider trading, money the French Government surely could use.  No no, Soros in fact wants to turn his insider trading case into an international case to take to the World Court to be vindicated, and of course then be able to sue the French Government, so it is acting in Soros' best interest as well.  Let us not forget this is "the man who broke the bank of England," http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_143947.html, and I quote:

"In 1992, Soros won the title the "man who broke the Bank of England" when his speculations and machinations helped devalue the British currency. Many governments believe that he triggered the Asian economic crisis that began in 1997, was involved in the Mexican bailout with their President Ernesto Zedillo. Most recently, Soros worked on the Euro, pushing the U.S. dollar down to a near all-time low.

He was convicted in 2002 of insider trading in France and fined $2.2 million. George dismissed this finding as 'a odd decision' and said that he would file an appeal. ...."

Conclusion

Only in America could a man with the character above be allowed to speak before Congress as an expert in financial matters.  But then again this is the new "Liberal America" and Soros is the new "Stalin shadow" of Barack Obama by private politburo finance -- and liberals thought the 50% owned by Lyndon Johnson's estate in Halliburton was bad! 

Soros, like Obama, says everything we want to hear but at the same time asserts what we've all known is all wrong.  In light of the above, can anyone trust George Soros?  And if not, can Congress trust George Soros?  Notice that Soros wants his philosophy, that he discusses at the end of the following interview, to rule the way we think, the way we go about our solutions, as though George Soros is presiding over governments and their people.  Bill Moyers, having worked for Soros for 3 years in OSI, makes it easy to know how Soros plans to influence the situation, to distort the facts for "Soros's self interest" and socialism.  Listen to our world leader, our Dictator George Soros for yourself, be careful for he's selling something:  your gullibility -- http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.html. 

Thank you for reading.

Here is the Poll Question:



"Question of the Day

Do you think Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed?"



Get your vote in, they want to quote this poll I am sure hehe:



http://www.chicagotribune.com/



Cheers!

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.