Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Prop 8 is voted down and at least one celebrity wacks out!

http://cliftonofhesperia.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/why-you-should-vote-for-prop-8/

Want a number of good reasons why gay marriage, which seems rather innocuous, was voted down? See the above.

Again, do we, the people, want 5 - 10% of the population forcing their rules on us? There are civil unions. They don't have to be married. Funny, if they had the right to be called "married," they probably wouldn't want it. But, because the last bastion of tradition is marriage, they've got to fight it tooth and nail! So they can sue when someone doesn't want to serve them. How ridiculous.

On the amusing side, Roseanne Barr, known for her genteel and ladylike style, blasted blacks and anyone who is Christian, right wing, and goes to church:

from http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/11/70_of_black_californians.php

"70% of black church going californians
who voted this cycle voted for prop 8. As they overwhelmingly supported America's first chance to elect a person of color and strike a death blow to racism, they also went out of their way to misuse their votes (no doubt at the behest of their immoral and hateful pastors and clergy) to isolate and punish a small minority of citizens, and to deny them basic civil rights. They voted to deny over 70,000 californian children coverage of the insurance benefits of their gay parents. They voted to destroy the constitution that Obama will hopefully uphold against their wishes, by making sure that church and state remain separated. They voted to "uphold the sanctity of marriage" by making a mockery of it. They showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white christian right wing counterpartners who voted for mccain-palin and bush-cheney. When i suggested a couple of years ago that gay organizations should build official bridges with african american organizations, in order to build political consensus and not just represent a purely gay agenda, this very vote is what I was trying to speak to.The gay community needs to do outreach to the black and latino christian and immigrant communities.
the more things change, the more they stay the same.REPENT all ye bible blabbers!!!! babble on babylon" End quote!

Nice girl...

The Fairness Doctrine - Come One, Come All!

Contrary to the conservatives' fear over the Fairness Doctrine, which we have been led to believe will stop conservative Talk Radio and Fox television, I think it will have the opposite effect. In fact, the liberal media may be slapped in the face by the Fairness Doctrine. We should be embracing it!

Just today, Newsmax had an article that President-elect Obama has designated former FCC commissioner Henry Rivera to head his team that will select the next FCC chairman. The original Fairness Doctrine was not mandated by Congress but was an FCC regulation. So, Congress may not decide whether this will be re-instituted, the new FCC chairman may. And, if the FCC chairman decides not to, Congress may decide to make the Fairness Doctrine a law. But, will they be shooting themselves in the foot?

While waiting in line to vote, Sen. Schumer endorsed the Fairness Doctrine with a grin. In other words, he was feeding on fear and basically mocking the people that preach the Fairness Doctrine will cause suppression of free speech.

Let's see - in America, the door swings back and forth, not just one way. We all know that the main steam media gave unfair coverage to the Democrats and mocked and derided the Republicans, even with rumors and outright lies! How much of the Main Stream Media's news is simply opinion and not fact? A lot!

So, here's my view. If the Fairness Doctrine is instituted, each side will have equal time to present contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming. http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Why are opposing views a threat? They are unequivocally not a threat! Because, if we believe that our views are right, then we have nothing to fear. We will be able to put our views out on the MSM every time they have an opinion, or lie, or mock, or spread rumors!

The liberal MSM will have to give equal time to the conservatives. NBC and MSNBC will have to give conservatives a chance to challenge the views of Olbermann and Matthews. Presidential elects will have to be given equal time. News versus "opinion" news will be able to be challenged every step of the way.

We all know the news tips greatly to the left. The Fairness Doctrine will "balance" news and opinions if only the conservatives and Republicans demand equal time! In other words, we will have to get our act together and start monitoring the liberal media and demand a response for each slam they give us. We can inundate the MSM with our opposing view!

Now, how will this affect Fox? Not at all. They have fair and balanced news. O'Reilly is fair and balanced. Hannity has Colmes. Van Sustern is fair and balanced. No worries.

What about Rush and Glenn? Well, it will be up to Rush and Glenn to allow the public to give their viewpoint. Or, the radio station to provide the opposing view. What's so bad about that? In fact, I would like to hear an intelligent, factual view behind the liberal position.

And, I'll be happy to turn on MSNBC to hear the views of the conservatives who will be making Olbermann look like a blithering idiot, which will bother the heck out of the opposition!

Viva la Fairness Doctrine!

Friday, November 7, 2008

Congratulations to President Elect Obama (Cough, Cough)

So, were you as suprised as me that Sen. Obama was elected President? I guess I was in some sort of denial. I truly believed that the controversy surrounding him would lead to his undoing, that the American people would see through the lies he told us, the denials, and would elect McCain by default.

Well, I was wrong. Flat out wrong. Stupidly wrong.

I try to make sense of it in my mind, but it doesn't make sense, and so I have to chalk his win up to emotion. And, why should I be surprised, really? Don't quite a few Americans vote with emotion and little knowledge? Yup!

So, we shall see what happens. Right now people are proclaiming him the middle of the roader. Hah.

Will his true spots show soon? I hope not. I hope the Dems in his administration will move him to the middle. If not, we're in for one heck of a ride.

Still, his brand, spanking new chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, has not been without controversy. He once mailed a dead fish to a former co-worker! I can't wait to see what happens when Nancy Pelosi gets on his bad side!

And, according to Wikipedia, in 1996, after Clinton's run for office: "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name." His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo."

Whew! And they said McCain had a temper! Well, people who worked with Emanuel "insist the once hard-charging staffer has mellowed out."

If anything, it won't be a dull four years!

San Francisco Wackos At It Again

One of the most stunning sights in San Franciso is the Golden Gate Bridge spanning the San Fran Bay. It can also be a sad symbol of desperation as each year people decide to end their torture by jumping into the murky depths. It is estimated that since the bridge opened sixty years ago, over 1,200 suicides have occurred there.

Just recently a documentary came out showing people climbing over the edge and jumping. It was a disturbing and anguished testimony to it's sad history.

Now, San Franciso has decided to do something about the suicides. It will be erecting a mesh barrier spanning the length of the bridge at an estimated cost of $40 - $50 million.

Now, I realize that suicide is something we all feel we should do everything we can to stop. However, if a person wants to commit suicide, they will, with whatever means they can.

Actually, if I had to go, I would think the bridge was a good way to go. Clean, relatively easy, no evidence. I know I'm close to the edge to say that, that it's something most people would never talk about, but I'm being truthful. I've never felt suicidal and I pray I never do. But, imagine the desperation, the utter hopelessness, in a person who is willing to commit suicide. How sad. How terrible.

Still, I wonder, is it worth $45 + million dollars to erect a barrier for these people? For the next sixty years, if the same number of people commit suicide, it will cost $375,000 per person who didn't commit suicide on the bridge. It won't guarantee that they will try it somewhere else or by some other means. And, that's assuming the same number will commit suicide, and that the mesh barrier will remain in place, with no maintenance, repair, or replacement, for the next sixty years.

Wouldn't it be better to monitor the bridge and catch the people before they jump? Or, put the $45 million into mental health facilities? Or, erect alarms? Isn't there some other way to prevent this from happening?

Once again, government does not look at all the possibilities. And, they are willing to throw money at a problem at the expense of the taxpayer. In this case, $375,000 for each suicide in the next sixty years.

In my opinion, this needs to be looked at further...

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Obama Wins

The news that Obama has won the election has left some troubling emotions. First, there was disappointment, then disbelief. How could the American public elect a man with radical ties, a murky past, outrageous statements of belief and no track record of sucess in politics?

Obama has grand plans that will cost the American people trillions.

He will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs.

He will create a Green Jobs Corp. His site says this will engage disadvantaged youth in energy efficiency opportunities.

He will double funding for the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program which helps low-income Americans get to work.

He will raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. Imagine small business people having to go from $6.55 now, to $7.25 in 2009, to $9.50 in 2011.

He will expand sick days to guarantee seven paid sick days per year.

He will expand Nurse-Family Partnership which will provide home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers, estimated at 570,000 first-time mothers yearly.

He will fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program.

He will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.

He will put more money into early childhood education, affordable child care, and expand Early Head Start and Head Start.

All of these programs, and there are many more, sound great but at what price? Can we really afford all of these programs directed at low-income people? Can the “rich,” the people making over $150,000 a year, afford the enormous cost these programs will need? Or, will these programs come back to haunt the middle-class?

Is Obama just throwing money at a problem? In the end, will any of these programs make a difference? Will they get people out of a low-income situation? Or, like all the other programs that have come before them, will they simply spend Americans’ money and the people who run the programs will make out like bandits?

I would encourage everyone to sign up for Congress.org. At least we will be able to see which bills are being passed as our money flies out the window.

http://www.congress.org/

Monday, November 3, 2008

Obama Must Provide Birth Certificate by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face. To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...

He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Turning the U.S.A. into a one party system...

If you’ve read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, you understand Obama’s philosophy and the way he works. His vision versus a traditionally conservative philosophy are dramatically different. So, it’s hard to believe that we have people who were, and are, on the Republican ticket endorsing Obama. It’s like rats leaving a sinking ship, and with their help, the ship may sink.

Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in the 90's. What could be clearer, or more simplistic...that he is a socialist? It was run by the Democratic Socialists of America, which was a group of unions, socialists, communists, and black activists. In 1999, the New Party lost a supreme court challenge that ruled the organization’s platform, called "fusion reform," was unconstitutional. Thank you, God.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html
and
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913

When I saw Colin Powell jump ship, it turned my stomach that he could so easily abandon his ideals, his views, of what makes this country great. Would it ever change my ideals? No. Not if John McCain, himself, and even George Washington, went to Obama’s side. How can I? It’s like pulling my heart from my chest.

Obama’s goal, as a socialist, is to disenfranchise Americans. To take away our freedom. How ironic that African Americans are running to him as a liberator when he will be limiting their rights. No, Obama has no intention of liberating anyone.

Socialism is not kind to it’s citizens. No matter how much propaganda you hear, ultimately it is a bad form of government. Our forefathers realized that freedom could only be obtained by limited government, yet socialism wants to control you and everything else entirely.

Perhaps Obama has been successful because he has carefully chosen his words and left his vision intentionally vague. I still don’t know what the "change" is he’s expounded on - except a change from Republican to Democrat. And, it amazes me how readily our youth believe that , whatever he does, it will be right for them and the Nation.

But, the majority of us should be smarter than that. We’ve seen what big government can do. Just look at California and New York. They pay the highest taxes in the nation yet are on the verge of bankruptcy and are pleading with the federal government for help. Look at Illinois. Has he done anything great for them? They’re in a mess, too.

Big government doesn’t work. When you give politicians money, they spend it, and not on what they told you they would spend it on.

Obama has talked about uniting the country. But, what has he done to unite the parties before he ran for President? Nothing. He voted along party lines. He kept a low profile. He mocked Joe the Plumber, as if he were somebody of no consequence. He denied that Joe could be as successful, that he could be in the "rich" crowd.

If elected, Obama will begin to include all those who were against him in his plans. How else can he accomplish his goals without the majority supporting him? The new programs he has proposed are a part of his plans to include us: the civilian national security force will involve young people and others in participating in government. He will reward them with money or scholarships. They will vote Democrat.

The unions will get the law changed to remove secret ballots so they can intimidate more people to join. Being in a union, people will feel their only choice is to vote Democrat.

Those without healthcare will be added to the healthcare rolls and they will be happy because the cost is affordable. They will vote Democrat.

At the beginning of any socialistic society, there is the "honeymoon" period, when all is right with the world. Everyone is happy and in love with their leader.

Then, the leader will begin to demand more of his citizens. It may be more taxes or less freedom or both. You will be told you have to give up something for the good of all. It may begin to get extreme, and you may start to be unhappy with what is asked of you, but by then it will be too late.

Your freedom will continue to be eroded until you are a slave to the government. And, then you will wonder, what happened?

Monday, October 27, 2008

REDISTRIBUTION, or What Will Obama Do?

The media has released more evidence that Obama loves the concept of "redistribution." The information came from a radio program he was on in Chicago, 2001. Don't you wonder how these things get out? And, how they're released in little snippets of information so that we can absorb each individually?

Now, Obama is leading in the polls and there is good evidence that he will be elected, therefore, I'm sure all of us conservative, deep thinkers are wondering what will happen to the country if that happens. For a while I have had a zip of fear everytime I think of it and would push the possibilities from my mind. Yesterday, I decided to face my fears and force myself to review what his administration might look like.

I, for one, hope that his "redistribution of wealth" philosphy versus his "redistribution of income tax" promise has gone by the wayside in his plans. But, I'm not really hopeful. Obama is a formidable, intelligent, calculating, organized man. If the rumors are true that he is a fan of Saul Alinsky's philosophy of constructive social change, then Obama's promise to community organizers that they will have an integral part in his administration will be a fact.

In that case, we will see a wave of change, a revolution in the United States that will take our breath away. First, Obama will make sure that everyone is on board, because that is the only way he will be successful. Like William Ayers had written in his "Communist Manifesto", Obama will "re-educate" us to think his way. This education could be rather subtle and innocuous or it could be violent. Ayers promoted re-education camps and those who could not be re-educated would be terminated. Let's remember Hitler. This is what Ayers was proposing. Let's pray that Obama is not that radical. Maybe he's more an Alinsky radical.

Here are direct quotes from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

"Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system. If we fail to communicate with them (the lower and middle class), if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."

" To build a powerful organization takes time. It is tedious, but that's the way the game is played - if you want to play and not just yell, "Kill the umpire."

"From the beginning the weakness as well as the strength of the democratic ideal has been the people. People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people. One hundred and thirty-five years ago Tocqueville gravely warned that unless individual citizens were regularly involved in the action of governing themselves, self-government would pass from the scene. Citizen participation is the animating spirit and force in a society predicated on voluntarism."

Sound familiar? First, Obama helped as a community organizer, working behind the lines for change. Then, Bush became President and the Iraq war began. Obama saw discontent, anger, and frustration by the people. He started his move up the ranks of government. He saw that the people had such anger at the Bush administration, that they might be willing to accept a drastic change in government, and quite possibly, a change in our basic principals of government. According to Alinsky, anger and frustration is followed by an attitude of hope that change can bring about a solution to our problems. And, Obama has promised that change, and you can see it on people's faces when they look at him, and on the faith they have put in him that he will make things right with the world, even though the people don't know, and haven't been told, what the "change" is.

Obama's words have an eerily familiar ring to Saul Alinsky: anger, change, volunteerism, unity, sacrifice. While Saul did not write what the "ideal" revolutionary change in government was, the change in government that will "fix" our problems, I believe Obama has it tucked neatly into organized cubbies in his mind.

First, he will make us happy. That's part of the "re-education" process. He promises everything during the campaign, then gives us a tidbit of the change we want. What is it the people want? To punish the wealthy and hurt big corporations. Therefore, Obama will tax the top 95% and the money will go directly to the rest of us based on income. Also, all government tax breaks to corporations will be removed.

Then, he will pass many laws in all areas of government to mold government to the ideal image he has for it. One of the immediate bills will be the civilian national security force to aid in the re-education of the masses and to encourage the American people to get involved in government responsibilities.

He will work with the unions to unionize as many companies as possible. Obama promised to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will drop secret ballot rules for unions. Only 50 % of workers will be needed to unionize. Employees will sign cards stating they favor union representation. This will mean a huge windfall for unions in union dues and more expense for companies in the form of benefits.

His foreign policy will be to send his emissaries, or himself, to all countries we consider terrorist nations to negotiate for peace. He will promise the immediate removal of troops from all areas of the world. Our troops will be sent home and most of them will be retired. All development of weapons will be terminated. Defensive missiles will be removed. U.S. military sights around the world will be closed.

Obama will offer health care for all, pour money into education for the poor, promote and grant money for solar and wind energy, and restrict any oil drilling, coal mining, or nuclear energy development. He will send billions to African nations and will encourage and incentivize our citizens to go to these countries to help.

He will legalize same sex marriage, assimilate illegal aliens, and open the borders to everyone who wants to come in. He will make NAFTA more friendly for the U.S., demand environmental agreements for other countries, and will make sure that corporations cannot send jobs overseas, probably through heavy taxes. He will prevent offshore tax havens and tax shelters, or will tax them so heavily they will not be profitable.

He will re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, so Liberal and Democratic views have equal time in the media.

He will eliminate tax loopholes and deductions. We will have a flat tax to be equitable.

In his second term, he will raise money to finance our debt by taxing the middle class, raising social security taxes, medicare taxes, and windfall taxes.

He will ban all guns and/or will tax the purchase of guns heavily.

He will ensure that radical community organizations are heavily funded with tax dollars.

There is a good probability that he will pay all African Americans reparation money in the form of wealth redistribution. Those with money will have a huge tax to pay for this.

If he's really corrupt, we will see changes in our Constitution to guarantee reparation or redistribution annually. He may change or remove the term limits of the Presidency. He may restrict the Internet, like China, and keep close tabs on the media to ensure they are not saying anything negative about him. He may nationalize certain companies, like oil companies.

If Obama is as radical as Ayers, then he will eventually close our borders, prevent or restrict our travel to other countries, and organize a police state. He will spy on us using his civilian security force. And, he will become our permanent leader, for "our own good."

So, there you have it. I pray it won't be what I think it will be...

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Obama's philosophy ala Saul Alinsky

This is from http://www.theobamafile.com/:

"Obama was hired as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. The "Project" was funded by Bill Ayers' Woods Fund.

Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community.

Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to, in Alinsky's words, "rub raw the sores of discontent."

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. "The organizer," Alinsky wrote, "is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God."

Alinsky wrote, "Rules for Radicals," a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the "first radical'" For Alinsky, "Change" was his mantra. By "Change," Alinsky meant a quiet, Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means that turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class, and by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through "people’s organizations'"

One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an interviewer of The New Republic, about Obama:"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

Watch Obama work a crowd at a town hall meeting. He comes out, says a few words in greeting and then begins his laundry list of all the stuff that's wrong with America, getting the audience all revved up. When the crowd is engaged and sufficiently "pissed off," Obama presents a solution to the all the things that are "pissing them off" -- the chosen one, the anointed one, the Obama -- as president."

The site has more information on Obama. No matter what the Dems tell you, people, this guy is either a Marxist or socialist.

http://www.theobamafile.com/BarackObama.htm

Saturday, October 25, 2008

JoeBiden "the Profit" Quote

Did you know that Biden is a Profit? He said a very cryptic, veiled, and prophetic statement this past week. I think he's got the inside scoop on Obama's plans and is letting us know because he can't keep a secret, or because Obama wants him to leak the message for targeted people. Here's the whole scary, scary quote about Obama by Joe:

"Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, and he's (Obama) going to need help, and the kind of help he's going to need, he's going to need you, not financially to help him, we're going to need you to use your influence, your influence within the community to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially, it's not going to be apparent that we're right. Gird your loins. We're going to win with your weapon. God willing, we're going to win but this is not going to be an easy ride. This President, the next President is going to be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning stables but it's more than that. This is just more than that, literally. Think about it. This is more than just a capital crisis. This is more than just markets. This is a systematic problem that we have with this economy."

Okay. There it is. Does that sound not quite right? Something's just not making sense? He's going to need our influence within the community because it's not going to be apparent initially that they're RIGHT. Right about WHAT? What systematic problem? The whole capitalist system? The whole democratic system? Is this about changing the government somehow, about changing the Constitution, or maybe abandoning the Constitution? What is Joe the Profit saying?

HE KNOWS SOMETHING, BUT WE DON'T. CHANGE WE NEED? I DON'T THINK SO!!

Friday, October 24, 2008

More Disturbing Ties...

If you knew a person who had radical views, do you think you could become good friends? If your uncle or cousin was a radical, or approved of violence to obtain power, would you feel comfortable around him?

The point is, when does wisdom or common sense lead and your alarm bells go off? When do you realize that something's not quite right and maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're doing? Does Obama have those alarm bells? Or, are they so skewed that they don't sound? And, if they don't sound, does he have the right to be running for President of the United States?

Barack Obama's uncle is named Raila Odinga, a member of the Luo tribe in Kenya. He is currently the Prime Minister and was the leader of a violent uprising against the newly elected Kenyan government.

While Odinga's father was a communist, aided and supported by the Soviet Union, Raila does not admit to being a Communist. He does have a son named Fidel, after Fidel Castro, and a daughter named after Winnie Mandela.

He campaigned to become president in 1997, but when he lost the presidential bid, he claimed the vote was rigged and his followers went on a murderous rampage. There is a video, an extremely bloody and graphic video, on dissfunktional. More than 1,000 Kenyans were murdered after the election.

He again ran for the office of prime minister in 2006 and won. Barack Obama campaigned with him and supported him. The Kenyan government denounced Obama as "Raila's stooge," and "Raila's puppet." Disturbing...




According to dissfunktuional.wordpress.com, Raila Odina secretly signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Kenyan Muslims ( 80% of Kenyans are either Protestant or Roman Catholic, only 10% are Muslim.)

The Memorandum of Understanding, dated and signed on August 29, 2007, between Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya, pledged the support of Kenyan Muslims for Raila Odinga’s election.

In return, Raila Odinga agreed to 14 actions. Here’s a sample:

Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.

With immediate effect dismiss the Commissioner of Police who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists to oppress the Kenyan Muslim community.

In one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters. (Note: everywhere in Kenya, not just in “Muslim declared regions.”)

No Muslim residing in Kenya whether a citizen, visitor or relative of any of the above shall be subjected to any process involving the laws of a foreign country and in particular any Muslim arrested or suspected of Terrorism or any other International crime shall only be tried within the borders of Kenya and shall be granted a competent lawyer of his/her choice at the expense of the Government.

Impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades by worshipers of the cross in the Coast and North Eastern regions.

Why would Obama support a man who caused 1,000 deaths? Who has ties to radical Muslims? Who signed a "pact" to change Kenya to a Muslim dominated country?

Did Raila Odinga sell his soul to be Prime Minister? Sound familiar?

For more information on Raila Odinga, see dissfunktional's site:

http://dissfunktional.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/asa-eslocker-secret-prison/

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Why would Ayers be interested in Obama?

Obama continually gives us the same story over and over. "I was only two when Ayers was in the Weather Underground. I don't know anything about his history." Okay. Point taken.

Then, during the last Presidential debate, Obama actually lied to John McCain and the American people on national television when he denied his 1995 state senatorial kick off party was at Ayers House. "No, it was not, John," said Obama to McCain.

Here is a video confirming that Obama's kick off was at Ayers House as verified by Sen. Alice Palmer who confirmed she was there!







The question is, if Obama can outright lie on national television to all of us, what else is he lying about? As Sarah Palin said, why would Ayers be so interested in Obama as to host his kick off party? What is it about Obama that Ayers (who considers himself an anarchist and a communist with a small "c") finds worthwhile?

Remember the "Iron Curtain"? Well, the curtain of mystery is beginning to come down on Obama.

We do not want a President who lies and especially one who lies with a smile.




Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The Polls Are Fixed!

I live in New York state, which happens to be a "Democratic" state. Trust me, they've messed up this state so bad I'm not sure it will ever recover.

You'd think that there would be Obama signs all over the lawn here, but I see nary a one. People who we talk to are voting for McCain and have a great distrust of Obama. They can't figure out what's going on with the polls. How could Obama have a nine point lead when everyone they talk to is voting for McCain?

Well, here's my theory. We all know the media is "in the bag" for Obama. I think a lot of these "polls" are fixed. I think they're scewing with the polls so we McCain/Palin people won't go vote.

So, whoever you see, tell them to get out and vote. We've got to win this election!

I'm putting out an offer in our church bulletin to give a ride to the voting booths to anyone who doesn't have one. If you can do that, that would be great. We need as many cute little old ladies and men out there to vote!

God Bless You All!!

Obama is a Socialist

There's been quite a bit of arguing going on in blogs across the country about McCain and Palin calling Obama a socialist. You see, here in America, the word "socialist" is a dirty word. It sends the liberals scurrying like cockroaches into the cupboards. You'd think they'd be used to the word by now, but no, it's worse than the four letter words they have splashed across their t-shirts about Sarah Palin.

When you think about it, it's downright funny that finally, yes, finally we have found a word that sends them reeling like showing the cross to Dracula. Socialist! Socialist! Socialist! Ugh. Arrrr... Uhhhhh. And the flames miraculously flash across their body and send them writhing in pain into the darkness where they disintegrate into ash. (If only.)

Socialism is not a dirty word. It is a political system that advocates distribution of capital, land, etc. It is about sharing wealth. It is everyone working together. Look it up in the dictionary. To read it, it's not scary. It sounds wonderful. But, it never turns out that way.

Let's look at what Obama said. "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance at success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Hmm. Socialism: Distribution of wealth. Obama: "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Let's call a spade a spade or a socialist a socialist. Come on, guys. Admit it. Obama's talking socialism. And, why is that so suprising? We know he is as far left as they go in Congress, the #1 guy for liberalism.

The thing that bothers me about these American socialists is that they're just too scared or ashamed to admit they are socialists. Even the media is condemning Sarah Palin for calling Obama a socialist. I guess they haven't looked up socialism in the dictionary.

So, I'm angry at these socialists. Like Maxine Waters telling the oil executives the government will be (socializing) or taking over the oil companies. And Obama wanting to share our wealth while he keeps his.

Tell us the truth, Obama. You are a socialist and proud of it. Just call it what it really is - socialism. Have the balls to call it socialism like everyone else in the world does, Comrade.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Nasty, Nasty, Nasty

The Media has hit a new low with their field day digging up everything and anything they could on poor Joe. Imagine, and it's hard to imagine, that one simple question, "You're new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" could cause the viciousness unleashed by our media. Immediately, we knew that Joe was behind about $1,000 in taxes, that he made about $40,000, that he doesn't have his plumbers license (yet).

Good job, guys! We all wanted to know about Joe and his life. But, what about Rezko, what about Ayers, what about Rev. Wright? What about Obama's closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett (I did in one of my blogs below)? I haven't heard a thing about them. Nada. Nothing.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Supreme Disappointment

As I sit here typing my heart is heavy. I think I've felt this way for at least two weeks now. My frustration and disappointment lies in the American peoples' blindness. I believe it comes from the aging of our population. The old fears, namely communism, fascism, and dictatorships, have disappeared and new ideals, new hope has emerged, in the guise of socialism. Maybe, also, young Americans have been swayed by the leftist teachings of our colleges and schools. Or, perhaps, it is just that people listen to generalities and reject the details as minor irritations. People are too busy with their own lives to care.

Only a few seem to have noticed that the left has "morphed" into a philosophy in direct contrast to this country's Constitution. The Constitution is about freedom, independence, and doing it on your own. It's not about big government, burdening laws and rules, and depending on the government for everything. Yet, that is the way it's been going since FDR. A slippery slope.

Now, we are on the cusp of electing the most liberal, leftist Senator in Congress. A man who is cunning and highly organized. His group of advisers are used to "bucking and manipulating the system." Should I explain?

One example is his understanding of the law. He's smart. He investigates. He knew that Missouri had an ethics law that prevented people from telling lies or misrepresenting the facts. He got Missouri prosecutors involved to prevent any mistruths from being said. It was called the "truth squad."

While this seems "innocent" enough, is it? Traditionally, our Presidential campaigns have always been about stretching the truth, giving little snippets of information that may not be exactly true. It's the American way. We, the people, know it and disseminate it. At least, that was our job; to decide if it was significant and whether it was true or not. But, not under Obama's rules. While he grossly distorted the truth about Sen. McCain and his policies, the Republicans were threatened and intimidated with some sort of legal action on the part of the state if they did the same thing. I don't think of this as "innocent." I see this as suppressing freedom of speech or, at least, threatening to suppress speech. It reeks of suppression, and that's not the American way.

Last night we watched the final campaign. ACORN and William Ayers were brought up. Obama dismissed each and detached himself from both. He is a brilliant speaker now. In the beginning, he would stumble. Not now.

He is not afraid anymore to espouse his real views. "Joe, the plumber," is an example. Spread the wealth. Yes, spread it. Spread it like peanut butter and jelly. The American people accept it. They're not "Joe, the plumber." They're the other 95% who are going to get a tax cut. But, that's stupid. We know that's not true. There's the "trickle down" effect. When big or little businesses have more taxes, they pass it on to us. When we stop giving the oil companies a tax incentive, they'll pass the cost on to us. That's the way it is. They're not going to suffer. We will.

Last night, again, big government spending came up. We're in an economic crisis, yet neither candidate could avoid talking about government projects which will cost big money for the American people. Was anyone listening? It doesn't appear so.

Anytime government gets involved with some project, the end result will be more spending. Yet, Obama wants involvement in government from everybody. He wants a civilian security force, as great as our military. He mentioned it last night. No one blinked. Don't the words just make you cringe? A civilian security force. Say it a few times. Let it sink in. Then, shudder.

Typically, our military costs are about 20% of government spending or around $500 billion dollars. Is Obama saying we are going to spend $500 billion dollars on a civilian security force? It appears so. Don't Americans find any significance in that? Don't they want more details of why we need this civilian security force?

And, what exactly, will be the duties of a civilian security force? To tell on our neighbors? To spy on anti-Obama Americans? To arrest people who say untruths about him?

Clearly, he wants more people involved in government, but this seems downright scary. What does it mean? That we will all be working for government along with our other jobs so we can afford to pay ourselves?

That is why my heart is heavy. While people are laughing at conservatives for their concerns and fears, I am concerned and fearful. I am afraid this is the beginning of the loss of our freedom. Maybe my fears are unfounded, but the clues, the words, the direction we are going, seem clear.

It reminds me of the Jews' escape from Egypt. God, through Moses, freed them from their bondage. The thought is quite incredible. Then, they began their trek through the wilderness. You would have thought they would have been filled with gratitude. They had seen miracles performed and they had finally been delivered from slavery. But, instead, they became dissatisfied. They lost their faith. They began to worship false gods. They sinned. God was mad and Moses had to beg for their lives.

I fear there are just too few of us who are Moses, who are trying to lead us in the right direction. To save us from ourselves. I pray it won't be too late.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Enough already!

The governments of the world have responded to this economic crisis and it's time for the market makers, hedgers, and investors to get a grip.

First, the trading going on in the market right now is called...panic trading. It is without reason.

Let's take a look at the events that brought us to today.

First, the housing market has been a disaster waiting to happen for years. Remember, it was during the Clinton administration that the Community Reinvestment Act allowed the expansion of mortgages to include no downpayment, no income verification, bad credit loans.

It was also during the Clinton administration that these sub-prime loans were allowed to be packaged and sold to financial institutions.

But, it also gave a huge incentive for mortgage companies to take mortgages and immediately sell them to someone else for a profit. This allowed room for corruption, deception and fraud as the mortgage companies didn't have to deal with the aftermath.

The housing boom began in 2003 and lasted until the middle of 2005 when it dropped precipitously. See bigcharts.com, decade, monthly chart of TOL, a home building company.

Secondly, oil prices began to rise. Look at bigcharts.com, one decade, monthly chart of OIH, an oil service holdrs etf. It brokeout in the beginning of 2005 and lasted until July of this year.

The combination of these two boom scenarios caused this crisis. People who were barely able to hang on to homes they couldn't afford were devastated by the rise in gas prices. Plus, their artificially low, variable rate mortgage payments were going to go up dramatically. The rest of us had to decrease our spending to afford the extra cost of gas.

It was a "perfect storm." Financial institutions began to see the effects of the housing collapse and the oil crisis and they began to get worried.

The government arranged for short term loans for financial institutions to improve their liquidity.

But, things continued to fall apart for institutions who had acquired these sub-prime mortgages as well as other risky investments.

The Fed again stepped in and arranged for Lehman to be bought. Next, Congress passed the $700 billion bailout (that we all hate.) Then, the Fed arranged loans for AIG (who turned around and had a $440,000 party for it's senior officers.) The treasury rate was lowered by 1/2%, along with most of the world in an astounding show of solidarity. The Fed then agreed to lend money to businesses for their line of credits so businesses could run smoothly. I haven't put everything that was done in here, but it gives us a good overall idea of what has happened.

Basically, the Feds have done everything possible to bolster our economy and ensure that it runs smoothly. Their next step may be to begin large projects to put people to work if employment continues to decline.

But, everything's not right, is it? The market is still dropping as of today. Why is that?

Let's think for a moment. People are working, businesses have their credit, banks are guaranteed to run, even if they fail tomorrow.

It doesn't make sense that the market is still dropping. Is GM stock really worth only $5.70? I would say not. In fact, it is grossly oversold. So are many other good and excellent stocks.

So, enough already! While Jim Cramer says sell, sell, sell. I say, hang tough. Don't panic. If you're out of the market, keep an eye on it. Put your money into certificates of deposit or treasury bonds. No matter what, our economy is basically sound. The government is going to shore us up no matter what the cost.

WE are the cog that makes the wheels turn in this nation. We have to believe in ourselves, in each other. Look around your neighborhood, in your village, town or city. Do you trust your fellow Americans? Of course you do!

We need to go about our lives as usual. We have to have FAITH in our country, in our people. If we don't buy goods, if we panic, if we isolate ourselves, we will fullfill what all the "talking heads" are saying.

So, let's prove, like we did after 9/11, that we are a strong nation and don't panic like the rest of the lemmings.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

A nightmare...

Last night I dreamt that I was imprisoned with a large group of people. The people managed to escape and we hid in the tall grass. I know this will sound strange and corny, but we are talking about a dream here. Barack Obama was the leader of the group who had imprisoned us. An apparently nasty and angry group. It was barely morning, still dark. There were people going through the grass looking for us. I could hear guard dogs barking. I woke up, my heart beating fast.

I hope that my dream doesn't come true. But, I wonder. What is Obama capable of? He has radical ties. We know that. He has radical views. We know that. At least, he did before he began his watered down and more politically acceptable speeches.

His speeches now make him seem likeable, intelligent, and committed to the cause of "change." But, what change? Has he given us some earth shattering idea? Something from the norm to save us from ourselves? What brilliant idea has he come up with lately during the debates or on the road? Some of his views seem to match John McCain's now. Obama's current "change" is nothing new.

Remember the "old" Obama? His old speeches? They've "changed." His older speeches on youtube give him a scary quality. His views are radically removed from mainstream America's views.

But all that is out the window now. His counselors and advisors have told him to cool the radical agenda. "Give the American people the "middle of the road" speech. Then, when we have the Presidency sewn up, we'll change America. We'll bring the old Democracy to it's knees with a new agenda based on our radical views."

And, while we, the American people, lose our freedoms, how many we can only shudder to imagine, there will be more fleecing of America as they suck us for more money under the comforting agenda of helping us. Because, we can't help ourselves any more. We must rely on the government for money, for the home over our head, for food and clothing, for jobs, for our very thoughts.

The serious question is, in our economic state, could Obama and his cronies take over our country with the approval of a Democratic Congress under the guise of "fixing" it, like Hitler did?

Before Hitler’s rise to power, Germany was a democratic country in economic difficulty. Hitler promoted anti-communism, anti-semitism and nationalism. He was a charismatic orator, but he lied about his real objectives.

Hitler was also very organized. He organized the Nazi party like a government so they could slip in when the democratic government was dismantled.

He also formed the Hitler Youth for boys aged 15 to 18. There was also an organization for girls.

Obama speaks of a Civilian Security Force "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded" as our military.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

I have had a bad feeling about this election since the news started coming out about Sen. Obama.

First, there was his boasting that he was the only one against the war. (Of course you were, Sen. Obama. You weren’t there to vote on it!) And, his flimsy statement about why he won’t wear the American Flag pin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0du8wMLzEY

Then, his use of the "Just words..." speech by Deval Patrick, without Mr. Patrick’s permission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aALZtDM-vuo

His twenty year, let’s count, TWENTY YEAR, association with the obviously racist Rev. Wright and his agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFz1X1OCw8E

His friendship with Tony Rezko, a Syrian, Chicago property developer convicted of fraud, bribery and money laundering. While Rezko supported Obama through donations, Obama supported Rezko by siphoning money to his property development company.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SrtyFY6qTA and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfP6an2CdGc

His friendship with William Ayers, a domestic terrorist. Despite denials by Obama, their relationship was not casual. He hosted a fundraising party for Obama. They worked together. There's no way Obama couldn't know that Ayers was an infamous and radical man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY

His close friend and closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, who managed Grove Parc Plaza in Chicago, a low income housing project which was so neglected that it will have to be demolished. Is that what we want for America? More corrupt abusers and users of "the system"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYMVHwmPQSM

His connections with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Thanks to the Democrats, another abuser of low-income and/or minority Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

What are his accomplishments? Nothing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEyVglw1uyk

Now, let’s put the whole thing together and what do you have? A catastrophe in the making.

No matter what, Obama should not be our President!

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The Banned Saturday Night Live Soros, Pelosi script

The news swirling around the internet today is about a Saturday Night Live skit that mocks the Democrats, George Soros, and Herbert and Marion Sandler. It was wiped from all sites, but Michelle Malkin saved the transcript plus stills of the skit. To see the stills, go to: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/07/the-forbidden-skit-full-transcript-and-screenshots-of-snls-sorossandler-bailout-satire/#comments

Thank you, Michelle, for fighting for our most basic of freedoms; freedom of the press. I pray that justice will prevail upon our great nation as we face this time of tremendous economic and political difficulty.

"The forbidden skit: Full transcript and screenshots of SNL’s Soros/Sandler bailout satire"
By Michelle Malkin • October 7, 2008 01:06 AM

NBC is furiously erasing its tracks. Any attempts to upload the forbidden SNL bailout skit skewering George Soros and his left-wing subprime schemer friends Herbert and Marion Sandler will likely be squashed. So, I transcribed the whole comedy sketch for you and provided screenshots for the 7-minute video that has disappeared from NBC and Hulu. (Pat Dollard’s blog has posted the full clip on its server. Thanks to Ms. Underestimated for the .wmv file.)

The hits on the Sandlers ( “People who should be shot”) and Soros ( “Owner, Democratic Party”) occur near the end of the skit.

Announcer: Next on C-SPAN, President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman Barney Frank appeared earlier today at a joint press conference to comment on the financial bailout measure just passed by Congress.

Bush: Good afternoon. On Friday, this Congress was able to put aside its differences and come together in the bipartisan spirit to pass legislation that was absolutely vital to ensure world confidence in our financial markets and prevent a collapse of credit which would have had a catastrophic effect on our economy. Approving this bill was the right thing to do and I commend our legislators for their actions. Speaker Pelosi.

Pelosi: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, applaud Congress for this vote and add that without your vote, this bill might well have failed. Even though this crisis was 100 percent the fault of your administration and it’s insane economic policies. And though I’m sure you’ll agree, you will go down in history as our worst president ever. This one time, you did manage to not screw things up and I wanna acknowledge that.

Bush: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I was glad to do it.

Frank: Let me add, Mr. President, I was also pleased to see that for the first time during your eight years in office and possibly your entire life, you were able to demonstrate leadership, not to mention simple human decency.

Bush: You bet, you bet.

Pelosi: Let’s not forget, Mr. President, that it was the Democrats that first sounded the alarm about the risky mortgage loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraging and that your party resisted all our efforts to rein them in.

Bush: W-w-w-w-ait. Wasn’t it my administration that warned about the problem six years ago? And it was the Democrats that refused to listen?!

Pelosi: What? Who told you that? That’s crazy. It was completely the other way around.

Frank: Actually. This time, he’s sort of right.

Pelosi: Shhh! Don’t say anything. He doesn’t know. Now, there was another point we wanted to make here and you are welcome to stay.

Bush: Thank you. I’d like that.

Pelosi: Back there would be better.

Bush: No problem.

Pelosi: In the past few weeks, this debate has focused on the wisdom of government intervention in the housing markets. What hasn’t been talked about is that behind every home foreclosure, there is a story of real suffering by real Americans. People who, but for the grace of God, could be you or your neighbors. And today, we’d like to introduce you to some of them.

Michael McCune and Jerome Gant, two ordinary Americans whose only crime was to play by the rules and who now find themselves facing eviction from their homes.

Please tell us your story.

Michael: Uh, well, to start. I still don’t understand how this happened to me. I mean, I fit all the requirements for a subprime mortgage. Uh, no credit history.

Jerome: Same here.

Michael: No job.

Jerome: Me neither.

Michael: Minor criminal record.

Jerome: Ditto.

Michael: Dishonorable discharge from the Army.

Jerome: Yeah, I got mine right here.

Michael: Uh, drug problems.

Jerome: Me, too.

Michael: Uh, alcohol problems.

Jerome: Guilty as charged.

Michael: Gambling addiction.

Jerome: Yeah.

Michael: Pregnant girlfriend — actually, two pregnant girlfriends.

Jerome: Just the one.

Well, I was talked into a balloon mortgage. Where you move into the house. And then you get to live in it. And you don’t have to, like, pay money or anything to the bank. But then later, you do.

Jerome: Yeah, what up with dat?

Michael: I mean, you could say I’m a double victim, since I never had a job and now I don’t have a home!

Jerome: Well, I’m a triple victim, because now I’ve been charged with arson for allegedly setting fire to the house they evicted me from.

Pelosi: You are both in our thoughts. (Hugs Michael. Won’t hug Jerome.)

This is Greg Phillips and his wife, Judy. How did the housing collapse affect you?

My wife and I bought two dozen time-share condos which we heavily mortgaged in order to flip them 6 months later for triple the purchase price and then the real estate market tanked.

Pelosi: And you were doing this through…

Judy: Misrepresentation.

Pelosi: No, I meant, did you do this out of your home…

Judy: Out of greed.

Greg: Yes, out of greed.

Pelosi: And now, with the real estate market down, you’re stuck with two dozen time-share condos that you can’t sell…

Judy: Unless we can sell them for, like, 10 percent more than we paid.

Pelosi: So, you can’t make your mortgage payments.

Greg: Not without selling the boat. Or putting off essential cosmetic surgery.

Pelosi: And who is this? This is Crystal, our surrogate mother.

Crystal: Waaaazup?

Judy: You see, I can’t have children…without getting bad stretch marks.

Pelosi: You are also in our thoughts and prayers.

This is Herbert and Marion Sandler. Tell us your story.

Herbert Sandler: My wife and I had a company which aggressively marketed subprime mortgages, and then bundled them into securities to sell to banks such as Wachovia. Today, our portfolio is worth almost nothing — though at one point, it was worth close to $19 billion.

Pelosi: My God. I am so sorry. Were you able to sell it for anything.

Herbert Sandler: Yes, for $24 billion.

Pelosi: I see. So in that sense, you’re not so to speak, actual victims.

Herbert Sandler (chuckling): Oh, no. That would be Wachovia Bank.

Marion Sandler: Actually, we’ve done quite well. We’re very happy.

Herbert Sandler: We were sort of wondering why you asked us to come today.

Marion Sandler: Anyway, it’s delightful to see you, Nancy. (Kisses Pelosi.)

Herbert Sandler: And thank you, Congressman Frank, as well as many Republicans for helping block
Congressional oversight of our corrupt activities.

Frank: Not at all. Let me say something else here. You know, many of you are probably wondering, “Where will that $700 billion missing from our economy go?” To help answer that, let me introduce our good friend, billionaire hedge fund manager, George Soros.

Soros: So what became of zat $700 beellion dollars? Well, basically it belongs to me, now. Actually, it’s not even dollars anymore, but Swiss franks, since I have taken a short position against the dollar.

Bush: Oh, really. That’s not good.

Soros: You’re not to speak. I don’t like you.

Yes, uh, zee U.S. dollar will have to be devalued sometime next week. Either Tuesday or Wednesday. I haven’t decided wheech yet. It will depend on how I feel.

Frank: Thank you very much, Mr. Soros. You’re a great man.

Soros: Could I just add that even though you know what’s coming, you won’t be able to do anything about it.

Pelosi: You’re a wise man, Mr. Soros. And a powerful one.

Frank: You are better than us.

Soros (pointing to Anne Hathaway character): Your wife is physically attractive. Sell her to me, please.

Greg and Judy: Sure. Ok.

Announcer: We’ll now leave this press conference and join a discussion of Sen. McCain’s foreign policy positions already in progress. Gov. Palin is about to say something embarrassing.

##End##

Sunday, October 5, 2008

The Failings of Barack Obama’s Advisors

While Sen. Obama causes shivers of delight for Chris Matthews, he gives me the willies of dread. His murky past leaves me wanting to know more. Who are his close friends? Who does he go to for advice and counsel?

Although information on Obama’s advisors is rather sparse, here’s what I found:

Valerie Jarrett is Obama’s closest advisor. She was recently interviewed by (of course) Katie Couric. She is called "the other side of Barack Obama’s brain." Jarret is 51 years old and labels herself American-Iranian.

Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Company, which managed a housing complex in Chicago. The housing complex is now considered "uninhabitable" due to neglect and has to be demolished. If she can’t handle a housing complex, how is she going to handle the United States?

While Obama pressed for federal subsidies for housing complexes like this, his good friend Jarrett took the money and ran, refusing to even discuss it.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=1

Susan Rice is Obama's foreign policy advisor. Ms. Rice is a great fighter, at least that’s what the internet says about her talk with Laura Ingraham. However, she lost in my opinion. She basically stated we are losing in Iraq.

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

Ms. Rice has skeletons in her closet. She served on the National Security Council and later as the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Dept. under Bill Clinton. "During her time on the National Security Council, as the senior person responsible for giving the President policy options on Africa, Rice reprised the role of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. She sat by while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a bloody genocide. She let the phone ring and declined to offer any answer that would have saved lives. And she is one of Barack’s key advisors."

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/06/obama-and-his-advisors-not-ready-for-prime-time/

Then, there’s the friendship between Obama and Rezko:

http://wizbangblue.com/2008/02/16/obama-and-rezko-is-there-a-syrian-and-islamic-connection.php

And, then there's Penny Pritzker, National Finance Chairperson for Obama. She’s a billionaire and considered one of the most powerful women in the U.S. This is not a pretty story, either. Pritzker was on the Superior Bank’s board of directors, which pushed risky, predatory lending and ultimately it's risky lending practices caused it to fail.

http://bfeldman68.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-campaigns-pritzkersuperior-bank-s.html

And, we haven’t got to Reverend Wright, and Williams Ayers. Or, some of his advisors' ties with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle. But, that’s a story for another day....

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Paradise...

It's about time I talked about Paradise. I've seen it. You catch glimpses of it in real life when you stop for a minute and view the world. I suppose you can see it anywhere.

I see it often. I live in the country. I live near a river with trees hanging over it's banks. There are rolling hills, beautiful hills, covered in green or gold. I see a great expanse of trees, corn fields, a big sky filled with blue and fluffy clouds. That's paradise.

Sometimes, sitting in our boat, in a small inlet of the river, fishing, I feel the warm breeze blowing across my face, moving the top of the water in tiny waves, blowing the leaves so they rustle in the wind. It stops. Silence. A blue heron squawks it's ugly call and takes off from the shoreline, it's huge wings flapping laboriously to get it's body into the air.

A fish jumps, then another. I laugh as I turn and catch it's tail sinking into the water or it's body sideways in the air daring gravity to push it back into its wet home. I think at those times and smile with pure happiness at the gift God has given us.

Some years ago I began to see for the first time. It had nothing to do with actual sight. It had to do with my mind's eye. I began to see an order that my mind couldn't challenge. The order that God made. Everything in our world that is made by God is perfect. Everything outside of our world functions in perfection, also. Even Einstein believed in a greater power that controlled the universe.

How can I compete with that?

Thursday, October 2, 2008

It's time to fight back...

I think we've been patient. We've tried to be nice. Now, all etiquette is off the table. It's time to fight back.

The left-sided media certainly hasn't been nice. They've pulled out all their big guns to mock and attack McCain and Palin. Let's see...um...Matt Damon, Pamela Anderson, Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher, Gloria Steinem, Whoopi Goldberg, Lindsay Lohan, Joy Behar.

Hmm, they certainly are qualified to discuss foreign and domestic affairs, aren't they? Let's see, what qualifications do they have? Sex appeal? A cute smile? A nice haircut? Graduated from drama class? Slept with a variety of disfunctional fellow stars or band members? Done drugs? Had a boob job? Dropped out of high school? Used botox to freeze his/her face? Has a mouth the size of New Jersey? Or, maybe, is just obnoxious enough to shout everyone else down?

Come on.

I think we should remember them, don't you? Remember the outrageous insults. As for me, they're off my list. If they ever show up on my tv again, I'm switching channels. If they're ever in a movie, I'm not going. It may seem insignificant, but I'm standing up for my principals.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Where did Obama get his money? A biography...

From an e-mail: ..........."I started looking into Obama's life. .........

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies.

'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.

During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.

When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.

After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo, Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.

About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans?

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which was Rezko's firm.

Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first.

Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008, The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran.

This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he make a mistake'. Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008."

SCARY STUFF!! Ties to Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Syria, Iraq and Iran....