News - Category '2012 Election'

A Littanous Littman Rant: Sovereignty Lost

08 Mar : 18:55 Category: 2012 Election

The reality is this: Romney, as the nominee, guarantees 4 more years of Progressive government, irrespective of who wins in November.



Lazy bum Americans who think beating one man will save their country, only justify and admit that NEA education of dependency has succeeded in undermining the rugged individualism that is trademark American. “Self-Government” requires an engaged population, in the 150+ years (since 1857) that the NEA has been teaching us how our servant government is actually our Master Government, has finally destroyed this quality of the American, at least a standard of measure in the whole value and meaning of politics.

Our Founders wrote for futures, James Madison well explaining how the Convention, through the Constitution, sought to do what the Articles of Confederation didn't: End slavery by 1808, in 20 years time, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html

Slavery” had an institutional meaning, to be sure, but the meaning that is missed is the one relating to “Property in Rights,” (see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.96) to which Our Founders wanted the entirety of unalienable Rights to be a well recognized Sovereignty that attaches to all who were here by ratification of Our Written Constitution, and used this instrument of the Union as best they could to end slavery, for they knew the utter hypocrisy of this institution being continued by a people who were slaves by serfdom to the Crowns of Europe.

But as we return to the present day, we are always trying to elect someone “to change things for us,” like children, we treat the government as our Parent. The difference this time is that in all the reigns of crowns since the time of the Hammurabi Code, the people were submissive for a reason: Their Faith, whether a real or imagine religious purpose, their conviction out of fear of retribution, was true.

Our current “we must defeat Obama” sacrifice of all principle, ignoring the facts of the “front runner” being a Progressive in all the same ways as Obama (see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.208), is the undoing of the Freedom and Individual Liberty that Our Founders fought for, for which most of the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence died. Voting for Romney only proves this fact, that the Principles of America have given way to the media claimed issue of import. We no longer compare Freedom, of mind and of Right as the backdrop of contrast as to who is the best candidate, allowing our educated relation of money-to-Freedom, and the narrowing of concern thereby, the “rational” thought, to dictate our choices.

We no longer lead our government but have agreed to be led by government, agreeing to be the “Gold” from “led” for the Politburo/Noble Class of Progressive Government out of DC.

Please, vote for Romney to beat Obama, and ignore the Progressive machine and its promotion of Collectivism, and having a Collectivist State, as a desired political value of a nation founded on the principle of Individual Liberty; ignore the impact this has had on our education; ignore the impact this is having on who you are voting for; and ignore the fact this has brought us to believe in government, well evidenced by believing that if we beat one man we'll save our nation, a rather onerous admission that we're already a tyranny, and accepting Dictatorship as a legitimate form of government.

Freedom and Individual Liberty, what America was founded upon, is, by our hearts and minds in voting as we are today, extinct. May we realize that we have the God Given unalienable Right to resurrection of this Principle, of the fire of Liberty that animated Our Founders and the Tea Party before it is too late.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. It should be enough to see that Romney did better in Massachusetts than in his “home state of Michigan” to comprehend Newt Gingrich is absolutely right: “Romney is a Massachusetts moderate,” and I contend Newt was being generous in that assessment. Newt was a Congressman in Georgia and not the governor, yet he pulled almost 50% of his home state of Georgia with 65% of the voters explaining “his ties to the State didn't matter.”

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Community Organizing President “Nit-Pick to Poverty”

06 Mar : 05:18 Category: 2012 Election
This video is a fuller excerpt, please play it to appreciate the tenor of the article, thank you.



Obama, the consistent creator of “artificial limits” as Commander-In-Thief, has proven that what he said in the video above from 2008 is true, that high energy costs are associated with social engineering the American People to achieve his personal goals relating to what Obama sees wrong with America. This is obvious when you consider that today Obama says he wants to get rid of tax breaks for oil companies because “manufacturing creates more jobs,” a specious argument in misdirection. Don't fall for it.

First, it is the left who wants to tell us there's a limited amount of money available, á la Michael Moore, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/02/. Of course, what is ignored by Moore, a staunch liberal and supporter of Obama, is that President Obama voted for the Bank Bailouts, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26953481/. Then Senator Obama didn't pass up the opportunity to share his socialist positions in a speech, positions which are inconsistent with voting for the Bank Bailout except in politics. I bet Moore didn't mention Obama's vote to his OWS comrades when he decided to join them and put money behind them, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCZLhEOJ8XA (note Michael Moore mentioned, at 7 minutes in, going against GM too), and I am sure Obama's words for why Government needed to bail out the banks would have soothed them, “We are all going to need to sacrifice…We’re all going to need to pull our weight, because now more than ever we are all in this together. That is part of what this crisis has taught us.” Sure sounds familiar doesn't it? I wonder how much of OWS (as I know the Tea Party doesn't buy this line) will buy into the idea of bailing out the banks as “...now more than ever we are all in this together.” I bet the unions love this one too, or was this an incredible Obama Gaffe? Toddy Littman blogs, you decide.

Then “President Barack Obama of the House of Downgrade,” who has spent a whopping 5 trillion plus in his effort to make the Government the sole engine of the economy, the investment banker and venture Capitalist of Patronage to be sure, investing in Solyndra, http://www.newser.com/story/130484/, Beacon Power, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/, and by tax loopholes Obama isn't arguing to close, which aided GE, the 14 billion dollar Pulitzer Tax Evasion by Patronage Poster Child Winner (if there were such a category and Timothy Geithner didn't object to Geoffrey Immelt receiving it), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/. Of course, the grand daddy of them all, GM's volt, “your tax dollars at waste,” http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/, more recently canned, http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/03/02/.

Notice how the stories aren't -- and yeah I wanna beat the Liberal MSM on this one -- “Oil Company Goes Bankrupt After Government Bailout,” or “Oil Company Pays Zero Income taxes?” This is because they do pay taxes, and permit fees, royalties, licensing, along with the front money for their exploration costs, thus Oil Production is an established industry. This industry has, over the 100ish years of their production, lobbied for tax breaks to help them produce oil for less, and thereby pass less of the cost on as higher prices to the consumer. Now, if there were a proven Solar, Wind, etc., alternative technology, that had an entirely repeatable outcome and sustainable energy production we can count on, and certain tax changes would allow them to produce energy, or the means to produce energy, for less cost, and thereby, lower the cost to the consumer, sure, these alternative companies would deserve that. However, there is a great distance between tax breaks and government programs to lend them money, particularly as in the Solyndra case where the U.S. Treasury, our money and the People of the United States in representation as the Government, was illegally made the subordinate holder of debt, subordinate to the original investors and bond holders. We ended up giving them money because of this illegal arrangement.

Now, I must break with being civil about this, to call out the Obama Administration for the blatant hypocrisy in subordinating the Government loan to Solyndra to the original investors and bondholders, while he made sure to subordinate the GM bondholders and stockholders to unions that were given a percentage in ownership (40%) without having paid for it in the course of the “managed” bankruptcy – “Redistribution of wealth patronage” -- http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?. In even more perfect patronage fashion, this is why the GM Bankruptcy Case never went to the U.S. Supreme Court, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7978321&page=1. This is Obama's hand deciding the fate of others claims, in perfect loathsome, disgusting, sinister dishonor, his actions leading to the most certain abuse of government force against those who were harmed by GM or Chrysler's products. All of it done in the interest of “Social Justice,” http://www.programbusiness.com/News/.

Let's, for the sake of discussion, assume for a moment that Our “Social Justice” President, knowing full well the energy investment losers by patronage that he's picked, then avoids discussing all of his “green agenda” failure in Community Organizing the American People, by arguing instead that “more jobs are created by manufacturing.” Now, if we assume this is true, then the President is claiming to have unilaterally implemented a “cap on jobs” in America. Last I knew, in a free enterprise system, with the remnants of Capitalism continuing all on their own, jobs are created by people, their businesses, investment and purchases. Finding a market and filling a niche are actions of private inventors, producers, and others who provide goods and services, who then require greater numbers of people to aid in their business endeavor.

The President of the United States has no claim as to who creates more jobs, save historical records that fluctuated throughout the history of this nation, from our agrarian roots through the industrial revolution and now the information age. Today companies such as Apple Computer, Honda, Toyota, and others, which have robotic factories, have a need for an increased number of employed positions so their factories can put out many more products that are built better than ever before. Of course this is true unless the market for their product decreases, Government policies, taxation most of all, influence this activity, but these policies are, in part, to support and help the industries thrive.

Of course it could be that, as you heard in the 2008 video above and can review of Obama's factual record over the course of 4 years since, the Obama policies are against industries thriving, and in this alone he can make his claim, that his actions are causing a cap on the number of jobs, much like FDR, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/. However, the fact is that his claim keeps him from talking about the Obama energy investment losers where this President has put our tax dollars, the other part of tax policy, on behalf of the American People. This part of tax policy on the individual, who often has a small business or some independent contractor work, is what often negatively affects the expansion of the market for the products and services of the producers, manufacturers and others.

Progressive income taxation, implemented since the first Income Tax under Woodrow Wilson, higher percentages “owed” based on higher incomes, are the worst offense to having a growing marketplace as these punish achievement and ambition unequally, assuming the cost to achieve and play political business risk is not taxing in and of itself. The fact is we all work for our money in whatever way we do, our choices in job (and futures from this choice), our associations as well, are our own responsibility. Opportunity can take many forms and it's up to us, as a part of our Individual Liberty and Freedom to discern them and choose for ourselves based on our own Character. Through Progressive Taxation Government denies us the fruits of our labor for following Freedom if we choose the road to success.

Note, that while Obama wants to get rid of Oil Company tax breaks, he signed off on a loan to, now again Soros owned, Petrobras for $2,000,000,000 to help them drill off the shores of Brazil, http://online.wsj.com/article/. Although Forbes Magazine is having a fit over the notion Obama made the Petrobras loan as some sort of false statement, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/03/17/, the fact is, according to Bloomberg, Brazil didn't need the loan guarantee and only received 20% as much from the U.S. as it did from China ($10,000,000,000) who is now Brazil's largest trading partner, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?. Maybe it is that there is some international limit to how much China can help a nation, or Obama has agreed that the money we borrow from them we'll put into countries that China supports, so at least it doesn't appear as though China is the unopposed largest lender to them. I mean, aren't we just lending Brazil money we got from China? But that's how it is with a Saul Alinsky Radical in the White House; Proudly placing on his head the other hat Obama wears, Chicago Way Commander-In-Chief Community Organizer & Master of Patronage Extraordinaire, placing all things on the table as commodities to be negotiated, including your unalienable Rights, and all other forms of property you own to achieve “Social justice” -- This is the mantra root of Progressive taxation to afford any and all American Government enterprise solely done at the whim of the Executive Branch; a Communist bent on destroying America, under the erroneous belief we're the oppressor, he is doing all he can do to make sure Americans never wake up to feel the Government hand in their back pocket, and anywhere else it can grope and get another pound of flesh.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Obama's Black, Jews, Catholic, & Seniors Apology

23 Feb : 18:08 Category: 2012 Election

I just wanted to apologize to you for being such a steadfast ideologue.

My goal when I came into office... Well... Actually, I didn't have any goals (at least not the ones you thought). Many people knew this country was suffering from a great case of guilt, people like George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates, as well as many other millionaires and billionaires were well aware of this educationally imposed sense of guilt. It is a guilt that was given a voice by my Community Organizer mentor, Saul Alinsky, who figured out how to articulate, package, and sell what Marx and Engels had written about in the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

Bigger government, as was done during President Franklin Roosevelt's tenure, created a myriad of traps upon the wealthy, as Progressivism has a duty and responsibility to minimize wealth under the guise of at least appearing to make things fairer. Centralized government power structures, by any name, have never been fair, and the United States deviated from this ancient model in recognizing and protecting Individual Liberty. FDR's actions were to take the financial crisis of his day and use it to cause a variety of fundamental changes to government that, in the more Progressive day and age, naturally led to a need for that .001% of the people, those supporters and friends of mine of extreme wealth I named above earlier, to have done some things they feel guilty about to be so wealthy. This is why they support me so easily, as they use the very system of Capitalism to undermine it, while, I, by my physical appearance as a Black man, am able to drive the idea of another, collective guilt, race and the corollary of a collective solution, such as why most of you voted for me in 2008, you knew that I, Barack Obama, am your collective solution.

Now in 2010, that I've been responsible for higher unemployment among Blacks, that I've proven I have no genuine affinity toward Israel, and that I have no trouble denying the oldest, as well as real estate wealthiest, institution on Earth, The Catholic Church, their religious liberty, irrespective of the limits of the First Amendment, and, as a crowning achievement, that my record shows that, I believe in fiscal responsibility by cutting $500,000,000,000 (yes that's “Billion,” with a “B”) from Medicare through the Affordable Care Act, even if it leaves seniors literally at the hands of the Health and Human Services Secretary's discretion if they live beyond a certain age, that I must now use a completely different tactic in 2012 that, of course, assumes you'll vote for me because I know you will, just because I am Barack Obama.

So, this time, I must keep you all from looking at my record, from paying any attention to how poorly I have treated you and the entire country in my tenure as President of the United States, as that is the only way I can keep you from realizing how I exploited you with empty promises leading up to the 2008 election, where, of course, you voted for me, Barack Obama, and I won.

You've already seen some of this campaign's strategy, where I claim that everything brought forward that disagrees with my policies are “an effort to create a wedge issue” and “divide the nation,” where I am claiming you elected me to do what I am doing, no matter how destructive it is to you, in a way that you'll agree with me it's the right thing to do. That's how I have positioned myself as appearing to be the one being dominated by 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, a Black man as President being oppressed in doing what I claim you want me to do. I am truly brilliant at duping you into submission.

Sadly, by my election in 2008, America showed there is no longer an institutional racism, at least of any national conscience and/or scale, and that means I can't use the 2008 claim “that's racist” when someone challenges one of my oppressive government policies anymore. This is only reinforced by my record which exacerbates the fact that I have abused my power. The last thing I need is you seeing how I alone am claiming certain prerogatives, essentially the prerogatives of Royalty over you, that I am asserting and using against you the same prerogatives as the Executive branch of government throughout the nations of Europe, and the rest of the World, because their people didn't found their government subservient to them. I've made a calculated decision that many of the experts from universities I hired as czars has affirmed that you have no idea that you're the Sovereign of America, that you have no idea how to stop me from using powers the Constitution never gave me. I am the embodiment of a coup to overthrow the lawgiver in America, to take this Sovereign Prerogative that belongs to you for myself, just because it should belong to someone like me, Barack Obama. My capabilities are of such power solely due to your belief that government has any of the powers they claim, and we just bypass you knowing that you, nor any other American, knows how to challenge that power without falling into one trap or another that allows us to stamp you as a criminal or threat to the United States Government.

I mean, here you are considering voting for Mitt Romney, my Progressive brother, a man who has even come forward and said, “my views are Progressive.” Go, look it up, it's right on youtube.com. What I would have given to be Mitt Romney, to have my father have been a Saul Alinsky student, raising me to be a Progressive with direct training from the Master, Alinsky himself. I can say, without any hesitation because I am Barack Obama, that, in that environment, I would have probably known before age 15 (the same age when Mitt Romney started campaigning for his father in Michigan) what my political views were, and been an activist in high school to make sure Progressivism's root in America had, long before now, destroyed the sense of freedom and self-government that Americans believe in. Progressivism, taught by Community Organizers, is the sole force undermining America by undermining its values, its founding principles, all done by persistent perverse use of religious maxims of good.

So I wanted to apologize to the Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and Seniors for having completely exploited you in 2008, but that's just politics, and the way of power. I mean, if you don't realize I lack transparency of any kind by now and don't care about you, I know you'll vote for me anyway merely due to your 2008 ego investment, and that well-taught stubbornness instilled in you by your NEA Progressive education. I know there is a persistent need for controversy in your need to be right. You show it even during the most insignificant conversations. Yours is the generation of Progressive chaos, to which I am here to bring Progressive Order, and that is why we created the chaos in you, and know how to make you do exactly what we want at any time. I am your Progressive Savior of you from yourself. Remember you did vote for me in 2008, and, as we all know most Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and Seniors, especially those Seniors in Progressive AARP, will vote for me even 10 years from now when our national debt is $30,000,000,000,000 and more, if America lasts that long, which my policies assure it will not unless the nation is willing to become part of a worldwide Progressive order of government. The benevolence of survival as a slave instead of death does appeal to most people, so again I, Barack Obama, win. Think about it. I already took out those who would be the biggest challengers to such a government, Osama Bin Laden, Al Awlaki, and Qaddafi, and I am poised to use the U.S. Military as an International Hit Squad to take out others, no one is stopping me.

So, going back to my apology, as I've always said.... Well.... Actually, I've never said anything like this but you have to believe I did, so I say that I said that at the beginning of this sentence, to be boldly clear, it's the following words you'll never hear from me, 'I am sorry my policies were wrong for America. I love America and believe each person is within their Individual Liberty to act and care for themselves, that government has no place in directing what private People or Institutions do.' By reverse psychology, and leveraging against you your 2008 need-to-be-right ego investment from voting for me, I just guaranteed that you folks will vote for me in 2012 and I thank myself for that, because by being me I proved to you that voting for me again is just the right thing to do.

I cannot wait for 2013 when I will have another super majority to further abuse you and the rest of America with. Just because of me, Barack Obama, and what I just said, how I said it, the timbre of my voice, cadence and other psychological manipulations I've used on you for years, I will be ruler again! Starting in 2013 I'll be able to do more of what we did those first 2 years I was in office, and cease from focusing on jobs and making sure Americans are working thanks to you Blacks, Jews, Catholics and Seniors who have such an undying faith in me no matter how I exploit and abuse you. My ability to gain your willingness to be oppressed, to have your country destroyed from within, and your family, neighbors, friends, and relatives suffer, is remarkable isn't it? I am the one and only Barack Obama.

This fits so well with our plan. When Michelle runs to be the first African-American Woman President you'll have me in the White House for another 8 years. A new family dynasty achieving what the Clintons and no others could because they don't have me, Barack Obama, and my ability to ruthlessly exploit and abuse the American people for my own political purposes.

Barack Obama 2012 and beyond.”

And now to emphasize the truth of the above letter parody:

And in a correlative point regarding this continued racism promoted by Barack Obama, imagine a Caucasian president launching “White Americans for John Doe”....

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Keystone Pipeline Mothballed for October Surprise?

10 Feb : 15:29 Category: 2012 Election

If you seriously thought that the president of the United States, Mr. Obama, had our nation’s wellbeing at heart, think again. His rejection of the Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with environmental concerns, either. You’ve been hearing from everyone and his brother that this is about politics, and they’re correct, but think about Obama’s need for a blast of good juju to be sprung upon the American public just before they go to the polls. The plan is to first wallop us in the pocketbook so hard that he cannot be denied.

This is what we’re talking about… Obama has a few staunch constituent bases that will support him no matter what he does. To vote anything but democrat to them is anathema. http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/18/ But the president is playing one side against another for the reason that the true funding source behind his campaign for re-election isn’t even the unions. Frankly, he can betray them left and right and they’ll still be in the tank for his bid to regain the oval office. Who he can’t turn away from, and still expect to retain power, is our favorite financial wizard, George Soros.

Realizing that it looks like this bogeyman is pulled out of the hat every time something incomprehensible occurs in Washington, D.C., we will make the case anyway. Remember, there are a few of us who’ve had Soros on our radar since 1989.

You may recall the interesting financial prestidigitation performed in 2009-10 http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.140 when it comes to Soros and the oil market, from Petrobras to the newly discovered reserve off of Egypt. If you weren’t aware of the connection between the Petrobras (Brazil) purchase utilizing $2 billion of American import/export bank funding, the subsequent sale (at a hefty profit, of course) and the manipulation of shares to get in on the Egyptian oil reserve find through J.P Morgan holdings, take note. Now Soros has a sturdy percentage (15%) of

WesternZagros, a Canadian oil company developing wells in Kurdistan, though our former treasury buddy, Hank Paulson, holds 19% of the company. The nepotism of Middle East and Canadian oil companies runs deep. In this instance, it’s Abu Dhabi National Energy Company PJSC (TAQA ) and WesternZagros in the North Africa region:

Carl Sheldon, General Manager of TAQA said, “This investment in WesternZagros reflects our focus on developing TAQA’s footprint in the MENA (Middle East-North Africa) region. TAQA brings technical and operational expertise and a proven track record in developing challenging oil and gas projects, while WesternZagros has already built successful operations in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. We believe that the fit between these complementary strengths will yield the potential for significant added value through future developments.http://www.taqa.ae/en/news406.html. (Also note David Cook from TAQA, http://www.westernzagros.com/about/board.html.)

There are other Canadian and Middle Eastern partnerships developing Egyptian oil such as the interwoven group of Golden Crescent / Centurion Energy International / Dana Oil / Sea Dragon Energy Company (not necessarily in that order). The point is that the development of oil in these areas is being given a boost by Obama’s refusal to go ahead with the Keystone Pipeline project.

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/138786/ and http://www.egyptoil-gas.com/read_article_local.php?NID=2206

And then, there is Soros playing the energy game, including buying up AMG Oil shares, renaming it Adira and moving it to Israel to buy into the market there, all the while holding against Israel’s right to exist alongside the surrounding Arab states. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000715807&fid=1725

The whole energy convoluted back-scratching relationship between energy companies in their R&D partnerships is time-consuming to follow, at the least. But be certain that Soros is playing in the big leagues, buying influence in all the oil markets, a clear finger-pointing at his intentions for what can, and likely will, occur in October in an attempt to rock the presidential campaign. The attempt, if we are not vigilant, will send gullible voters to the polls to reseat the worst president in American history, Barack Hussein Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/

Finally, let’s put this into context. With Soros’ fingers in so many energy pies, (this includes his covering his behind through green energy government subsidies which was covered here http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.167) he has created an oil price scenario that can be manipulated. What we should expect to see is this, and generally I preface the discussion of a theory with a Monty Pythonesque throat clearing á la A. Elk (laugh if you will, that’s the idea, but don’t underestimate Soros): The price of gas will necessarily skyrocket, as predicted by Obama during his 2008 campaign, rising to heights not to be believed even a few months ago. This is easy for Soros. All he has to do is influence the production levels (or lack thereof) of the numerous Middle East, South American and other oil companies where he holds shares or has considerable leverage. The shock will initially go against the presidential incumbent, particularly since he kiboshed the Keystone Pipeline.

But wait… come October, two things will occur.

1) the stranglehold on oil coming from the Middle East – Soros will force Ahmadinajad to reopen the Straights of Hormuz (yes, he will close it for a time, also by Soros’ pressure in order to create the false oil ceiling to rise) and manipulate a flood of oil, essentially gutting the price, all the while creating an impression that Obama’s diplomatic prowess has done the job.

2) If Congress is unable to bypass the President to fund the Keystone Pipeline before then – and likely won’t because of the unyielding democrat Senate – then, knowing that the republican nominee has pledged to open the pipeline work on his first day in office (so says Gingrich and whoever gets the nomination will guarantee the same), Obama will pass it through before election day, thereby attempting to bamboozle the American electorate once again.

There’s also Toddy’s take on this, which is a little different yet still sets up the Keystone Pipeline for Obama to give the go-ahead just in time to save his bacon. With some financial writers indicating that Keystone is a bad investment http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/01/19/, it’s not a wide leap to see how TransCanada shares could take a downturn, leaving the company open to Soros’ sweeping up the mess at bargain basement prices, thus making a killing when Obama eventually signs the approval for the project. This is reminiscent of the Alaska Oil Pipeline and Rockefeller. http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/2012/01/11/george-soros-open-society-foundation-denies-involvement-northern-gateway?page=0,0 and http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/1221254309/ID=2185179481

Either way, we will have been had by Soros and his minions, those always jumping to do his bidding because they are fools enough to think that they will be in on the spoils. Bet on it.

Now, this whole scenario might be way off-base, but don’t begin wagering against it. Soros is the master at reflexivity, a term which he first applied to economics, and he will infuse money into the campaign both directly (to Obama and Romney coffers since he sees little difference between them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyftC27vNp0) and indirectly through creating another crisis that only President Obama can solve.

Are you listening, Newt? Revive “Drill Here, Drill Now!”

As Rush likes to say, “don’t doubt me.” If you’ve read any of the Baron Series, you’d see that ChangingWind.org already has an impressive track record of calling the shots. We may not have that booming dramatic voice heard on thousands of radio stations, but we are continually pressing the issues. This is our ministry, to save this nation. Sit back and watch if you like, however, even those of us sitting in relative comfort now will be suffering grave loss if we do not deter the general malaise infecting We, the People and take action.

Addendum:

Less than 12 hours after finalizing this article, Canadian Prime Minister Shephen Harper, visiting in China, signed an energy export agreement with Chinese representative Wen Jiabao that included purchase of Alberta oil sands oil that would have flowed down the Keystone Pipeline. http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/ Note the CBC video link above as it covers the development of the Enbridge pipeline from Edmonton/Bruderheim to Kitimat on the Pacific coast. Who would you rather see benefit from pipeline jobs and the subsequent oil to build the economy – Canadian and Chinese workers or Canadian and American workers? I know for whom I vote. I also know where Obama stands, and it isn’t in favor of American economic growth.

A. Dru Kristenev

changingwind@earthlink.net

A. Dru Kristenev is a citizen of the great Northwest United States, former journalist and author of the Baron Series, novels of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Visit www.changingwind.org for news links and insightful postings by a legal researcher as Toddy Littman, “Gold Baron” character, who reappears in the new sequel “Energy Barons.” You can also find Toddy on twitter "@ToddyLittman" or http://twitter.com/?_twitter_noscript=1#!/ToddyLittman

The trilogy begins with “Land Barons,” which introduces the very premise that we see unfolding before our eyes… the sacking of America.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

The “Inevitable” Progressive Candidate

28 Jan : 20:10 Category: 2012 Election

Please note there is a PostScript of acknowledgments at the end of this article that tend to more than suggest the accuracy of a reasonable conclusion: Mitt Romney is a Progressive.

It has been well laid out by Glenn Beck and others that Barack Obama is a Progressive.

Notable how Hillary identified herself the same.

Of course we always have Senator John McCain who, in his actions, both as a “Maverick” who “reaches across the isle,” and as the voice of republicans wanting to give more power to the Executive Branch during the reign of Obama, is the epitome of all things Progressive.

But what may have been missed is the willingness of the National Black Chamber of Commerce to now use Progressivism to undo a racial smear they propagated in 2007 against Mitt Romney, in an article titled, “Is Mitt Romney a Racist?” Fascinating it is when the answer to their question reveals another heinous historical reality when compared to the claims of being a Conservative that have been made by the upstanding Progressive GOP candidate, Willard M. Romney (according to his tax returns http://mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2010/wmr-adr-return) that we all know as Mitt Romney:

I posed this question in an article written back in December 2007. I left it “open ended”. Lately, now that there is another presidential race going on interested people are starting to uncover this old article and make it contemporary. This is troubling to me so I guess I should put closure to the whole matter. First, let me answer the question: No, Mitt Romney is not a racist. As I researched history, over the years I have come to find that the opposite is the case. The Romney Family has a legacy of pro-civil rights, progressive activism and an understanding of how poverty and inequality can hurt people. Emphasis mine, http://www.nationalbcc.org/.

The author opens the next paragraph with “Stunned” as a question, knowing full well his answer was unexpected. Of course, he gives no link to his 2007 article, where, by asking the question “Is Mitt Romney a Racist” there is immediate exposure of the necessity of the NBCC to use race as the vehicle to assert itself with any relevance in regard to Mitt Romney, that to have any weight as the “National Black Chamber of Commerce,” they have a duty to disparage any candidate who isn't black using the racism question. I do appreciate that the NBCC was direct about it.

Now that there is a Progressive GOP on the ticket, that could be the nominee against Obama, the latter having proven to be a bit too big for his britches, as black unemployment is twice the national average, the NBCC must make sure to correct the claim of racism they created in smearing Romney back in 2007:

Early life was rugged for the senior Romney but it instilled in him a strong work ethic. He passed that along to his children including Willard Mitt Romney whom we all know today. George Romney eventually started working for Alcoa Aluminum and the Aluminum Wares Association as a lobbyist and, thus, his political career was about to take off. He was also a genius business executive and would rise to the CEO position of American Motors. When Mitt was born in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in 1941, George had gone up the “ladder” and would gain wealth that would be passed onto to his children and their families.

George joined the Republican Party and let it be known to all that he was a proponent of civil rights and would fight for equal opportunity especially for the “Negro”. He soon became Governor of the state of Michigan and he used his authority to help integrate the state. He demanded new, integrated subdivisions to be built near new auto plants like the Ford Willow Run facility so that Blacks could easily access the jobs that were provided. In 1963 he stated, “It was only after I got to Detroit that I got to know Negroes and began to be able to evaluate them and I began to recognize that some Negroes are better and more capable than lots of whites….Michigan’s most urgent human rights problem is racial discrimination – in housing, public accommodations, education, administration of justice, and employment.” He thus created the state’s first civil rights commission.

George not only supported Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement he actively cheered it on. When the Selma to Montgomery March went down, he organized a “solidarity march” in Detroit to show his belief in the values being preached. Keep in mind, he was Governor of the State. People noticed and on his last re-election as Governor he won over 30 percent of the Black vote. He stood tall for justice. When Barry Goldwater ran for President on the Republican ticket in 1964, George refused to support him as the candidate was opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

During all of this advocacy, his son, Mitt, was evolving as a man. He idolized his father and emulated his legacy. Mitt Romney lived amongst Blacks in metropolitan Detroit. He went to the prestigious Cranbrook School. One of our board members, Claude McDougal, is a fellow alumnus of the school.

Perhaps the greatest thing Mitt’s father did as an example to his son came in 1969. He became Secretary of HUD (Nixon Administration) and he quickly implemented Section 3 of the HUD Act (Equal Opportunity and Employment Program). It gave President Nixon fits but he did it successfully and it stands today.

Let me close with a quote from Mitt that shows the “fruit” doesn’t fall far from the tree: “I do not support quotas in hiring, government contracting, school admissions or the like. I believe our nation is at its best when people are evaluated as individuals. I do support encouraging inclusiveness and diversity, and I encourage the disclosure of the numbers of women and minorities in top positions of companies and governmentnot to impose a quota, but to shine light on the situation. We should always strive for the broadest representation of people, from all walks of life, at all levels of our companies, schools, and government.” Hmmm, sounds like a plan. -- Emphasis mine, Ibid.

Now, it's important to note that the Republicans had passed the 1957 Civil Rights act (Scroll to 1957 here) http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/accomplishment/, so the emphasis in this article is to set forth that this idea of Civil Rights, as embraced by the NBCC, that paints republicans in a negative light, suggests that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the only one that matters, “the Civil Rights act,” as though there is only one. This appears to be to spin and couch this article about Romney in a positive light, to lay out Romney's electability in light of his father's Progressivism, and that Civil Rights activism is part of the Progressive plan for all the envisioned utopian “right reasons.” Though I will not go into this in depth, I'll just say that the net effect of destroying States' Rights and eradicating any meaning to the 10th Amendment, is the meaning of “Civil Rights” as set forth by the NBCC as they entirely ignore the first Civil Rights Act since Reconstruction, the one the Republicans passed in 1957, signed into law by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, and all despite Strom Thurmond’s actions, a democrat who ran on the segregationist States Rights Democrat Ticket, known as “Dixiecrat,” completing the longest filibuster in American History, at least this is what's in wikipedia on this January 28, 2012, and happens to be accurate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond.

So then, George Romney, Willard M. Romney's father, was Progressively ignoring the facts of history, the reality of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when he, George Romney, “let it be known to all that he was a proponent of civil rights and would fight for equal opportunity especially for the 'Negro,'” after Eisenhower, in 1955, had to call in the National Guard to protect 9 school children who were attempting to integrate into a public school, George Romney was exercising the very mind of the typical Progressive: assuming the beginning of something the moment he begin to think about it, ignoring and not caring to even look at history and learn how many others took much bolder and revolutionary steps in the direction of Freedom, while upholding their servitude in government to the People.

This does explain the Progressive narrative well, that the narrative above, as expressed by the NBCC, is 100% accurate from the Progressive state of mind that “Civil Rights,” packaged as a form of rights of the Individual that government must be used to assert and secure, is inseparable from the Progressive movement. Progressivism ignores the fact that Civil Rights has been a government means, a government created legal fiction, solely intended to address the correction of the institution of a worldwide cultural wrong – slavery. To illustrate the Progressive meaning of this term so closely with Mitt Romney, as a certain and unbroken family tie, is the whole point made by the NBCC author in establishing that Mitt Romney is a Progressive by his very upbringing. To the Progressive, the Civil Rights aspect of this is merely the Public Relations tool to accomplish the real Progressive goal of marginalizing force and effect of Our Written Constitution and its protection of States' Rights in the interest of protecting Individual Liberty.

You read right, Mitt Romney's father was a lobbyist... And he said he has no lobbyists in his cabinet... Pretty impossible when Romney's memories of his father are also the memories of a lobbyist.

Now, remember also, Romneycare was the basis of Obamacare for a reason, a means of testament to a Republican Progressive Activist, George Romney, who, as the NBCC article shows, is of paramount influence upon his son Willard “Mitt” Romney.

It is also important to never forget, in this healthcare connection, that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the only two people who have actually signed into law an individual mandate, compelling each American (in the State of Massachusetts, in Romney's case) to act according to the dictates of government, and, by their signing of these bills, admitting a complete and blatant disregard for Our Written Constitution. This is a complete abandonment of the purpose of the Constitution, Our Founders' intention to protect Individual Liberty via a charter of negative liberties, a charter creating an institution within particular limits, limitations imposed by the mere act of enumeration (Article I, Section 8), by conditional expressions (Article 6, Clause 2) that, when the conditions are met, authorize a specific, and not general, use of a particular power. (see http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html,).

I'll make an effort to help the NBCC author with this video:

Now, as I've well suggested via explaining Ron Paul is a socialist, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.178 and that the Progressive fix is in, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.202.6, these began the explanation of what this entire article is meant to state with an even greater clarity: The Progressives are in both parties as a party separate and dominant, and thereby, we're being forced into the Russian scenario of having only one Progressive party. Our only way out of this is to pick the candidate they claim can't win, that they speak out against, and the one they rarely if ever speak out for, if we wish to take a bold step in 2012 to re-instate the Order Of Priority For Freedom, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.98.

Willard Mitt Romney is the Progressive Establishment GOP candidate, even to the point the same National Black Chamber of Commerce, who would use the race card by merely asking if he's racist in 2007, now, deciding after the effective purpose of their previous article is no longer required, to answer the racist question against Romney with a “no,” in order to assure Progressives that Willard “Mitt” Romney is one of them, “Let me close with a quote from Mitt that shows the “fruit” doesn’t fall far from the tree...”

Mitt-igating” America, the principles of Our Founding Fathers in establishing this nation, is what those promoting the Progressive Establishment GOP line that “Romney is electable” are accomplishing. Theirs’ is to sacrifice our nation to Progressivism and a single Progressive party, whether these people know it or not the Progressives do not care, so long as they win from either party, it's all the same to them, literally.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. Acknowledgements are in order, @EricaTwitts, a friend of mine on twitter (see http://patrioticnurse.com/) sent me a link to @ArlenWilliams article at Gulag Bound citing @DanRiehl, a learned Conservative who points the rest of us to the NBCC's and their author's completion of a 2007 article, his article is here, http://biggovernment.com/driehl/2012/01/25/saul-alinsky-and-the-romneys-progressive-activism/ and Mr. Riehl's blog further elucidates the Progressive truth of Mitt Romney being exposed by the NBCC article, to further cite George Harris' book Romney's Way (Has that Barack Obama “Chicago Way” thing going for it, doesn't it?), where George Romney is cited naming Alinsky in arguments to his wife, http://www.riehlworldview.com/. You'll note the Gulag Bound article also mentions this Sago.com article featuring photographs of Saul Alinsky meeting with George Romney, http://sago.com/.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

“Subjectivism:” Giving Up Individual Liberty

18 Jan : 20:14 Category: 2012 Election

First, this article is necessarily long and I hope you indulge me, thank you.

Collectives are subjective. They give up their Individual Liberty for the sake of some principle. Surely this is their right, yet history has proven time and time again that this is a one-way street of abandonment, not reciprocated by those who, through the collective, assume the abandoned power to be their own. In America, because of Our Written Constitution based on the Principles of the Declaration of Independence that began the process ending Feudalism, and helped end slavery as a worldwide institution, giving up Individual Liberty is not a right, for, Freedom is the total sum of an Individual's unalienable Rights, We the People never again subject to a Ruler. This is what Our Founders had designed for each American from the beginning of our great nation.

Obama supporters in 2008 carried on Subjectivism. These people were willing to unconditionally believe in Obama, their unconditional partiality and blind loyalty, placing their candidate in a separate space, impervious to all attacks, appearing without any weakness whatsoever – infallible. One may see this as an exceptional political resource to exploit. Here is an example, the perfect demonstration of the expected outcome of this exploitation by the Barack Obama Campaign in 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI. For me an American acting like this is abhorrent to Freedom and Individual Liberty, that the candidate allowed them, for the sake of votes, to arrive at this frenzied state shows that candidate's willingness to act unconstitutionally long before they take office. Upholding the Constitution is recognizing us, not as constituents of a voting block, but as those who Constituted the government....Yeah THOSE Constituents, Government's Master.

Ron Paul supporters exercise this same lack of objectivity, this same blind loyalty, toward Ron Paul. No matter what Ron Paul says or does they'll always vote according to their unconditional belief in him, even saying, “it's okay by me” when it is shown, as the following does, that Ron Paul lied about those pesky newsletters, that his initial statements were a dishonest campaign strategy, resulting in the inevitable conclusion that Ron Paul has never been worthy of the trust so many have placed in him, let alone trusted, with the office of President of the United States.

I must first note that one finds this type of loyalty in cults, such as the Jim Jones poison-laced Kool-Aid massacre, or, and more to the point of the danger to our body politic, in serfdom, slavery, and the other institutions of class warfare community organizing carried on during the Feudal Era of history that America and Our Founders threw off.

I also must set forth a short historical background of why Subjectivism is dangerous. Europe's Crowned Heads ruled by tyranny due to a population that had been subdued by oppressive violence, to eventually be born and raised in serfdom, the Crowns assumed with an absolute right of Reign. Born into this caste system (community organized from cradle to grave) serfs believed the Crown is doing what's best for the Kingdom, even when being tortured, assuming it is a form of just punishment; the serf's fealty to the Crown an assumed honor to serve the Crown for life, as it was their forefathers as far back as they've ever been told. Propaganda has this particular purpose, to bring about a loyalty that exceeds reality, so as to assure those eying the means of wielding power as a prize; a knowledge theirs will be an unbridled era of rule.

Returning to the present, Ron Paul, a 28-year career politician, is not exempt from having carried on this way. The Twitter tweet results graphs following the Myrtle Beach FoxNews debate on January 16, 2012, showed an overwhelming, though erroneous outcome to any objective viewer, “that Ron Paul always answered the question,” that he didn't dodge any question, and at no time was he not answering the question (a dodge). This perfectly illustrates the Subjectivism of his followers, their being in the same state, the same mindset that resulted in the election of Barack Obama to be President of the United States, the very same unconditional partiality and blind loyalty shown in the above video.

A further example of this blind loyalty, this Subjectivism, is found in discussing Ron Paul's newsletters. Many Ron Paul supporters like to say “another person wrote those bad parts of the newsletters,” sharing links of articles from people who claim this or that other person wrote these portions, etc. Ron Paul's followers are entirely unwilling to glimpse the simplest reality: It is not who did or didn't write the “bad parts” of the newsletters, and is the fact that Ron Paul allowed a newsletter with racial stereotyping bearing his name, to be disseminated for 5 years, from 1988-1993, and, that by a small amount of investigation it can be shown that Ron Paul lied when first confronted about these newsletters. Loyalty to the American People is what you're selling as an integral fact of who you are when running for President of the United States. Incidents in your life that may be uncomfortable, but are wrongs done under your name, are, by this Loyalty to We The People, to be brought out in the open, and those involved named, if you wish us to believe you will take your duty as a public servant seriously, and this is particularly true of any candidate claiming they are the only one operating according to the Constitution.

So now to the point of Ron Paul's dishonesty. When asked about these newsletters in 1996 by the Dallas Morning News (according to all accounts, as I've been unable to locate the article on their website, it happened but seems to be “scrubbed”), Ron Paul did not deny writing the newsletters, instead making an argument about context. Then in 2001, 15 years after the truth should have been told, to show Ron Paul takes his desire for the public trust to heart, Ron Paul finally answered many questions about these newsletters. Initially he admitted writing portions of “the bad parts,” in fact, quoting the article, “He [Ron Paul] said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'” This is according to an interview with him in the October Issue of Texas Monthly from their article “Dr. No” in 2001 [UPDATE: Of course, they change the URL after it is linked to, here is the new one, http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/dr-no](need to register to read the whole article), and, to be precise about his newsletter comments I'll give you the paragraphs about them:

They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.” In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” And under the headline “Terrorist Update,” he wrote: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand:They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.” -- Emphasis mine, must register to see whole article at, http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7-2.php pages 2-3.

Remember I said “Initially he admitted to writing portions of the 'bad parts,'” however, his words then back off to “they were never my words” and yet claiming knowledge of his moral responsibility for them (notably, again this is 15 years later, when acknowledging responsibility is irrelevant). This cryptic display of belated honesty shows Ron Paul even comprehends, the ultimate simple fact: That he, Ron Paul, knew full well what was in those newsletters when they surfaced in 1996 and so did his campaign, and Congressman Ron Paul accepts responsibility for the content of those newsletters. Fascinating that it took at least 15 years for Ron Paul to come clean as to his actual knowledge of those newsletters and their content, explaining his 1996 avoidance of actually experiencing the outcome of taking “moral responsibility” for those newsletters. Anyone else wonder what other skeletons Ron Paul has masked from public view until he's good and ready to discuss them with the very American People he's seeking to have entrust him with the office of President of the United States?

This is somewhat noted by the author S.C. Gwynne, that in this October 2001 Texas Monthly interview (see “Dr. No,” http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7) is the first time Ron Paul made this admission that even the author of the article (Gwynne) saw as a revealed secret. Thus it is not a stretch for a reasonable person to say that Ron Paul withheld the truth about the newsletters from the public he was asking to trust him to be President of the United States, while railing the National Government, Federal Reserve, and Presidency for their secrecy, for being dishonest, and failing to uphold the public trust and follow the Constitution!

But, I well know the Ron Paul supporters will have none of this, they will not allow an actual analysis of the facts, the actions, and the actual integrity of Ron Paul. No. Ron Paul supporters only follow the political platform of Ron Paul, his voting record, asserting this is the only relevant history by which to judge Ron Paul's qualifications to be President of the United States, and, of course, this is what Ron Paul points everyone to with pride over his “no” votes – None are to view his votes as perfect inaction and ineffectiveness to vote affirmatively to stand for something other than tax cuts in order to at least massage Congress back to Constitutionality over his 28-year tenure. No, the voting record is all Ron Paul wants anyone to see, and his followers prove that this method of voter subservience to what Ron Paul wants them to know works, they are unconditionally partial and in blind loyalty to Ron Paul.

What must be said at all cost: Ron Paul is using the Constitution as a means to justify not listening to his Constituents, as a shield and political tool. This is even noted earlier in the article when explaining what an unbeatable man Ron Paul is:

He has also violated almost every rule of political survival you can think of, short of committing a felony. Paul's beliefs run so deep that he will unhesitatingly vote against his constituents' interests. In a district with 675 miles of coastline, he opposes federally sponsored flood insurance. In an overwhelmingly rural region, he speaks out against farm subsidies. In a district with large numbers of senior citizens and poor people, he is on record opposing "the welfare state." In almost all cases, he refuses to deliver "pork" to the good folks of his home district. Appeals to party loyalty are useless; he was one of only sixteen Republicans who voted against George W. Bush's energy plan, one of only four Republicans who voted against the administration-backed version of the patient's rights bill, and he opposes its education bill. (He did vote for the president's tax cut, because he supports tax cuts of any kind.)” -- Emphasis mine, Ibid, page 1

Remember what Ron Paul said regarding his newsletters, “I never personalize anything.”

The whole beginning of the article in Texas Monthly is about Ron Paul's stand on the Constitution, yet, it is Ron Paul's personal Libertarian beliefs of the Constitution that Ron Paul stands on, and not the most important facet of Our Written Constitution, that the Constitution is Our Document, where “We The People,” established a Federal System of government, a compound republic, summarily meaning, when Texas joined the union on “equal footing” that it is Ron Paul's Constituents that call the shots, not Ron Paul, and not his personal interpretation of the Constitution.

Obama is using his personal interpretation of the Constitution in myriad examples that would make this blog post 10+ pages long, explained by Obama in, amazingly 2001, http://audio.wbez.org/Odyssey/CourtandCivilRights.mp3. Does our nation really need another interpretation of Our Written Constitution foisted on us by someone who admits to wanting to, under the term “defense,” militarize our homeland, more bases here, more military presence here? Does that sound like freedom, or the precursor to the same positions taken in pre-World War II Germany? Ron Paul parsing words of military and defense in the Myrtle Beach FoxNews debate, as though defense doesn't include strategic placement of our forces to assure our nation and people aren't attacked in an age of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) that can carry a nuclear warhead.

Also, in regard to this Ron Paul ability to “unhesitatingly vote against his constituents' interests” this is after Ron Paul has shown support for earmarks on the grounds it is “the people getting their money back from government,” while yet, in perfect illogical manner, if not hypocrisy, Ron Paul won't vote for an earmark... http://changingwind.org/index/page.php?31. Further seemingly misleading is the explanation that money not earmarked goes to the Executive Branch, which is in no way according to the “power of the purse” provisions of the Constitution, to which even former Senator Rick Santorum erroneously signs on as well, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.201.16.

Yet, in spite of all of this, Ron Paul's district re-elected Ron Paul for 28 years (14 terms), and his predecessor, the other Federal Reserve rhetorician, Henry B. Gonzales holding that seat for 38 years (19 terms), meaning that for almost 70 years, more than 2 generations in this area of Texas have been allowing their Congressional Representative (Gonzales a democrat, and Paul a Republican, who both were considered outside the mainstream in their parties) to establish a seat of power in Washington by using the Constitution as a tool to deflect their acts of personal government, while actually doing nothing and being paid for it from 100-200,000 per year. Our Founders never imagined that those we elected to be members of Our Congress would use the Constitution to deny acting in the best interest of their Constituency. Our Founders' purpose for Our Written Constitution was to assure that our representatives in government listen to their boss, their Master, as public servants whose Oath demonstrates an acceptance of their Honor and absolute duty to listen to We The People, their Constituents!

We pay their salary at a minimum, medical care, and money into their retirement plans, whether they accept these plans or not, and, in exchange for that “taking of private property” from us we expect our elected servant Representative in exchange to listen to us (see 5th Amendment), whether they personally agree or not is irrelevant!

Ron Paul and Henry B. Gonzales used exploitation of local issues and personal prejudices to stay in office, and Ron Paul's efforts in running for President have been to take these issues national, hoping there's enough American People who will fall for what he's selling, which is personal government that has had one bill enacted in his last 10 years in office – that for the Galveston Historical Society. This bill was enacted in 2009, when democrats had a Super Majority, and this 2 page bill also received unanimous consent by the Harry Reid Democrat 60 vote controlled Senate, http://www.govtrack.us (have to search here manually year after year, leave field “Search for” blank, set “Sponsor” to “Paul, Ronald,” and make sure you select “Bill Status” as “enacted.”).

Conclusion

Subjectivism,” is the means by which we treat our presence in our own country as though we're subjects, not Citizen Sovereign Masters over our government. Ron Paul loyalists and their making sure to only tweet overwhelming numbers of positives in the Twitter “tweet-poll” of the Myrtle Beach FoxNews debate to make it appear Ron Paul never dodged an answer demonstrate that they are supporting their belief that Ron Paul is infallible. So much so that, in perfect emulation of their beloved candidate, Ron Paul supporters stubbornly reject every effort to point out the truth: That Ron Paul is actually an ineffective, mistake-ridden liar, and has proven this by his acts and deeds, including his votes being inconsistent with his claimed reasons for supporting earmarks.

This is delicate to discuss, but must be noted that, in some instances after the slaves were freed they would tell their former Master that they can't leave, for it was all they knew to take care of their Master. This is the net effect upon those supporting a candidate with such unconditional partiality and blind loyalty, they are agreeing to be subject to that loyalty for what they believe about their candidate and not who their candidate is in total, and thereby, if they are qualified by their Honor, Integrity and Character to be President of the United States of America, this is exceptionally important regarding who we pick after Barack Hussein Obama.

I'll end this long post with these videos from the 2008 election as they should help illustrate how Ron Paul, who admitted the Truth in the 2001 article above, finds it easy to return to lying about his newsletters versus stay true to his “moral responsibility,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss&feature=related. I do not care for CNN as a news source, yet, notice of Ron Paul's direct statements of one thing, while taking actions contrary to what he's said, requires me to share that observation, again citing the Texas Monthly article:

This is, of course, a distinctly minority view in a city that regards Federal Reserve System board chairman Alan Greenspan as a sort of cross between Houdini and Saint Peter. But it is typical of Paul's unconventional ideas. If he had his way, there would be no Federal Reserve at all. (He calls Greenspan a "price fixer" and refers to the Fed as the "chief counterfeiter for the world.") He wants to return the U.S. to the gold standard, get us out of the United Nations, and abolish most forms of federal law enforcement. He has also voted against giving congressional medals to Mother Teresa and Rosa Parks, against giving earthquake relief to India, and against a bill that would have helped prevent child pornography on the Internet. He wants to abolish all federal drug laws and cancel the war on drugs. Like Don Quixote, Paul confronts a vast and transcendent evil that most of his colleagues do not believe exists. They have a name for him: Dr. No. His beliefs are so at odds with those of his 434 House colleagues that as of October 1, 1999, the Congressional Quarterly had tallied that he had been the lone negative vote 42 times in the previous two sessions—compared to 22 times for everybody else combined. He hates Washington, never attends the usual cocktail parties and receptions, and spends as little time there as he possibly can.”

So much for Rosa Parks being one of Ron Paul's heroes.

Thank you for your indulgence and reading this article through, God Bless You,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

“Mitt-igating Circumstances:” Romney's Bain Drain

14 Jan : 17:31 Category: 2012 Election

A summary phrase for W. Mitt Romney who is currently attempting to “Obama” those who will likely vote republican or claim conservative values by Romney using “capitalism” as the conservative sacred cow that “race” is to Progressives & Liberals. Caution should be exercised in associating the attacks by Newt and Perry with attacks on capitalism, for, if we go down that road, we're showing Obama and the Democratic Party that we're just as gullible now as we were to elect Obama in 2008.

Recall, back from 2006 or a little before, when Obama started on the campaign trail, some 2 and a half years before his Inauguration, a longer campaign than most candidates, and, how every criticism of Obama was deemed “racism.” This is how Obama reminded the Democratic Party base of his credentials as a Civil Rights Lawyer and Community Organizer from Chicago, while also appealing to those Americans who wanted to make history, reminding them that he'd be “the First President who is African-American.” Not to mention the fact that there were so many who supported Obama simply to avoid having the “racist” tag applied to them. The race card continues to be used, but the more important issue brought up by Barack Obama & the Democratic Party now is class warfare, and it is effective because the democratic party and Independents who have financial challenges want to be victims, to blame someone, blame something, Capitalism, the wealthy being the symbol of oppression, is an easy target. When “dear leader” decides to claim these “victims” as who he speaks for, they believe him irrespective of Obama's FDR like policies, with similar results (see FDR's Policies Prolonged the Depression).

W. Mitt Romney, the formal name of Mitt Romney as CEO according to articles naming him in the top 100 winners on Wall Street (recently scrubbed, now only web archive available, Wayback Machine findarticles.com) is attempting to politically, amongst conservatives, do with Capitalism what Obama did with race in 2008.

The “conservative base,” those who find their knowledge of capitalism as “making money,” is ready to pounce on whosoever decides to question “Bain Capital.” It is a noble effort, as capitalism is the best system of economic distribution ever devised. However, it only works in a nation whose people are Sovereign, anything else and it is essentially the means of a government to build an economy while always acting as the overseer, a “big brother” who reaps their own share of the benefits through taxes, relegating Capitalism as merely a sort of managed industry of the producers, the sole segment feeding the always-in-debt government that doesn't produce anything but bureaucracy -- authoritarian confusion the government's primary means of revenue where the Capitalist is merely a tool that can be discarded.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the “Conservatives for Capitalism” folks, but, Capitalism isn't what's being attacked by Newt and Perry.

Bane Capital surely did some good in its time, but, as with Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stewart, and most bank Chief Executive Officers, there is a dictatorial reign of running their business that doesn't exist in a representative Republic where government is the servant according to a written Constitution.

In general terms, a corporation has a Board of Directors (Board) made up of those who own enough of the corporation business that they are influential, and/or controlling. Usually these people look for someone of trust, someone they know personally, and preferably well, to be named as President. The President hires a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and also a Chief Operating Officer, (COO). The CEO administers the Policies of the Board throughout the corporation, and can only be overruled by the President or if their actions are so heinous that they require the Board's attention, to assure they are not a Public Relations (PR) nightmare -- Tony Hayward of British Petroleum and his “I want my life back” statement comes to mind in this instance. This can result in replacement of the President of the corporation as well.

The power of the CEO is rarely overruled by the President of a corporation because of the potential negative PR issue that the CEO could cause and impact the entire corporation. The President would then have to answer to the Board. This is particularly true when the CEO has enough communication with the Board to comprehend his own meaning of implementing their policy that has more successful results, suggesting the President is misunderstanding the Board's direction. Obviously typical corporate politics come into play where, what are considered the lower ranked offices “in the food chain,” their holder using a little initiative, actually has leverage over their boss. You can see why the President of a Corporation looks to hire someone that they can trust, and that this usually doesn't work out that well, as most businesses do fail.

This administrative power in a corporate body is what is being brought to the table by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, that Romney has a dictatorial attitude, developed by being the “top dog” in the corporate hierarchy of Bain Capital. Both Gingrich and Perry are counting on the American People to understand that being a CEO means, essentially, unbridled wielder of corporate power in a corporation, power that can be misused, corrupted, and often leads to people getting hurt merely for doing their job.

This potential for misuse & corruption in debt financing by venture capital is highly amplified, where the rule of thumb is to get at least 400% return on investment. That's a wonderful return, and higher returns can be seen as well. These returns require a way of thinking entirely based on maximizing the return to the investors, which is a good thing. Bain Capital, and other venture capital firms, by using a Business Plan, devise a means to be a profitable long-term debt holder for high yield returns to use for future investment, or as the vehicle who lays the groundwork for the entire business to be sold for a much higher return after all their policies have been put in place that make it successful.

Bain Capital appears to have used a balanced approach to invest in both models, however the latter model of laying the groundwork for the entire business to be sold is the troubling one, in that, W. Mitt Romney would be, essentially, reconfiguring a business to be sold, likely to Corporate Raiders.

In the whole scheme of things there is always a larger corporation, in the same way “there is always a bigger fish.” To get these higher profits, Bain Capital makes changes to what was once a struggling company, to make it profitable, and thereby viable for purchase by a larger corporation, hoping to make it appeal to as many of these larger corporations as possible. Romney was fortunate to have been CEO mostly during Gingrich's Contract with America economy (that Bill Clinton is given credit for), which was a great and booming tech economy, which allowed Romney to build a sense of trustworthiness and goodwill amongst those in the financial community. However, during an economic downturn, companies like Bain Capital find themselves emulating the Corporate Raider, in that the number of larger corporations expanding will often be based on “bargain basement” purchases of smaller firms, so as to conserve the larger corporation's funds available to make as many of these purchases as possible.

This is what must be said at all costs:The above explanations of how corporations work and what Bain Capital does, are not Capitalism. What is described above are the corporate administrative policies in response to the over-regulation of almost a century that has been foisted on the people of this nation in the management of their wealth. The people of the nation have the additional cost of having such administrations of their wealth, be it named Corporation, Hedge Fund, or even Union Retirement Plan, these are administered similarly, though the returns may be much less, and the investment only long term, the goal is a return on investment, making a profit, in all cases.

Capitalism is the production of something that is then sold for a profit over the cost to make it. If we apply this to investment, then the cost of making money is taking on debt from a bank or Venture Capital firm. However, and this is the tricky part, then the debt is repackaged in the form of the products or services the corporation produces (their costs paid by borrowed money), and then those products are sold for a profit.

Now, in this sense alone Bain Capital is contributing to Capitalism, but only when it turns a business around. It is legitimate to bring forth Bain Capital failures that occurred while Romney was CEO, failures that resulted in the business invested in going under or being sold at a significant loss. This is because this failure occurs after various changes were made according to the CEO, Mitt Romney, whose job it is to implement the business plan. Some of these changes to make the corporation more efficient according to the plan result in jobs lost in the first place, part of what happens when a business isn't profitable, the “hard choices,” but entirely based on the idea the plan will work. With Bain Capital the estimates are around 30% of the companies they invested in failed. This isn't just lost jobs, it's lost money, lost investments of people who trusted the prospectus created and distributed by Bain Capital to potential investors.

If you're wondering why I am not speaking to particular details of Bain Capital, I'll tell you it's because I didn't study Bain Capital. My goal with this article is to lay out an objective “this is Capitalism, and this is not” kind of article because it is Romney who has made the politically savvy argument “Newt and Perry are attacking capitalism.” However, his argument is retaliatory and entirely misplaced, in that, it was Romney's inability to sell himself in Iowa and needing to go negative instead that has brought the inquiry of Romney's administration of Bain Capital.

When Gingrich complained about Romney's Iowa ads, Romney said “this is politics,” suggesting all's fair in politics, however, it seems Romney and, so called “Conservatives” don't see that reasonable truth when Romney is being questioned about his role as CEO of Bain Capital, not for being capitalist, but for being the CEO, for the decisions he made, and holding Romney accountable, especially when the fact is that it is Romney who made his tenure as CEO of Bain Capital an issue by his claims of experience in the business world, “I know how to create jobs, I've done it.” Yet, now Romney is crying foul over those who took him up on his claims?

Romney was fortunate to have this retort to use with conservatives, a retort that mischaracterizes his opponents as being “against Capitalism” and “embarrassing themselves.” We need to understand this tactic won't work in the general election where Obama is already appealing to class and race, and we recently had protests in the street yelling “We are the 99%.”

So I say to you so-called “Conservatives,” if you wish to tear America asunder vote for Romney, he's the perfect Progressive Democratic Party candidate for the GOP to have, in their view. They want us to settle for a shift from a far left dictator with no experience, to a moderate dictator, Romney, who, in his term as Governor of Massachusetts, irrespective of his flip-flops to get the job, by his actions was more than happy to show his willingness to force his views on others with Romneycare, http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/problem-romneycare.

This is why claiming what one did when they had the dictatorial powers of CEO of a venture capitalist firm was all positive, i.e. “job creation,” is a proper subject for Romney's opponents to bring up under the banner of accountability. Romney produced nothing but better administration of 70% of the corporations that Bain Capital invested in, while never really wanting to discuss the 30% failure rate and the losses of capital and employment that go with those failures that also occurred under Romney's administration of Bain Capital. It is worth noting this in context of Romney's claims, to say “ I created 100,000 jobs net net,” which is to say, in the same breath, “I lost 30,000 jobs net net” as well. Accountability of government is what we keep saying is missing. So, if Romney is showing tactical political moves to avoid questions of his accountability in the administration of Bain Capital, how can we trust him to have an accountable administration as President of The United States?

Capitalism is not being attacked, accountability and exercising the due diligence that was denied us in 2008 about Barack Obama is what is occurring, nothing more.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. According to numerous news articles about the Iowa Caucuses, Mitt Romney spent around 6 million dollars on the Iowa Caucus alone http://www.iowacaucus.biz/, which translates into almost $750,000 a vote for the 8 votes Mitt Romney won by... Sounds rather familiar to stimulus spending doesn't it?

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Ron Paul & Santorum Promote Bubbles, Dependency & Earmarks

02 Jan : 20:05 Category: 2012 Election

National Government (DC) spending has been the fastest way for them to grow and gain a foothold over States. Thus, while Congressman Ron Paul and Rick Santorum defend earmarks as “Congressional Power of the Purse,” I find them both standing behind a most fundamental “business as usual” practice, and one that easily can be used to enhance stock portfolios of those following the leverages to gain votes for this or that bill in Washington D.C. In fact, the myth they both are promoting is that without earmarks the money ends up in the hands of the Executive Branch to spend, and we wonder why there are no surpluses? I've yet to find the Constitutional provision that says “Congress has the power of the purse and whatever money they don't spend goes to the executive branch to spend without Congressional approval or discretion.

Instead Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 states:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

How does this translate into “whatever we don't earmark is then given to the Executive Branch,” as both Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have stated? Oddly it doesn't translate into that, and earmarks translate into the “padding” of a bill to garner votes of others.

Now if, by some strange need not do to as Hamilton, Jay, and Madison did, which is assume “the genius of the People,” Santorum and Ron Paul are trying to suggest that earmarks are a part of the appropriations process, and that it is necessary for them to exist to achieve a reasonably sound budget, that's a noble goal. However, I find this impossible because of what the actual section of the Constitution says.

If we (DC) has, in their terms, “1 Trillion dollars to spend,” meaning accumulated amounts in the treasury that are available to be spent, from some 4-5 months of collections, and Congress appropriates 500 billion of that amount, the remaining 500 billion is surplus because it is not spent, and is then meant to be used to pay down debt should we happen to have any (which we do and therefore this is why cutting spending is the key to getting our fiscal house in order). This money does not become suddenly the property of the Executive Branch to spend as they please, or available to welfare, education, science, the arts, etc., that aren't listed under Article I, Section 8. A primary debtor might be Social Security, due to the money being taken from that repository are the contributions of Individual Americans that are matched by their employer, supposedly in a “lock box” away from use by the national government for any other purpose than the intention of a safety net for those who do not have a retirement income plan.

But, instead of hearing this wonderful outline of how the Constitutional provision makes express, clear, and unambiguous imposed mandatory and non-discretionary duty directive upon Congress via “but in Consequence of Appropriation made by Law,” the actual job of legislators, we hear from Ron Paul and Santorum some sort of misdirection, re-direction, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXFvPZsv81k & Ron Paul as referenced, http://changingwind.org/index/page.php?31.

To emphasize my point here, the government has codified the taking of Federal Reserve profits at 12 USC 289, in pertinent part:

(A) In general

After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock.

(B) Dividend cumulative

The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.

(2) Deposit of net earnings in surplus fund

That portion of net earnings of each Federal reserve bank which remains after dividend claims under paragraph (1)(A) have been fully met shall be deposited in the surplus fund of the bank.

(b) (!1) Transfer for fiscal year 2000

(1) In general

The Federal reserve banks shall transfer from the surplus funds of such banks to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general fund of the Treasury, a total amount of $3,752,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.” Emphasis mine, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/VI/289.

Of course this is pretty appalling in light of the national government not owning one share of federal reserve capital stock, which is explained in detail at 12 USC 284, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/VI/284, but not useful for our purposes in this discussion.

Instead we'll go to the following section, 12 USC 290, in pertinent part:

The net earnings derived by the United States from Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury...” -- Emphasis mine, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/VI/290.

These provisions of the Federal Reserve Act show that even the profits taken from a private entity, the Federal Reserve System, are then to be used to either assure our nation's international solvency via supplementing our gold reserves that have been put up as collateral for debts the United States government has incurred via “United States notes,” or to reduce the bonded indebtedness of the United States, meaning to buy back bonds or those bonds where taxation, “the Faith and Credit of the United States” has been pledged in order to secure the bond against default. Those are the discretionary choices of the Secretary of the Treasury, by this “Appropriation made by Law.”

To emphasize, I am setting forth the codified portion of the Federal Reserve Act where the U.S. Government commands the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to gather the profits to the exact dollar after expenses and guaranteed 6% capital gains for stockholders in the Federal Reserve Banks have been taken, to then put this money in the United States Treasury, with specific directives upon the Secretary of the Treasury, a legislative earmark, the “Appropriation made by Law,” for the use of these funds, and no other use.

This is a direct and actual correlative to the Constitutional provisions under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7. Thus it seems Ron Paul and Rick Santorum who decided to restate Ron Paul's publicized position instead of state his own, are suffering from a lack of following the Constitution in their defense of earmarks, essentially they've both publicly stated their having been tainted by the corruption in DC, the redefining and restating ad nauseum of what things mean until the government is acting for its own will, and the Will of The People be damned.

When a Congressman brings home 3 million dollars for a project, first, that means, according to Ron Paul, that this money had to be “created out of thin air,” which means it creates debt, which makes no sense in light of the idea of cutting spending, and show earmarks are entirely against any Conservative principle.

But then, it gets more heinous, if you were to get these earmarks for say 30 years in office, and your predecessor of almost 40 years did the same thing, the local governments become like the unemployed or any other welfare recipient, for the earmark becomes an annual welfare check that the State can count on from their representatives, their representative, then, merely a means for the people to draw whatever they want from their own treasury by use of these legislative “earmark” riders that also create artificial bubbles in the State and local economy from U.S. Treasury money, more opportunity for patronage and corruption. State after State that have deficits in the 10s and even hundreds of billions of dollars due to spending the earmarked money on the assumption of a National gravy train that won't end, these States' addiction to DC money no less than the alcoholic or drug user to their respective poisons, and all of this on display for all to see, and yet, two candidates for President parrot what they've learned being in DC for how things work, entirely blind to their enabling, pimp-like, drug-dealeresque way of using money that's only increased the weight of economic downturns to the detriment of the States through the mishandling of our money by the National Government in DC in the first place.

Candidates pushing this line of reasoning only illustrate their being a DC insider, their ease of becoming a career politician, and their lack of any notion of fiscal responsibility or order in accordance with the Constitution, that they will be a President of DC Business as Usual, and, nothing more.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Thank God Ron Paul Didn't Win The Iowa Straw Poll

16 Aug : 01:07 Category: 2012 Election
Yeah, I know he could win the caucus in the future, and, I submit, that would be an unrecoverable error. The following are my reasons why “President Ron Paul” would be a mistake.

A Quick History Of Socialist Ron Paul

Mr. Paul's position on war is Jane Fonda's, she recently reminded us of this in 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqTNeO3TfZ4. Ron Paul's position on the Federal Reserve Bank is the same as Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575648683678596728.html and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWXrMCGJT4&feature=related, Democrat Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez (some, with whom I agree, considered him a Communist) served 19 terms (38 years), 15 of which his re-election was based on Fed bashing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_B._Gonzalez, and let us not forget Mr. Paul’s recent “good buddy” on the House Banking Committee, Alan Grayson, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0JAfq4esk.

It is important to note that Grayson was defeated in 2010, after other activities that he carried on, more accurate to his character, such as this House Floor appearance in support of Obamacare, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPpQ2MNaSDo. This video is revealing, where Mr. Grayson the sitting Congressman decides to bring up the “career politician” issue regarding his opponent who beat him in 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nndt0jMoGds. Mr. Grayson appears to have been the pioneer for the more recent fallacious attacks on the Tea Party as Terrorists, and referring to S&P's actions as the “Tea Party Downgrade,” irrespective of Standard & Poor’s assessment proving that the Tea Party position to cease deficit spending, and cut the debt by $10 Trillion in 5 years is accurate & reasonable, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.176.2.

Of course, now S&P is under attack by the Senate, as noted by the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/07/standard-and-poors-downgrade-defense-politics_n_920430.html. And of course, Mr. Sanders is involved, berating S&P, or so it appears, as the link to Mr. Sander’s government newsroom website isn't working at the time I write this, so I found what purports, but I cannot verify, to be a quotation of part of what he released, and this is cited on numerous Progressive & Liberal blogs:

“I find it interesting to see S&P so vigilant today in downgrading the US credit rating. Where were they 4 years ago when they, and other credit rating agencies, helped cause this horrendous recession by providing AAA ratings to worthless sub-prime mortgage securities on behalf of Wall Street investment firms? Where were they last December when Congress and the White House drove up the national debt by $700 billion by extending Bush’s tax breaks for the rich?” -- http://pirancafe.com/2011/08/06/sanders-on-sp-downgrade-where-were-they-four-years-ago/.

I sure am glad Mr. Sanders is not politicizing the downgrade at all. Mr. Sanders abhors the wealthy, and believes what property you have, and that you want to leave to your children, should be subject to inheritance taxes, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/no-to-oligarchy_b_657082.html.

1st Conclusion Drawn

This is what must be said about Ron Paul at all costs, that, let alone Ron Paul's agreement with Jane Fonda about war, Ron Paul is completely in bed with the Socialist, Liberal, Communist, and Progressive hating of banks, and the wealthy, for the same reason the Progressive left hate ‘em: banks are an icon of wealth & the wealthy, useful for class warfare propaganda. Ron Paul doesn't care that banks are actually private Individual Wealth being held in a private institution (12 USC 284 “Codification,” http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title12/12usc284.html), away from government, nor that this is the identical position of Our Founders in keeping our property out of government's hands, away from their knowledge as well.

The record of our Government is replete with how accurate and reasonable Our Founders were. Just step back and review Social Security, Welfare, FannieMae, FreddyMac, Amtrak, the U.S. Postal Service, and a host of other Social Programs that were enacted under a perverse definition of “general Welfare” as referred to in Article I, Section 8. You'll also notice that all of these “social programs” have had their name and funds used for political purposes after government created these institutions, as though they were created for their political use, and not as something wanted by the Will of The People, all acts of violence against Our Written Constitution by our government in usurpation of Our Constitution. Many may not realize what $2.4 Trillion in revenues and $3.6 Trillion in expenses, translates to revenues of $95,000/second, spending around $115,000/second. In 1 hour that's $342,000,000 in revenues, $414,000,000 in spending, the spending mostly to keep these failed and ever-growing programs paid, irrespective of some being exponentially beyond the scope of their anticipated use and purpose, both in cost and social requirement, such as to have electricity, a telephone, municipal water, a driver’s license, etc.

And Ron Paul has the audacity to promote the “need” for earmarks “to assure accountability,” blaming the Executive Branch and/or the Federal Reserve, http://changingwind.org/index/page.php?31. I say audacity for a second reason, because his entire premise is that the government borrows from the fed for every dollar printed. His earmarks for his constituents merely add to that debt, “money being printed out of thin air” according to this premise of the Fed, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuktREisgA4. Thus it would appear Mr. Paul is either, inconsistent in his beliefs, or that his entire Federal Reserve line is rhetoric, propaganda, and done because it successfully kept him in Congress for three decades, and he believes it'll get him into the White House. I am sure his followers were very upset to hear Mr. Paul say in the debate “well, we can't get rid of the Fed,” entirely contradictory to the group who follows him in the idea he'll get rid of the Fed.

2nd Conclusion Drawn

In the end, I find a Progressive, destroy America pattern coming from Ron Paul, the whole “Blame the rich,” “blame the banks,” “blame another branch of government,” and “don't take away my constituency money-delivery credit card” (earmarks for Mr. Paul). Mr. Paul sure sounds a lot like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic Party that was mentioned in the Communist Manifesto:

“Finally, they [they Communists] labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.” -- http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html.

Not so funny how Ron Paul has more of substantial import to the social make up of America in common with the Communist Party than Our Founders' views. Sure he stands for the 10th Amendment, to the point that he would use the 10th Amendment protection of State's Rights to justify the Federal Government not doing anything to stop a State from becoming a Muslim State and governing itself under Sharia Law. This was brought out in the exchange with Rick Santorum where Santorum mentioned any State could legalize polygamy then, and Mr. Paul did not deny this, only further asserting State's Rights. Of course Mr. Paul hasn't mentioned the key to State's Rights is in their governments’ having representation in the Senate as Our Founders set up the check and balance between State and Federal power originally by State appointment of their Senators, repealed by the Unconstitutional 17th Amendment which violates the last clause of Article V.

Reality

I am sure the Ron Paul supporters will dismiss the above entirely, blindly following the man in the same way they blindly believe the myriad myths about the Federal Reserve, myths that have been great for those promoting them, particularly commercially active sites, selling conspiracy and the end of the World, some also selling precious metals. However, I'll cite a small portion of 12 USC 289 in hopes that maybe, just maybe, one of them will listen:

“The Federal reserve banks shall transfer from the surplus funds of such banks to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general fund of the Treasury, a total amount of $3,752,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.” -- http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000289----000-.html.

Not only does the U.S. Government take the profit from a private entity, but they take an exact dollar amount, and this statute is amended for the exact amount every year to take the profit of the previous year into the United States Treasury. So this means Congressman Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Mr. Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, have all been a part of voting on this annual amendment. Thus, the truth is to find out how they determined to vote the way they did, for, this would mean an audit is done annually by the Congress to arrive at the exact amount.

Of course, this is in addition to when a bank is publicly held, as then its books and records are audited regularly, in fact this holds true for any publicly held corporation, meaning: sold on public stock exchanges. The SEC rules require solicitations to be less than certain values, in both money and numbers of people that can be solicited, even for a private corporate offering.

So the idea there is no audit of the Federal Reserve is absurd, as each Regional Federal Reserve Bank is owned by banks in their region and are entirely privately held, the government owns no stock in them at all. Some find this bad, I find this to be private enterprise and private business at its finest. In a way this explains the constant need to undermine the banks, the successful push to pass the bank bailout that initially failed, that Progressive Democratic Senator Harry Reid went to so much trouble to save, even though it was proposed by George W. Bush via Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.2.

Summary

Since our government doesn't own our central bank, as socialist nation governments' own their central banks, the only way to effectuate the subject servitude of socialism in America is for the government to buy into the private corporations who own each of the regional banks, at least until the anti-rich, anti-bank, anti-private property, anti-wealth agenda is agreed to amongst the constituents of both parties. Ron Paul is the certain person to advocate the left’s views while claiming to be on the right.

Should the day come that the Fed is abolished, I believe government will show us how stupid we are, by becoming our bank, by government just taking over to manage our savings, checking, and investments for us, I mean, our knowledge and desire to protect our own property, to know what that means, and that our property isn't some “public excess” of the State, has eroded and almost entirely diminished in “it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes” and assumptions government is entitled to the money. Taxes are paid for performance by government to carry out and act of Our Will as our servant. These government employees could start with upholding their Oath for Civil Office, as a soldier upholds the same Oath for Military Office. The lacking of our knowledge of this is how a socialist nannystate is made, and the Will of The People, merely an agreement to subject servitude at the Government's pleasure and whim, because Government says so.

I hope and Pray we vote with wisdom and knowledge of these things this next election, and make sure not to let the sheep-in-wolf's-clothing, Ron Paul, become the next Dictator-In-Chief, who'll do all that Barack Obama has done and more when it comes to lack of national defense, allowing the growth of Sharia Law in America, and creating even more uncertainty in the economy, through pursuing the Federal Reserve, going after “those fat-cat bankers” and “greedy Federal Reserve,” you know, “the rich,” as President of the United States.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman


printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Redistribution of Votes-Your Individual Right of Suffrage Under Attack

20 Mar : 13:56 Category: 2012 Election
What must be said: I support the idea of an electoral college. “Popularism” is being tied to Democracy as though birds of a feather, when one is the means to the other as an end, and an end to Our Republic.

I ran across this, and it sure sounded nice at first, http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/:

“Fair, Open and Honest Elections
Rights, Freedoms and a Written Constitution
Stronger Parliament and Accountable Government
Bringing Power Closer to the People
A Culture of Informed Political Interest and Responsibility”

Then I noted one of their articles, “Why OBV supports the Yes to AV vote.” As you can see this is all in the UK, so the acronyms are different. I decided to look at the link, http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/why-obv-supports-yes-av-vote:

“Yesterday a group of individuals and organisations including OBV and the Muslim Council of Britain held a news conference to talk about why we are supporting the Yes to the Alternative Vote.”

You'll note in the OBV article their main reason for supporting this:

“Ideological and philosophical consistency is important in politics. From a core set of beliefs and values everything thereafter follows. We at OBV are proud to be rooted to a set of values that are based within a democratic principal that strives for social and racial justice, but also a principle that has equality at its very heart.

Now I heard about this Alternative Vote already, here in the U.S. but didn't realize it. A nice UK article as to what the Alternative Vote is, http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Alternative-Vote-Analysis-Of-The-Electoral-System-Being-Proposed-In-The-Referendum-On-May-5/Article/201102315936067:

“....[1]AV would require the winner to gain the approval of more than 50% of the voters in their constituency.
Rather than placing an 'X' next to their preferred candidate on the ballot paper, the voter ranks each one in order of preference.
If one candidate receives over half of the first place votes, he or she is elected.
But [2]if no single candidate gets an absolute majority, the second choices for the least popular candidate are redistributed. [3]The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority.”-- Emphasis mine.

In America you'll find the alternative vote already implemented in some cities, http://important-information.net78.net/vote/single/avirv/burlington-pathology.html and this organization its main advocate, http://www.fairvote.org/, under a new name “Instant Runoff Voting.”


“1 person, 1 vote,” the Individual Right to Suffrage, is being liquidated by “redistribution of the vote.” I find it interesting that this kind of proposal is always coming up after the liberals lose an election, that the groups supporting it are always discussing it as a means for “better representation” and with the idea “of more power to the people.”

Additionally the Alternative Vote disenfranchises the conservative electorate by making the vote a collective act. And such changes to voting that alter the value of ones vote are exactly against all conservative principle.

Instead of my vote being treated with the care it deserves, it'll be pooled, and, in light of past election shenanigans, from dead people voting to prisoners, it would seem this disconnecting the vote from direct link to the voter, can and will, only make such illegal vote activity more prevalent and harder to detect.

And this goes to the heart of my first statement, that I support the Electoral College.

The reason is simple, Popularism, as you can see, is too easily exploited and abused to bring about “Democracy” and destroy the republican principle of Individual Liberty, that the minority, the smallest minority, the minority of 1, is always represented. Winning 26 States doesn't guarantee being President, nor just having a majority of the population, though, in the entire of Presidential Elections, only on 2 occasions has this been an issue.

It's worth noting too that the Alternative Vote provides greater corruption by 2 candidates whose ideological differences are minimal, they can split the majority in any election. The point to an election is that a single vote being all that is counted, forces a certain and specific choice, to which a certain and specific result will occur.

One would think that after what so many throughout history have done to gain the Right of Suffrage, there'd be a great backlash in carrying on such a diminution by automation and mathematical calculations manipulating the vote of any single one of us. Alas the “newness” of this, and that the disenfranchised left who have been losing elections all over the world, see this as their opportunity at resurgence, has brought them to promote the most devastating act toward individual liberty that could be done.

The Alternative Vote is a great example of how Communism and the left isn't only out to destroy our rights in property, but also our property in our rights (http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.96).


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item
Go to page   <<