How long do we have?

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE IF HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming. I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it. How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to a loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

2008 minus 1787 = 221

10% over the average !

'During those ~200 years, those great nations have always then progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by:

Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties that were won by:

Democrats: 127 million

Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory that Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.

Democrats won territory mostly encompassing those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off the various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they are given the right to vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to the USA & our citizen's freedom.

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE,
ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

'Twas the Night Before Elections

'Twas the Night Before Elections

'Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down!

I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.

When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink

He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out

To tear my country apart!

' On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi'
He screamed at the pairs!

They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn't stand up and fight!

So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

Top Ten Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama

1. Supreme Court: Two to Three Justices may be retiring soon: Stevens, Ginsberg and Souter. If Barack Obama is elected and these judges leave the court, Obama will place liberal activist judges on the high court which will seek the destruction of our rights, the constitution, family values and the free exercise or religion. The obominable acts of Ginsberg are only a taste of what an Obama appointee would do to the nation.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-13-scotus-election_N.htm

2. Abortion: Abortion survivors know how evil and despicable the positions of Barack Obama are regarding the preservation of human life. This man has voted to deny survivors of botched abortions medical assistance simply for political reasons. This is the same man who publicly said he would not want his "daughters punished with a baby."

Obama Still Lying About Abortion Survivors
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2008/09/obama_still_lyi.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48ZIZ7stbxk

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=abortion+survivors&aq=1&oq=abortion+sur

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=abortion+survivors+obama

3. Wealth Redistribution/Taxes: Plumber to Obama: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/13/video-obamas-redistributionism/http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/13/obama-plan-tax-cuts-or-demogrants/

Obama’s plan actually makes people more dependent on federal government, and expands it significantly. It adds to the entitlement mentality while doing nothing about rewarding risk. This plan will penalize risk and encourage the wealthy to find even more shelters for their income and capital, more likely outside the US, which will mean fewer jobs and fewer opportunities.

4. Lack of experience "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America...Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."--Joe Biden, Seattle Fundraiser, October 19, 2008.

The following excerpts are given to show how a president who is perceived as being inexperienced invites crisises. Keep in mind that Kennedy was vastly more experienced than Obama.
Why Obama is No JFK
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801w.widmer.html

"I sat in the cockpit on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise off of Cuba [during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.] I had a target. I know how close we came to a nuclear war and I will not be a president that needs to be tested. I have been tested. Senator Obama has not." --John McCain, Harrisburg, PA, October 21, 2008. John McCain has seized on an unguarded comment by Democratic vice-presidential hopeful Joe Biden at a Seattle fundraiser to reintroduce the experience argument into the closing days of the presidential campaign. The Arizona senator is reminding audiences that he actually participated in the Cuban missile crisis as a young U.S. Navy pilot. Barack Obama was a one-year-old baby in Hawaii when his future rival was being assigned bombing targets in Cuba.

Six months after president Kennedy was elected, in June 1961, he held his first and only summit meeting with Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna. The Soviet leader attempted to bully Kennedy into making concessions on Berlin, threatening him with nuclear war. "Roughest thing in my life," JFK told James Reston of The New York Times shortly afterwards. "He just beat the hell out of me."
JFK understood that he would have an uphill struggle to re-establish his credibility with Khrushchev following the Vienna meeting and the bungled Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. After reluctantly giving his approval for the invasion, Kennedy refused to commit U.S. forces to support the 1,500 CIA-trained Cuban exiles who were rounded up by Fidel Castro's security forces. He told Reston that his superpower rival had likely concluded that "I'm inexperienced. Probably thinks I'm stupid. Maybe most important, he thinks that I had no guts."
Kennedy and his aides expected a superpower showdown over West Berlin, a capitalist enclave surrounded by communist east Germany. Instead, the defining crisis of his presidency came over Cuba, in October 1962. Alarmed by the Kennedy administration's efforts to overthrow Castro, including the sabotage operation known as Operation Mongoose, Khrushchev decided that he had to take dramatic action to "save socialism" in Cuba. By deploying nuclear missiles to Cuba, he also hoped to offset the 10-1 American advantage in nuclear warheads capable of reaching the territory of the other superpower.

The McCain campaign can reasonably claim that Kennedy's inexperience was one of the factors that encouraged the Soviet leader to take his great gamble over Cuba. After the Vienna summit, Khrushchev told his aides that the U.S. president was "young enough to be my son." In his memoirs, he confessed to "feeling a bit sorry" for Kennedy, but he described politics as "a merciless business." His verdict on Kennedy at Vienna: "Too intelligent and too weak."

The world has changed enormously since the Cold War, and has become an infinitely more complicated place. The "evil empire" has been replaced by an assortment of "rogue states," including some, like Iran and North Korea, that appear bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/mccain_obama_biden_and_jfk.html

5. Same old politics(misleading, leveraging ignorance): A thorough review of Obamas political statements and the rhetoric of his campaign and followers shows a serious lack regard for integrity and moral positions. But this is not all, His campaign seeks to leverage ignorance in their favor by gathering votes based upon feel-good statements without ever considering the long term effects of his positions on the issues. He is literally buying votes by using large sums of money to flood the media with empty promises which he can never fulfill, and by manipulating masses of uninformed potential voters, legal or not, with government handouts, freebies and mantras of "hope", "change", "yes we can", and big tax breaks. His proposed tax breaks are wildly unpopular for their redistributionist problems, not to mention they will plunge the economy into a deeper recession. His Hope and Change statements offer no answers other that the simple mottoes which they are. Hitler, Musolini, Jim Jones and every terrorist (some of which Obama has ties to) all offer(ed) hope and change as well.6. questionable ties... Ayers, Rezko, Dorn, Acorn, Jeremiah Wright. Michael Phleger, Rashid Caliti, and Kalid Al Monsur

7. Poor Judgement: the culminating question from the associations listed in #6, is that these associations cast serious doubt on Obamas sense of judgement. Can someone who exercised such poor judgement in the past be trusted to make good judgements in the future?

8. Maintaining Constitutional Integrity: For 200 plus years America surged ahead of the rest of the world in opportunity, progress, ability and productivity because of its free enterprise market system and limited government. Barack Obama and other socialist big government democrats seek to change all that.

9. Questionable Motives/Inability to Tackle Hard Issues. Barack Obama has demonstrated a remarkable ability to avoid tackling tough issues and hiding from scrutiny. From his calculated effort of voting "present" in order to avoid political backlash for unpopular positions to his recent "Above my pay grade" response on the topic of abortion. Obama is a proven agent of platitudes offering large promises without delivering results.

10. Empty Promises and Words. Critical analysis of Barack Obamas budget proposals and promise to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans reveals that not only is the plan not workable, but it risks breaking the economy and is really a expensive rebate system of wealth redistribution program on top of a high taxing bloated government.

The following links all show that Obamas "tax cut for 95% of Americans" is a Big Scam.

http://www.fastcompany.com/big-idea/obama-s-promise-95-tax-working-families-nothing-more-illusion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=be3_1223924138

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37519

A Open Letter to Obama Supporters

Dear Barack Obama Supporter,

First of all, I appreciate that you are taking an active role in politics, however I must respectfully say you are terribly mistaken on important issues in this election. Before you discount my message, take a moment to have an open mind and read my message. I will quickly state that John McCain was not my first choice for president, I would much rather have had Mitt Romney in there but the fact is that we have to go at least 4 years with someone else first. Now back to my main point, below you will find just some of the reasons why I feel you are making a serious error in judgement.

1. The many criticisms being made against John McCain can be applied to any politician, and yes even Barack Obama. Much of these criticisms imply that McCain has been in Washington for a long time and hasn't changed anything and that Obama will be different. However, the facts are a different matter. John McCain has a long track record of getting things done and making hard and difficult choices. Obama has no track record nor any major accomplishments which can backup his promises; On the contrary Obama does have a record of avoiding hard decisions by voting "Present" many times as a state senator in order to avoid difficult issues and claiming that the topic of abortion is "above my pay grade".

2. Obama promises hope and change. Any changes that are made - especially changes that promote liberalism, increased spending, or big government are never undone. You are deceiving yourself if you believe they will improve America. Many of the ideas he is touting have been tried and failed by many nations before. Socialist nations have a living standard well below than the living standard America has had since the 1940s. Likewise a belief that someone like Mitt Romney will be able to come along in four or eight years and undo all the havoc that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid trio will wreak upon America if allowed is highly doubtful. Historically, socialist societies do not return to free societies without war, revolution or collapse.

3. Obamas proposal of cutting taxes for 95% of Americans cannot be counted on especially considering the bigger government, budget increases, and business constraints he proposes. A proposal for universal health care alone will make that impossible. Mitt Romney put Universal health care in place in Massachusetts - an everybody there pays for it - even the college kids working 20 hours a week at a restaurant.

4. Supreme Courts - If you care at all about the right to life for the unborn, or constitutional integrity you would do everything in your power to keep Obama out of office. The court is currently precariously split between liberal and conservative justices. The next president will likely replace at least two justices which could swing the court away from conservative positions for the next 20 to 30 years. You cannot afford to do that to your posterity.

5. You have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Like many similar arguments, the argument that McCain is part of the establishment, hasn't fixed Washington in the many years he has been there, Obama is fresh and new...on and on. - These arguments are all statements designed to incite you to an emotional vote not based upon principles or issues. They distort the truth and over simplify the political process. They get people to rally behind someone without honestly considering the consequences.

Seriously, ask yourself what real benefit Barack Obama is going to give you, a real benefit, not a intangible feeling such as hope or change - that is a non-answer. If you think you find one, ask yourself how will he do it - ask yourself does that align with constitutional and moral values of our nation . If you are honest with yourself and love your country, you will discover that you don't know what he is going to do for you, and that many of his positions are patently un-American and immoral. You will discover that his philosophies will hurt business and our economy, it will lower our standard of living even further as money and industry begin to flee this nation at a quicker pace. you will discover that Obama is the wrong choice.

Obama Supporters Lying and Persecuting the Opposition

From Email:

Mr. Byars, This is not a forward from me, this actually happened. I am hoping people will send this on so
that Americans can know the sort of fascist tactics being used by the Obama Campaign: On Wednesday the 1st of October I received a call on my cell while in the car with my husband.
It was a woman who identified herself as calling from the Obama Campaign. The phone # she
called from was 903-798-6020 which lists as "Obama Volunteers of Texarkana" ( Texas ). She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied: "No, I don't support him, your guy is a socialist who voted four times in The State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you Should find something better to do with your time." I hung up. Thursday, October 2, I answered the front door to find the Secret Service. Immediately I thought of
the call and was furious that apparently you are not allowed to call Obama a Socialist without the
Secret Service coming to investigate. Instead, they asked me about the following comment, relayed
by the Obama Volunteer of Texarkana who called me, unsolicited on my cell phone: "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor." My husband laughed and told them “No, she called him a socialist but she never said a word about
him dying.” I gave them my actual quote. The woman asked insolently “Oh? Well why would she
make that up?” I replied that I supposed she wasn’t happy about what I said about her Candidate
and the Agent said “That’s right, you were rude!” The last time I checked being rude wasn’t a crime
in America . Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental Instability or a past life of
stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama. That was my limit. I told the
Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was
America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned
by the Secret Service. In fact, even if I had said what she claimed, that isn't a threat! I told them
(again) and my husband verified that the statement reported by Obama's volunteer was a lie. I asked
them if there was a tape of the call and they said no. I said, "So on the word of a ticked off Obama
supporter you are on my porch with no other evidence and you want to question me about my THOUGHTS!?" They informed me that there was no evidence she was an Obama Supporter…someone calling from
his campaign…are you kidding? I was not allowed to know the name of my accuser at which point they informed me that it wasn't like
I was in a court of law, YET, as if this was a good thing. I recognized this as a veiled threat. I told them
I would happily go to court since I did nothing wrong and at least then my accuser would have to face
me rather than sending the 'thought police' to my house. They then said they were trying to do me a favor, that they came to me first before “embarrassing you
by going to all your neighbors and family”, another threat? I told them to be my guest and talk to
whomever they wanted but they weren’t going to investigate my thoughts on my porch. They also informed me that it would be easier if the next time a supporter calls me, I just say "Yeah,
sure count me in", or just hang up apparently so she won't get her undies in a bundle and give them
more useless trips. Yeah right. I said "Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask
me to support their candidate and I can't tell them why I don't?" I said I was sorry they made a wasted
trip but if they had a problem with some made-up lie they needed to go talk to her about it because it
wasn't my fault they had to drive from Houston for nothing. At one point I went inside and got a notepad to record their badge numbers and they refused to show
me their badges. They had done the 'quick flip' when they arrived. I asked for a card and the female
Agent refused to give me one stating “You’re not going to get a card.” The male Agent gave me a card
and told me I could contact Houston with any questions. The fact that the volunteer lied, the fact that the Secret Service came to my house to question me about
my thoughts and feelings and threaten to embarrass me to my neighbors and go to court if I didn’t
cooperate is not really the tragedy here. Because that girl on the phone doesn’t have the pull to send
the Secret Service to my home. Someone high in the ranks of a campaign, working for a man who may
be the next President of the United States of America, felt comfortable bringing the force of the
Federal Government to bear on a private citizen...on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer.
Do I hear jackboots?

Obama & Friends: History of Radicalism

Recieved via Email:

Obama & Friends: History of Radicalism
Barack Obama's ties to controversial people and radical groups including exclusive information revealed for the first timeWatch:• The College Years• Community Organizer Years• ACORN Association

Barack Obamas Finances

Recieved via email:


Folks, I have wondered for a long time where his millions came from. He admitted that he had claimed $4 million income in the last two years on his IRS. How did he earn that? Where are the answers to the question below? Is ANYONE even asking?
To All My Friends, this is long, but very important, please take the time to read it.This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About ayear ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times sincethan.I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must saythis drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News,you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I startedthinking "where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughterswho went to College, and we were middle cla ss, and money was tight. We(including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.I started looking into Obama's life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is veryopen about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and waswasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself tohis studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this timehad 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 Hyderabadin India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate'sfamily, 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 childrenwould have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When hecame back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at thistime he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what thetuition is at Columbia ? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get moneyfor tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia , he went to Chicago to workas 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 realestate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of fraud and briberythis year. &nb sp;Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-AmericanBusiness and Professional Association". About two years later, Obamaentered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard LawSchool? 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 heturned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guesswhat?They represented "Rezar" which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama'sfirst major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago . In 2003,Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter DavidMendelland claim s 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 dayRezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The LondonTimes reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5million 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 MicheleObama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any majordecisions 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 theback part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit toIraq , he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he iselected, and he will "Take care of things". Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that w here born inPakistan ?They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution forObama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in thiscountry? Or could it be from the Middle East ? And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Timesposted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos.
Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "hemake 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: DailyTimes- Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008;The Times May 10, 2008.Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Whyhaven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within"!!!

Does Obama Hate the US Constitution?

Recieved via email:

Obama 2001: Scrap the Constitution, spread the wealth
All I can say is "Wow."If McCain had known of this tape a few weeks ago, the chance to hammer Obama into submission would have been possible. Now, with just 8 days to election, he must work fast to exploit the shocking admissions made by Obama that 1) he believes that the Warren Court did not "break free from the essential constraints" found in the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth to the Black poor; and 2) he believes in "redistributive change" for America.Here's the video of Obama's interview on Public Radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001:Stop the ACLU has a partial transcript (Jay adds that a Gallup Poll in June found that by a margin of 84-13, Americans opposed "income redistribution:)
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I'd be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
Ed Morrissey draws some conclusions:
The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism, and as Barbara West of WFTV noted, it runs in Marx's classic philosophy of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people.
The RNC and the McCain campaign has to get these quotes out to the American public in the final week of this election.
Update: One more clarifying thought is in order. Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties". That's because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly.
Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that's radical change you'd better believe in, or else.
Obama wishes to scrap the limits placed on government powers because they get in the way of his redistributive schemes.What powers are we talking about? Private property rights for one. Since property is distributed "unequally" in Obama's world, policies must be shaped and laws passed to deal with that situation. While he's at it, Obama would like to trash the Bill of Rights by tossing the 9th and 10th Amendments which specifically limit the government's powers vis a vis the people and the several states.Incredibly (and stupidly) Obama apologist Ben Smith of Politico attempts to come to Obama's rescue by ignoring just about everything he said and putting his redistributive plans in the mainstream:
[T]he RNC and Drudge today are driving a 2001 interview with a Chicago public radio station in which Obama talks about the value of "redistribut[ing] the wealth."
The context of the clip appears to be the civil rights movement, and the fairly commonplace observation (stated beginning with Martin Luther King) that the '60s movement succeeded in winning African-Americans legal rights but stopped short of lifting them out of poverty.
But Obama's professorial talk about "redistributive change," while perhaps an accurate way to talk about an agenda of raising taxes on the rich, sure isn't the language he'd use today.
No mention of Obama's curious views regarding the efficacy of the Constitution. But then, that's not Smith's job. He's there to get Obama elected and something this dangerous must be snuffed out by one of the favorite tactics of the press in this campaign; pretending that what Obama said isn't really what he meant and that what he meant is harmless fluff.AT contributor Ethel Fenig is a little less casual in her take:
So yes Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Senator Biden, interviewer Barbara West was absolutely correct identifying your running mate's philosophy as Marxist and you are so wrong denying it. No wonder the Obama-Biden campaign refuses more interviews with West, who is not afraid of asking the hard questions. The Obama-Biden duo is afraid of the hard answers.

How will both of you react when that 3pm phone call comes; when both of you are wide awake and alert? And 3am? You can't deny then; you can't take all your marbles and go home; you have to answer. And both of you have proven you can't.
What does this mean for the race?John McCain has been inching closer in the national polls but still trails in several key red states including Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Florida. Perhaps it is not coincidence that since McCain started to highlight Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber, some voters may be coming out of their Obama stupor and taking notice of just how far left the Democratic candidate is.Can this trend continue and can McCain still come back? Yes to both questions although it is very late in the race for a lot of voters to change their minds. The debates are over and unless McCain uses this tape in a massive ad campaign, only a fraction of voters who really pay attention to politics will hear it and understand the consequences.So what he needs from this godsend of a tape is an altering of the playing field - a real game changer. By all rights, this should be a clincher. But since the McCain campaign will get zero help from the MSM in acting as a loudspeaker to get this out to the voter by reporting on it, McCain will have to do all the heavy lifting himself.And the helluva it is, it may not be enough.

Excerpts on Barack Obama

Excerpts from 2 articles on Barack Obama.

October 30, 2008
Daniel Henninger:
The real "change" being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of "the past eight years" but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America's idea of itself.
The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, "progressive" Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its "social market economy." In partial detail:
· Obama's federalized medical insurance system starts the transition away from private medical care and toward Obama's endlessly promised "universal health care." This has always been the sine qua non of planting a true, managed-market economy in the U.S.
· Obama's refundable tax credits are direct cash transfers from the federal government. This would place some 48% of Americans, nearly half, out of the income tax system. More than a tax proposal, this is a deep philosophical shift, an American version of being "on the dole."
· His stated intent to renegotiate free-trade agreements such as Nafta is a philosophical shift. It abandons the tradition of a hyper-competitive America dating back to the Industrial Revolution, toward a protected, domestic workforce, as in Western Europe.
· The Democratic proposal to eliminate privacy in union votes -- "card check" -- ensures the spread of a static, Euro-style workforce.
· Eliminating the ceiling on payroll taxes changes Social Security from an insurance to a welfare program. Obama's tax credits require performing government-identified activities, the essence of a "directed economy."
All this would transform the animating American idea -- away from creation and toward protection.
Of course cowboy capitalism built the country. More than any previous nation in history, the United States made its way forward on a 200-year wave of upwardly mobile, profit-seeking merchants, tradesmen, craftsmen and workers. The U.S. emerged a superpower, and the tool of that ascent was simple -- the pursuit of economic growth.

Fouad Ajami:
It was no accident that the white working class was the last segment of the population to sign up for the Obama journey. Their hesitancy was not about race. They were men and women of practicality; they distrusted oratory, they could see through the falseness of the solidarity offered by this campaign. They did not have much, but believed in the legitimacy of what little they had acquired. They valued work and its rewards. They knew and heard of staggering wealth made by the Masters of the Universe, but held onto their faith in the outcomes that economic life decreed.
The economic hurricane that struck America some weeks ago shook them to the core. They now seek protection, the shelter of the state, and the promise of social repair. The bonuses of the wizards who ran the great corporate entities had not bothered them. It was the spectacle of the work of the wizards melting before our eyes that unsettled them.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator from New York, once set the difference between American capitalism and the older European version by observing that America was the party of liberty, whereas Europe was the party of equality.
Just in the nick of time for the Obama candidacy, the American faith in liberty began to crack. The preachers of America's decline in the global pecking order had added to the panic. Our best days were behind us, the declinists prophesied. The sun was setting on our imperium, and rising in other lands.

Henninger:
One wishes John McCain had been better able to make clear what the truly "historic" meaning of Tuesday's vote is. Once it's done, it's done.

An Open Letter to Joe Biden; VP Candidate with Barack Obama

Joe,

I watched some of the debate tonight, and discussed it afterwards. I've been discussing the upcoming elections and politics quite a bit for several months now, and am a regular voter. Regarding the portion of the debate that I saw, Joe Biden didn't offer any solutions but just engaged in Bush-bashing. I had thought to myself that it would be funny if Sarah Palin reminded you that you were running against her and John McCain in 2008, not George Bush. Now, I didn't catch the whole debate, so I'm sure that if you offered some good solutions we must have missed that part. However I also noticed that you seemed to be the most conmfortable and at ease of the two of you during the debate.

I won't venture to say who I think "won" the debate, because we don't look at at from such a simplified perspective. Some things that we look for in our candidates are real solutions, not just promises or slogans, but detailed information on exactly how they propose to resolve problems that we face, and we then determine if those proposed actions are aligned with our principles and govermental philosophies. I am sorry to say that rarely do we find politicians that are willing to give that amount of detail on either side of the aisle. I suppose that this is largely due to the fact that most voters do not tend to evaluate positions in regards to their principles and philosphies; hence they are easily moved by excitement, fanfare and pomp which is readily available through the various political camps and media outlets.

We are aware that candidates spin their positions in an attempt to appeal to an audience, we also know that many people create fallacious arguments to shore up their positions, many of these arguments may sound reasonable to many segments of the population, but are nothing more than a unintentional red herrings which neglect essential elements of the truth and confuse many people who do not deeply consider the issues and their positions.

One such situation is the argument regarding abortion. I believe an abortion would only be justifiable in the case of rape, or the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. However, it has been termed by many as a "womans right to choose". Many of our leaders use the question of "when does life begin" in order to escape from addressing the issue, or even attempting to define the beginning of life at some specific point in a pregnancy in order to justify abortions. They may argue that the fetus is not viable outside the womb and therefore does not have a right to life.

All of these arguments and horrible distortions of thought which when followed allow the adherents to justify needless killings. For example, the argument that a young fetus is not human or that its abortion is ok since the fetus is not viable outside the womb is a fallacy because by removing a fetus from the womb, you deprive it of its proper nourishment and shelter. No living things are viable when deprived of proper nourishment and shelter. Does a man become un-human if he is left in the desert or lost at sea?

Secondly the search for the instant that life begins is an unjustifiable distraction from the real issue. We all know that the scientific requirements of life are that an organism eats, and reproduces. According to the scientific definition a fetus is alive the instance the cell becomes two cells and takes in nourishment from the placenta. Genetically a man or woman is a human and defined as such by his 32 chromosomes. A fertilized human egg qualifies according to this genetic definition as a human.

The phrase a "womans right to choose" is nothing more than a despicable euphemism for kiling the unborn. It is used by politicians to pander to voters, it is used by the people to justify selfish acts of of inhumanity and irresponsibility.

I am a fiscal conservative, constitutionalist, and believe in a limited government. I believe when people speak of penumbral rights derived from the constitution and speak of it as a living document they are treading on dangerous ground. There are many things I disagree on with both major political parties. My principles are hierarchical, some are extremely important, and others are flexible. The issue of abortion is at the top of the of this hierarchy; as such I cannot vote for you, Barack or any other politician who advocates abortions or seeks to defend Roe v. Wade; and I will not send you 5 dollars.

[Name Withheld]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 01:30:17 -0400
To: [undisclosed email address]
From: info@barackobama.com
Subject: What they won't say

[Name Withheld] --

If you saw tonight's debate, you saw Governor Sarah Palin give a spirited defense of the same disastrous policies that have failed us for the past eight years.

She couldn't identify a single area where she or John McCain would change George W. Bush's economic or foreign policy positions.

If you want something different, Barack and I need your help.

Make a donation of $5 or more right now to bring about the change we need.

The change we need is fixing this broken economy from the bottom up -- not tax breaks for the wealthy and huge corporations that ship U.S. jobs overseas. We need to focus on defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban and restoring America's standing in the world -- not an unending commitment in Iraq.

Let's be clear: Governor Palin and Senator McCain are offering nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies at home and abroad, trying to disguise them in the rhetoric of change.

Americans need real solutions and real change.

We're in this together and there's a lot to do before Election Day. Please make a donation of $5 or more right now to support this campaign for change:

https://their%20link/

This is the most important presidential election you'll be part of in your life.

Thank you for all that you're doing.

Now let's get to work and change this country,

Joe

Paid for by Obama for AmericaThis email was sent to: [undisclosed email address]

To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe

The High Cost of Phone Service

Phone Service Wants to Take you for a Ride

I have discovered that the breakup of the phone services and the advent of cellular telephones has not really helped the average consumer. I'm not saying cell phones are not useful - becuase they are very convenient. I am saying that with all these advances and the so-called competition, prices should not have skyrocketed as they have. Twenty years ago when there was one phone company the average phone bill was pretty reasonable if you did not make many long distance calls. Bills over one hundred dollars were extreme, today bills like that are commonplace - even if your phone is the same twisted pair (pstn) style that existed since the phone was invented.

Cell phones - Residential phones

Today an low end cell phone with local service gives you a limited number of minutes for about 40 dollars. Unless you are single, a single cell phone in a household will probably not do. So most homes that have a cell phone will likely have two or three of them, and maybe a land line for internet. Having several phones in your home crank your bill up drastically.

Land based phones are not much better, with all the fees that are added on them, including monthly fees just to have a long distance service provider (or to disable long distance service). Local bells have also devised what I like to call the "not really long distance, long distance" or your extended calling area. This short range long distance "service" will charge you at special long distance rates even though you may be calling just down the road. The phone companies do give you a way around this however - with a "metropolitan", "city" or "extended service area" line - which you will pay a premium for of course.

Choices

The break-up of of the phone monopolies was supposed to give us a choice - however, if you have a residential line, you may realize you don't have a choice. In some areas you may still only have one provider; in places where you are lucky enought to have two large providers (Verizon, SBC, Qwest...) - you can't choose. They have already choosen for you - the city is divided up between the various companies. you likely live in an area that is serviced by only one of the companies, but both.

Sure there are the other smaller phone companies - but often these services only serve business customers, or you have to get a an existing phone line through the big companies before you can switch to one of them.

Finally if you wish to have DSL, you probably have to get it throught the same company that your phone service is with. Most of the smaller companies, which can only givve you phone service after you have been established by one of the big companies, are incompatable with DSL.

Does this sound like you have been given a choice? - not really

On top of this, if you don't have a relationship wit one of the big ones, you often have to pre-pay your first month or may have to setup automatic payments by giving them access to your bank account. Such practices are ridiculous for anyone who wishes to maintain control over their finanaces. This brings to mind the recent lawsuit where a large Internet Service Provider had a similar arrangement with its customers. After customers reqested the service be discontinued, the were still being charged monthly fees a year later.

Internet Phone

With the advent of the intenet phone and VOIP you have another option - The phone service may be a bit cheaper than other phones but you have to pay for overpriced cable internet and then get internet phone on top of it. This fast internet solution will start you out at a minimum of around seventy five dollars a month for the internet and the phone. Excluding price, the downside? - when the cable goes, so does your phone.

Tax Funded Prison Gender Changes

Would You Like Your Taxes to Support Sex Changes in Prison?

Read the quoted article at the bottom about prison inmates being able to have gender change operations and homone thereapy drugs to support such operations at tax-payer expense based upon their own identity disorders.

We must not forget, prison is a place for the containment of individuals who have proven themselves to be a detriment to society and therefore are obliged to sacrifice certain otherwise commonplace freedoms for the benefit of and retribution towards the communities they have afflicted. Ift his not a place where such individuals can go and to freely obtain frivolous services and so-called benefits (which would be denied to any person of respectable charater by their own insurace programs) at the expense of the tax-payers and communites they have harmed based upon a deficient mental, spiritual and social standing. The Crime and error here is with the fool at the top, the one who has approved such programs and practices in the first place. These people too, have proven that they do not serve their communites and should be punished for their abuses and forced to pay some sort of retrubution, or in the very least, removed from office.

Quote

New law won’t stop inmates’ sex changes — yet
Aug. 24 hearing to decide whether hormone treatments can continue

AP Associated Press
Updated: 5:38 a.m. ET Feb. 2, 2006

MILWAUKEE - A new Wisconsin law barring the use of state tax money for prisoner sex changes won’t stop four inmates from getting hormone treatments until at least August.
The law took effect last week, but two groups have filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the inmates, challenging the statute as unconstitutional.
Judge Charles Clevert Jr. issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from stopping the hormone treatments until he holds a hearing on the matter. A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 24.

The law bars the state Department of Correction from using tax dollars for hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery to treat prisoners for gender identity disorder, in which a person believes he or she belongs to the opposite sex.
The four plaintiffs are the only Wisconsin prisoners getting hormone therapy, which costs from $675 to $1,600 a year.
The inmates claim that stopping the treatments would be cruel and unusual punishment and would violate their right to equal protection.
The legal fight about the treatment started in 2003, when inmate Scott Konitzer filed a lawsuit against the Department of Corrections seeking gender reassignment surgery.
Now known as Donna Dawn Konitzer, she has been getting hormone therapy as treatment for gender identity disorder since 1999.
State Rep. Mark Gundrum, a Republican and one of the law’s authors, predicted the law would withstand the challenge.
“It’s ridiculous to ask the taxpayers to pay for this,” he said.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

High Price of Oil Brings Large Returns

Oil Companies Striking it Rich

In the following article we are told that Exxon Mobile has generated record quatrerly profits amid the exhorbitant fuel prices being charged. However it seems that Oil Companies would have us beleive these facts are not related. Amid the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the war on Terror and the 911 Attacks, oil prices have continued to rise seemingly uncontrollably. The rise in profits, the fact that there is no real oil shortage or infrastructure loss, and executives being called before congress tantamountly confesses there has been exhaustive price gouging similar to cartel practices.

These corporations are hoarding money at the expense of the people they purport to serve. Meanwhile these abused citizens are suffering under higher taxes, lower incomes, and forced into two income households by corporations who underpay them. An indirect result of the corporate greed of these major oil companies is that all products produced, shipped, or facilitated by oil or any of its by-products also suffers from unnatural price increases.

The corporation exists to serve the people who buy its products, not to exact their monies, deny goverments, and control politics. I propose simply to stop bying from Exxon Mobile until some of this grotesqe profit is given back to the communites in some manner. Buy from smaller oil companies, and use other modes of transportation. These ill-minded corporations have need to repent.


Quote
Exxon Mobil posts largest quarterly profit ever
U.S. oil giant reports quarterly sales of $100 billion; Shell profit also soars

Oct. 27: CNBC’s Bertha Coombs reports on Exxon’s Mobil’s record quarterly profit.

Updated: 1:35 p.m. ET Oct. 27, 2005
IRVING, Texas - High prices for oil and natural gas propelled Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC to their best quarterly results ever on Thursday, with Exxon becoming the first U.S. company ever to ring up quarterly sales of $100 billion.
To put Exxon’s performance into perspective, its third quarter revenue was greater than the annual gross domestic product of some of the largest oil producing nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The world’s largest publicly traded oil company also set a U.S. profit record with net income of almost $10 billion, according to Standard & Poor’s equity market analyst Howard Silverblatt.
Both Exxon and Shell said their performances were buoyed by higher crude-oil and natural-gas prices, even as output suffered due to a busy hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico.

Exxon’s net income ballooned 75 percent to $9.92 billion, compared with $5.68 billion a year ago. The previous oil-industry earnings record was Exxon’s 2004 fourth-quarter profit of $8.42 billion. Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.
At Shell, third-quarter net income attributable to shareholders grew 68 percent to $9.03 billion, compared with $5.37 billion a year earlier. Including income attributable to minority interests, profit rose 67 percent to $9.39 billion at the Anglo-Dutch company. Revenue rose 8 percent to $76.44 billion, in spite of an 11 percent decline in oil and natural gas output.
“We are capturing the benefits of high oil and gas prices and refining margins,” Shell Chief Financial Officer Peter Voser said, referring to the profit margin on each barrel of crude that is refined into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
Excluding certain items, Exxon’s profit was $8.3 billion, or $1.32 per share, or slightly below the $1.38 per share expected by analysts polled by Thomson Financial.

Shell said adjusted earnings on a current cost of supplies basis — a measurement that strips out the fluctuating value of the company’s oil and gas inventories — was $7.37 billion, sharply higher than analysts’ forecasts.
Exxon said the hurricanes slashed U.S. production volumes by 5 percent from a year ago, while global daily production slipped to 2.45 million barrels of oil equivalent from 2.51 million barrels.