| John McCain has been on the side of the middle-class for a very long time, taken from a February 2000 New York Times Article: "MR. McCAIN'S tax-cut plan is valued at $238 billion over five years and $500 billion over 10 years. Its centerpiece is an expansion of the lowest income tax bracket, 15 percent, to cover higher incomes. "Under the plan, the ceiling for the 15 percent bracket would rise to $70,000 from $43,050 for married couples filing jointly, and to $35,000 from $25,750 for single taxpayers. The effect would be to give a $3,504 tax cut to a couple with taxable income of $70,000 or more. "Mr. McCain's plan would also double the child tax credit to $1,000 a year, expand tax incentives for savings and investment, reduce the tax on large estates and reduce the marriage penalty for some people by increasing the standard deduction for couples. Mr. McCain would offset a portion of the tax cuts by closing corporate tax loopholes. "His pitch is that the plan is modest enough in size that it leaves plenty of money from the surplus tax revenues to deal with other needs. By expanding the 15 percent bracket to cover millions of additional taxpayers, he says, his plan amounts to a start on creating a system of flatter tax rates. And he argues that his plan gives much less of its benefits to the wealthy than Mr. Bush's plan does. ''I want a balanced approach,'' Mr. McCain said in the South Carolina debate. ''The difference between Governor Bush's proposal and mine is that I put a whole lot of money into Social Security, Medicare and paying down the debt. He puts a whole lot of money into tax cuts.'' "An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice found that only 1.8 percent of the benefits of the McCain plan would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. Most of his proposed tax cuts would go to a broadly defined middle class: more than 52 percent to taxpayers making $65,000 to $130,000, and 21 percent to taxpayers making $39,000 to $65,000. "Mr. McCain's plan, however, would do almost nothing for taxpayers with incomes below $39,000. Mr. Bush asserts that Mr. McCain's plan would leave too much of the surplus in Washington, where, Mr. Bush says, it would inevitably be spent not on Social Security but instead on bigger government and wasteful programs. And Mr. Bush regularly criticizes Mr. McCain's plan, contending that it would not help the working poor." What I find really good here is that this problem they found with McCain's plan in 2000 he fixed this time around, by adding to his proposal what Bill Bradley suggested in 2000: "As a former member of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the fathers of the 1986 overhaul of the tax code, Mr. Bradley arguably has more experience with tax policy than any of the other candidates... "....The only specific tax cuts he backs are tax breaks on health insurance payments, an expansion of the earned-income tax credit for the working poor and an expansion of the child care credit in a way that would help low-income people." Senator McCain also incorporated an issue from Al Gore regarding Research and Development: "Mr. Gore has proposed allocating $250 billion to $300 billion to tax cuts over the next decade for specific goals. In particular, he supports expanded tax incentives for education and retirement savings....a permanent extension of the tax credit for corporate research and development." The entire article is located here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DC1F30F934A15751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 Additionally John McCain promises a ban on Internet taxes and Cell phone taxes, from his website: "Ban Internet Taxes: John McCain believes we must make a farsighted, robust, and fervent commitment to innovation and new technologies to sustain our global competitiveness, meet our national security challenges, achieve less costly and more effective health care, reduce dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil, and raise the quality of education in the United States. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity. "Ban New Cell Phone Taxes: John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message - and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes." The main thing missing right now is the raising of the income the lowest tax bracket, and I believe that's probably a good thing since, we have quite a bit of government debt to afford right now. The point of this is to show that John McCain learns from his past, he does pay attention to the American People, that with all this talk of corporate lobbyists, there remains this man who only had a corporate tax benefits even 8 years ago of 1.9% to corporations. Admittedly 8 years ago our corporate tax rates were competitive, they no longer are. Look at how aggressively McCain's 2000 tax plan pursued getting the lower tax rate into the lower and upper middle-class incomes (70,000 a year) in 2000. I am certain that once our economy recovers John McCain will pursue raising the income level that the 15% tax covers, to "start on creating a system of flatter tax rates." And McCain will do this without creating the corporate tax shelters that Obama does: "One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk Obama says this at almost the end of the conversation.) McCain is keeping the 15% capital gains tax in place, while phasing out the alternative minimum tax. So the question boils down to: Is 500 or 1000 dollar checks (essentially an economic stimulus) the answer to our economy, or, providing a framework of growth by generating wealth for decades into the future? The answer to this is clear to me, John McCain. Thank you for reading. |
  |
| [This article was updated Apr 5, 2011] I had listened to the following two versions of Barack Obama's WBEZ Chicago interview from 2001, which were both edited: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck This one left out the portions of the interview that had no relation to the subject matter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34yRmKPnDQ&feature=related This one was posted as a rebuttal to the above, however, it makes a claim regarding the original that is patently false. This editor omitted a portion of the first video which would make the statement on screen untrue. Well i decided to look for the very original from the station (http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639 Link changed to http://audio.wbez.org/Odyssey/CourtandCivilRights.mp3). At the original link they had, low and behold as it was an election year, posted all of Obama's interviews with a statement by WBEZ Program Director Steve Edwards regarding the first Youtube link above (see following paragraph), however this entire web page is gone and I found the following by a search at the WBEZ blog,http://www.wbez.org/jandrews/2008/10/barack-obamas-radio-days-2/7912 with the following paragraph again included: "Some of you have inquired as to why we didn’t request a takedown notice for the YouTube video. Here’s the deal: As an organization we strive to be an impeccable source of independent, unbiased news and information. While our audio content in this case was excerpted and repackaged in way that wasn’t in keeping with our own editorial standards, the source audio was available to others on the web and its use in this case was within generally acceptable fair use provisions. Thus, we didn’t have any clear legal claim to intervene one way or the other. And more importantly, to do so would have been tantamount to intervening on behalf of the Obama campaign. To take actions that could be construed as helping either campaign (Obama’s or McCain’s) is contrary to our own standards of reporting in an unbiased and independent manner. Instead, we believed the best approach was simply to make available the original source of the audio - in its entirety - for others to listen to themselves and to decide what Senator Obama said and meant." Compelled to reply and thank WBEZ for not seeking to have the youtube video taken down, I posted the following comment on their site, I hope you enjoy it: "Well honestly after listening to both, I can appreciate the actions of Steve Edwards regarding taking no action to have the clip taken down. Those who are for Obama may have seen great creative license taken, however, there are others who posted rebuttal, and in like manner, omitted sections of the discussion. As a former Chicagoan I found that there is evidence of Senator Obama having beliefs consistent with a variety of notions of expanded government. That the course of the subject of this conversation, when taken entire with his initial statements about the court not addressing wealth redistribution as an assertion in argument with another guest who previously spoke of how the court had so engaged, does inform well. And that overall, Senator Obama contradicts his initial statements about the court in that assertion in rebuttal to another, in that Obama's assertion indicates an interest in why the court didn't get involved and expand interpretation of the Constitution. While in discussion with the caller he virtually answers his own question. Yet I have concern with the Senator's failure to recognize the 10th Amendment in the firstplace, as that particular Amendment designates most particularly why other powers not delegated to the National government, nor assumed by the states, will not be interpreted as any obligation to act on the behalf of the governed. In it's own way this reservation of rights creates an exclusion upon the government of the United States (State and National taken together) from assuming any such role without the American People seeking government intervention by due process of legislative enactment. Thus the people of this nation, though not subjects of the government by it's duty to act on our behalf, do remain subjects to their own course and the responsibility thereby. I believe the U.N. identifies this in their Declaration of Human Rights as "The Right of Self-Determination," a fundamental right of all peoples in every nation that seems to be an outcropping from our capitalist system and the equity decentralization that had led to the creation of this nation as a capitalist, as opposed to feudal, society. Also please note that if Senator Obama hadn't spoken to "Joe the Plumber" in such a candid manner, on the assumption there were no open mics, this 2001 radio broadcast which exposes his views when no one is looking for his consistency with his presidential policies, would not be of as great an interest as it is now. Agree with him or disagree, his fundamental interests carry a socialist tone, and pronouncement of American Capitalism having failed. This conclusion is easy to arrive at when you consider his accurate statements of how the Constitution is interpreted, including the 10th Amendment. I do hope this is not the case for the lack of knowledge people have in regard to the equity decentralization which capitalism provides, thus meaning we can all be as wealthy as a king if we apply ourselves to our community and seek an entrepreneurial manner, capitalism is a redistribution of wealth in and of itself when considered against the backdrop of where the people of the colonies came from, Europe and it's feudal system. Our Founders concluded that this equitable decentralization is necessary to keep a people free from an oppressive tyrant, and, when you consider the private contributions to Senator Obama by people who have a personal net worth exceeding a billion dollars, you realize why our Founders expressed their conclusions in such a succinct manner by the Constitution and it's Amendments. Google "The Man Who Broke The Bank of England" if you wish to get a better feel for what our Founders were guarding against, and Senator Obama may be unwittingly, though intentionally by his beliefs, allowing to occur and placing our nation in jeopardy. My apologies to any that may have taken offense for that is not what I intend. I love my country and I believe wolves in sheep's clothing, that may be manipulating our well intended, need to be something we are aware of. Apologize for typos and any grammatical errors. Thank you for reading." Toddy Littman P.S. WBEZ appears to have removed the page and the comment I posted to it above and that's too bad. |
| |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU&feature=related [UPDATE: Video was updated due to lost youtube link, this is the new one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmn4ptXu21Y&feature=related] ACORN's reward is pretty clear now isn't it. The 20 billion from the $700 Billion Bailout doesn't matter for sure. Obama wins, they'll get everything they've been after. I mean here is a guy, Obama, that spends 2 years making campaign promises that everyone believes, political rhetoric that no politician follows through with. But the fact that over the course of 20 years Obama was surrounded by, acted, and had at least a three year friendship with a thief, terrorists, Black Liberation Theologists, Muslim leader, or was studying angry black poetry, people do not think this is an indication at all of who he really is or what he really believes in and stands for. As much as people like to pretend there is deep racism, there is a deeper reverse racism of extreme import in believing this man who has said virtually the same thing for 2 years to us in running for President, and yet those same people will not assess, let alone believe, his actions of 20 years, tantamount to the proverbial stink that attracts the low life flies. Even here, seeing the video above where Obama invites the Community Organizers, the ACORN portion of which are being investigated in 11 states, to help him make policy "before my inauguration," while we also know about the 20 billion dollars for ACORN in the first version of the $700 billion dollar bailout, those who are following Obama's illustrious psych, the will of The Obama, will not shake the spell of their own hypnosis. I say their own hypnosis because Obama hasn't defined "change," and, in fact, added "that we can 'believe' in" in order to emphasize the need for us, for we Americans to see what we want to see in what he has to say, to "believe in." The last thing he wants is for us to truly look out, to look at what he says, to apply reason and realism, to recognize what's possible, what's practicable. See if we do that then we might actually look with a serious tone at what he does, who he knows and what he has done with them. We may actually carry on in a cynical questioning and interrogating manner. We might even start to wonder if he's hiding something solely because he doesn't answer, defies our inquiry, or merely dismisses it with an erroneous yet plausible explanation. The Obama requires that so many could care less because it is that dream in their head that they think, that this politician is going to deliver them whatever their vision, this is a dream they must believe so strongly that they cast away the reality of The Obama's acts and deeds in fact -- His words about the unborn, his Faith being racially charged(even by name), Obama's use of the the image of, Che Guevera, on the walls in the entry of some campaign offices in more Hispanic populated areas. What's so horrible is the American People's lack of interest because they are so mesmerized by their own dream, by their projection of that dream as what Obama said to them, and it has left them unable to see Obama isn't being open, isn't being transparent. They cannot see The Obama is already breaking his promises to those following him and has been for quite some time. Does anyone realize how easily Obama could release his medical file and put to rest any question of where he was born? Do they realize he is the one perpetuating this as a story and giving it legs? And, that Obama is doing this to maintain their illusion of him? To suddenly be open, transparent, and deliver genuine honesty destroys the mystery that mesmerizes and has become known as "The Obama" -- People expect presents from mythical characters, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Clause come to mind. This lack of interest is so extreme that some American People could care less that Obama had was adopted by his step father in Indonesia and, that according to that particular country's law and international custom, Obama lost his citizenship in fact, that he is ineligible to be the President of the United States, no matter where he was born! It's absolutely sickening to see posts of people saying "what have those rich bastards ever done for us?" This is a clear sign of the way Obama's message is being received. These people appear to believe that whatever they have just appears, is just manifest from thin air without even the slightest inkling of all the people whose effort is invested in doing anything and are thereby compensated. These are Obama's most precious disciples. No wonder they need sub-prime loans and a "spread the wealth" program -- they need the deeds of others to justify their existence -- No will of their own, only a will driven by whim and want to be able to force others to provide for that whim. What's worse is that these people think because whatever class of people they target do not want to give what that class of people worked hard for to these obedient disciples and their truly "whimsical" desire, that we are in some sort of competition with them over our own property! Did any of you ever think we'd see anything like this going on amongst our own people? That any who fend and afford for themselves, and who afford what welfare there is (libraries, schools, hospitals, police, fire, etc.), administered by the government there is, would be accused of not giving enough to those who do nothing to contribute to their own wellbeing, those who take full advantage of the welfare we pay for already? Those of you with children are well familiar with this syndrome: The audacity of the spoiled rotten. In less than 2 years time, should he win, after most if not all of those with wealth have left the United States, oh great liberals, who and/or what class by your definition will you turn on to afford your sustenance and meaning in providing for these spoiled rotten you've catered to in achieving power? Let me guess: A new tax on the "upper middle class?" And once there are no more of those left, who will be next? I must say however that this is a truly "progressive" plan which makes absolute sense since time and time again you haven't proven any interest in the success of America on the terms and conditions of our social contract and its creators, The Founders of this Great Nation. No you are too worried about that person living in a cardboard box merely because they claim inequality and act on that belief by choosing to continue living in those condition versus taking personal steps to no longer be subjected to their own victimized condition. This even after I bought them breakfast, you bought them lunch and someone else bought them dinner! -- All of us hated for such acts of kindness, as though flaunting the "inequality" by our generosity. No your interest is in spending....in the manifest similarity to your belief that .5%, the man-made contribution to Co2 in the atmosphere, is running rampant destroying the atmosphere, you are running rampant using expenditure for the poor as justification of your existence. Your over developed sense of government solutions combined with over zealous lack of consideration and lack of self-control consistently impressed by delusion onto everything and everyone you can which, by this very incompetence, creates the worst possible situation -- FreddieMac and FannieMae ring a bell? How about unemployment and economic welfare that some believe they are owed as a professional courtesy known as "entitlement" for the rest of their lives? Programs and systems that give the fish away but never teach anyone how to catch them, how to build a boat, how to rig a net, where to cast that net, and how to end up with a thriving international marine livestock company that can be sold for the moral gain capital intends -- "The laborer worthy of their hire." And all of this is to occur while we, who loathe the government being in any aspect of our lives, are supposed to hand over an even greater portion of our reward and on the basis of trusting government to allocate it "fairly?" We who do not want the government in anyone's life and just want to live the life of American promise, to live in freedom, to be left alone. Instead, however we are apparently to be persecuted for sake of this "whimsical" cause of those who will not choose to lead an industrious life, to be their own hire. We once called people like this "nobles" for their extraction of wealth from the rest of us was solely because they say so, because they claim to be entitled, owed. Of course it was by force of arms, however, it was a claim made on subjects solely because because of what the subjects had: Productivity, a sense and drive of survival. This results in some having great property or resources, not as a matter of greed but as a matter of good management of that sense of survival, and not that they wouldn't share these things with others but because the nobles were suspicious of those who haven't done anything against them, have more than they do without using force of arms to extract it. Liberal or conservative the $700 Billion Bailout should have helped us see that none of us want to pay for someone else's failed choices, for their lack of productivity, be they banker or self, ideological impoverished naive. Yet somehow there is this calling to The Obama to deliver to us what we believe he promised, what we believe he meant irrespective of what every politician throughout time immemorial has delivered on this very same promised dream. Understand I speak from the gambit of these "classes in society." I do not loathe helping out in any of them and, in fact, look forward to it. To me, as a Christian, helping out is our calling. Hold that against me if you must but understand that God through Christ is how I learned to fish instead of survive from the crumbs of the Master's table, and I have no interest in overthrowing God nor anyone else who has so much more than I. What others have is no one else's business save recognition of it as goal and inspiration. And it is in this that our nation, a free nation, was born, free by the equity being amongst us all if we are willing to take the bull by the horns and earn for our own, driven by our knowledge of the success of others. It is our choice by a path of productivity to has as much as we wish -- Our labor, our reward, and our decision on how it is used. That applies to everyone, Oprah, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, the Hollywood Elite and Rupert Murdoch, and those who choose to rely on these people's monies as providers to them, can testify to this system being a successful opportunity that is available to us all, liberal and conservative alike. Make no mistake, it is this system, capitalism, that has led to our having freedom and afforded us the means and ability to keep it, that has given all of those that I just names above, fame, fortune and their capacity to create spectacle, to be spectacular. Obama through association with many of these people, has joined this club of the spectacular as well. Capitalism has proven to be the background of the bleak picture that The Obama has painted of the present state of America. He's rendered an image that portrays and proclaims the failure of capitalism irrespective of it having produce more than 600 million dollars for his campaign. I find this claim of our economy in the worst condition since the The Great Depression dubious. How could anyone who has privately raised more than 6 times the money of their publicly funded opponent claim that our economy is in such dire trouble and even suggest this dire condition a certain prescription for "change," and, that capitalism, "trickle down economics," has failed? Ask yourself why any of these people of substantial wealth, including Obama's campaign and it's more than half a billion dollars, would want to destroy the very system and means that has thus far elevated them. You'll either arrive at the knowledge of Obama's "change" lie and discover your personal delusions, or, wonder why Obama and the rest of them haven't put all their great wealth in one big account, published the account number, and password under the caption "Take What You Want Until I Am Poor!" And lastly you might discover that Obama's "change" is a radical departure from what has made and kept this country great for 232 years, and, that the lie is every premise he is posing for why such a departure is necessary at all, that it's been an agenda he has been committed to even before the economic conditions had become as he has claimed they are (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck) while being more than willing to accept 600 million dollars worth of donations. Another feature of the central core of Obama backers worth $500 billion dollars when taken together, is the question of their interest in supporting Obama. I mean even Obama has said, "no one likes higher taxes," and if we calculated 3% of 100 billion dollars, this is the amount of additional tax Obama has said he will impose on these very wealthy, we recognize they will pay an additional 3 billion dollars. Now understand that 3 billion dollars privately invested by these same individuals yields far more in jobs, credit generation, and contribution to the economy than by government distribution to those who will merely spend it locally -- The short duration of a redistribution, though initially of slightly more impact, will dwindles as it is used up, whereas this amount invested privately in a long term enterprise one of these magnates of wealth is in charge of will be most directed to it's most efficient use in achieve of similar or greater returns than these people have known in the past, this is their drive and ambition, their success and livelihood, something they know well enough to have amassed such large personal fortunes. Know that they are not trying to fool you into thinking they are conservatives. I submit that if you've never personally seen a politburo, or a Noble Class before, guess what: The core contributors to the Obama Campaign, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Union Leaders, and the Hollywood Elite, will be installed should their candidate happen to win. These people and groups each have respectively accumulated mass fortunes under capitalism and they do not give a man 600 million dollars, just because they like him. It would be absolutely foolish to believe they do not want anything from him. That is not how they amassed a cumulative net worth of 500 billion dollars amongst themselves together. While most who support Obama project, stamp, and emboss their ideas, their beliefs, onto the image of each utterance of "change" from Obama, those elite wealthy and liberal Americans who have so much wealth they could have single handedly bought AIG, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual and Wachovia, did nothing. Note that politically this assures the dramatic effect of negative impact on the incumbent party and their nominee John McCain, as well as assure government intervention (socialism). These elite liberals line the pockets of The Obama for their own purposes: To secure promises in their best interest, promises whispered amongst each other privately in the back rooms of Hollywood and San Francisco homes and hotels hosting plush, exclusive, $25,000+ a plate dinners, promises most people didn't pay to attend nor could attend, and, that result in their exclusion from reaping the benefits of. This is what you who support Obama sacrifice America for. I will wager you're as proud of America right now as Michelle Obama has been most of her life, at least you should be, I know that from the above right now I am. Thank you for reading, Toddy Littman |
| |
| Obama has created a maelstrom of reasons not to trust him: - Change isn't defined (Lie by absence.) - Failing to salute the American Flag (Malcom X style). - ACORN (Lying about his working with them since 1992.) - Black Liberation Theology (Reverend Wright, "I never heard anything like that."). - Che Guevara pictures displayed in campaign offices without explanation. - Saul Alinsky's dedication of "Rules for Radicals" to Satan. - Bill Ayers lack of remorse yet Obama standing by him, Why? - Louis Farrakhan referring to Obama as the Messiah. - Obama Submits a letter from his Doctor that he's in good health as "medical records" while being plagued by hip problems at age 47. - Lying about the $79 billion dollar Iraq surplus (it doesn't exist). - Posting 2 different "Certifications of Live Birth" which have been edited in Photo Shop. - Failing to rebut any lawsuit (and there are 7 of them) about his being a natural born citizen by producing, even in camera, a physical paper copy of his birth certificate. - Regularly saying "As I've always said..." before saying something he's never said before. - Instructing his Universities not to release any records of his time there. All of the relationships above at least 15 years old and Obama claims he had no idea of any of the well known, published, and documented negatives about them, or, that he believed they were rehabilitated. This is what a former Harvard Law Review President and professor of Constitutional law and lawyer says to explain his lack of due diligence regarding the company he keeps? And what do they see in him that so many flock to him? With all the indirection, misdirection, and consistency to evade requirements that everyone else has to abide by, such as filing medical records, all I can see is a man who has every grudge possible against the American People. How can I believe he would at all answer to us as our President? Many may see the current administration failing in this manner, and they'd likely be right, however, how does that qualify us to endure another President just as willing to pit us against each other and not answer to us? It's so much mysterious and cloudy, unexplained and, though few will say it, stubborn, arrogant, rebellious and defiant of the American people's need to know to not provide simple and easy to get documents that all previous candidates and current contenders have had to provide so that answers are available to us whether we look now or in the future for it. Not one bit of this is some special scrutiny on Obama. Any that he or anyone else may feel is occurring due to lawsuits to get he or someone in control of the record to produce it, is solely due to his lack of willingness, his defiances of making sure we are informed about him or can be should we ever want to be. That is secretive and, for someone who claims to want openness and transparency, failing to provide medical records or a genuine Certificate of Live Birth under seal and with wet signatures of your doctor, is just amazingly arrogant. McCain provided these things Senator Obama, McCain's Certificate of Live Birth, as described above, and more than1500 pages of medical records. How do you justify providing as little as possible Senator Obama? Senator Obama you have no direct lineage ancestors who were slaves. You have no special needs creating a special treatment category for you. You are actuall 50% majority caucasian. What is your justification? I guess it doesn't matter does it Senator Obama, if Americans are stupid enough to vote for you without you meeting the requirements that everyone else has, that's all that matters. If we are willing to buy an undefined package, which is solely undefined due to arrogant defiance, a package that can only be defined as "scant" when reviewed for the truth it has presented, that's all that matters. And it further doesn't matter because George Soros the convicted criminal under French Law is willing to afford you, Warren buffet and his Berkshire Hathaway which costs 130,000 dollars a share loves you, Oprah loves you, and the combined wealth of these few people, who are also your private campaign contributors, of around 100 billion dollars, just loves you. It must be nice to have those people and their deep pockets love you so unconditionally. You must really be happy no one believes for a minute any one, if not all, of these people expect special treatment of any kind from you, and that you owe us nothing for funding your campaign due to having taken no public financing as you once promised you would do. 600 million dollars you have raised and spent to run for President of the United States of America, some of which is illegally from foreign sources, and this amount is more than 6 times the highest amount ever spent before. No wonder you have the audacity to defy the American People: We are bought and sold like cattle, Soros reflexivity manipulations by using the market as he did when he broke the Bank of England, our stock market a tool to get you elected, nothing else. No none of it matters, you have every right to feel elite beyond elite, to feel elevated beyond the necessity to serve the American people. Whatever you do Senator Obama defy us. Defy us because we will have no control over anything you do after the election. All you have to do is wait, the sheeple you've created by promises you cannot keep will follow you, will vote for you, and will not have to answer to anyone. You already know the greed and corruption in Washington can't wait to do whatever they want to America, the nation they've been trying to destroy from the first National Bank Act. I am glad you set me straight on our stupidity, our sheer incapacity to reason anything but that you are The Obama, The One, The Messiah. I wonder if your national salute will be that we Faint limply in your presence, and do not rise again until after fire-hosed by the domestic military you wish to raise. Our national guard under the direction of the States isn't enough, you want to equally fund a domestic army, as you've said yourself. I wonder how much they'll resemble the Missouri "Truth Squads." For any who read this, here is some more food for thought on a lighter note but no less an example of how long Senator Obama has been willing to lie to us so directly, to mock us and make fun of us while defying us knowing we are powerless to do anything about it: While Obama & Co. were snooping around Sarah Palin.... Barack Obama, the one running for President of the United States, is becoming a known commodity: - Known for his ability to fabricate lies to maintain charismatic momentum, - known for his lack of recall of situations he knows would be politically detrimental to him, - known for his lack of consideration of who he surrounds himself with (known terrorists are not generally sought for friendship and comradery but by other known terrorist), - known for his willingness to be a part of the Daley Machine and the patronage system with a reputation for corruption known throughout the world (The best comparison for the Daley Machine is "The Sopranos.") - And this is while Obama may have received anti-American, even Jihadist, Muslim teachings as a child. In any event, if the Obama campaign is exercising their right to delve into and compare notes with Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin's record, to criticize "experience" then clearly U.S. Senator Obama, the Democratic Presidential Nominee for President of the United States has opened Pandora's Box on himself. This appears particularly true since Obama is a sitting U.S. Senator. U.S. Senator Obama may in fact have a duty to make his background information available to the public in chronological order if requested by FOIA. Though Obama's Campaign may claim some "campaign strategy" privilege, I submit that his duty as a U.S. Senator supersedes, especially when the strategy appears solely to keep particular information from being revealed that would lead to Americans knowing who he is based on his actual record, and not the fractionalized, and sometimes fictional one, he wishes to promote. Case in point: "My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars." Please note this statement is from Obama's self touted speech against the Iraq War in 2002, when he wasn't even a member of the Federal Government, and clearly he wants everyone to just look at him being against the Iraq War at the time. Obama doesn't want us to consider his reasons, that if the reason he was against it is being delineated by an entirely fictional account, then his being against the Iraq War was a political stunt and any claim otherwise another outright lie. To be blunt: Obama never had this conversation with his grandfather unless of course it was after his grandfather acquired Alzheimer's or a similar memory disorder, or, the grandfather lied to his grandson, Obama. Now I'd have believed that about his grandfather, if not that, sadly, in May of this year, Obama repeated, the Auschwitz portion of the lie, only this time it was his uncle who "who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz." An article discussing this at length is found here and notes most importantly "The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated them [Auschwitz] on Jan. 27 1945." http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-repeats-auschwitz-gaffe-on.html I believe there is a term for all of this, well 2 of them: Narcissism and Pathological Liar, and, according to Senator Obama's admitted record, from denial of Muslim teaching, to not hearing any of these "Best of" Reverand Wright political rants from the pulpit, to repeating impossible claims regarding Auschwitz, and his most recently repeated lie "Iraq has a $79 billion dollar surplus," along with the fact that his stint in the Illinois State Senate resulted in 130 "present" votes and he's not even a footnote mention regarding the reporting of any corruption in the City of Chicago, U.S. Senator Barack Obama has demonstrated a greater willingness to fabricate whatever he wants us to hear than get anything done. Enough is enough and I can only Pray American people supporting Obama fall out of mesmerization driven by blind hatred for George Bush and remember that their country is at stake, that reason is lost when operating by such emotional drives. My apologies for length, however, Barack Obama's mystery and appeal are one and the same, and it's high time this is discussed and debated, irrespective of the MSM blackout on any review of Obama because the lies or truths of it all need revealing. It's the only way a mere mortal like myself knows how to even attempt to dispel the mesmerizing effect of a seasoned conman being compared to Jesus on the Congressional floor. Please, if you give a damn about America, check your vote, check your reasons for voting, this is about America, not an election. Thank you for reading. |
| |
| Reviewing the web for information to use with another article I found the following, just click them to enlarge: B1
These texts are quoted from the brochure images above: 1) "Year after year, the same politicians offer the same tired campaign promises, which are quickly forgotten after Election Day. It's easy to lose hope and faith. Barack Obama believes that working together, we can change the ways of Washington. As President, Barack Obama will be committed to solving the tough issues we face because they aren't just political issues. They're moral issues." 2) "Barack on the power of prayer." I believe in the power of prayer. Through prayer, not only can we strengthen ourselves in adversity, but we can also find the empathy and the compassion and the will to deal with the problems that we do control. What I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act on those things that I can control. And that's what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government. We've got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions." 3) "Committed Christian" "Guided by his Christian faith, Barack Obama is the leader we can trust to challenge the ways of Washington and change the way our government does business. He will bring together Republicans and Democrats to address the problems facing our nation. Please compare these with the following: SENATOR OBAMA: "This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that on of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?" SENATOR O'MALLEY: "Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States. SENATOR OBAMA: "Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. "Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. "The Second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of constitutionality. "Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present." All emphasis above is mine. Note that at no time did Barack Obama mention any existing provision of law protecting infants born alive after a botched abortion either in the debate that occurred on the Illinois Senate Floor on March 30, 2001 I quote above, nor during the entire course of debate where the above was taken from, and found on the web at this link http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf (pages 84-87). In fact in the last paragraph of the debate above Barack Obama is stating that there is no such law: "...I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill." His excuse of an existing law, though true, is just an excuse after the fact in an effort to keep people from looking up the floor debate on this issue, to see the genuine lack of compassion and Christian core values he displays so eloquently to argue against a bill that re-affirms the commitment of the state to Born Alive Infants of a botched abortion. I submit that this floor debate testifies to Barack Obama's lack of faith, lack of integration of Christianity into his values and beliefs, that he is guilty of failing to "pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act on those things that I can control" and a Barack Obama is a key contributor to "what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government." His argument unequivocally demonstrates Barack Obama's absolute inability to "express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions" and thereby has demonstrated Christianity for Barack Obama, is a means of convenience, a means of influence and, as used in South Carolina, a way to get votes. From the above as well as other areas where Obama is "creative" I've found he represents the "same politicians" who "offer the same tired campaign promises, which are quickly forgotten after Election Day" for he failed to recognize that abortion is and always has been one of those issues that "aren't just a political issue" nor a "passionate issue " where one could not "belabor the point," if "guided by Christian faith." Of the issues listed in B1 above where Obama's conscience won't rest, abortion is not listed, in the Christian value, the Christian sense of the term and it's moral implications, that abortion is a moral issue, Barack Obama is silent. His argument above shows just how he truly feels about abortion and believes in the Civil Rights of the Child. Barack Obama could care less, the constitution and a woman's right to choose to kill her baby even after it's born is far more important since those are key constituencies to his party. A party man is what you vote for in Barack Obama, nothing less. Thus rhetoric is all he is spewing, from every facet of what he has to say, out of both sides of his mouth. Anyone who can find a way to believe Barack Obama needs to back away and review how objective they can be for it is obvious to me from the above and the erroneous "Iraq $79 billion surplus" (http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.5.3)that The Obama is either entirely inept or even more willing than Bill Clinton to lie directly to the face of the American people. Thank you for reading. |
| |
| Quoted as a Matter of Public Concern and National Security from Social Policy Magazine, Winter 2003, Vol 34, No. 2, Spring 2004, Vol 34, No. 3, also as a matter of artistic license I will I provide italic, underline, and bold emphasis in combination or separately: "Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign By Toni Foulkes ACORN's history of nonpartisan electoral work (voter registration and voter turnout) and leadership development combined during the March, 2004 primary season to make a big difference in the level of participation of our communities in that important election. ACORN is active in experimenting with methods of increasing voter participation in our low and moderate income communities in virtually every election. But in some elections we get to have our cake and eat it too: work on nonpartisan voter registration and GOTV, which also turns out to benefit the candidate that we hold dear. The March primary was not particularly important for the presidential race, as Kerry was just in the process of clinching the Dem presidential nomination. But it was critical in the U.S. Senate race. On March 16th, State Senator Barack Obama won the right to represent the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate campaign. Jack Ryan won the Republican nomination that day, but went on to self-destruct over sex club revelations in his divorce papers. Sen. Obama went on to keynote the Democratic Convention in July and was catapulted to the national stage. As Sen. Obama puts it, how did a skinny kid with a funny name become the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, with 53% of the statewide Democratic vote in a seven-person field? [Photo of Obama sitting at table in discussion with ACORN members here.] Obama started building the base years before. For instance, ACORN noticed him when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act, also known as motor voter. Allied only with the state of Mississippi, Illinois had been refusing to allow mass-based voter registration according to the new law. Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them). Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends. And along about early March, we started to see that the African-American community had made its move: when Sen. Obama's name was mentioned at our Southside Summit meeting with 700 people in attendance from three southside communities, the crowd went crazy. With about a week to go before the election, it was very clear how the African-American community would vote. But would they vote in high enough numbers? It seemed to us that what Obama needed in the March primary was what we always work to deliver anyway: increased turnout in our ACORN communities. ACORN is active on the south and west sides of Chicago, in the south suburbs and on the east side of Springfield, the state capital. Most of the turf where we organize in is African American, with a growing Latino presence in Chicago's Little Village and the suburbs. ACORN members were involved in three activities around the primary: 1) Block captains were identified, as early as the summer before the March primary, and provided with lists of registered and unregistered voters and voter registration materials. We attended trainings and accountability meetings to receive our materials and make plans to get the people registered. Then we came back to report on our progress. We also hired voter registrars in the final three weeks to work the supermarkets in our communities. By the February 17 voter registration deadline for the primary, ACORN had registered 12,984 new voters. This was an organizational best for us. (As of this writing, we have added over 27,000 new voters). 2) Block captains then went to work to turn out the vote. They were all volunteers until the last few days, when we received funding to pay some of our block captains in some precincts of the 24th ward (North Lawndale) and the 15th ward (West Englewood) to get out the vote on the last Saturday before the election and on election day. 3) In some precincts in the 15th ward, we were able to hire canvassers to work on voter turnout for a full two weeks before the election. Each canvasser worked two to three precincts during that time. The results of this activity were very interesting, and mirror what Professor Donald Green of Yale University has found about voter turnout work: where we were able to run a crew of paid and supervised canvassers for two weeks before the election, we did very well. In those targeted ACORN precincts in the 15th ward, voter turnout improved by an average of 50% over the previous year's city election (the only other election since the redistricting). Citywide turnout increased by only 14% over the same election. The way the canvassers approached each door was important. Instead of a speech about a candidate they engaged the potential voter in a conversation about the issues, relating their issues to the importance of voting, and moving them to a commitment to vote in the primary. In addition ACORN leaders were making the rounds talking to their neighbors about the election. I am proud to report that the combination of a paid canvass and my volunteer work was especially successful in turning out the vote in my two precincts (34 and 51). In those precincts we boosted turnout by 82% (precinct 34) and 90% (precinct 51) over the previous year’s turnout. ACORN leader Denise Dixon again paired with an effective canvasser, increased turnout in her precinct by 131%. The best performing precincts were the ones with a canvasser and a leader who worked at least Election Day and the Saturday before. There is a noticeable difference between these precincts and those that only had a paid canvasser in it, who wasn't a local community leader. We're not ready to prove anything yet with our data, because we have not run a scientific test, but we believe Green's results showing that door-to-door field work for two weeks before an election yields significant results, and we believe that there is a correlation with strong local leaders assisting the paid canvassing in winning even more dramatic increases. The 24th ward has traditionally had higher voter turnout than in the 15th. The work leading up to the election in the 24th Ward was done by leaders who volunteered their time. Some were paid for two half days of door knocking, election day and the Saturday before. Turnout increased in ACORN precincts in the 24th ward at a rate higher than the city average, but not at the rate at which it increased in the 15th. Overall turnout was still higher in our 24th ward precincts than our 15th ward precincts, but the rate of increase was not as dramatic. None of this is rocket science, but it is important. Good door-knocking by community residents for even two half days can impact turnout. Good door-knocking by paid and supervised canvassers for two weeks can have dramatic impact. And a combination of the two, especially with experienced community leaders working with the paid canvassers, can make a huge difference. As it turned out, Obama won the primary handily, pulling white wards as well as African American. But no one knew that that would be the case. In each election we must act as if our work is critical for our communities. That is what we did in the primary, and we learned something in the process. Toni Foulkes is a Chicago ACORN leader and a member of ACORN's National Association Board." My Thoughts Note the "Since then..." at the start of one of the first few paragraphs above. That date is 1992. Since 1992 Obama has been "invited... to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. This is the certainty of a conflict of interest and the rest an explanation of ACORN as a member in good standing of Daley Machine style politics. This is the politics of "change?" Machine politics of Mayor Richard J. Daley Senior from the 1960s? Of course it is a change, there will be a "patronage system" such that Obama attached to College tuition credit in his statement in this 3rd debate: "I will give every student a $4,000 tax credit, on condition they participate in a community organization." Yes, I paraphrased and likely poorly, yet the point of the statement is that it makes the tuition credit subject to the student acting in a manner that the government prescribes. Sure the government has other requirements it prescribes but those details are irrelevant. What is important here is that the community service requirement by government of a citizen is purely in order to have the privilege of using a tax credit of $4,000. This requirement teaches people only to give in exchange for something, not to give for the sake of giving, which, is the whole point of community service organizations, from Red Cross to Rotary International. You may not see this as any relation to ACORN however his lying about the relationship consistently, to claim working a court case for them and that's all, is reason to suspect a form of Machine Politics in the Mayor Daley tradition. This especially holds true when considering the number of states investigating ACORN for voter fraud, as well as some of their actual volunteers explaining registering 73 times in order to get paid. This is why I emphasized the "compensated canvasser" portions above, for the compensation seems to taint the system. Lastly, ACORN defends itself by claiming these large numbers of voters they registered with pride, some 1.3 million. Well if, in fact, some of their people are filing 20 registration forms, when you divide the 1.3 million into 20 you land at 65,000 actual participants. The point being that, due to the number of their operations across the nation that appear to be committing this fraud, it would seem they are admitting to adding 1,235,000 illegal votes to support the candidate they prefer, as they mentioned above, "...we get to have our cake and eat it too: work on nonpartisan voter registration and GOTV, which also turns out to benefit the candidate that we hold dear." Apparently there is a "bipartisan partisanship" that's okay so long as you're ACORN. To Read the original article with photo, please see http://www.socialpolicy.org/index.php?id=838. I had to register as a member to get to this article. Note please that Toni Foulkes, the author of the article from Social Policy Magazine is an Alderman today in Chicago. I wonder how much ACORN and Senator Obama "got out the vote" for him. Thank you for reading. |
| |
| "ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday." See story http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD93O1QNO0. Meaningless and absolutely political. The Democrat Alaska investigator posing to be photographed while at the Obama offices have already surfaced while the investigator denies it even happened....Well until he was shown the photo, then the story went to "it had nothing to do with the investigation," then why deny being there in the first place? Must be like listening to Reverand Wright, knowing Bill Ayers, being the lawyer for Rezko or working for ACORN. Those never happened either. Seems like there is a sort of dementia that strikes liberal democrats and they are entirely oblivious to places they've been, people they've met, and posing for photographs. But what really tells you how political this is, how it's merely a political ploy, is that they recommend no sanctions against the Governor!. Now to help understand the political angle....Consider how many enemies a reformer has when they've went after people in both parties. In that light, this was the best they could do, and without punishment? But see in another way this makes perfect sense. I mean guy at the head of the same party going after Governor Palin, Barrack Obama, who stood up to argue against a bill (SB 1093, March 30, 2001) to provide health care for the surviving child of a botched abortion, would obviously find a Governor who sought to have a State Trooper who threatened her family and even tasered his 10 year old son guilty of abuse of power. I mean it's entirely unnatural and never happened in the history of our country that anyone with political power did all they could to influence an incidence (Please Google each of the Kennedy's including Chappaquiddick Ted.). But hey it's not a conservative woman who threatens the whole image of a feminist that liberals covet as their own, so obviously she must be stopped. Then again Ted's influence was always to stop legal action or investigations upon any Kennedy, though that time he protested the wind generators because they'd disturb the view where he lives, was at least an innocently selfish act. I mean obviously those myriad Kennedy incidence of almost every member of the family getting special treatment in any legal action against them due to their name and influence is on par with a Governor protecting her family, and actually protecting that trooper by shedding light on his problem and hoping his supervisor would help him too. But see that's how it goes when you have an 80% approval rating and have pissed of the politicians on both sides of the isle and subordinates know about it. They use your right act as a means to undermine you. Yea this is pretty good really because it reveals how desperate the Obama campaign is to have something they can use to silence any questions of Obama's myriad dangerous associations with people he never heard, never met, and never worked for until someone can prove it. Then they are disavowed, he can't throw them under the bus fast enough. If Obama's people go with this, it's gonna be really great to see how someone could sell the tasering of a 10 year old. Here's the link to my post featuring the Obama debate in the Illinois Senate against the bill for babies born after a botched abortion: http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.10.4 Thank you for reading. |
| |
| The following is taken from "Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism" of the EU. Found here http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001E0931:EN:NOT 'Persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts' means individuals, groups and entities on whom there is accurate information proving that they have committed, are attempting to commit or are facilitating the commission of terrorist acts. 'Terrorist acts' are defined as intentional acts which may seriously damage a country or international organisation by intimidating a population, exerting undue compulsion of various types or by destabilising or destroying its fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures...." United States Senator Barack Obama is involved with an actual world wide economic terrorist, one who continues to perpetrate his heinous economic crimes at the expense of the people of the nation he targets. This terrorist remains as free as Osama Bin Laden, maybe they've even joined forces. I mean who else could hide Osama? I just concluded that George Soros is an economic terrorist of worldwide reputation after reviewing the following: The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199307/george-soros/2. And the Asian economic trouble in 1998 as well: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/soros-tells-the-west-we-must-reform-to-help-poor-688016.html. Mr. Soros of course has his "way with his words," similar to Senator Oblahblahblahma: "In his book, Mr Soros denies claims that he started the crisis as a "wholly unfounded". He admits Soros Fund Management foresaw a crisis and "shorted" the Thai bhat and Malay ringgit - agreeing to sell stocks of the currencies it did not yet own. Instead he blames the international financial system and argues that this is one of the reasons why it needs to be more tightly controlled. Given that belief it is understandable that he should be surprised to be subjected to a barrage of insults during a recent debate the opponents of with globalisation." (Emphasis mine, typos and grammatical errors in original.) And to review his involvement in Rosia Montana, Romania: http://reportfromrosia.com/?m=200707 [updated: this link no longer works, and I have no replacement for it] and http://newsbusters.org/blogs/bill-hobbs/2007/12/10/soros-using-environmental-scare-tactics-gain-control-gold-mine. And finally to why Soros is actually a convicted Economic Terrorist: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/14/business/soros.php So Senator Obama's campaign has taken money from a person known worldwide for their willingness to attack other nations governments through their currency, and purely for personal enrichment, a portion of which ends up as a donation to the Obama campaign. I must submit that I am not convinced that our current economic woes were not spurred on by something George Soros, or his group of 70 other billionaires and millionaires who formed the Democratic Alliance, has done on the world economic level. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=322 In my opinion their leveraged economic holdings are enough to distort the values of our currencies, and spurred on by Soros and his claim of philanthropy in spite of what he's done to the people in Rosia Montana, Democratic Alliance is what makes Soros even more dangerous than Obama, the candidate Soros is privately funding. The whole integrity of capitalism rests on the reasonableness and honorable dealings of the nation using that economic system. We all know this has been the area of erosion in our society, honorability by good use of reason and acting with integrity, deliberate acts of good because we know what "good" means, what "doing the right thing" means. These meanings are clouded today by endless argument without deliberation, by empty argument based on what others have done in the negative being certain proof that all are guilty of the same thing, an actual use of guilt by association. The whole greed on Wall Street argument was this, and would have succeeded to plant the doubts of capitalism and the idea we should all be successful until the light of FreddieMac and FannieMae's administrative chaos was revealed -- that the source of acting dishonorable for personal gain and arranging agreements with unclean hands was in fact these once upon a time wholly government agencies. Soros is the epitome of the worst of those who gain wealth and believes that his decisively immoral conduct as an atheist and believer in power alone is the natural course of anyone who gains as he did. Though I am sure many would agree this is true I suggest they look at the education they've received so they can have an opportunity to recognize this "truth" is based on a life educated in the evils of those who have more than you do, the promotion of class warfare, jealously and essentially the entire basis of Obama's campaign. So while the left believes Obama is so benevolent, it's merely a mirror image of his most powerful mentor George Soros, the "philantropist." More references: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/mar/10/theobserver.observerbusiness10 http://americanpatriotjournal.com/index.php/?page_id=125 http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=46&num=121582 And a group wanting to expose the relationship of Soros and his environmental bullydom by the environmental bully organizations: http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/ Incidentally this last item is a page out of Rockefeller's handbook and how essentially Chevron gained ownership of the Alaskan pipeline, formerly owned by a multitude of investers (10,000 I believe) for 10 cents or less on the dollar: They were harassed by lawsuits from environmental groups that Rockefeller had made large charitable contributions to. This went on for years while people's money was tied up in the pipeline without any return, so of course they eventually sold. Thanks for reading. |
| |
| Free Market in Action Check this out: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/mortgage_lawsuit.html While Congress claimed this idea of loan principle adjustment by Bankruptcy Courts a sticking point in the bailout originally, here it is being practiced, the market at work fixing itself by doing that very thing in settlement of lawsuits over loans that were made by another company, the company Bank of America bought up, no less! Of course liberal democrat Jerry Brown had to be mentioned in the AP article, making sure to keep the angle of the story one of "people are kept in their homes," helping the poor. My trouble with it is that while mortgages in 11 states are adjusted, what about the rest of them? What about other banks? In the nature of the free market this will not be a unique occurrence. What I mean is that if the total economy could be valued as has been suggested, through the DOW index, and we lost 1.2 trillion dollars in one day when 777 points disappeared from the "Big Board," then, how much is going to disappear with a group of loans where principle and interest is being adjusted downward? How much will this effect the future forecasts throughout the banking industry? Now consider this in light of the dollar sliding further once 850 billion dollars is borrowed from the U.S. Treasury to buy "illiquid assets" off of banks books, a debit for a credit. Note this 850 billion dollars will likely be a greater amount soon, not only from the inclusion of California but numerous states who wrote the artificial FreddieMac and FannieMae property value increase curve into their revenue projections, and thereby budget expectations. Remember California in particular has Proposition 13, so as long as homes aren't selling there is no re-assessment, which you'll find their policy makers loathe http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/184699535.html. Apparently "policy makers" not being able to just raise taxes is a problem when the government's whim by revenue projection and budget expectation is not being met, and, like Wall Street, they throw a tantrum. Somehow it is Prop 13's fault that government used Real Estate speculation as a basis for it's revenues. The fact that properties might increase in value, though they aren't now, is troubling for government, the great policy makers, since they cannot abuse the idea of "pay your fair share" by applying the percentage tax to the increased value they speculated. This is an increase in value that accrues to you as the owner but won't be realized until sale of the property, and this amount is generally available to be a tax upon the seller as a capital gain, while the re-assessment at higher value achieves a higher tax payment from the buyer on the same property -- funds "policy makers" wish to take in maintenance of budget increases which are their sole means to justify their existence. I hope that It is obvious since the bailout passed, irrespective of 9:1 opposition by the American People, that we have learned better than ever that "it is the right of the people to tighten their belt while the prerogative of government to loosen theirs, even to the point another can fit in the same belt with us, and maybe a few more who will succumb to our whim, oh yes government will protect these." Usually this "belt loop" includes those who handed politicians some election funds or carried the financial paper on some "landmark earmark" or similar fleecing of America, something the politicians appear to compete over to see who can get the most every year. Someone should write a "Congress' Book of Spending World Records," a roster of the records of our fiscal irresponsibility as compared to other nations, though that would probably just heat up the competition if it ever sold well. But somehow, irrespective of California Policy Makers and their complaints with Proposition 13 and the state's decreasing property values, the State of California, speaking through Jerry Brown, can actually appreciate Bank of America's decision to adjust these loans and their interest rates down. Money, capital, knows nothing about this. It has no moral character, no idea of up or down, trends of any kind. But people, especially policy makers, will confuse the line of what is politically expedient with what is best for the state and the people. Low taxes, particularly low property taxes, are good for the people, for it means that their equity remains with them. This means the people can be investing their money themselves, into the supply side of their economy even if merely spending it, versus the government taking it, and spending it at excessive rates beyond the amount of funds available, only to ask next fiscal year for more to do the same, and generally bail out a favored "beltfellow" who already received special perks but still failed. Apparently government operates by self proclamation of it's own supremacy of wisdom, or at least by taxation that appears what they assert, that they are wiser and more elite in the use of your money than you are. And the more you make, of course, the more you can afford, though that rule appears to escape the knowledge of government distribution schemes. Yet success is to government like a "mark" is to a con-man. Almost entirely these bad bank loans, these "illiquid assets" we are to buy from Wall Street, represent what happens when there is a 3rd component of government demand empowered by liability through litigation as an influence in the market for together these pressurize every segment of the economy. Insurance is the balance of these for it uses the threat of the government (courts) to leverage the liability component of our lives, be it rich or poor. When we look at this history of FreddieMac and FannieMae we see a banking system that had been running for decades with a down payment method which uses the Federal Reserve System to re-generate the credit issued, so the well doesn't run dry due to those who wish to have the fruits of labor without the labor. Long, and likely over-published today, story short, these institutions eventually were buying paper faster than they could sell it, to the point they had to lie on their books. The purpose and intention of FreddieMac and FannieMae in being created, to help the poor, was defeated by the very leaders of these organizations and their buying up loans of individuals that were not poor. Remember at the time these had been "privatized" and "quasi" government organizations, the use of our fund, the authority to claim certain legalities pertaining to loan acceptance by them, but not as a policing authority nor subject to the type of oversight that a solely government agency would be put through via the GAO and the Inspectors General, http://www.ignet.gov/. So now instead of just having a market of banks and a market of people who deposit and eventually want to buy a home and raise a family, we also have government institutions which, as per usual, don't follow their own charter and promote specialized allowance and greed. And further let's add in "low income loans" being an expanded throughout the banking industry due to banks being sued for civil rights violations when they didn't give loans to the poor "as a class," the people who FannieMae and FreddieMac were chartered to help. Litigation on their behalf may be a good thing because courts and their affidavits and declarations create a proving up of the plaintiff in the process of perfecting their claim. Someone's with good credit who doesn't qualify as "poor" would be unable to join the poor as a class in litigation without committing a great deal of perjury. We end up here with a construct that is a mass of loans on the terms of no money down, an introductory interest rate (no saving grace of funds there), and without the person having an income. I say construct because here is the actual conclusion: The entire purpose of low income housing is the outright purchase of votes. It is no secret that people who are on welfare will vote for the party that talks about helping the poor, offering up more welfare, just imagine the influence on this segment of the economy, including their relatives, when they can have a home for no money down, no interest and no proof of income. Corporations and businesses that rely on their credit lines for survival, their employees vote for the party that gives corporate welfare to keep the payroll running. What makes this conclusion so obvious and certain is that these institutions, FreddieMac and FannieMae, are again government controlled and no longer in the private sector to "afford the great society" social agenda of Lyndon Johnson. What I mean is: These institutions clearly solved nothing, their net gain is actually less than nothing, save political influence on the "phew I am lucky I got this house when I did because I couldn't qualify otherwise." And this Bank of America settlement article proves what I mean. These same people are about to get another break and at our expense again because this de-valuing of these loans and the lowering of interest rates means less cash flow in the economies of these 11 states. Sure the people will be paying where they aren't now, but it will be less than they were paying before because the home is worth less. I am not against economic contraction, merely stating its reality for contrast to what government claims is a benefit, per Jerry Brown. In the end government, state, local, and federal, could care less about the value of the property until political agendas are met first. While they seem to have negative impressions of proposition 13 during the housing boom, as one example, yet right now prices are falling in California, and proposition 13, due to the re-assessment after sale application of property tax, will assure the State receives it's tax on the basis of higher home values. Homes that were $400,000 2 and 3 years ago that are now worth $250,000 or less and owned by the same owner will be assessed at $400,000. The bank will have to pay that higher rate even after foreclosure since foreclosure is not a sale. Not good news for the banking community and maybe that's Bank of America's reason for settlement of this lawsuit, at least in California, though other states have passed similar measures to Prop 13 themselves. Settlement is a perfect example of the Free Market in action, adjusting to Government demands and intrusions to fix itself, of course at the hands of Governments counterpart: litigation. Thank you for reading. |
| |
| 4 Weeks Urgent? That's A New One! Well I hear it's 4 weeks or so before treasury receives the first 250 billion (urgent my arse), and I believe there is an appropriations process which could decide to give Paulson much less or nothing at all since they do have to create these funds. If there is an appropriations process there is another vote. A key part of this to me is that the stock market, that was 300 up when they started voting, dropped to -150 by the time they were through. If by some strange occurrence the market was stabilized or on a somewhat reasonably established upward trend 4 weeks from now, there may be leverage to appeal to representatives, if an appropriation vote comes up, to reject it. A surprisingly disappointing part of this is that with some of these loans the borrowers had taken them out with no money down and no interest, the borrower hadn't made the payment, and further, in some cases, the loan was for more than the value of the home. (*Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* You'd of thunk that would have raised flags now wouldn't ya?) Now, if I remember correctly, legally, the borrower, has no obligation to pay as they have never "bound" the contract with any earnest money or made any payment, or, performed in any manner to admit the contract binds them to the obligations set forth thereunder. Sure the borrower's credit will take a hit, yet they can continue to be in quiet peaceful possession of the property and the bank has no direct contractual or legal authority to foreclose. Of course those loans for more than the value of the home, especially if not bound by earnest money, would easily be argued as "unconscionable" for their pure stupidity. Those loans would certainly be a toxic asset of idiocy exercised on their face, however when Fannie and Freddie, we the public, are paying for it via "quasi" government agency guarantee or outright purchase....Well you get the picture. Now I know few will see this in this way but the banks are victims of a couple of liberal lending CEO "Czars" of a "Quasi" government agency, chartered to promote the principles of the Community Reinvestment Act, and these pseudo government agency's incentive system: FannieMae and FreddieMac. This doesn't make it right, but, like anyone else who gets screwed by government, the banks are holding Uncle Sam accountable for a "redemption." The $700 billion appears to that redemption. The government, unable to accept the adult responsibility to reflect, apologize for their error, and eradicate the causal mechanisms as a matter of correcting the government's behavior, that is more than offensive but is in fact the initial government socialist intervention (FannieMae and it's agencies), decides instead that the same public, that allowed for FannieMae, FreddieMac, and CRA to be created in the first place, must be bilked. Easy to figure since the public is the one with the least capacity and affordability to bring action against the government, and has proven a Constitutional Right To Sleep while the government carries on in their name time and time again, government never held to answer or atone to their benefactors but at the ballot box, which can be years away. In this current election year this estimation may, however, prove even more accurate. The compression of events to time by the almost daily "other shoe drops" election news cycle will consistently cloud the memories of many in the public, and repeatedly re-align our passionate outcry by election day to where we may not reasonably, if at all, use our sole moment of retribution upon the government by our vote. Those leaning away from capitalism who are in the government, know that the banks can just chase credit costs up to a freeze, lower reserves even further, and have an incredible amount of leverage on the economy as a whole, which explains the Paulson knee-jerk number, to create a group of knee-jerks in support. Paulson is a private sector elitist banker first and foremost. The long-term is no longer in view and hasn't been for quite some time. I dare say it began eroding shortly after 56 men wrote the Declaration of Independence, the birth of the first entirely non-feudal sovereign body politic. This isn't to say there was no forward thinking. It is to say that that the forward thinking principles of the Declaration became forward thinking in regard to equities alone. I guess what I mean here is, the old adage and laudable feudal tenet, "He with the gold rules," is only true if those around the one holding the gold believe it is so. We have and we do worship this ritual recognition of the sign, whatever it is, even the talley stick, an accounting that the king accepted in payment of taxes, but with no intrinsic value in itself, one could say the first working fiat currency. When one combines this with the Peter Principle competence of our government, the perceived downturns with socialist solutions to them, are a natural result which. I submit this is because we lack the capacity of diligence and adherence to America in principle, assuming we even care about what founded this nation and why that history occurred. Thank you for reading. |
| |
Go to page >>