Monday, November 03, 2008


The interesting thing is that the Washington Post reported on McSatan and the Rothschild heir. They mentioned this blog on one of their articles as an online reference. My issue right now is; why did Google, I mean C.I.A./Rothschild remove videos proving that one big inbred family rules not only our nation but the world. I thought the videos were removed shortly after it was posted for "Terms Violations?" All I had to do was look and voila, Yahoo had it ready, willing and able to inform.

Thanks SatfeyJoe

Could this be where Palin comes from, Vlad the Impaler?!? Jesus, save me from "your" followers. No wonder she wants to get her hands dirty in the Senate. With all that hunting she just may have figured out how to get blood off of her hands. Well got to get up early for the poll and find a good position.

Here is the

RE: Mega Post

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: SafetyJoe ~ Voting 3rd Party
Date: Nov 3, 2008 7:21 PM

The Information Obama Wishes Amazon Didn’t Have
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: jane
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:34 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: 557
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:31 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Blaine
Date: 03 Nov 2008, 05:37 PM

The Information Obama Wishes Amazon Didn’t Have. That you now have with Direct Links!


The United States of ... CANADA!
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Jnoubiyeh
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:35 PM

Looks like the two known liars Harper and Obama will fit well together. They supported genocide in Lebanon, they are against the Palestinians fighting the illegal occupation of the internationally recognized Palestinian territories, and they both want to escalate the massive crimes against humanity they have already been committing in Afghanistan..

But WHO CARES?! Israel Rocks!!! And so does its brutal occupation and murder which we have a part in thanks to our tax money..

The United States of ... Canada

Image hosted by

It is misguided to treat Canada as a moderate force. Canada today squarely belongs to the neo-conservative US camp. And this is the message that politicians, diplomats, and activists opposed to US foreign policy in the region need to convey to their Canadian counterparts in an effort to reverse this shift. Anything less is worthy of blame and possibly prosecution..

By Hicham Safieddine

People around the world, including those in the Middle East, may have paid little attention to Canada's parliamentary elections on 14 October. This should come as no surprise, as Canadians themselves seemed more interested in the developments of the presidential race for the White House south of the border. Besides, the Canadian election brought little change to the makeup of parliament. The Conservatives maintained their lead and formed a minority government while the Liberals lost more seats..

But preserving the status quo and the virtual absence of foreign policy as a topic of public debate in the run up to the vote reinforces the transformation in Canada's geopolitical role in relation to the Middle East. And this must be of extra concern today.. Canada may take on an increasingly active role in light of the partial weakening of the United States' ability to maintain its hegemonic status across the globe single-handedly following its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is especially so if Barack Obama becomes president. Canada is among the nations with the largest military presence in Afghanistan.. The Conservatives led by George W. Bush's protege Stephen Harper have always pushed for a more aggressive role by Canada at a time when the anti-war movement is on the wane.. Harper's policy is more likely to sit well with the public if it is marketed in line with the "moderate" vision of an American president like Obama who doesn't have Bush's bad reputation and who has expressed a desire to shift the war effort from Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan..

The fact is Canada's current role in aiding American expansionism in the Middle East is larger and more complex than what some might think.. This role simply became more evident when Canada led the international occupying forces in the Afghani province of Kandahar. This coincided with a gradual shift towards the militarization of foreign policy in opposition to the (at least official) policy of focusing on peacekeeping and diplomacy. And this shift was adopted by the Liberals and Conservatives alike. In 2005, the Liberals promised to increase the military budget by 13 billion dollars (all Canadian figures) over five years. In 2006, the Conservatives came to power. They announced a 2 percent annual increase in military spending over 20 years in addition to a package of 15 billion dollars aimed at buying new equipment and weaponry. With a military budget of 18 billion, Canada ranks sixth among NATO countries when it comes to military spending and jumped to sixth place worldwide in terms of military exports..

However, Canada's role in aiding the American project isn't limited to Afghanistan.. For despite the official decision not to join the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Canadian forces took on several major tasks during the operation and after. This included logistical missions (transportation of provisions, heavy machinery, securing of supply lines), training by Canadian federal police of their Iraqi counterparts in Jordan, and even taking on leadership positions among the troops (Canadian generals such as Peter Devlin held top positions). Former US ambassador to Canada Paul Celluci confirmed the extent of Canada's complicity when he pointed out during the invasion in March 2003 that "ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel ... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly ... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.."

The militarization of Canada's foreign policy was accompanied by the reshaping of the armed forces ideology that produced the phenomenon of the army's former Chief of Staff Rick Hillier. Hillier became a popular face in the media and took on a role similar to that of American Generals David Petraeus and Tommy Franks as a trusted source of authority untainted by political ambition..

Canada's position vis-a-vis the Arab Israeli conflict was no less extreme. Canada's increasing support for Israel is on the rise. The Canadian government was the first among Western powers to cut aid to the Palestinian government following the election of Hamas. The suffocating siege on Gaza did not prevent one of the Liberal's leading candidates for the election, Ken Dryden, from calling to "stop all aid that flows into Gaza" even though it might hurt the Palestinian population..

In relation to Lebanon, Prime Minister Harper described Israel's aggression against Lebanon in 2006 as a "measured response" while Hizballah's military and political wing joined the list of terrorist organizations a few years prior..

Domestically, consecutive governments have failed to live up to their minimal obligations towards the country's citizen of Muslim origin when it comes to the so-called "war on terror." Recent laws have given the Minister of Immigration more say in determining status of visa application, a move interpreted by immigrant activists as undermining transparency and opening the door for ethnic and racial profiling of applicants.. Moreover, Canada is the only western country allied to the US that has failed to repatriate its citizen from Guantanamo.. A video released this year showed how Canadian diplomats were implicated in the torture of the Canadian detainee, Omar Khadr. The release of the video did not lead to the public uproar that Khadr's lawyers had hoped. This last detail sheds some light on the gap between the gravity of the shift in Canada's policy and the public's awareness and acknowledgment of such a shift. The image of Canada as an international peace keeper remains the dominant one among the public imagination. Not that Canada abided by such a peacekeeping role throughout its history. Indeed, the country has stood by the US in many of its imperialist endeavors, from the Korean War in the 1950s to regime change in Haiti and later in Afghanistan. But often, it was never as aggressive in its approach as the US, and it did show some concern for international law and multilateral diplomacy. That is what is eroding..

All this shows that it is misguided to treat Canada as a moderate force. Canada today squarely belongs to the neo-conservative US camp. And this is the message that politicians, diplomats, and activists opposed to US foreign policy in the region need to convey to their Canadian counterparts in an effort to reverse this shift. Anything less is worthy of blame and possibly prosecution..

Hicham Safieddine is a Lebanese Canadian journalist. This is an edited translation of an article that appeared in Lebanon's Al-Akhbar newspaper on Thursday, 23 October 2008..


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:35 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: *RC_REVOLUTION [the_resistance] Nader 08
Date: Nov 3, 2008 5:31 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Brooke
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:22 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: juan
Date: Nov 3, 2008 3:49 PM


☀~♥Ðëß♥~☀ quëstionëvërything
I have to say that just because
some people vote according to
"one" issue vs the whole
packaged deal - does not
mean that these
people have forgotten
or forsaken thier lineage...
they don't want you
to know what they do
at private family gatherings
or private family board meetings...
And they do not care if you
know that they are
related to each other...
The wise person studies history because
they are expecting the "useless eaters" not too...




All in the Dragon Family - 2008 Presidential Candidates




Obama wants this,do YOU???GLOBAL CARBON TAX
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: jane
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:32 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ♪♠♫ Timothy Michael ♪♠♫ x L.O.™., INC.. x
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:30 PM


Climate Change Bill makes chilling reading

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 02/11/2008

Who says the Almighty has not got a sense of humour? Last Tuesday MPs spent yet another six hours discussing what is potentially the most expensive single piece of legislation ever put through Parliament..

The Climate Change Bill, which had its third reading, commits Britain (uniquely in the world) to an 80 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050..

As MPs droned on about the need to fight global warming, Peter Lilley drew the Speaker's attention to the fact that, outside on the streets of Westminster, snow was falling. It was London's first October snowfall for 70 years, and similarly unseasonal snow was carpeting a wide swathe of Britain..

In all that six hours of debate, only two MPs questioned the need for such a Bill, which had swept through its second reading with only five opposed..

The sole MP who tried to raise the matter of the cost of the Bill - which could run to trillions of pounds if all its measures were implemented - was Mr Lilley. He was ruled out of order by the Speaker..

If the Bill's intent is taken seriously, the cost of cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent would cripple our economy, closing down much of what remains of our industry and rendering most motorised transport impossible..

But the cloud cuckoo land that our politicians have floated off into no longer touches scientific or practical reality at any point..

What they should have been discussing was the near-certainty that, within a few years, thanks to the imminent shutdown of 40 per cent of our electricity generating capacity, Britain's lights will be going out..

The state of many of our power stations is already so parlous that, if this winter continues as cold as it has begun, we can expect major power cuts within months..

Yet as we enter the worst recession for decades, our MPs while away their time prattling in sanctimonious unanimity about the need to fight global warming..

It is small consolation that Britain is not alone in its plight. One of the few specific policy commitments made by would-be president Obama is that he will support last year's ruling by the Supreme Court that the US Environmental Protection Agency should treat CO2 as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act..

The gas that no plant can survive without, and hence all higher forms of life depend on, would be regulated as if it were as dangerous as arsenic or sulphuric acid..

Senator Obama also supports a US version of the EU's "carbon trading" scheme, costed at hundreds of biliions of dollars. It seems the global warming scare may soon become as crippling to the world's richest economy as anything our own politicians are hell-bent on imposing here..

Yet last week, as reported on the admirable Watts Up With That website, nearly 180 places in the US, from Alaska to Alabama, have just recorded their coldest October temperatures or heaviest October snowfalls on record, based on figures from the National Climate Data Center..

Declining global temperatures continue to make a mockery of those computer model projections on which the whole global warming scare is based..

As I have asked before, has there ever in history been such a collective flight from reality?

The BBC keeps the asbestos scare flying

Just as bad as the Brand-Ross scandal in revealing the moral corruption of the BBC has been its eagerness in recent years to promote every kind of fashionable "scare"..

Last week, the BBC was again publicising the latest scare over asbestos, launched by the Health and Safety Executive and supported by all those who stand to benefit by it, from asbestos removal contractors to ambulance-chasing lawyers (and the trade unions which get £250 for every referral to solicitors specialising in compensation claims)..

The HSE' claims that 4,000 people a year are dying from exposure to asbestos, including a growing number of teachers..

No one ever asks the HSE to justify this figure, which is calculated not from clinical evidence but by a complex formula based on no fewer than three arbitrary assumptions - one of which is that white asbestos, by far the commonest type, is just as dangerous as the blue variety, a wholly different mineral..

In 1999, when it was still honest about such things, the HSE published a graph showing that blue asbestos is in fact 500 times more dangerous than white, the risk from which, in its most widespread form, encapsulated in cement, the HSE then called "insignificant" or "zero"..

All that is now forgotten, although the latest science has confirmed it in spades..

It was telling that when Radio 4's Today was promoting the HSE's latest fad last week, it should have used Michael Lees, a veteran anti-asbestos campaigner, whose teacher wife died of mesothelioma, to support the claim that ever more teachers are dying from exposure to asbestos in schools..

Yet when the HSE had earlier investigated Mr Lees's claims it found that they were "not borne out by the facts". The mortality rate for female teachers was "in line with the average for the whole of the female population"..

Such honesty has now gone out of the window, to the benefit of the lawyers and those removal contractors whom the HSE, on its website, is glad to call its allies..

Accounting for catastrophe

I reported here on October 5 the vast, hidden part that new international accounting rules had played in the banking crisis..

These "mark to market" rules, introduced last January via the International Accountancy Standards Board, at the behest of the EU, forced banks to report their assets daily, at "fire-sale" values..

In a falling market they were dramatically under­valued and this, as much as anything, froze interbank lending and forced banks such as Lehman Brothers to close their doors..

After a panicky EU had pleaded with the IASB to relax the rules, Brussels rushed through a change on October 15. As a result Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest, could last week revalue its assets upwards by £630 million, saving it from an appeal for government aid..

Without those rules, however, much of the disaster which has put so many famous names out of business might never have happened..


http://www. telegraph. co. uk/opinion/main. jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/02/do0207. xml


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: hockeyDino
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:30 PM

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

http://www. investors. com/editorial/editorialcontent. asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302137342405551


Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code..

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati ..
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval..
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series..
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism..
In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric.. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all)..
Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns..
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor..
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old..
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means..
Among his proposed "investments":
• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care..
• "Free" college tuition..
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana )..
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families")..
• "Free" job training (even for criminals)..
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels)..
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool..
• More subsidized public housing..
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor.."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa . GPA is America's pledge to give .7% of GDP to the UN for distribution to poor countries ($845 Billion over 13 yrs....over what is already being spent)..
http://www. opencongress. org/bill/110-s2433/show

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't..
That's just for starters — first-term stuff..
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike..
You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress..
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen.. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?
Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion..
The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed..
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities.."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis ' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment..
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**.."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis ' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago
His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America ..
The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters..
After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale..
While at Harvard Law School , he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics..
(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book..)
Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya , the Luo, during trips to Africa ..
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans.."
His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all.."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development.."
Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine..
(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory..)
In Kenya 's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro..
With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba , Nicaragua and elsewhere..
Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits..
(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book..)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer.."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud..
Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice.."
He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu , and on through Chicago to Washington ..
Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist..
Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington ..
The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word..
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words..
Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue ..
A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk..
Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster..


It's REAL simple A Vote for Obama or McCain is a Wasted Vote
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Devin The Dude
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:25 PM

my hands will be clean, will yours?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: *RC_REVOLUTION [the_resistance] Nader 08
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:06 PM



Foreign Policy
- Both support an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy
- Both support the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war on sovereign nations
- Neither support scaling down the enormous expenditure of policing and occupying the world by closing any one of the 700 bases we have in over 140 countries worldwide
- Both will expand the war in Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
- Both will expand U.N..

operations worldwide
- Both pay lip service to our continued support of Israel, while not mentioning the fact that we give 3 times as much monetary aid to its enemies
- Neither has mentioned the idea of not sending any monetary aid to other countries while the People of America suffer the consequences of a $1 trillion deficit and a $10 trillion + debt
- Both took an offensive stance against Russia, while supporting Georgia, the true aggressors in the Russian/Georgian conflict.. and of course neither has talked about just staying out of the situation all together
- Neither has taken anything, including a preemptive nuclear strike, off the table when dealing with Iran
- Neither support the humble, non-interventionist foreign policy that our Founding Fathers prescribed

Domestic Policy
- Both support the Patriot Act
- Both support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
- Both will increase Federal spending
- Both support the expansion of our borders 100 miles inland effectively creating a "Constitution Free Zone" that encompasses 2/3 of all Americans
- Neither plan to abolish any one of the unconstitutional or redundant departments of the Federal government
- Both support the militarization of our police
- Both support the construction of hundreds of FEMA controlled detention camps across the US
- Neither plan on reinstating the Constitutional principle of property rights as a way of combating pollution
- Both support amnesty for illegal immigrants
- Both support the North American Union
- Both support NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO as opposed to truly free trade
- Neither support the 10th Amendment of our Bill of Rights by continuing the many unconstitutional programs and laws that do not fall under the authority of the Federal government
- Neither support a healthcare or education system controlled by the People as opposed to government bureaucracies and corporations
- Neither support states' rights in regard to drugs, education, abortion or marriage
- Neither support an un-infringed 2nd amendment

- Both support the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System
- Both support the redistribution of wealth via inflation
- Neither support free market solutions to our current economic situation
- Neither support Article 1 Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution by continuing the confiscation of the People's money, gold and silver, in place of a FIAT currency system
- Both support an increased influence of such global government entities as the IMF and world bank
- Both supported the $850 billion+ Wall Street bailout bill
- Both support expanding government intervention in our market
- Both support the income tax and 16th amendment
- Neither have alternative plans for the future of welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicade but will both continue or even expand these programs that are bankrupting our nation

- Both have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from banks, major corporations and lobbyists
- Both are supporters of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations
- Neither support continued investigations of the events of 9/11/01
- Neither believe in strict adherence to the Constitution
- Neither support holding charges against or the impeachment of President George W..

Bush for his blatant disregard of our Constitution and his breaking of so many laws thereof and international treaties
- Neither will grant full pardons to Ignacio Ramos or Jose Compean
- Both of their vice-presidential candidates plan to use more power than is vested in them by the Constitution
- Both believe the United States to be a Democracy as opposed to the Constitutional Republic that the Constitution and our Founding Fathers intended


Watch this before voting--very revealing!
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: 557
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:40 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Blaine
Date: 03 Nov 2008, 05:46 PM

http://cdn-ll-static. viddler. com/flash/publisher. swf?key=7601146d



Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.. Thomas Jefferson


Don't trade Liberty for Security
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: RP 08 - Robert aka ALITL8
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:36 PM

----------------- Thank You -----------------

Date: Nov 3, 2008 5:27 PM

http://donttradelibertyforsecurity. blogspot. com/

Let's get this straight. Barak Obama, from the word go, is a Marxist style socialist. Period. Before you on the left get too excited, he is also a Chicago political machine politician, which means he is beholden to the big corporations and foundations which fund left wing causes so the folks on the left won't muddy their plans for worldwide fascism. He is also the most ardent pro-abortion politician out there - having even voted against legislation that would have required an abortionist to preserve the life of an infant accidently born alive. Under Barak Obama there would be no second amendment, nor would the constitution matter to his administration - even less of an extent than King Bush II who views it as "just a GD piece of paper". Open borders and global interventionism would be the future of America, which, under his watch would likely be a very short and bleak future. No, Barak Obama is no Messiah, from the left or the right. He is as corrupt as any politician and the tool of international fascism..

That being said, let's look at John McCain. In what ways would McCain be better than Obama? First, McCain is pretty much pro-life, and, well, um, darn, I can't come up with a second positive. He, like Obama, is also in favor of global interventionism, a supporter of the Bush pre-emptive war doctrine, he has trampled on the Constitution with the McCain-Feingold campaign "reform" act (the incumbent preservation act), has voted on the liberal side on many issues, voted for the PATRIOT act which is an extreme attack on constitutional liberties; he supported, along with his friend, Mr; Obama, the 800 billion dollar bailout of Wallstreet and he supports unlimited immigration and open borders. He would more than likely implement the NAU (North American Union) which is founded upon NAFTA legislation. An administration led by him would also lead to a very bleak future for our constitutional republic - it would just take him a couple more years to destroy it than Barak Obama.. Talk about a choice of the lessor of the two evils!

So what should we do? The two party system is broken. We are always faced with the lessor of two evils - it is just becoming more evil every election. I for one will no longer succumb to this - to vote for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil. Rather than throw away my principles or be scared into voting for someone who will destroy the foundation of this country to prevent someone else getting in who will destroy it faster, I will follow Congressman Ron Paul's advice and vote third party, and encourage others to do the same. If you are a strong liberal, vote for someone like Ralph Nader in the Peace and Freedom party or Cynthia McKinney of the Green party. If you are a conservative, look at Chuck Baldwin in the Constitution party. Libertarian? Vote for Bob Barr in that party (I know, a lot of Libertarians are upset by him, but it was your party that nominated him!)..

Again - the system is broken. To continue to do the same thing expecting different results is insanity. Refuse to be manipulated into voting for either candidate, make a statement with your vote by going third party. That is real change..

George Swenson


Labels: , ,



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker