Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The longer obama is in office, the greater the problem becomes, because everything he does will be illegal




Unlike other states where lawsuits challenging Obama's natural-born citizen status were required to move through lower courts, Washington State law grants the case "original jurisdiction" at the state Supreme Court, which means the plaintiff can present new evidence, including – if the court will indeed subpoena it – Obama's birth records.

.......................................................................................

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon

A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing."

In the case brought by Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue, arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff specific, personal injury.

In Washington state's Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.

"These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, 'You handle the elections, it's your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],'" Stephen Pidgeon told WND, "and the secretaries of state have said, 'No, it's not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.' But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.

"Here, we have standing by means of statute," Pidgeon continued. "This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign up now!

Further, Pidgeon explained, "In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it's very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

"He doesn't think he does; we think he does. That's really the issue before the court," Pidgeon said.

Washington's secretary of state, Mr. Sam Reed, has opposed the lawsuit, brought by a group of 12 registered Washington voters with Pidgeon's representation, on several grounds, including the argument that the issue is moot now that Obama has been voted upon by the people.

Pidgeon argues, however, that even if Obama remains in office two years from now, the issue will not be moot.

"The Constitution's criteria for president are never moot," Pidgeon explained. "Article 2, Section 1 says 'eligible to the Office of President'; it doesn't say 'eligible for candidacy to the Office of President."

Therefore, Pidgeon argues, the Constitution's natural-born citizen clause specifically and expressly addresses the man sitting in the Oval Office, not just the main elected and waiting to get in.

"If, at any time during his tenure, a birth certificate actually surfaces showing [Obama] born in Kenya," Pidgeon said, "he is disqualified from the presidency at any time. And the constitutional crisis that is rising out of this – the longer he's in that office, the greater the problem becomes, because everything he does will be illegal."

The Washington Supreme Court is set to hear Broe v. Reed on Jan. 8, but the entire case may be delayed intentionally, as the plaintiffs wait to see if the court will rule first on a requested subpoena of Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii.

Unlike other states where lawsuits challenging Obama's natural-born citizen status were required to move through lower courts, Washington law grants the case "original jurisdiction" at the state Supreme Court, which means the plaintiff can present new evidence, including – if the court will indeed subpoena it – Obama's birth records.

"We have opportunity to present facts before the Supreme Court, where you wouldn't have that normally," Pidgeon told WND. "With original jurisdiction, we have the opportunity to present factual argument, and so what we have said to the court is, 'At no time did Senator Obama produce a single piece of evidence upon which the secretary of state could rely to establish that he was a natural born citizen, or that he was even an American citizen, or that he was running under his legal name.' Those are the three facets of our lawsuit."

Pidgeon also told WND that the case's primary hurdle now is the natural predisposition judges have toward complying with the democratic will of the people. They rarely "upset the apple cart," Pidgeon said, by overturning the results of an election.

Still, Pidgeon believes pursuing Broe v. Reed is necessary.

"I expect the truth of Senator Obama's birth is going to come out," Pidgeon told WND. "It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but the truth of his birth is going to come out, and when that true fact comes out that he was born in Kenya, we will have an unprecedented constitutional crisis in this nation.

"The question is," Pidgeon figures, "will the Washington Supreme Court stand for the rule of law or are they going to stand for an overthrow of the constitutional republic by the will of the electorate?"

"Should Senator Obama be discovered,exposed as a fraud, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a similar case brought by Alan Keyes and pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

.....................................................................................

Let me speculate: It could show he is illegitimate, DUAL CITIZEN AT BIRTH, maybe his "father" was a communist or radical etc. All these are real possibilities including others because obama is hiding his original birth certificate. My best guess is it will confirm he was a dual citizen at birth or born out of the US and applied for a birth certificate. Either way he is a FRAUD and a LIAR.

"Obama is a man who reflexively, instinctively, will side with what's wrong and harmful for America, and will oppose what's right and good and wholesome for America. It's uncanny. But this profoundly negative orientation is sugar-coated with a charismatic 'positive' persona and beguiling rhetoric."

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Mr. Obama is not an African-American as defined in United States law





Documentation of his actual ethnic background demonstrates Mr. Obama is not an “African-American” as defined in United States law. Sen. Obama is actually Arab-American. A person whose entire image is based on lies. He continues to lie without conscience as a matter of habit. Answer this question all who voted for Obama: Is it you who should be the object of your anger when it is you who first lied to yourself when you decided to accept his lies, knowing all along that he was lying to you?
Read between The Lines

Is Obama Really African American...NO

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(This article was found on another blog but worth reposting)

Has anyone given any thought to the similarities between ADOLF HITLER and BARACK OBAMA? Hitler came to power during the Great Depression, similar to our current economic crisis. Hitler’s was a political platform of “change”, and look where it lead Germany. He came into power by energizing Germany’s youth movement - the “brown shirts” (same with Obama, and groups called the “blue shirts”), Hitler was not raised in the country that he aspired to rule (same with Obama), Hitler wrote “Mein Kampf”, his autobiography which described his political leanings (Obama wrote his own autobiography with similar features), Hitler was a brilliant speaker who could move masses with his rhetoric (same with Obama), Hitler bought his way into power and used all media sources available to over saturate society with his “change” message (same with Obama), Hitler was also a great proponant of gun control (as is Obama). A disarmed populace is easy to subject. Hitler changed the German national emblem to one more personal to he and his Nazi Party (Obama is doing the same thing with his “O” symbol, remember his plane?). Desperate people in desperate situations will accept anything they are told and will move in whatever direction a well spoken, charismatic leader will take the, regardles of whether it destroys their way of life or not.

....................................................................................

Barack the Black Hitler: How Obama’s stated goals may lead to the deaths of roughly six million people and the striking similarities between Obama’s personality and methods for acquiring power and Hitler’s.

For most people, Hitler embodies pure evil. Because of this, his name is often invoked in debates over character. These sorts of comparisons are almost always unwarranted and wildly exaggerated. But now America has a new star politician, Obama, and the parallels between he and the most loathed man in history are very real. In this article, we will examine the methods of assuming power employed by both men, and the role of their decisions in the lives (and deaths) of six millions jews.

The substance behind words:

We can tell a lot about what a politician thinks of his audience based on his approach to speaking to them. A politician that believes his audience is mature and intelligent will appeal to their logic rather than emotion. He will tell them the unpleasant truth because he believes his audience can handle it. A politician that does not think very highly of his audience will do the opposite. He will remain as vague as possible and appeal to their emotions above all else.

“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
— Adolf Hitler

It is not hard to deduce Obama’s opinions of his audience. When he’s in public he uses vague terms such as “hope” and “change” rather than attempt to define exactly what it is he intends to do. He appeals to the authority of examples in history in order to imbue their qualities into his words rather than extoll the virtues of any specific policy he proposes. Let’s not forget his creative “borrowing” of other people’s words either. (see: Deval Patrick) In essence, he aims to inspire, not inform.

“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.”
— Adolf Hitler

Behind closed doors, however, Obama shows another side to him as he attempts social psychoanalysis on the people whose votes he seeks:

“[People in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
— Obama, at a San Francisco fundraiser. (Behind closed doors)

Insults and condescension aside, what is wrong with this picture? Why doesn’t Obama share his amatuer psychoanalyst-side with the rest of the people? Surely a great orator as Obama can do it without insulting them, right? It would be impressive for Obama to tell the American people exactly what they’re thinking (as he seems to think himself capable of doing), but it appears he doesn’t seem to think highly enough of voters to tell them what he thinks, only what he wants them to feel.

Tactics for seizing control:

“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.”
— Adolf Hitler

Its no big secret that Obama bases most of his appeal with youth voters. This is a common occurrence in the history of the rise of tyrants. Most are supported fervently by the young. Hitler famously used this technique to gain power. The tyrant-to-be must hide his true ambitions behind a mask of emotional appeal in order to seduce the gullible and unwary. The youth most often falls into this category, not yet “broken in” to the number one rule in electing a ruler: watch their actions, not their lips.

“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.”
— Adolf Hitler

Returning to the subject of Obama’s views of voters, what do you think this tells us about Obama? Surely the people must know Bush’s policies, they’ve been the law of the land for nearly eight years. Surely, any voter interested in the issues would study the policies of the candidates carefully. If one candidate’s policies were identical to the current administration’s, wouldn’t it be readily obvious even to the most untrained eye? Why would the average voter need Obama to tell them that Bush and McCain are the same person if its obvious? Only if they wouldn’t get that impression from looking at the record, only if it weren’t true.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
— Adolf Hitler

(For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that a version of this quote first originated with Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister. In this particular quote, Hitler was paraphrasing him.)

“Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be “discovered” by an election.”
— Adolf Hitler

January 2nd, 1996, Obama began his under-handed crusade for the senate. With a crack team of lawyers, he challenged hundreds of vote petitions and managed to eliminate all of his fellow Democrats from the ballot. One fellow candidate was Alice Palmer. Up to that point, she had been grooming Obama to succeed her once she retired. Not willing to wait, Obama took matters into his own hands and denied her the right to run for her own seat. Alice Palmer is the same woman who essentially launched his political career. Apparently, Obama didn’t trust the voters to “discover” a great man in that election, so he chose for them.

The genes of tyranny:

Obama and Hitler both have displayed a penchant for eliminating “undesirable” infants. Hitler’s case is well known; he believed he could create a master race through selective breeding, mandatory sterilization of “undesirable parents” and abortions. Obama’s methods lack the scope of ambition but the end result is similar - Obama has legalized the murder of already-born infants.

In 2002, an important bill known as the “Induced Infant Liability Act” cropped up in the Illinois senate. The purpose of the bill was to protect infants who had been born alive after a failed abortion from being “aborted” after birth. In the United States, the second a person is born, they become a U.S. citizen. Taking the life of such a citizen is murder. That is something both pro-choice and pro-life advocates can agree on. Even the most pro-abortion lobby in the country, NARAL, did not oppose it nor the federal version of the law.

Obama on the other hand, did oppose it, TWICE. In doing so, he helped establish the legality of murder of infant Americans in his state.

Both Obama and Hitler are of mixed racial heritage, and distort this heritage to control public opinion. Hitler hated jews and made a career of it, so he hid the fact that jewish blood ran through his veins. Obama has made a career out of embracing his “blackness” and African American heritage. His first book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”, was based entirely on that premise. There’s just one problem: Obama isn’t an African American, Obama is an Arab American.

Obama is 50% caucasian, 43.75% arab, and 6.25% black. According to federal law, an American citizen must be at least 1/8th, or 12.5% of a particular race to be considered a member of that race. Obama meets that criteria easily to be considered an Arab American but not African American.

(The astute reader will have noticed that being that Obama is not truly African American, the title of this article is inaccurate. I have decided upon that title rather than an alternative due to the public’s general familiarity with Obama as an “African American”.)

Dead-end philosophy:

Pop Quiz: Which of these quotes was said by Hitler and which was said by Obama?

A. “…our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition.”

B. “Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.”

If these two statements seem similiar, it’s because they both derive from the same philosophy: socialism. NAZI stands for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. The socialists of Hitler’s era aren’t much different from those of today in terms of ideology, though most socialists of the modern era are called “latte liberals”. Indeed, Hitler would’ve fit right in with such a group. He was a vegetarian, pro-abortion, an advocate for strict gun control, desirous of universal health care, and continually extolling the virtues of state control.

Someone once could ask how Obama could become a socialist. How he could not. Obama has been surrounded by marxists his entire life. I’m not sure that he has contacted non-marxist/socialist ideas within his close circle of friends even once.

His father was a communist. His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. Obama explicitly admits to seeking out marxist professors in his autobiographical work and attending socialist meetings. His close friends, like Bill Ayers the former terrorist, leadership at Trinity, all hold distinctly socialist/marxist views. Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the entire senate for 2007. He was even more radical than senators who were openly socialist.

So it would seem to be crazy to elect a FRAUD as Obama but crazy is selling well these days.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Is it possible? Yes and it is happening now.







A scary parallel… how familiar are you with Hitler’s rise to power?

He created out of whole cloth the Nazi party, we already had a history lesson in what Nazi meant, National Socialism however it was not socialist at all in fact Hitler was against socialism, he just named it that to attract the most people.

After he got a following he created the SD these were the predecessors to the SS, these were the jackbooted thugs. Then he turned them loose on the country to create chaos and fear.

Once that was done and the people were terrified Hitler came out and said he could stop the brown shirts and bring order to the country…

He rounded up and had the brown shirts killed thereby restoring Germany…

Now let’s look at Fanny and Freddy, Mae and Mack…lol First Bill Clinton signs a law that substantially loosens the standards banks use to decide who to loan money to, mandates it, in fact, starts with a trillion dollars and ends up with 3 trillion dollars spent to make these two banks give out more loans.

Move forward a decade and like night following day we have a banking crises that gives more and more power to the government…

And who’s out there saying they can solve it? The ones that created the fake crisis socialists in the government. Others were told and threatned with marshall law if the fed was not allowed to bowwor billions and billions.

Hitler's Socialism was what is today's Liberal ideology: big govt, govt dependence, a "national state" (no internal 'United independent State'), all power coming from a centralized Federal govt, etc etc.

Socialism then, and now is about the accumulation of power through the concentration of wealth. This is exactly what "our" government is doing through the FED.

Just like today’s socialist... they speak in terms of protecting the middle class and the poor by taking wealth from the rich thereby creating class envy. What happens is the wealth becomes concentrated in a very few ruling class elites,(the federal reserve wich is a private bank), the poor stay poor because there is no class mobility, the middle class has their standard of living reduced until they are poor, and the wealthy are jailed, executed, or they must adapt to the ruthlessness of the ruling class.

As far as the Fanny/Freddy problem what they are doing is; using this "crisis" that they created to assign more power to the FED... Cluck Schumer deliberately caused a run on Indy Mac so Federal regulators could step in...
Question: What do you call a private company that is government run?
Answer: Fascism

....................................................................................
The first thing socialists do is take away guns and the freedom to own them. Obama is a liar. Read open letter below.
....................................................................................
llinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate

CHICAGO, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:

Fellow Sportsman,

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.

I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama.

Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?



And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?
By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him.

That's the Barack Obama I know.

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

.....................................................................................
"Encoded Ammunition"/Bullet Serialization


"Encoded Ammunition" (Bullet and Cartridge Case Serialization) Means:

* Forfeiture of Currently-Owned Ammunition

* A Separate Registration for Every Box of New Ammunition

* Outrageously Expensive Ammunition Costs for Police & Private Citizens Alike

*A Waste of Taxpayer Money, Better Spent on Traditional Police Programs

In 2007, the sponsor of "encoded ammunition" legislation in Maryland urged lawmakers across the country to introduce the same kind of legislation in their states. The bill would require ammunition manufacturers to engrave a serial number on "the base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing of each round" of ammunition for popular sporting caliber center-fire rifles, all center-fire pistols, all .22 rimfire rifles and pistols, and all 12 gauge shotguns.

Reasons to Strenuously Oppose This Legislation

People would be required to forfeit all personally-owned non-encoded ammunition. After a certain date, it would be illegal to possess non-encoded ammunition. Gun owners possess hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for target shooting, hunting and personal protection. Consider that American manufacturers produce 8 billion rounds each year.

Reloading (re-using cartridge cases multiple times) would be abolished. There would be no way to correspond serial numbers on cartridge cases, and different sets and quantities of bullets.

People would be required to separately register every box of "encoded ammunition." This information would be supplied to the police. Most states do not even require registration of guns. Each box of ammunition would have a unique serial number, thus a separate registration.

Private citizens would have to maintain records, if they sold ammunition to anyone, including family members or friends.

The cost of ammunition would soar, for police and private citizens alike. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Institute estimates it would take three weeks to produce ammunition currently produced in a single day. For reason of cost, manufacturers would produce only ultra-expensive encoded ammunition, which police would have to buy, just like everyone else.

A tax of five cents a round would be imposed on private citizens, not only upon initial sale, but every time the ammunition changes hands thereafter.

Shotgun ammunition cannot be engraved. Shotgun pellets are too small to be individually engraved. Shotgun cartridge cases are made of plastic, which would be difficult to engrave.

Criminals could beat the system. A large percentage of criminals' ammunition (and guns) is stolen. Criminals could also collect ammunition cases from shooting ranges, and reload them with molten lead bullets made without serial numbers.

Congress eliminated a similar requirement in the 1980s, because there was no law enforcement benefit. Federal law had required purchasers of handgun ammunition to sign a ledger, but Congress repealed that requirement in 1983 (.22 rimfire) and 1986 (center-fire handguns), because it burdened purchasers, vendors and police, with no law enforcement benefit.

Obama had to answer feds' questions about Blago


In this Dec. 22, 2003, file photo, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., right, answers a question as Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, left, listens during a news conference in Chicago. Blagojevich is legendary in Illinois political circles for not picking up or returning phone calls, even from important figures like senior senator, Dick Durbin. But there was always one call Blagojevich regularly took, say his aides, and that was from Emanuel. (You should ask why? Because Emanuel Obama's aid is a very important THUG from the chicago cess pool of thugs)
....................................................................................


Obama had to answer feds' questions about Blago but he again proves he is a con man from the cess pool of Chicago.

President-elect Barack Obama, his top adviser Valerie Jarrett and his chief of staff appointee, Rahm Emanuel, were interviewed last week by federal authorities probing allegations that Gov. Blagojevich put Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat up for sale.

....................................................................................
What a JOKE. The FBI forced Emanuel to listen to himself and then he gets his story straight. Up until this time Emanuel was not going to tell the facts about his conversations with Blagovich. This is what a thug does. Obama is a THUG.

Emanuel was interviewed by federal officials who replayed a wiretapped conversation for him. He then was able to give Craig more details about what he said, and those details were included in the final report, the transition official said. Transition officials discussed the final version with Obama on Monday as he vacationed in Hawaii. (What this means is they just talked about what spin Obama could put on his thug activities)


Obama's lawyer in a memo puts the best spin on the Obama connection to the Chicago cess pool he can:

In a memo to Obama, incoming White House counsel Greg Craig wrote that the internal investigation shows "no indication of inappropriate discussions" by Obama or his advisers about the Senate vacancy. But the report, when meshed with allegations in Blagojevich's criminal complaint, portrays Jarrett as being far more involved in seeking to be appointed to the Senate than has been previously known. She removed herself from consideration after a conversation with a union official who had spoken with Blagojevich.

So Obama's lawyer says "no indication inappropriate discussions" Obama's lawyer thinks Obama and staff did no wrong in trying to "sell" his senate seat. There is every indication but more than indication it is a fact that his "obama's advisors" tried to barter or sell Obama's senate seat. The FBI affidavit said Blagojevich had been told by an adviser "the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect's pick to the Senate."

Obama wanted Valerie Jarrett appointed to his senate seat in exchange for a deal with Blagovich. Obama, and his top aids, were only willing to give Blagovich something after two years. Obama wanted his wife's employer,Valerie Jarrett, to get his senate seat but Bagovich was only willing to settle for his wife to get a high paying job at a firm in Washington. Blagovich got mad and started cussing which is on the FBI tapes.

Its very clear that Obama was willing to "Sell" his senate seat in exchange for Blagovich installing Valerie Jarret in his vacated seat. Blagovich was willing to do it but only on Blagovich's terms. Obama's lawyer uses the word "no indication" which means one could say later that the FACT was staring you in the face but it was overlooked. His lawyer will in effect lie for Obama and his staff and tell America anything but the truth. We have a cess pool con man Barack Hussein Obama who would sell his own dead mother if he could to get want he wants. Reminds me of a crack head. A thug has been elected to the "Black House" and it is a dark day in America. A thugocracy has taken over.

......................................................................................
Blagojevich also sought a high paying job for his wife, according to the FBI. "Is there a play here, with these guys, with her" to work for a firm in Washington or New York, he reportedly said.

The FBI affidavit said Blagojevich had been told by an adviser "the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect's pick to the Senate."

Told by two other advisers he has to "suck it up" for two years, the FBI says it heard Blagojevich complain he has to give this "motherf***er [the President-elect] his Senator. F*** him. For nothing? F*** him."

The Governor is heard saying he will pick another candidate "before I just give f***ing [Senate Candidate l] a f***ing Senate seat and I don't get anything."
unquote.

One has to take the entire scenario into context.

Blagojevich is asking for a lobbyist job for his wife in quid pro quo as part of selling the Senate seat.

One must now realize this is not potential candidates for the job trying to bribe him, but Blagojevich by his adviser is informing him, the adviser is being told this by Barack Obama and his staff.

The "what" Blagojevich is being told is that Barack Obama will in exchange for naming Valerie Jarrett, who is Obama's minion cronie pick, that Obama will then pay off in 2 years when all suspicion that the seat has been sold of getting a job for Mrs. Blagojevich.

What is telling in this is how shrewd Barack Obama is in operating. He agrees willingly to sell his Senate seat in a job and cash deal, but wants to make certain the public perception is that he has not sold the seat, which is quite illegal as what the Governor is attempting to do.

Blagojevich as one can read is furious over this and by his reaction indicates he doesn't trust Obama's word no more than a gay gigolo on a street corner that he doesn't have aids.

In that is the working of Patrick Fitzgerald in moving up the ladder of crimes. He convicted Tony Rezko and used those convictions to have what appears open ended surveillance on Gov. Blagojevich.
A federal court just does not hand out open end wire taps without there being more on the books. Patrick Fitzgerald has other information on Gov. Blagojevich and other Chicago citizens. This Obama seat for sale was simply the most damning evidence he had and he swept in in this major press event to arrest a sitting governor and chief of staff of a state all for the ladder purpose of moving up the ranks.

.....................................................................................
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich wanted President-elect Barack Obama "to put something together…something big" in exchange for going along with Obama's choice to fill his vacant U.S. Senate seat, according to a FBI affidavit unsealed following the governor's stunning arrest.
Gov. Blagojevich is charged with wire and mail fraud, and soliciting bribes.

"I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for f***in' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there," Blagojevich said in a phone call secretly recorded by the FBI on Nov. 5, the day after the election, according to the affidavit.

What you need to see here is Barack Obama wanted to put something togeather to bribe Gov Blagojevich to appoint his senate pick!
....................................................................................

Blagojevich Crimminal Complaint Illinois PDF
Reference 101 b.Blagojevich crimminal Complaint Illinois: ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked what he can get from the President-elect for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that Governor General Counsel believes the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect’s pick to the Senate.

{Obama, who was accompanied by lawyer Robert Bauer in the interview, had no contact with the governor or his aides, the report states.} What this means is Obama is just saying he had no personal direct contact with Blagovich but he did through his aids. His aids work for him and do what he directs them to do. OBAMA IS A LIAR!! Remember this is just a lawyer telling us in legal terms what he did or didn't do. His statments are worded by his lawyer to give the impression Obama committed no crime. Of course his lawyer can't tell the truth but must defend his client Obama another lawyer who is a liar.

After Jan 20,2009 Obama will have immunity from all of this. If he is going down as the thug fraud he is it must be before this date.

You can believe after Jan 20,2009 Obama will fire all the US Attorneys and put in his thugs to help distroy America.

ILLINOIS GOV. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF
JOHN HARRIS ARRESTED ON FEDERAL CORRUPTION CHARGES

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention and what a new Constitutional Convention Could mean


....................................................................................
John Jay was a statesman, diplomat, first Chief Justice of the U.S. President of Continental Congress, minister to Spain, secretary of foreign affairs, and author of the Federalist Papers (with Madison and Hamilton)
Quote: New York 25 July 1787 Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Some possibilities a new Constitutional convention could produce.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

1787 Constitutional Convention:

(At the same time, the term of the President was debated; the delegates toyed with many ideas, including a seven year, non-reelectable term, a three-year reelectable term, and a term which was essentially life, or on good behavior. But there was little consensus here either.)
......................................................................................

So the distinct possibility of writng a new Constitution with a term for a President for life is possible. This would mean a dictatorship and totally legal under the new Constitution. Remember if a new Constitutional Convention is called it will can make up its own rules including not giving the states a chance to ratify the new "Constitution". Think about this possibility!

Also the US Senate could be changed or abolished!
Also the US House could be changed or abolished.

The Supreme Court could be changed or abolished!

In the Convention, each state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly split could not register a vote for adoption. Each state could send as many delegates as they wished but only the majority of that states delegate vote counted.

Keep in mind this was the rule in 1787. A new Constitutional Convention could make up any rule about ratifying the new document or as was said no ratification by the states as necessary for the adoption of the new document.

slaves would count as three-fifths persons.

The new Convention could make us all just count as three-fifths persons again. This would mean we would not be considered a human to vote. This is also a possibility!

Today, the Bill of Rights is one of the most recognizable parts of the U.S. Constitution; but the Framers, for the most part, felt one was not necessary.

A new Convention could modify or delete the bill of rights. This is a real possibility because as I said anything is possible with a new Constitutional Convention. habeas corpus, unlawful restraint could be modified of not included in a new Constitution.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Constitutional Convention of 1787

By 1786, Americans recognized that the Articles of Confederation, the foundation document for the new United States adopted in 1777, had to be substantially modified. The Articles gave Congress virtually no power to regulate domestic affairs--no power to tax, no power to regulate commerce. Without coercive power, Congress had to depend on financial contributions from the states, and they often time turned down requests. Congress had neither the money to pay soldiers for their service in the Revolutionary War or to repay foreign loans granted to support the war effort. In 1786, the United States was bankrupt. Moreover, the young nation faced many other challenges and threats. States engaged in an endless war of economic discrimination against commerce from other states. Southern states battled northern states for economic advantage. The country was ill-equipped to fight a war--and other nations wondered whether treaties with the United States were worth the paper they were written on. On top of all else, Americans suffered from injured pride, as European nations dismissed the United States as "a third-rate republic."

America's creditor class had other worries. In Rhode Island (called by elites "Rogue Island"), a state legislature dominated by the debtor class passed legislation essentially forgiving all debts as it considered a measure that would redistribute property every thirteen years. The final straw for many came in western Massachusetts where angry farmers, led by Daniel Shays, took up arms and engaged in active rebellion in an effort to gain debt relief.

Troubles with the existing Confederation of States finally convinced the Continental Congress, in February 1787, to call for a convention of delegates to meet in May in Philadelphia "to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

Across the country, the cry "Liberty!" filled the air. But what liberty? Few people claim to be anti-liberty, but the word "liberty" has many meanings. Should the delegates be most concerned with protected liberty of conscience, liberty of contract (meaning, for many at the time, the right of creditors to collect debts owed under their contracts), or the liberty to hold property (debtors complained that this liberty was being taken by banks and other creditors)? Moreover, the cry for liberty could mean two very different things with respect to the slave issue--for some, the liberty to own slaves needed protection, while for others (those more able to see through black eyes), liberty meant ending the slavery.

On May 25, 1787, a week later than scheduled, delegates from the various states met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia. Among the first orders of business was electing George Washington president of the Convention and establishing the rules--including complete secrecy concerning its deliberations--that would guide the proceedings. (Several delegates, most notably James Madison, took extensive notes, but these were not published until decades later.)

The main business of the Convention began four days later when Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented and defended a plan for new structure of government (called the "Virginia Plan") that had been chiefly drafted by fellow Virginia delegate, James Madison. The Virginia Plan called for a strong national government with both branches of the legislative branch apportioned by population. The plan gave the national government the power to legislate "in all cases in which the separate States are incompetent" and even gave a proposed national Council of Revision a veto power over state legislatures.

Delegates from smaller states, and states less sympathetic to broad federal powers, opposed many of the provisions in the Virginia Plan. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina asked whether proponents of the plan "meant to abolish the State Governments altogether." On June 14, a competing plan, called the "New Jersey Plan," was presented by delegate William Paterson of New Jersey. The New Jersey Plan kept federal powers rather limited and created no new Congress. Instead, the plan enlarged some of the powers then held by the Continental Congress. Paterson made plain the adamant opposition of delegates from many of the smaller states to any new plan that would deprive them of equal voting power ("equal suffrage") in the legislative branch.

Over the course of the next three months, delegates worked out a series of compromises between the competing plans. New powers were granted to Congress to regulate the economy, currency, and the national defense, but provisions which would give the national government a veto power over new state laws was rejected. At the insistence of delegates from southern states, Congress was denied the power to limit the slave trade for a minimum of twenty years and slaves--although denied the vote and not recognized as citizens by those states--were allowed to be counted as 3/5 persons for the purpose of apportioning representatives and determining electoral votes. Most importantly, perhaps, delegates compromised on the thorny issue of apportioning members of Congress, an issue that had bitterly divided the larger and smaller states. Under a plan put forward by delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut ("the Connecticut Compromise"), representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population while each state would be guaranteed an equal two senators in the new Senate.

By September, the final compromises were made, the final clauses polished, and it came time to vote. In the Convention, each state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly split could not register a vote for adoption. In the end, thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates supported adoption of the new Constitution, barely enough to win support from each of the twelve attending state delegations. (Rhode Island, which had opposed the Convention, sent no delegation.) Following a signing ceremony on September 17, most of the delegates repaired to the City Tavern on Second Street near Walnut where, according to George Washington, they "dined together and took cordial leave of each other."

....................................................................................
Who were the the 55 Delegates to the Convention?

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not represent a cross-section of 1787 America. The Convention included no women, no slaves, no Native Americans or racial minorites, no laborers. As one historian noted, it was a "Convention of the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed." The delegates included some very well-known figures from American history, such as George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Other prominent Americans of the time, who might be expected to have been in Philadelphia, did not attend for various reasons. Prominent non-attendees include John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The links below offer more information on the delegates.

....................................................................................
No diversity or political correctness. Obama says these people had flawed thinking because they did not spread the wealth around. I say Obama is but a PC,PR empty suit that is only interested in power and self interests. Compared to these Constitutional Convention members he is less that a 3/5 intelect!

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The Coming Obama Thugocracy




thugocracy: n. Rule of a country or state by a group of thugs.

POLITIAL CORRECTNESS is to genuflect to the much less intelligent and to wallow with them in the puddle of PC correctness of the Obama administration and democratic congress. Barack Obama - Master PR Pitchman
..................................................................................
The leadership and core of the liberal progressives know what they're doing. The scary part are the hypnotized followers.

Some blacks, but not all, adore Obama and will defend anything he says or does. If they are confronted with facts that can't refute some will resort to personal insults. Today a black man said I was a redneck. I ask if it was because of my views about obama. He said no I just think you are a redneck for other reasons. I said to him, "you are a bigot". Later I thought about what he had said and realized his best effort to defend obama was calling me a redneck so I told him I didn't think we should talk about politics any more because he had to result to insults to refute the truth about obama. This is a correct way to head off racist insults that he had resorted to. I do believe if I had used a racial insult like he did I would be guilty of racism as he is. Some african American's personal esteem seems to be tied directly to Obama. I had a black preacher tell me, "Whites think we are stupid and now because Obama has been elected president this shows we are not and are equal" (This is not exact but close quote.) Several talk about past experiences with racism and how most whites are racist. To me this is racism because saying most whites are racist is exactly the definition of racism...(When you label everyone in a group with the same label and not consider them on individual merits). Some blacks are radical racists and will tell me when I explain Obama is not a natural born citizen that I hate and ask why do I hate. They use the word hate or insults when any objection is raised about Obama with whom they indentity so closely mainly because he is a black person. This is what many black people hang their hat on, the fact that they think Obama is a black person. Actually he is more arab than black only 21%. Many african Americans are taking their marching orders from other quarters such as churches that teach whites that open their mouth against Obama are automatically racist rednecks etc. (I ask, why do YOU hate and teach hate?) They say give the man a chance. This means to me shutup and don't say anything negative about Obama, even if it is possibly true or is true. Normally rational, albeit left-leaning people (a contradiction, I know). Yeah, they're for big government, soft on illegal immigration, love entitlements...but BASICALLY reachable as humans.
Their lives and emotions are totally devoted to Obama. They are deeply, physically and emotionally in love with him. To them anyone who doesn't agree that obama should be president are considered rednecks or someone who just can't understand obama in thier minds is real. To me obama is a fraud and empty suit. Fraud because he was a dual citizen at birth and is NOT a natural born US citizen. An empty suit because he is not qualified to be president when compared to others who are much more qualified and experienced. Paid corporate PR including the biased news media and the Federal reserve controlled by private bankers have ensured obama's election.

If you say anything that isn't about how much we all love him, some get hysterical, dismissive, smug, result to insults, angry...they're love sick and cannot be reached. They are passing this adoration on to their children.

This is a cult. Once in power, there could be a backlash against conservatives (and especially white conservatives)the likes of which has not been seen since the Nazis had that little soiree called Kristallnacht. Everything from random street violence to legislation ensuring conservatism will not rise again.

Conservatives need be very concerned that an Obama presidency will mean criminial prosecutions for their beliefs. Obama is a facist for the politcally correct world government movement.

...................................................................................
Obama is the pc president. If the truth was spoken or told as it should be more people would know that he is just a thug and will be inept, (Displaying a lack of judgment, sense, or reason; foolish: an inept remark.Bungling or clumsy; incompetent) as a president. There is no hope or change with Obama. Only pc and socialism. People who are in positions of authority who are not qualified allways fail at there job, if the person who was put in authority because of pc correctness, affirmative action, intimnadation, or pr compaign.

Barack Hussein Obama is a message machine, packaged and sanitized for public consumption by Barack Obama well-paid political marketers and PR counselors, fueled by huge donations. The key phrase to note is , NOT QUALIFIED. Just because you get the job doesn't mean you are qualified for the job! Its almost like the pr compaign was affirmative action to place Obama in a postion of authority. If Obama is qualifed he will be able to govern with success. People say give him a chance. Thats saying lets see what he can do. We have seen what he can do. I am not impressed with his voting present the majority of the time when he was a state senator and I am not impressed he was only in the US Senate 2 years before running for president. Also being a community organizer is not a qualification for president. I see very little qualifications for Obama to be president or succeed as president for these reasons. He will succeed in trying to change the US Constitution and socialize America. American has elected a THUG.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Here is a copied comment from a student in college. It reveals how political correctness ie the race card etc is the norm in colleges and is becomming the norm in US society.

Posted by: Lede Agenda at October 12, 2008 4:18 PM

It's hard to be a conservative academician. Even if not morally degenerate enough to embrace liberalism in any event, it is adaptive for one to eventually become mindlessly liberal in an academic setting.

Supression of free speech has become extremely repressive for the average instructor. There are a myriad of pitfalls: Women and minority students especially are on a hair trigger looking for bias. Your sense of humour must be checked for neutrality in all things. Your donations to United Way and certain University sponsored programs are tracked. You are careful to subordinate any sign of authority when communicating directly with a student about poor performance (and its best done in the presence of other faculty). You are at all times, a "good citizen." Although some pathogenic Ayers-like putrescence get caught infecting students with their liberal edicts, more generally it is an understood courtesy to avoid all discussion of politics (in fact, politics is on a par with smoking in terms of social acceptance). Watch your grading curves that they are not too low on average bc the students will and do complain, and you will be called to the carpet for your rigour. Above all, at least until fully tenured, don't insult anything, anyone or any profession - there could be hidden consequences.

To survive in academics, you either intentionally or subconsciously goosestep to the political rhythm or out the door you go. I think that this in some small part may explain why otherwise intelligent individuals inevitably genuflect to the much less intelligent, to finally wallow with them in an overall puddle of PC filth.
....................................................................................

This is what America will be doing after Jan 20,2009 Obama's administration and the democratic congress will make sure Americans goosestep to his socialist agenda or out the door we will go. The above comment by a college student explains it perfectly. "Intelligent individuals will, genuflect, 1."To bend the knee or touch one knee to the floor or ground, as in worship", 2. "To be servilely respectful or deferential; grovel" (POLITIAL CORRECTNESS), to the much less intelligent, to finally wallow with them in an overall puddle of PC filth.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................................................................................
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors,” Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. “I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people’s faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

Today’s liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

Floating to the top of the Cess Pool of Chicago politics is Barack Hussein Obama. Floating Obama to the top was David Axelrod the Obama campaign's chief strategist a master of "Astroturfing" who has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The Supreme Court will not hear an air tight case against obama

This is what Leo Donofrio has said today Dec 14, 2008 about the Supreme Court.

I beat them at their own game. And they even cheated. And I still beat them. They know it. You know it. Everybody who has any sense of truth knows it. Even if you think Obama is a nbc, just the fact that 200 years of precedent has been broken is enough to warrant the case at least being heard and an opinion being written. SCOTUS wimped out. To think, they would get involved in Bush v. Gore,on such silly grounds... and now here's a situation the Court was really created for... and they skulked away hiding behind their rabid dog. OK, the result was fixed, the fix was in. But they lost.

I'm not giving up the fight for truth, I'm just giving up on the law. There is no law. There is no Constitution. There is nothing SUPREME about that Court in DC.

.....................................................................................
My Comment to Leo on his blog.

Leo Jan 6, 2009 is an important date as you know. Congress has the power to affrim the electorial votes or deny them as you know. Lets keep hope alive as Obama has said and hope there will be just 1 US Senator and 1 US Congressman who will question Obama’s qualifications as a candidate. You know they can. It is possible a debate will take place that will reveal Obama is a dual citizen. Remember it takes 2 to tango, 1 Senator and 1 Congressman. Leo don’t give up. I know I won’t. If you give up you lose and never win. I say file another lawsuit. Retreat if necessary to fight another day but never give up Leo.

Flood Congress with telephone calls, emails, faxes and letters before Jan 6, 2009 the all important date.

You can help. Heed the call. Lead the force. Rally the troops to demand Congress question Obama’s qualifications. Please.

Bill


Leo Donofrio Blog Leo was a little off today. He thinks his lawsuit will not be heard by the Supreme Court.

It should have been. I agree it seemed a question for the court to answer. I agree with Leo at least they could have debated the question of what a natural born citizen is and question Obama as a "natural born citizen" which it seems he is not.

I agree the "fix" is in. I agree this country is about to be ruled by a dictator from the cesspool of chicago who has floated to the top. Obama is a thug.

....................................................................................

Leo donofrio also said this today on his blog.

I haven't suffered. You really don't know me. But I thank you for the kind words. My attitude, my life... my art. None of that has changed. I LOVE life... today, yesterday, tomorrow. I love God. God loves me. My friends and family would do ANYTHING for me. I am so loved, it's not even fair to be loved as much as I am loved by those who know me. I don't even feel like I deserve it but they love me so much it hurts.

I am a mental warrior. It's not me who has suffered. It's the Constitution and the country. And I can't help but think, with every sin we've committed as a country, that God is removing his protection. The Constitution is the only thing that separates us from destruction as a nation. Look what our leaders say about the Document and look at the way SCOTUS has failed the Document.

I saw a chance to help the Constitution, put my life on hold and gave it everything I had. There was nothing the case could do for me other than preserve freedom in the US. Unlike many of you, I can move. But I don't think I have to do that just yet. The time may be coming. We have no Constitution and that will begin to show soon enough.

Very kind of you, sir. But I made a decision to accept no donations. I just sent back a $200 check today. It makes me sick seeing some of these other people begging for money and getting a ton of it. It doesn't cost that much to be a pro se litigant. If you're doing it for the country suck it up and pay through the nose. It felt good to me to pay for this out of my own pocket.

....................................................................................

Leo Donofrio was taking this case to the Supreme Court on his own time and his own money. He is exposing the other lawyers who have requested big donations to take their cases to the Supreme Court. As he said it doesn't cost much to be a pro se litigant. (Litigant Filing Without Counsel)

PRO SE HANDBOOK
The Manual for the Litigant Filing Without Counsel


I looked up the term pro se litigant. It means filing a lawsuit with out counsel, but of course Leo was his own counsel. I have found a link to study how to do this myself.

GUIDELINES TO FILING YOUR OWN CASE IN FEDERAL COURT

I suggest everyone who is not a lawyer reading this blog read this PRO SE HANDBOOK also that way we all can file our own lawsuits without the help of counsel. Just think of the possibilities. Someone will be able to maybe get a case to the Supreme Court Like Leo. Maybe Leo could even review a few of our cases we put togeather in his free time. :) We could discuss the merits of our cases after reading how to be our own lawyer. I’m excited about the possiblities. No! Never give up, never surrender.

Be you own counsel and file a lawsuit in Federal Court yourself A great idea. Why not? Just takes time, effort and a little money for the filing fees. Lets flood the Supreme Court with our own lawsuits. Lets flood the federal courts with lawsuits like the aclu does all the time. Lets fight our battles in the court rooms of America.

I can't wait!

Friday, December 12, 2008

U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution

Beware Of A Constitutional Convention or Con Con

American Policy.org

SUMMARY OF THE DANGER: A Constitutional Convention has no limitations!

Once Congress calls for a Constitutional Convention Article V grants that assembled convention the exclusive power to propose amendments regardless of the original reason for its call. By its very definition a Constitutional Convention is a sovereign body and therefore cannot be limited.

Recall that the first Constitutional Convention was held simply for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation under Article XIII, which indicated that the consent of all State legislatures is required for amendment. Instead, delegates – having met in total secrecy for several months – emerged with a new fundamental government design, which stipulated that only nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect.
Everything in the current Constitution could be tossed, and replaced with whatever the delegates decide. A new convention could even decide not to bother having the states ratify what it produces. A constitutional convention has no limitations. With today's hostile and divided political climate, can we trust that our God-given rights would be secure?


Did you get that?

(1) The current US Constitution could be done away with!
(2) It could be replace with a totally different document or not a Constitution!
(3) It could decide that the states do not have to ratify any new document produced!
(4) It would have NO limitations!
(5) It could meet in total secrecy and do whatever they want!

If A Constitutional Convention is called you can kiss all your rights goodby.


....................................................................................
Only a couple of states are needed now to call for a Constitutional Convention. If this happens Obama will be able to rewrite the US Constution as he has stated he wants to do. Don't you agree this is a very important issue?

The Ohio state legislature is expected to vote Wednesday, Dec. 10th, to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). If Ohio calls for a Con Con only one more state need do so and Congress will have no choice but to convene a Convention, throwing our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights up for grabs.

Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution.


A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians
and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.


"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."

DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.

State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.

According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."

Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

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 and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

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 it's been interpreted, and the 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 because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency 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.

....................................................................................

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians
and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.


"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."

DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.

State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.

According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.


The final vote from the 1787 Constitutional Convention

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."

Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

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 and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

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 it's been interpreted, and the 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 because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency 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.


DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies
.

"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."

He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.

"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."


DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."

The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.

"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.

"We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said.

The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.

"However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said.

American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

"This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.'

"And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said.

A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children."

"When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said.

American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.

WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

* The Constitution does not permit any restrictions on the subject matter a Con Con considers.

* The Constitution does not guarantee states may choose any delegates to a Con Con.

* The Constitution does not guarantee any state will be represented at a Con Con.

* To paraphrase Chief Justice Warren Burger's admonition, NOBODY TELLS A CON CON WHAT TO DO!


American Policy.org

Principled Policy Blog

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention

Who Was There?

The state legislatures of each state selected the delegates who would attend the convention. There was no limit on the number of delegates a state could send, but each state would vote as a delegation, not as individual delegates. Rhode Island did not send any delegates to the Convention. While seventy delegates were appointed to attend, only fifty-five did.

The delegates to the convention included lawyers (thirty-four had studied law), soldiers (twenty-one fought in the Revolutionary War), farmers, educators, ministers, doctors, bankers and merchants. Forty had been members of the Continental Congress and two others would later become members of the Congress of the United States. The average age of the delegates was about 44.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was serving as the American Minister to France at the time and did not participate in the Constitutional Convention.

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention

The Constitutional Convention of 1787

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Obama The Dummy - Brzezinski The Ventriloquist


Sen. Barry Goldwater gave an adequate explanation of the intentions of the TC in his 1979 book “With No Apologies”
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.



Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?


June 23, 2008,
Now that Barrack Obama has captured the candidacy for the Democratic Party in this year’s presidential election, the question arises of who his advisors are. Most people who will vote for Obama in November have no idea of his advisors. Certainly they have never heard the name “Zbigniew Brzezinski.”

It is said that to understand a politician, you have to know their advisors. After Obama announced his presidential run, he named his Foreign Policy Advisor to be Zbigniew Brzezinski. So who exactly is this shadowy figure who for 30 years has been active in steering the direction of how the US conducts foreign policy, mostly from behind the scenes.

So who exactly is Zbigniew Brzezinski?
What has his role in government been the last 30 years?
What is his ideology?

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski was born March 28, 1928 in Warsaw, Poland until coming over to the US in the early 1950’s. Brzizinski got started in politics during the 1960 presidential election where he was an advisor to the John F. Kennedy campaign. He is a Polish-American political scientist, geostrategist, and is largely known for his time as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.

In 1973, David Rockefeller asked Zbigniew Brzezinski to put together an organization of the top political and business leaders from around the World. He called this group the Trilateral Commission (TC). The word "Trilateral" means "three-sided" - the three sides in this case being North America, Europe,and Japan. North America, Europe and Japan have several things in common. Most important is their wealth, which is derived primarily from industrial production. The Trilateral Commission is a private organization and it is widely perceived as an off-shoot of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Trilateral Commission was established to foster closer cooperation between America, Europe and Japan. The members of the Trilateral Commission are about 350 distinguished leaders in business, media, academia, public service (excluding current national Cabinet Ministers), labor unions, and other non-governmental organizations from the three regions. The regional Chairmen, Deputy Chairmen, and Directors constitute the leadership of the Trilateral Commission, along with an Executive Committee including about 40 other members. The annual meeting of Trilateral Commission members rotates among the three regions. It was held in Washington in 2008 and Brussels in 2007. The 2009 plenary will be held in Tokyo. http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm
Sen. Barry Goldwater gave an adequate explanation of the intentions of the TC in his 1979 book “With No Apologies”
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future."


It was at the time as Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor where Brzezinski made a name for himself. As National Security Advisor, Brzezinski was known for his assertive policies on the Soviet Union. In 1979 he started a campaign supporting mujahideen in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the CIA and Britain's MI6. The Afghan mujahideen would later become known as “al-qaeda.”

So what is Brzezinski’s ideology? To answer this question we must look at writings and interviews straight from the man himself. Brzezinski has written more than 10 major novels on geostrategy and globalism.

Brzezinski supported the views of Marxism in his 1970 book “Between Two Ages” where he states: “That is why Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief: it stresses man's capacity to shape his material destiny – finite and defined as man's only reality – and it postulates the absolute capacity of man to truly understand his reality as a point of departure for his active endeavors to shape it. To a greater extent than any previous mode of political thinking, Marxism puts a premium on the systematic and rigorous examination of material reality and on guides to action derived from that examination.”

In his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski writes on Page 35: “Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."

What Brzezinski fails to address is that the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic…not a Democracy. In fact the founding fathers warned us of a Democracy. Thomas Jefferson said that “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” With so many of this nation uninformed of what’s going on, it’s no wonder that the elite want a Democracy. The US was never set up to attain international supremacy, and was certainly not set up to achieve “imperial mobilization.” The US was set up to stay out of the affairs of other nations and never wanted to use soldiers as cannon fodder to invade the planet. Brzezinski seems to be out-of-touch with what this country is all about.

During his time as National Security Advisor Brzezinski declared that, “This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”

Apparently, Brzezinski wants to erase the “We The People” in the Constitution and replace it with a single benevolent ruler. Usually this kind of rhetoric will come from someone whose ideology is to promote and eventually try to accomplish the creation of a One World Government.

So what can we expect out of Barrak Obama with Brzezinski pulling his strings on foreign policy? Is it “Change”? Well I guess it depends on what kind of change you are talking about. There is good change and then there is bad change. With so many blindly following Obama and his promise of “Change”, how can we be so sure that he means a change for the better? With Brzezinski by his side in the White House, it’s a foregone conclusion of what kind of change we will get.

....................................................................................

WASHINGTON, DC -- In my book Obama ­ The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, I argue that presidential candidate Barack Obama is a wholly owned puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his associates of the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller. As some have noted, Brzezinski has been attempting to conceal his actual domination of the Obama campaign, for which he is the chief guru and controller. Now a rhetorical outburst by Obama on the campaign trail in Oregon has once again pointed to the reality that Obama is a ventriloquist's dummy, with the Russia-hating fanatic Brzezinski, a barbarous relic of the Cold War, acting as the ventriloquist.
At a recent campaign stop in Oregon, Obama stated:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. If India and China's "carbon footprint gets as big as ours, we're gone." (AFP)
This remarkable statement reveals the true program of a future Obama administration: savage austerity, brutal economic sacrifice, and a massive further reduction in the standard of living of the depleted and exhausted US population ­ as demanded by David Rockefeller, George Soros, and Obama's Wall Street backers. This will be done under left cover ­ through a global warming tax, a third world solidarity tax, and other demagogic frauds, with the revenue going to bail out Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase. The tired, discredited post-9/11 "war on terror" slogans will be dumped. Most interesting is that Obama's sound bytes are actually a sloganized version of a key passage from Zbigniew Brzezinski's recent book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (New York: Basic Books, 2007), pp. 198-199. This book contains Zbig's desperate strategy for preserving the crisis-ridden US-UK world empire, including by making the US "social model" more attractive to developing sector publics. Zbig writes:
"In mutually compounding ways, material self-indulgence, persistent social shortcomings, and public ignorance about the world increase the difficulty the American democracy faces in formulating a globally appealing platform for effective world leadership. Americans must recognize that their patterns of consumption will soon collide head-on with increasingly impatient egalitarian aspirations. Whether through the exploitation of natural resources, excessive energy consumption, indifference to global ecology, or the exorbitant size of houses for the well-to-do, indulgent self-gratification at home conveys indifference to the persisting deprivations of much of the world. (Just try to imagine a world in which 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians consume as much energy per capita as Americans do.) That reality the American public has yet to assimilate. To lead, America must not only be sensitive to global realities. It must also be socially attractive. That calls for a broader national consensus in favor of correcting the key failings of the American social model."
Obama has thus unmasked himself as the exterminating angel of super-austerity dictated by the elitist Trilateral bankers' clique. Will he cut the current US standard of living by 40%? By 50%? When he does, will he still call it the politics of hope? Obama has been trained to hate the American people through two decades of association with hate-mongers like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Brzezinski himself. For Rockefeller and Soros, Obama's hatred of the American people is a positive guarantee that he will enforce Wall Street's austerity decrees with a vengeance. Forget the utopian platitudes and the messianic rhetoric: Obama's real economic program is now clear for all to see. It is a path that leads to genocide against the US population, among others.
Obama's Oregon outburst needs to be read in the light of earlier unguarded statements by Michelle Obama, who has said at various times in her stump speech: "before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls - our souls are broken in this nation. If we can't see ourselves in one another, we will never make those sacrifices.We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired...to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place. The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don't get too excited because Barack is going to demand that you too be different." Here the theme of purification and redemption by means of sacrifice and economic austerity is clearly conveyed. Now Barack has begun to fill in the details.
Insiders have long recognized that Zbigniew Brzezinski (helped by his son Mark) owns and runs Obama. David Ignatius has pointed to Second Chance as a scenario for a future Obama administration. Ignatius commented over a year ago: "Zbigniew Brzezinski has written a new book that might be a foreign policy manifesto for Barack Obama The most intriguing part of Brzezinski's book is what I would describe as the Obama manifesto. (David Ignatius, "A Manifesto for the Next President," Washington Post, March 14, 2007) It has also long been known that Zbig does the thinking for Obama; the London Economist last year hailed "a new brain for Barack Obama! It's 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter." ("A New Brain for Barack Obama, Economist.com, March 14, 2007)
Obama's campaign has long been attacking Bush from the right, criticizing the current regime for not exploiting 9/11 to impose savage economic austerity, as seen in Samantha Power's "monster" interview. We now have good evidence that Obama will flay the American people alive with his elitist economic policies. Obama has committed a major error by showing his hand.