Monday, November 03, 2008


RE: Mega Post 2

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: SafetyJoe ~ Voting 3rd Party
Date: Nov 3, 2008 7:22 PM

Chuck Baldwin
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Son of Appalachia!
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:35 PM

Millions of Americans will go to their local polling place next month, and yet, they will not vote for anyone. They will vote against a candidate by voting for a candidate they consider to be the lesser of two evils. Most of these voters will be Republicans who will reluctantly vote for John McCain because they can’t bear the thought of that evil socialist Democrat Barack Obama becoming president. Nothing McCain believes or doesn’t believe means anything; nothing McCain has done or will do means anything. Some of these Republicans will soothe their consciences by telling themselves that they are really voting for Sarah Palin instead of John McCain – once again choosing the lesser of two evils..

I gave up years ago voting for the lesser of two evils. The Republican Party is stupid and evil just like the Democratic Party, as I have pointed out many, many times, and most recently here. But not only did I give up voting for the lesser of two evils, I also gave up voting for individuals. I do, however, vote against local tax increases if given the chance since this is clearly a case of good (no tax increase) versus evil (tax increase) instead of evil (Democrat) versus evil (Republican). The only exception I have ever made, and will probably ever make, to not voting for individuals was when I rejoined the Republican Party so I could vote for Ron Paul in my state’s Republican presidential primary. (I switched back to Independent the next day.. )

Since Ron Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president on September 22, I have been asked by many Christians, and others who did not state their religious affiliation, for my opinion of Chuck Baldwin. For the record, Baldwin and I both know and admire Ron Paul, both of us live in Pensacola, Florida, both of us are conservative Christians, and both of us attend Independent Baptist churches..

It is not my purpose to comment on Dr. Paul’s reasons for endorsing a candidate or the wisdom of his decision. Some libertarians are upset with Dr. Paul for his support of Baldwin. I do think, however, that they would have been just as upset if he had pledged to support Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr. They certainly would have been more upset if Dr. Paul had endorsed any other major-party or third-party candidate..

It is also not my purpose to comment on the Constitution Party. Some libertarians are in a panic about Chuck Baldwin because of some things in the Constitution Party platform. I think some of the concerns about the platform have been read into it. And besides, Baldwin does not give the same emphasis to certain things that the Constitution Party platform does. In fact, his own personal views appear to be closer to Ron Paul than to the Constitution Party.../>
Charles "Chuck" Baldwin (b. 1952) is a Baptist pastor, and has been since 1975. Although now politically an Independent, he is both a former Democrat and a former Republican. He has never held elective office, although he was the vice-presidential candidate for the Constitution Party in the 2004 election..

Baldwin writes an almost weekly column, with an extensive archive available here. I have read his columns for several years – only occasionally finding something I disagree with – and am relying on two in particular for this article: "If I Were President" (May 2, 2008) and "Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul" (September 23, 2008). In addition to Baldwin’s campaign website, I have also referred to a recent interview Pastor Baldwin did with The New American. I don’t know Chuck Baldwin personally. In addition to reading his columns, I have met him twice, attended his church for a Sunday service, and remember occasionally listening to the local radio show he had in the 1990s. Although I have minor disagreements with some of his positions, if I voted, I could genuinely vote for him, rather than voting against the other candidates by voting for him. I am not endorsing Baldwin; I am merely writing as an impartial (except when it comes to liberty, property, and peace) political analyst..

Because he is not Ron Paul, whom I consider to be the ideal candidate (as apparently does Baldwin – he supported Paul in the Republican primaries from the very beginning and has stated that he would not be running for president if Paul were still a candidate), a vote for Chuck Baldwin would be a vote for, not the lesser of two evils, but the lesser of two goods. Therefore, although I could say many good things about Baldwin (strong advocate of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, opposes the U.S. empire and the war on terror, supports disbanding the Fed), I want to focus on those areas in which Baldwin differs from Paul and on certain positions Baldwin holds that might be a problem for libertarians..


In his recent interview with The New American, Baldwin was asked: "Do you find that philosophically, you differ a great deal from the Libertarian Party?" His reply: "Yes, I do. That’s why I’m not a libertarian." Here is perhaps the essence of any "problems" that Baldwin might have: he is a conservative. Baldwin was at Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic.. Certainly he heard Lew Rockwell deliver these lines:

Clearly, in the age of Bush, conservatism now constitutes as great or even greater threat to American liberty than the left and left-liberalism. It is long past time for every right-thinking American to reject the term conservative as a self-description..

There comes a time in the life of every believer in freedom when he must declare, without any hesitation, to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism..

But it is not just that conservatives have departed from conservatism.. "The problem with American conservatism," as Rockwell so magnificently summarized in "The Great Conservative Hoax,"

is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America..

As the candidate of the Constitution Party, it is no surprise that Chuck Baldwin emphasizes returning to the Constitution. But it is not enough to return to the Constitution. Our standard is liberty, not the Constitution – a document which made allowance for slavery until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, I think Baldwin is more of a libertarian than he is willing to admit. Being a libertarian is not the same as being a member of the Libertarian Party and subscribing to its platform. Some libertarians don’t even consider Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, to be a real libertarian..


One of the reasons Baldwin gave in his interview with The New American for differing philosophically with the Libertarian Party is that "historically, libertarians believe in open borders." Well, not Gary Becker, not Milton Friedman, not Thomas Sowell, not John Hospers, not Walter Williams, not Hans Hoppe, not Stephen Cox, not Ludwig von Mises, not Murray Rothbard. Although some libertarians believe in open borders (as do others who are not libertarians), it is by no means an established tenet of libertarianism..

I believe that Ron Paul takes a sensible view of immigration.. I have summarized his position on immigration before, so I will merely reproduce it here:

Ron Paul is opposed to "open borders." He believes that the U.S. government should fight terrorism by first securing its own borders. Because he believes that true citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States, he favors an end to birthright citizenship. And because he believes that it insults legal immigrants, he does not favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. But Dr. Paul is not anti-immigrant in any sense of the word. He believes that the immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. He joins the vast majority of Americans who welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. He opposes welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants that alienate taxpayers and breed suspicion of immigrants. Dr. Paul also believes that all federal government business should be conducted in English..

So, what does Baldwin say about immigration? From his article "If I Were President":

It is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail..

By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists – not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13 – have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders..

And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens’ education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration..

And from Baldwin’s recent article thanking Ron Paul:

I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, when it states that one of the express purposes of the federal government is to "repel Invasions." This means we will secure America’s borders, because the illegal immigration crisis is more than mere immigration: it is an invasion, and I will stop it! Even if I have to send the U.S. Army to the borders, we will put a stop to this invasion of illegal aliens..

Obviously, Baldwin’s position on immigration is closer to that of former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo. Libertarians would say a hearty "amen" to Baldwin’s plan to eliminate the spending of tax dollars on illegals, but jailing employers who hire people that are willing to work is something that many people – not just libertarians – have a big problem with. The cure (a potentially bigger, more powerful, and more intrusive government) could turn out to be worse than the disease..

The War on Drugs

Another of the reasons Baldwin gave in his interview with The New American for differing philosophically with the Libertarian Party is that "historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don’t subscribe to that." Elsewhere in his interview Baldwin was asked: "Where do you stand on the war on drugs?" His reply: "I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing borders, and I would do everything in my power to keep drugs out of America.."

However, in his article "Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul," Baldwin denounces the federal war on drugs: "My sworn oath to the Tenth Amendment means I would dismantle the Patriot Act and restore law enforcement to the states and local governments, where it rightly belongs. Yes, this includes the so-called ‘war on drugs’ and the so-called ‘war on terror’." Whether this means that Baldwin would support a state war on drugs is hard to say, but he clearly rejects a role for the federal government. This, however, contradicts what he said in his interview..

Because it fosters violence, unnecessarily overpopulates prisons, costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, has been used as an excuse to attack civil liberties and privacy, and is not the constitutional purpose of government, Ron Paul has always opposed any kind of a war on drugs, viewing drug addiction (like alcohol addiction) as a social problem, not a crime..

According to the government’s own figures, 775,000 Americans were arrested last year for the victimless crime of simple pot possession. But it is simply not the business of government – at any level – to monitor what people smoke, drink, snort, or inject into their own body. A government powerful enough to ban what it considers to be illicit substances is a government powerful enough to ban religious reading material it deems to be subversive. A government powerful enough to control what someone puts into his body is a government powerful enough to control what someone is allowed to hear from a church pulpit..

Free Trade

In his recent article thanking Ron Paul, Baldwin states: "Another area of agreement with Ron Paul is my philosophy of economics." Although I am sure that is true in many respects (e.g., both Paul and Baldwin want to drastically reduce taxes and government spending), Baldwin does not measure up to Congressman Paul when it comes to the issue of free trade. True, like Paul, Baldwin opposes pseudo-free-trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, and the WTO, but the main reason Paul opposes them is because they are government-managed trade agreements instead of genuine free-trade agreements. Baldwin was asked during his interview with The New American: "Are you a free trader or a fair trader, and how do you distinguish between the two?" In his reply he really didn’t answer the question. He condemned "free-trade deals" as a "curse" to America and "tools of globalists to sacrifice American independence and sovereignty." He further remarked that these agreements "have destroyed our manufacturing base in America.. "

When he was then asked whether we should have protective tariffs, Baldwin replied: "No, I’m not for protective tariffs." Yet, in his article "If I Were President," he stated: "We must discontinue the practice of allowing China to export its cheap products to the U.S. with no protection for America’s jobs and manufacturing, not to mention the lack of protection for our safety. This must stop, and it will stop when I become President. ‘Free trade’ will no longer mean a free ride for Red China." Aside from import quotas, I don’t know how one can oppose protective tariffs and at the same time protect America’s jobs and manufacturing..

But does Baldwin really oppose protective tariffs?

In his interview Baldwin proposed eliminating the 16th Amendment, the IRS, and the income tax. Then he said he would seek "to eliminate excessive federal spending" by eliminating federal departments and agencies so as to bring federal spending "down to levels that are constitutionally valid." To fund the government, Baldwin would institute "an across-the-board, general 10-percent tariff on all imports and that would meet the Constitution’s prescription for financing the federal government – duties, imposts, tariffs." Fine, a low-revenue tariff; this would be better than an income tax.. But on his campaign website, Baldwin advocates tariffs to protect jobs:

In order to keep jobs in this country, we need to have a trade policy that works in the best interest of the American people. To this end, I favor a tariff based revenue system, originally implemented by our founding fathers, & which was the policy of the United States during most of our nation’s history. A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs and, at the same time, raise revenue for our national government..

It is not the purpose of the federal government to protect any American’s job or prop up any American industry. But on the flip side, the government should not be doing anything to harm any American’s job either. If the government really wanted to protect American’s jobs and manufacturing then it would eliminate business taxes, regulations, environmental mandates, labor legislation, export restrictions, and the special privileges granted to labor unions. To his credit, Baldwin is on record as maintaining that "there are far too many government restrictions, mandates, and regulations placed upon business by the federal government.."

The unrestricted freedom to trade with anyone in any country without government interference is not only required if one holds to a consistent philosophy of liberty, it is always better for the country as a whole than protectionist measures, which, like the pseudo-free-trade agreements Baldwin opposes, amount to government-managed trade. Protectionist conservatives who oppose the government managing other areas of the economy are inconsistent when they advocate government-managed trade practices..

On the economics of the Founding Fathers, see Thomas DiLorenzo’s new book on Alexander Hamilton: Hamilton’s Curse. On real free trade, see my "The Moral Case for Free Trade.."


Like Ron Paul, and unlike John McCain, Chuck Baldwin is unabashedly pro-life.. But in his article, "If I Were President," Baldwin makes some statements about abortion being eliminated that cannot be substantiated:

If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion..

Republicans tout themselves as being "pro-life." Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office..

The Sanctity of Life Act (H.R. 1094) would not end legalized abortion, in essence or otherwise. It would return control over abortion to the states. As Dr. Paul has explained numerous times, we have a federal system of government; the central government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the abortion issue. Because the U.S. president is not a dictator or an absolute monarch, there is nothing any president could do to end legal abortion in a matter of days or decades other than to sign into law unconstitutional legislation passed by Congress outlawing abortion..

The Military

Baldwin opposes the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. He believes that U.S. forces should be deployed only after a declaration of war by Congress and only for defensive purposes. This is all good, of course; and parallels the views of Ron Paul. Yet, there exists two minor concerns about Baldwin’s view of the military..

In his interview with The New American, Baldwin was asked: "Should we pull out of all the countries where we have troops stationed?" His reply: "For the most part, yes, though I would hesitate to say absolutely every place. I would need to analyze all those places." But why the hesitation? Stationing troops overseas is incompatible with something Baldwin strongly believes – a noninterventionist foreign policy..

The other concern is Baldwin’s appeal to "all military voters and voters who want a strong national defense." On his campaign website, Baldwin says that his administration "will continue to have a national defense and military that is second to none." But what American doesn’t want a strong national defense that is second to none? What current or former presidential candidate doesn’t want a strong national defense that is second to none? Baldwin insists that "in order to continue providing for the national defense of this nation we will continue to maintain a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space." The only problem with this is that although the official military budget is already in the hundreds of billions of dollars, actual defense spending, according to economist Robert Higgs, is now over $1 trillion – one third of the federal budget. Much of this spending on the warfare state does not need to continue. There must be a clean break with the past when it comes to defense spending..

Foreign Policy

Chuck Baldwin’s views on foreign policy parallel those of Ron Paul: no foreign aid, no military adventures around the globe, no policing the world, no NATO membership, no UN membership, no U.S. troops serving under foreign flags or commands. But like many conservatives, Baldwin has a China problem, as I have previously pointed out here. There I referred to recent articles on China by Lew Rockwell, Tim Swanson, and Ron Paul. It bears repeating what Ron Paul recently wrote: "Instead of lecturing China, where I have no doubt there are problems as there are everywhere, I would suggest that we turn our attention to the very real threats in a United States where our civil liberties and human rights are being eroded on a steady basis." Our enemy is not China; our enemy is the U.S. government..


I can say without exaggeration that Baldwin is miles ahead of Obama, McCain, McKinney, and Nader when it comes to practically any issue, and especially when it comes to foreign policy. He is close to Barr on most issues, but trumps him when it comes to integrity. Does he have the slightest chance of winning? Unfortunately not, but if someone wanted to vote for the lesser of two goods instead of wasting his vote on the lesser of two evils, then Baldwin would certainly fit into that category.../>
October 13, 2008

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book is a new and greatly expanded edition of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. Visit his website..

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.. com

Laurence M.. Vance Archives


Letter To Barack Obama From Ralph Nader
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: rEVOLution
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:18 PM

By Ralph Nader
Nov 3, 2008

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words “hope and change,” “change and hope” have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not “hope and change” but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo..

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S.. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity– not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans..

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an “undivided Jerusalem,” and opposed negotiations with Hamas– the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored “direct negotiations with Hamas.” Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote “Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state..”

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League’s 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe..

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: “There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President..”

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, “of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians.. …Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli’s use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www. atfl. org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli’s assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its ‘legitimate right to defend itself..’”

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government’s assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on “the heart of a crowded refugee camp… with horrible bloodshed” in early 2008..

Israeli writer and peace advocate– Uri Avnery– described Obama’s appearance before AIPAC as one that “broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama “is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future– if and when he is elected president.,” he said, adding, “Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people..”

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents..

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled “Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama” (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled “Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque.” None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans– even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya..

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year..

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to “tumultuous applause,” following a showing of a film about the Carter Center’s post-Katrina work.. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life.. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www. votenader. org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the “middle class” but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the “poor” in America..

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke “change” yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the “corporate supremacists.” It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics– opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)– and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy..

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. “Hope” some say springs eternal.” But not when “reality” consumes it daily..

Ralph Nader

Long Live the rEVOLution


The logical reason to vote Nader, please read
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Marissa Kristina
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:15 PM





Tips and Resources To Ensure Your Vote Counts
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: RonPaulBillboards Says Abolish The Fed!
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:41 PM

Election 2008: Tips To Make Sure Your Vote Counts

http://justgetthere. us/blog/archives/Election-2008-Tips-To-Make-Sure-Your-Vote-Counts. html

These are helpful tips regarding the documentation of your vote on election day. Use your camera phone or a small camera to capture your vote inside the poll booth. You may witness some fraud or glitches with the e-voting machines so it's imperative to document it as it occurs..


Oklahoma Voters PLEASE READ & PASS THIS ON!!!
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ~PROPHET~please dont vote McBama!!
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:27 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: OK..9/11FACTS
Date: Nov 3, 2008 2:42 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: RP 08 - Robert aka ALITL8
Date: Nov 3, 2008 1:21 PM

VOTE FOR NONE OF THE ABOVE (NOTA) FOR PRESIDENT by not marking either candidate on the Oklahoma ballot, but do vote for the remaining races.. Restricted to just two choices in 2004, almost 10,000 Oklahoma voters chose NOTA four years ago..

Oklahoma's ballot access laws are TEN TIMES more restrictive than many surrounding states.. Read about the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma's attempts to overcome the nation's most restrictive ballot laws, which protect the two parties from real competition in ideas.. Visit Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform at www. OkVoterChoice. org..


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: K. Lott
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:26 PM

Over 80,000 Have Complained About Voting Problems

November 2, 2008 04:54 PM

Today, Barbara Anwine of the Election Protection Coalition (1-866-OUR-VOTE), a nonpartisan group, told MSNBC about voter suppression tactics they have witnessed around the country..

The group says it has received over 80,000 voter calls at the Election Protection Command Center..

Some emerging trends:

- Broward County leads Florida in voter requests for assistance..

- Registration-related problems rank #1 in nearly every battleground state - hundreds of calls focus on that problem, most often in Texas, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, and California

- Georgia voters are reporting more incidents of voter intimidation than any other state. Other reports of voter intimidation, scams or misinformation are also emerging in Ohio and Missouri..

- Florida voters rank #1 in requests related to criminal status and voting..

- Early voting problems are also being noticed, particularly Ohio, Missouri, Georgia, Florida and California


http://www. huffingtonpost. com/2008/11/02/over-80000-have-complaine_n_140213. html


Labels: , ,



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: , ,


Pope to anoint John McCain as President, NEWS @ 11

RE: John McCain will be elected President this year!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: Nov 3, 2008 7:50 PM

John McCain will be elected President this year!
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: fightingtyranny. ning. com
Date: Nov 3, 2008 4:36 PM

Find more photos like this on Fighting Tyranny Social Network 3. 1

If you take a look these are all pictures of the Presidential candidates at the Alfred E. Smith Dinner, which usually occurs around Oct. 19th every year. If you notice with these pics Kennedy & Nixon were together in 1960, Kennedy elected President. If you notice Bush I is to the right of the Archbishop, and so is Bush II, and so is John McCain. The Archbishop of New York is the man who runs all the organizations here in the United States. It is he who reports all things in America to the Papacy and the Jesuits.

Check some of the videos by clicking below on the link or copy and paste into a new browser and remove the spaces after the period: http://fightingtyranny. ning. com/video/video/listTagged?tag=alfred+e.+smith+dinner

Now let's take a look at something else: John McCain: The Phoenix Rising:

Find more photos like this on Fighting Tyranny Social Network 3. 1

In the slideshow above we see the symbols of the Phoenix, one of the many symbols that the Illuminati uses to describe themselves.

If you wish to learn more about this bird:
http://fightingtyranny. ning. com/profiles/blogs/the-infamous-article-on
http://fightingtyranny. ning. com/profiles/blog/list?tag=john+mccain

If you wish to learn more about the Jesuits and the Papacy read below:

Have you ever heard about the Jesuits:

They are the ones who work directly under the Pope in fulfilling Satan's goal of complete conquest of this world.

Their specialty is to infiltrate every single group that there is, including the government, the educational institutions, the churches, and every single freedom fighting movement there is.

Their goal is to destroy all opposition to Papal Supremacy, and to make all unite under a one world religion, a one world currency, & a one world government under Satan's puppet the Pope.

Did you know that their institution is a military one, with a general? Did you know that they call their general, "The Black Pope"!

They are the very definition of DECEPTION & TYRANNY! Intelligence is the first means of fighting a war and they are the masters of "Order out of Chaos".

They run the CIA, the CFR (which both Barack Obama & John McCain belong to), and the FBI (which controls Al-Qaeda, the Drug trade), All World Governments, All Heads of State, Business, Media, Education, and Churches, except God's True Church! All institutionalized churches are infiltrated by them. They also created many of the modern Bibles, Islam, and all of the "We Are One" Religious Belief Institutions.

They are the ones the Illuminati (Freemasons, Knights of Malta, Zionists, Bilderbergs, CFR, Trilateral Commission) take their orders from.

God says we are to be a peculiar people, they say let's unite and be ONE!

The most dangerous group of all in the New World Order.

Their very purpose is to divert everyone from following Christ, whether it is by COINTELPRO (disinformation / divide & conquer), by setting up police state atmospheres, and by poisoning us with their drugs (legal and illegal).

Their goal is to win many souls for Satan and force those who truly follow all of God's ten commandments (including the 4th one of keeping the Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset as in Genesis 1:5)) to be persecuted under the National Sunday Law.

This video by Walter Veith explains all of their dealings.

For more videos on this, click (or copy and paste) the link below.

Remember to remove the spaces in between.

http://fightingtyranny. ning. com/video/video/listTagged?tag=jesuits

Also read these books for more on the Vatican: Guillen - The Antichrist in the Vatican (2003)

.. Get your own at Scribd or explore others: Religion Christianity god islam ..

..The Great Controversy 1884 - Upload a Document to Scribd.. .. Read this document on Scribd: The Great Controversy 1884 .. For more check out:

http://fightingtyranny. ning. com/Books/page/list?q=Vatican

For more information on the agencies that partake on lying to our American citizens in particular and the world in general check out the following sites:

1: http://fightingtyranny. ning. com
2: http://www. infowars. com
3: http://ww. prisonplanet. com
4: http://www. roguegovernment. com
5: http://libertyradiolive. com
6: http://vaticanassains. com
7: http://reg6. com
8: http://wbns. us
9: http://kftministry. org
10: http://thewatchmenprophecynetwork. ning. com
11: http://theworldoftruthhealthnetwork. ning. com
12: http://www. theirsecrets. info

From these sites you will see links to all the other freedom fighting sites, all the other sites that deal with both end-time prophecy and New World Order issues.

It is important for all of us to realize that martial law is on the way. Soon after the National Sunday Law will be here. All of us who do not obey Rome's law will be brought to the FEMA Camps. The last train to heaven is on the way it is time to get ourselves right with God. None of us are perfect, but it is time now to strive for perfection of our character.
Join us at fightingtyranny. ning. com where you can see all the newsfeeds from the alternative media and mainstream media, see all the films that the media frowns upon, all the films you need to see in order to prepare yourselves properly for the end times.

Here are some videos you can check out, just click on one of the titles:

..Get this widget!.. Here are some of the shows you can listen to, just click on any of the show titles:

Click on any one of them and it will bring you over to our network on Ning and to the specific stream on Ning.

..Get this widget!..
Here are some of the books you should read, just click on any of the titles once again:

http://fightingtyranny. ning. com/chatrooms/page/show?id=2103698%3APage%3A30028 ..Get this widget!..
And documents you should read:

..Get this widget!..
Join us at: fightingtyranny. ning. com: made by a truther, made for truthers, made for those who wish to learn about what is really going on these days.

Visit Fighting Tyranny Social Network 3. 0

Labels: ,

eXTReMe Tracker