Obama & Hillary About to Violate The Constitution.... AGAIN!

President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state on Monday.

Hillary's nomination will be made in the face of the Constitutional prohibition in the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2):

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

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

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

That's quite clear. A Senator, such as Hillary, is prohibited from serving in any federal office "created" or the "emoluments whereof" were increased during the Senator's term.

The salary of the Secretary of State was increased in January 2008 by an executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute. Because the increase occurred during the time Hillary was a Senator she can not be the Secretary of state.

This issue has been discussed quite a bit in the blogoshpere during the last couple of weeks. One of my favorite Constitutional scholars, Professor Eugene Volokh -- the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, has written about Hillary and the Emoluments Clause. Professor Volokh concludes "it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State." I agree.

Unless one views the Constitution's rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient; or as not really stating rules at all (but "standards" or "principles" to be viewed at more-convenient levels of generality); or as not applicable where a lawsuit might not be brought; or as not applicable to Democratic administrations, then the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text forbids the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

America's Forgotten Freedoms

A survey by the First Amendment Center in the US has reached the shocking conclusion that most American citizens don’t know the five basic freedoms enshrined in the constitution.
The study found that no more than 3% of Americans remember “petition” among the First Amendment’s five basic freedoms.

However, freedom of speech was remembered by the majority of respondents - 56%.

The others freedoms enshrined in the constitution appeared to have made little impression: freedom of religion was named by 15%; the same percentage remembered press freedom as a constitutional right while just 14% knew they had a right to assembly.

The number of respondents who remembered freedom of speech was the lowest in the history of the survey, conducted each year for the past eleven years.

What makes this year’s results more shocking is that 4 out of 10 people questioned could not name any freedom at all.

Whatever freedoms the constitution of the country may guarantee, it does not matter much since these rights are neither remembered nor needed as such.

The findings indicate that modern Americans do not think along the same lines as the Founders of the U.S.

Nowadays, it would seem, many Americans do not consider their basic rights and freedoms inalienable and are ready to delegate them to state or federal officials.

More than two centuries ago it did not take long for the Founders of the United States of America to realize the necessity of preserving individual freedoms in a system of individual states with a strong federal governmental centre.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In 1791, just four years after the declaration in 1787 of the American Constitution, the states adopted the First Amendment together with the Bill of Rights to guarantee that the strong federal government would not trample on basic individual rights and freedoms.

Moreover, there are rights totally forgotten by the American society, meaning most Americans are not familiar with the freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution.

Freedom of speech and religion are among the first but liberties introduced to the American Constitution by the Bill of Rights. Traditionally, most of the questioned Americans recalled them. But regarding freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and to petition - these seem to be lost in oblivion.

The annual State of the First Amendment survey, held by the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org), questions adult Americans on their attitude towards the rights spelled out in the First Amendment. This year it found the following:

• 39% would extend to subscription cable and satellite television the government’s current authority to regulate content on over-the-air broadcast television.

• 54% would continue IRS regulations that bar religious leaders from openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit without endangering the tax-exempt status of their organizations.

• 66% say the government should be able to require television broadcasters to offer an equal allotment of time to conservative and liberal broadcasters; 62% would apply that same requirement to newspapers, which never have had content regulated by the government.

• 38% would permit government to require broadcasters to report a specified amount of “positive news” in return for licenses to operate.

• 31% would not permit musicians to sing songs with lyrics that others might find offensive.

• 68% favor government restrictions on campaign contributions by private companies, and 55% favor such limits on amounts individuals can contribute to someone else’s campaign.

Thus, a large number of Americans concede that in specific cases the federal government can be involved or even control individual freedoms.

The most shocking conclusion of the survey was that most of Americans could not name the five basic freedoms enshrined in the constitution.

FACIAL RECOGNITION FACISTS TAKE OVER HOOSIER STATE

That picture on your Indiana driver's license will NOW be part of a pilot  HOMELAND SECURITY program which will test face-recognition technology at three undisclosed branches during mid-November in Indianapolis, said Dennis Rosebrough, BMV communications director.

They say this program was designed to prevent residents from obtaining more than one driver's license or identification card or from stealing someone else's identity in order to sell it to the public. The technology should be at all 140 state branches by the end of the month. However, the applications of this program are much more broad and sweeping. How would you feel if the DMV was taking your finger print and running a background check on you every time you got a new drivers license.  This is THE EXACT SAME THING. Only worse. Why? Because they can't track your finger prints with cameras but they can track your face. 

"It's a nationwide issue," Rosebrough said Thursday. Why because it is a first step towards a national ID card and because then the government can track your movements when ever your face is recorded on a government monitored security camera.

When Indiana residents renew their driver's licenses or state identification cards, BMV workers first visually compare the new photo to the most recent one in the system. "If it's clearly not the same person, the process stops there," Rosebrough said.

If the pictures are the same, a person receives a new license, he said. A $2.4 million software program will provide a second look.

"At night, the system will do a scan of all of the 6 million-plus photos in the database and match them against all photos to see if your photo is on a credential with a different name," Rosebrough said.

The program from Connecticut-based L-1 Identity Solutions will look for matching points on the face, such as the distance between pupils, and compare those to other images with the same data points, Rosebrough said. The next morning, the BMV will receive a report of any names and faces that are suspect.

"To the public, it will be pretty invisible," Rosebrough said. It is a form of spying.

About 20 states use the technology, Rosebrough said. The Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies use their own databases but would have access to this one if needed.

"Facial-recognition software will mean you can be tracked anywhere there are government cameras."

It also has been reported by some who were renewing at the BMV that when they scan your face for your new license you CANNOT have...

1. Glasses on

2. Facial Hair

3. or open your mouth.

WELCOME TO THE MACHINE.

Star Wars Prophetic of Today

Who Controls The Port Of LA?

With all eyes on the Big O’s Office of the President-elect, very few know that the Port of Los Angeles--the nation’s largest--is now effectively under the control of the Peoples Republic of China.

The Port has purchased with $1.7 million American tax dollars via a “port security grant” awarded by the U.S. Department of Homeland security, a mobile X-ray scanning system, mounted on a Mack Truck chassis. The scanning system is owned by Nuctech Company Limited, owned outright by Hu Haifeng, the son of Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Who Is The Only One Who Was Right About The Economy?

Ron Paul's Economic Advisor Vs. McCain and Obama's advisors in 2006 & 2007. Who was right?

Peter D. Schiff (born 1964) is the president of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a brokerage firm based in Darien, Connecticut. Schiff adheres to the principles of the Austrian School of Economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. 

Schiff frequently appears as a guest on CNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg Television and is quoted in major financial publications.

He was an economic adviser for the Ron Paul campaign in the 2008. Schiff also hosts a live Internet/shortwave radio show called "Wall Street Unspun."

Schiff made the following statement concerning Paul's economic revitalization plan.

"We need a plan that stimulates savings and production not more of the reckless borrowing and consumption that got us into this mess in the first place. Ron Paul's plan is the only one that amounts to a step in the right direction. If you want meaningful change - for the better that is - Ron Paul is the only candidate capable of delivering it."

Media Malpractice!

US. Sen Inhofe: Paulson May Have Given Bailout $ to friends.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that Congress was not told the truth about the bailout of the nation's financial system and should take back what is left of the $700 billion "blank check'' it gave the Bush administration.

"It is just outrageous that the American people don't know that Congress doesn't know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone,'' the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World.

"It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.''

Inhofe's comments, unusually pointed even for a senator known for being blunt, come on the heels of Paulson's shift in how he thinks the bailout funds should be spent.

Last week the Treasury secretary announced he was abandoning his plan to free up the nation's credit system by buying up toxic assets from troubled financial institutions. Instead, Paulson wants to take a more direct action on the consumer credit front.

"He was able to get this authority from Congress predicated on what he was going to do, and then he didn't do it,'' Inhofe said.

"So, that's enough reason right there.''

Inhofe recalled earlier comments opposing Paulson's plan because the administration's point man did not have answers for a number of questions. He also recalled questioning the rush to get the bailout passed.

"I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth,'' he said.

"And this is one of those nine times.''

Inhofe has laid out his legislative plans for this week on the bailout package in a letter to his Senate colleagues.

He wants to freeze what is left of the initial $350 billion — reportedly $60 billion, but Inhofe concedes he does not know for sure.

Then he wants a provision requiring an affirmative vote by Congress before Paulson can get his hands on the second $350 billion of bailout money.

Current law lays out a scenario where President Bush submits a plan on the second half of the funding.

Lawmakers have 15 days to disapprove it, but Inhofe questions that wording.

"Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary,'' he wrote.

"However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.''

In the interview, the senator said his plans can provide "redemption'' for those senators who supported Paulson.

Inhofe's plan appears to be a long shot at this point. Senators originally approved the bailout plan by a 74-25 vote.

He does not know how much support he has among his Republican colleagues, and he concedes Democratic leaders could block it.

Bush also could veto it if it were to make it out of Congress.

Neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office nor the Treasury Department commented.

Reid, D-Nev., wants to use the upcoming lame duck session to push economic issues such as extending unemployment benefits and aid to the nation's ailing auto industry.

Inhofe opposes both.

"You don't stimulate the economy by giving away more money,'' he said.

In response to concerns expressed by some that allowing even one of the big automakers to fail would be too much of an economic hit for the nation, Inhofe said reality must be accepted.

"If we keep on nursing a broken system, then we can't expect to have a different result come later on,'' he said.

"I just think we have to draw the line someplace, and the time is here.''

Liar liar pants on Fire: Obama's Change.

WASHINGTON POST: Ex-Lobbyists Have Key Obama Roles. "Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to change Washington, vowing to upend the K Street lobbying culture he encountered when he joined the U.S. Senate. 

But more than a dozen members of President-elect Obama's fast-growing transition team have worked as federally registered lobbyists within the past four years. They include former lobbyists for the nation's trial lawyers association, mortgage giant Fannie Mae, drug companies such as Amgen, high-tech firms such as Microsoft, labor unions and the liberal advocacy group Center for American Progress."

This artful phraseology was a lie:

In a 2007 speech, he said he was "running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

OBAMA CAUSING GROWING FEAR WITH MANY!

In all my life I have never seen such intense emotion surrounding a leader as that evoked by Barack Obama. Even Ronald Reagan, the Gipper himself, didn't enjoy the kind of prostration of the will offered to the president-elect by hordes of followers. Yet, while people the world over are imbued with "hope" and chant Obama's slogan "Yes, we can!" -- for instance, the French are using their translation of it, "Oui, nous pouvons!" -- some of the intense emotion is of a very different species.  It is fear.

In all my life I have never seen an American politician who could make so many Americans' blood run cold. Some may mention the left's feelings regarding Reagan or President Bush, but there is no equivalency. For all of leftists' bluster and melodrama, they weren't afraid of those men as much as they, well, just hated them. Sure, leftist ideologues said those two Republicans were scary, but the same people also said that each one was both dumb and Machiavellian. Hatred is an emotion, and emotion isn't logical; it just conjures up whatever feels right at the moment.

In Obama's case, however, I sense a real, palpable, go-white-in-the-face fear akin to what might be evident in someone who has a gun put to his head or believes he has seen a demon. I know for instance, a stout-hearted man of rough-hewn breeding and my political persuasion who has said about the impending changing of the guard, "I'm afraid."

But this is what is truly, well, scary. I have seen this fear not just in rightist politics wonks but also in people who are not in the habit of troubling much over politics at all. For example, I was surprised recently when a woman I know - someone who could easily abide by the injunction, "Never discuss religion or politics" - said in a most sober fashion that she was thinking of leaving the country. Then there is an elderly Jewish gentleman of my acquaintance who lived through WWII; this man could be described as almost apolitical, was probably more apt to vote Democrat than Republican and isn't given to issuing political opinion, let alone hyperbole. Yet when someone else broached the subject of Obama's legions of fawning admirers, he broke his pattern and interjected, "This is like what happened with Hitler. . . ."

Then consider this statement printed a couple of months ago:

"Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of ‘social change.'"

Is this the rambling of some right-wing site occupying the dark recesses of the Web or a radical on a soapbox? I mean, after all, it's not the kind of thing you read in the New York Times. Actually, it's excerpted from a September 4 piece in Investor's Business Daily (IBD), a mainstream paper of great repute.

Are all these people delusional? Are they simply stuck in time and afraid of change?

Maybe it's that they have some idea what that change will be.

Fear can certainly be and often is irrational. Yet, generally speaking, the most real fear comes from real threats. A ghost story may scare a child, but not nearly as much as if he actually sees a ghost. Imagining what it's like to have a gun to your head may be scary, but not as much so as if you feel cold, blued steel pressed against your temple. And I sense real fear.

What is there to be afraid of? A good place to start is with the content of the IBD story cited earlier.

Most of us have heard Obama state that "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military. This alone is enough to send shivers up an informed spine, but it gets even worse when you hear the specifics. Obama intends to use a radical activist group he helped found called "Public Allies" as the model for, as IBD puts it, ". . . his Orwellian program, ‘Universal Voluntary Public Service.'"

IBD reports on the inducements used to entice young people into this national service corps and its true aim:

. . . they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about ‘social change' through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation -- the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.

As bad as this sounds, I believe the reality will be far worse. I'll explain where I think this will lead, but first we must understand a collective psychological phenomenon that is now apparent.

When Abraham in the Bible was prepared to obey God's command and sacrifice his son Isaac on Mount Moriah, it was, and this may shock some, understandable. God is perfect and the author of morality, and while we may not always understand His ways, the Divine Mind always knows what is best. So the story is a lesson of faith and trust in God. God cannot be wrong. You don't question God.

Whether you have faith or not, it's easy enough to grasp that such deference is understandable when talking about a perfect, divine being. But it's downright dangerous when applied to a human being. Any human being.

Unfortunately, while the deify monikers applied to Obama such as "The One" or "The Messiah" have become grist for comedians, humorists and just plain old wise-guys, they're no laughing matter. They reflect a real spirit that has imbued millions, and this is why far scarier than Obama are his followers. They have deified the man, and you don't question your god. I truly believe that just as many Germans followed Hitler over the precipice during WWII, there are many Americans today who would follow Obama unquestioningly, unthinkingly, unknowingly -- into the fires of Hell.

If this sounds as laughable as deific labels, know that it isn't radical to claim that a continually-recycling historical pattern will manifest itself again and can do so here; radical is to imply that within American borders the laws of man's nature are somehow suspended. In nature (not culture), Americans are no different from the people who followed Hitler, Mussolini, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pol Pot or Lenin. The tendency to deify leaders is universal.

With this understanding, I'll now give you my prediction as to how Obama's Universal Voluntary Public Service program will evolve.

With his oratorical skills and a complicit media, the president-elect will be able to sell this scheme with talk about security, equality and liberating the downtrodden. "It's the best way to combat crime, hopelessness and a lack of opportunity in the inner city," he will say. "And I know this well from my days as a community organizer on Chicago's mean streets." He will tout how it provides health care, education and skills to the have-nots, and his media-oiled silver tongue's salesmanship will prevail. It will be sold with a low-end price tag, and the Democrat-controlled Houses of Congress will echo the message and deliver the votes. Of course, just like Social Security and a trove of other government programs, its cost will make a mockery of predictions. But Uncle Sam's budget projections aren't designed for budgets, but for marketing.

As always happens with such groups, program members will eventually be identified with some colloquial and catchy label. I can't tell you what it will be, only that it won't be Brownshirts or Blackshirts. And the official name of the program itself may even be changed a few years hence.

As with the Public Allies program, members will have to attend seminars and "retreats" where they will be indoctrinated with leftist ideology. Aside from learning how America is a "racist and "sexist" country, they will be taught that she is also ridden with "heterosexism," which, IBD writes, ". . . a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of ‘capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege.'" They will be taught that these evils can never be vanquished until every last vestige of traditional America is utterly destroyed.

The pressure to conform will be immense, as it always is in politically-correct entities. The corps will have a huge core of true believers, who will act as ideological hammers. They will preach diversity but practice conformity.

Just like Public Allies, this program may be birthed primarily in the inner cities. That is where Obama's main support is, and, as stated before, he will claim this is where the corps' help is needed most. It will then be empowered to do "social good," which could mean anything from helping at soup kitchens to recruiting those ripe for indoctrination to forming some kind of neighborhood crime watch. As for the last task, though, given the corps' ideology and the fact that it will be drawing members from high-crime areas initially, I expect it to contain a not insignificant criminal element. It will be corrupt from the get-go and may even assume the character of an organized crime syndicate.

But its "security" mandate will be chilling. In the name of combating garden-variety crime and, more specifically, terrorism, who knows what powers the corps will be granted? Will they one day help enforce an order to seize firearms, if not via direct action than through information gathering? I can't know exactly, but I do know the powers will be misused.

Over time, the program may be expanded to include a corps for even younger adolescents, perhaps starting at age 13 or 14. As before, I can't tell you exactly what it will be called, but it won't be "The Obama Youth" -- not officially, anyway. And, certainly by this time, joining it will be the thing the "cool" kids do, sort of like the Boy Scouts' evil twin.

Then, the result may be that we will have, to use John Edwards' terminology, "two Americas": Those who belong to the corps and those who don't. But I think I know which of the two will be more formidable. Remember when the student thugs at Columbia University stormed a stage to stop Minutemen representatives from speaking? Similar things have happened at colleges throughout the country, and they may give us a glimpse into the character of the corps. Just picture the same fascist-minded bullies, only more organized, more numerous, even more ideological and far, far bolder. And many authorities in the nation may tolerate their intimidation with a wink and a nod.

We should also take note of the program's name, Universal Voluntary Public Service. One of the definitions of "universal" is, "affecting, concerning, or involving all [emphasis mine]." And I suspect the word most likely to be dropped from the name eventually is not "universal" but "voluntary."

Of course, they don't call me the Amazing Kreskin. I'm no soothsayer and I could be wrong about many of the details I provided. But the fear is real and the historical allusions are valid.

Speaking of which, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun recently addressed the program and exhibited both fear and a grasp of history, saying:

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Of course, many will nevertheless say that such concerns are but the musings of the tin-foil hat crowd. But such scoffing is par for the course. As Professor Manfred Weidhorn of Yeshiva University wrote:

". . . even if you are prescient enough to observe oncoming evils, you are prevented from acting precisely because other people, being normal, lack your prescience. They therefore see you, rather than the evil person, as the deluded or warmongering malevolent soul. When Churchill warned about Hitler in the 1930s, many people became more upset with Churchill than with Hitler. The anomaly is that the prophet has therefore to wait for the evil to manifest itself and thereby to make everyone else see things the prophet's way. But by then the chance to do anything may be gone."

So there is an answer for those who would say "You've thoroughly Godwinned yourself." If you bristle at the comparison and don't want to wear the shoe, then the on us is on you to be vigilant, to make sure it never, ever fits.

Copied from: 

http://quillmemorandum.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-fear-and-security-force.html

Rep. Neugebauer: American People May “Rise Up and Stop Us”...

Have You Ever Read The Declaration of Independence?

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Federal Reserve Is Purposely Causing Failure To Gain More Power...

How botched bailouts doomed companies that didn't need to fail

The road to hell is paved with bad interventions. This year’s emergency sallies into the banking system by the Fed, the Treasury, the FDIC, and the SEC have backfired. They were "intended" to ameliorate a credit crisis and to keep it from spreading. Instead they’ve inflamed the crisis into an outright panic that now has spread around the world and triggered a recession.

Conservatives may rightly object to all this government meddling in private markets on general principle. But the more salient objection is that government has botched it. The attempts to deal with failures at Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Washington Mutual, and Wachovia were not rescues or bailouts at all—they were wipeouts, seemingly intended more to punish than to rescue. They were government takings of private property for public use—seizures of shareholder wealth in troubled firms in the name of saving the system—without the just compensation promised in the Fifth Amendment and often beyond the legal authority of the government agencies involved.

Each of these seizures was ad hoc, and most were carried out over a weekend in secret. And each was handled differently, with no apparent rhyme or reason as to which agency would be involved, which firms would be saved and which wouldn’t, or whose ox would be gored. Stockholders almost always got zeroed out. Bank depositors and insurance-policy holders were always saved. But for bondholders, commercial creditors, derivatives counterparties, and securities-account holders, it was totally arbitrary—different each time. And as often as not, these exercises had powerful unintended consequences, with the government fixing one trouble spot only to create another elsewhere in the system.

The fact that government agencies that should have been rescuers became destroyers instead—and the utter uncertainty about how and when these agencies would exercise their powers—caused investors’ confidence to collapse. Federal agencies intentionally created an incentive structure that rewarded investor behavior that would exacerbate the crisis and punished behavior that would mitigate it.

Click Here To Read The Rest of this Article

One Religion for the One World Government

Rather than freedom of Religion and the ability to worship according to our own conscience just what we believe, there is a move to turn freedom of religion into compulsory worship with an amalgamation of all religions. They want to force us into one perverted religious hybrid abomination of a watered down faith. How?  With a Charter of Compassion!

A website launched Friday with the backing of technology industry and Hollywood elite urges people worldwide to help craft a framework for harmony between all religions.

The Charter for Compassion project on the Internet at www.charterforcompassion.org springs from a "wish" granted this year to "religious scholar" Karen Armstrong at a premier Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) conference in California.

"Tedizens" include Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin along with other Internet icons as well as celebrities such as Forest Whittaker and Cameron Diaz.

Wishes granted at TED envision ways to better the world and come with a promise that Tedizens will lend their clout and capabilities to making them come true.

Armstrong's wish is to combine universal principles of respect and compassion into a charter based on a "golden rule" she believes is at the core of every major religion.

The Golden Rule essentially calls on people to do unto others as they would have done unto them.

"The chief task of our time is to build a global society where people of all persuasions can live together in peace and harmony," Armstrong said.

"If we do not achieve this, it seems unlikely that we will have a viable world to hand on to the next generation."

Charter for Compassion invites people from "all faiths, nationalities, languages and backgrounds" to help draft statements of principles and actions that should be taken.

What is a "Charter" you might ask....

Websters Dictionary says a Charter is

1: a written instrument or contract (as a deed) executed in due form
2 a: a grant or guarantee of rights, franchises, or privileges from the sovereign power of a state or country b: a written instrument that creates and defines the franchises of a city, educational institution, or corporation c: constitution

Resist Them And Your Privacy Is History.

The election is over, but the Joe the Plumber case is not. Ohio Inspector General Tom Charles said his office is now looking at a half-dozen agencies that accessed state records on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.

The Beacon Journal has learned that, in addition to the Department of Job and Family Services, two other state offices — the Ohio Department of Taxation and Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers — conducted database searches of Joe the Plumber.

Wurzelbacher became an instant celebrity after he asked Barack Obama a series of questions in his Toledo driveway about the Democrat's tax policies. In the third debate between Obama and Republican John McCain on Oct. 15, the candidates referred to Joe the Plumber more than 20 times.

The next day, the taxation department conducted two separate searches of a database of liens for unpaid taxes that were certified to the Ohio Attorney General's Office for collection. John Kohlstrand, a taxation department spokesman, said he is prohibited from talking about individual taxpayers, but he confirmed that the databases were checked.

The searches were done to determine whether a lien placed against the individual was appropriate and whether it remained unpaid or not, Kohlstrand said. The department's first search of the day was unsuccessful because of incorrect information about the individual, Kohlstrand said. Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers' office then contacted taxation because it was having difficulty accessing the database, Kohlstrand said. After the two agencies talked, taxation completed a successful search.

Kohlstrand said that the AG's office wanted access to the records so they could turn over to the national media lien information that was a public record in Lucas County. He said the national media did not have reporters in Toledo, so the attorney general's office was helping them out with public records.

On the day following the two searches, the taxation department conducted a search of another in-house database that tracks cases and correspondence between taxpayers and the department before the liens being certified and turned over to the attorney general for collection.

The day after the debate, media outlets began reporting that Joe the Plumber's real name was Samuel, he was not a licensed plumber and he owed close to $1,200 in back taxes and additional money to a hospital. His home was besieged by media outlets, including television crews that camped on his lawn.

Wurzelbacher had questioned Obama's plan to raise taxes for anyone with an income exceeding $250,000 because he planned to purchase his own plumbing business.

The inspector general began investigating after news reports surfaced that Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, ordered her agency to conduct background checks on Joe the Plumber. After the election, Gov. Ted Strickland placed Jones-Kelley on paid leave.

Chuck Baldwin Speech at JBS 50th Anniversary

Ron Paul Keynote Address at JBS 50th Anniversary

Dumbing Down of America...

Obamastapo Plans to enslave 18-25 year olds and to Indoctrinate them.

In the audio here, recorded in 2006, Obama’s recently selected chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, details his ideas for compulsory service for all Americans. “There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint similar experience of civil… what we call civil defense training or civil service… some sense of service to country in preparation, which will give people a sense of what it means to be an American,” Emanuel told NY Daily News reporter Ben Smith. 

Notice that the point is indoctrination of the American youth. According to Emanuel, this government mandated servitude “will give people a sense of what it means to be an American,” or an American of the sort defined by socialists in control.

Emanuel told Smith involuntary servitude will become “a common experience,” part of a government mandated “circle of love” that will instill “some sense of service to country.”

As reported last week, the Obama transition team put up a website spelling out a plan for “required” national “service,” but the site was modified and the word “required” removed after a whirlwind of criticism on the web and across the blogosphere. As should be expected, the corporate media ignored the controversy and instead concentrated on its regular diet of pablum, including the “scandal” of Sarah Palin and the RNC paying for her clothes.

“Our children, as well as ourselves, are independent individuals,” J.D. Tuccille wrote for the Albuquerque Examiner on November 7. “We are not resources to be drawn upon by politicians. Nor do we owe our labor to the government.”

Prior to the election, however, various insiders, including Joe Biden, Colin Powell, and Madelaine Albright, promised an undefined event or series of events that will test the new president. Biden went so far as to say this event will make Obama an unpopular president, even with his kool aid drinking followers.
“Mark my words,” said Biden during a fundraiser in Seattle last month. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Obama and the federal government, however, will need more than your influence. It may very well need your compulsory labor in “civil defense training or civil service,” as Emanuel put it in 2006.

Paul Joseph Watson details the comments of Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, who predicts social chaos and possible revolution as the wheels come off the economy. “There will be a revolution in this country,” Celente predicts. “It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen.”

Celente’s prediction is especially prescient and worrisome considering he successfully predicted the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Soviet Union.

Is it possible the ruling elite will need a legion of inducted slaves to “stand with” the banker front man Obama against their fellow citizens as the economy further disintegrates and social chaos unfolds? Is it possible Obama and the government will need a million or more “civil service” shock troops to help in the effort to round up the tax protesters Calente predicts? Is it possible they will be used as frontline bullet stoppers as the government attempts to confiscate weapons as they did in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters?

What Happened to the "Rule" of Law?

This weekend president elect Obama became known as “the ruler”.

Valerie Jarrett, Co-Chair of the Obama transition team, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used the phrase in describing the working model for the transition between the Bush administration and the new Obama regime.

“Given the daunting challenges that we face, it is important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one,” Jarrett told Tom Brokaw.

Clearly Jarrett is not aware that the very foundation of the United States of America consists of a government based on the rule of law (ie. the Constitution). Our leades are to uphold the Constitution not "rule" over us. No one is ruled over and no one does any ruling, unless this is part of the “change” agenda, which already seems to be changing itself. We are headed towards an authoritarian socialist state.... God help us!

Google Is Telling The Government What You Search For

GOOGLE is helping federal officials "track sickness".

"Flu Trends" uses search terms that people put into the web giant to figure out where influenza is heating up, and will notify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in real time!

GOOGLE, continuing to work closely with government, claims it would keep individual user data confidential: "GOOGLE FLU TRENDS can never be used to identify individual users because we rely on anonymized, aggregated counts of how often certain search queries occur each week."

Engineers will capture keywords and phrases related to the flu, including thermometer, flu symptoms, muscle aches, chest congestion and others.

Dr. Lyn Finelli, chief of influenza surveillance at CDC: "One thing we found last year when we validated this model is it tended to predict surveillance data. The data are really, really timely. They were able to tell us on a day-to-day basis the relative direction of flu activity for a given area. They were about a week ahead of us. They could be used... as early warning signal for flu activity."

Eric Schmidt, GOOGLE's chief executive vows: "From a technological perspective, it is just the beginning."

Thomas Malone, professor at M.I.T.: "I think we are just scratching the surface of what's possible with collective intelligence."

Georgia congressman warns of the Obamastapo

WASHINGTON (AP) — A congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press.

"I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Federal Reserve Refuses to tell who they loaned $2 Trillion Dollars

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson lied in September saying they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

Click Here To Learn More.

If you want to understand what is really going on click here.

Obama's Speech For Star Wars Fans....

Obama The Narcissist By Ali Sina

At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident, a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling.

His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such a quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of "Malignant Self Love," also believes, "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."

Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands it and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, nearest and dearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves.. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Joe Stalin, Saddam, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong IL, and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers and followers. They created a personality cult around themselves, and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirer's souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a
new zest for life. Those men gave their followers hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, they invariably brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late.

One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. His mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a stepfather. He was raised as an only child, full of himself and no others.
He never had to share the spotlight with any siblings. At the age often, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around him and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality; his admirers become his co-dependents.

Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to aste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "Present" vote is a safe vote; he used the "Present" all the time as a member of the Illinois legislature. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become controversial when they don't help him personally? Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.

Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and an advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him with a fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book took him a lot longer than expected and at the end it devolved into guess what? His own autobiography instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book "Dreams from My Father."

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly a half billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? His brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

This election is like no other election in the history of America . The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of a conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self-serving and selfish. [Witness Al Gore's Income Tax; it reveals that he gave away NO MONEY to charities, not even to a church!] Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, for example.

To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. [Look up the word 'treachery.']

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party [and to this great nation]. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven.

Let us call a spade a spade [No pun intended]. This is racism, pure and simple. The truth is that, while everyone carries a misconceived collective guilt towards blacks for wrongs done centuries ago by a bygone people to a bygone people, the blacks carry a collective rancor, enmity or vendetta towards non-blacks, and to this day want to "stand up" to the white man. They seem to be stuck in 19th century [encouraged by race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others].

The downside of this is, that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels not seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades.

America is the bastion of freedom.. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Maoist Castroists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of "their man" in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

"Like any politician at this level, I've got a healthy ego" -- Barack Obama

Obama's Plan To Make Your Kids Slaves of the State

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, President-Elect Barack Obama's choice for chief of staff in his incoming administration, is co-author of a book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America, that calls for, among other things, compulsory service for all Americans ages 18 to 25. The following excerpt is from pages 61-62 of the 2006 book:

It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.

As chief of staff, Emanuel will not be in a position to directly introduce public policy, but his enthusiasm for compulsory service, combined with Barack Obama's own plan to require high school students to perform 50 hours of government-approved service, suggest an unfortunate direction for the new administration.

Here come the brown shirts....

Obama's Latest Gaffe: Hilary Not Nancy had seances.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Obama called Nancy Reagan on Friday to apologize for joking that she held seances in the White House.

At a news conference in Chicago, Obama said he had spoken with all the living presidents as he prepares to take office in January. Then he smiled and said, "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances." The 87-year-old former first lady had consulted with astrologers during her husband's presidency. But she did not hold conversations with the dead.

Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the president-elect later called Mrs. Reagan "to apologize for the careless and offhanded remark." She said Obama "expressed his admiration and affection for Mrs. Reagan that so many Americans share, and they had a warm conversation."

It actually wasn't Nancy Reagan who was linked to conversations with the dead; it was Obama's top Democratic challenger for the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer to help set her husband's schedule, wrote former White House chief of staff Donald T. Regan. The revelation created a furor and President Reagan even broke with his policy of not commenting on books by former White House staffers.

"No policy or decision in my mind has ever been influenced by astrology," Reagan said.

In his book "The Choice," Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward described how Clinton consulted with a spiritual adviser who led her through conversations with her personal hero, Eleanor Roosevelt. Newsweek magazine, which was promoting the book, characterized the visits as "seances," a term that White House officials quickly tried to squelch.

Obama Gaffes are nothing new... It's just now they are making the news. Watch these:

Obama's Chicago Mafia: The Hit Man

Rahm Emanuel, who has been chosen by Barack Obama to be the White House chief of staff, is known by colleagues as "Rahmbo" - a nickname reflecting his reputation as one of the most ferociously combative figures in Washington. He was also one of the big pushers of the bailout.

Mr Emanuel, who received training in ballet as a boy, has shown no lightness of step in his political career: would-be enemies are advised to heed the story of a pollster who wronged him and promptly received a large, decomposing fish in the mail.

Use of a fish is notorious as a mafia message indicating that its recipient will "sleep with the fishes" unless he or she heeds the warning.

Reflecting on his own foul-mouthed, attack-dog style, Mr Emanuel has said: "I wake up some mornings hating me too." Commentators have suggested that Mr Obama, who ran a lofty campaign based on national unity and bipartisanship, has recognised the need to employ a tough enforcer to push through his policy program.

The best Rahm Emanuel story is not the one about the decomposing two-and-a-half-foot fish he sent to a pollster who displeased him. It is not about the time - the many times - that he hung up on political contributors in a Chicago mayor's race, saying he was embarrassed to accept their $5,000 checks because they were $25,000 kind of guys. No, the definitive Rahm Emanuel story takes place in Little Rock, Ark., in the heady days after Bill Clinton was first elected President.

It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton's chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe's, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies - Democrats, Republicans, members of the press - who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a Democrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too.

Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remeber it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.

''Dead!'' he screamed.

The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: ''Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!''

Why would Clintons advisor want people "dead"??? Click here to find out.

WHAT KIND OF "CHANGE"???

As an example of the sort of “change” we are likely to see now that Obama has won the presidency, consider the man he is likely to select to run the Department of Banker Giveaways, formerly known as the Treasury Department: Gov. Jon Corzine, the former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs and Bilderberg attendee. Corzine is on the “short list,” along with former Clintonites Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin. Summers is a Bilderberg and Council on Foreign Relations member and Robert Rubin, director and senior counselor of Citigroup, was the fifth chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Bilderberg Society member.

Corzine is on the "short list," along with former Clintonites Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin, all CFR and Bilderberg insiders.

New Jersey governor Corzine is a perfect choice for an Obama administration. He is a “liberal” CFR insider, that is to say he favors even more government intrusion into the lives of largely witless plebs — Corzine wants to expand government, including universal health care, backs universal gun registration, and mandatory public preschool. According to NJ.com, “Corzine has played a key role in Obama’s universe as an economic adviser and booster for the incoming president.”

Corzine, Summers, Rubin — it does not really matter who is appointed. As should be obvious, there will be no change under Obama. His administration will continue the banker plan to meltdown the economy, move toward a one-world currency system, and allow the bankers to continue their unprecedented centralization of power.

Obama, who controls nothing and is merely a front man for our enslavement, will naturally fill his administration with insiders. Others have speculated that instead of Corzine, Obama will pick former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to head up the Treasury. Rockefeller minion Volcker is a CFR member, Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove attendee, and a founding member of the Trilateral Commission.

As Georgetown professor and CFR historian Carroll Quigley noted, the goal of the banking families and their minions consists of “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

James Paul Warburg, son of banker and Federal Reserve author Paul Warburg, told the United States Senate in 1950: “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

As it now appears, this banker effort to fashion world government, under the contrived voodoo spell of Barack H. Obama, will be achieved, at least in the short term, with the consent of the American people.

Obama Funded by foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.

But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory. And the media turns the other way and says nothing. 

And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?

Obama’s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign.

“Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,” veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com.

Obama’s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month.

Almost half of Obama’s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported.

Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors.

The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”

Obama’s fundraising “revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,” Bloomberg observed.

Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama’s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain.

Obama’s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain’s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared.

On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900.

Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort.

But an investigation by Newsmax correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman has uncovered numerous examples of questionable donations, including those originating from foreign sources in apparent violation of laws forbidding candidates from accepting foreign money.

On Sept. 29, Timmerman first disclosed that more than half of the $426.9 million Obama had raised at that point came from small donors whose names the Obama campaign would not disclose — making it impossible to verify that donors were not surpassing the $2,300 an individual can contribute to a candidate for the general election.
The Federal Election Commission cited a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Tex. A Newsmax analysis of the master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, totaling $17,375.

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations. The donor listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” Some of Doodad Pro’s donations were refunded by the campaign, but as of Sept. 20 more than $11,000 had not been returned.

Timmerman disclosed that the FEC compiled a database of potentially questionable overseas donations totaling $33.8 million. The funds came from such places as Abu Dhabi, Beijing, and Ethiopia.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a speech in which he claimed foreign nationals were contributing to Obama’s campaign.

Timmerman also reported that donors from the Gaza Strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through the purchase of Obama T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.

Timmerman published a new report on Oct. 8, disclosing that an investigation of Obama’s campaign finance reports turned up more than 2,000 cases in which individuals made donations far above the legal limit of $2,300 per election.

For example, in August the campaign filed a report listing a single donation from a Debra Myers in “Rancho Palos Verde, Calif.,” for $28,500, and a $28,500 contribution from a donor identified as Woodrow Myers Jr.

The Obama campaign said it had refunded both donations on Sept. 30, the day after Newsmax published Timmerman’s first report.

Timmerman followed up with a new report on Oct. 19, disclosing that more than 37,000 Obama donations appeared to be conversions of foreign currency, totaling as much as $63 million.

The red flag was the odd amounts donated by a number of suspected foreign donors. One contributor gave $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, and $118.15.

“They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.

On Oct. 21, Timmerman revealed that the Obama campaign had accepted contributions from donors identifying themselves as King Kong, Daffy Duck, and Bart Simpson — without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.

An individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” donated to the campaign on Oct. 14, giving his occupation as “convict.” The campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note.

Other donors with clearly fictitious names include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”

Timmerman reported on Oct. 29: “A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.

“Some of these ‘red flag’ donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.”

Frederick W. Rustmann Jr., the former CIA operations officer, told Newsmax: “Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors. Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”

The conservative Heritage Foundation has taken the first step in what could be an in-depth investigation of Obama’s fundraising efforts, demanding that the FEC audit the Obama campaign.

The foundation issued a release on Tuesday declaring: “No doubt there is great ‘cause’ to be concerned about Obama’s fundraising effort.”

The foundation also pointed to a test by the independent National Journal to determine the veracity of allegations that the Democrat’s online fundraising system literally was designed to facilitate fraud.