IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY... WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Of all the things that are bought and sold in this country, there is one that you and I have probably never purchased. Partly because, We won't find it on the shelves at WalMart, Kohls, Target, or any of the other places that working-class Americans usually shop. However, if you book a flight into Dulles Airport or National Airport you'll be in the general vicinity of this rare commodity. It's just a taxicab ride away from either airport. A left turn here, a couple of right turns there, and before you know it you'll be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an old - but very spacious - residence. Yes, the White House is auctioned off once every four years to the highest bidder.

I was in the car the other day, listening to the radio as I drove, when I heard a newscast that proclaimed (and I am paraphrasing, I'm sure - but I'll use quote marks nonetheless), "Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum are lagging far behind Ron Paul in fundraising..." blah, blah, blah. It was then that I was struck by the thought, "What does 'fundraising' have to do with the character (or other qualifications) of candidates to occupy the Oval Office, and why should it have any impact upon the electoral process?" Based upon our last presidential election, and those of the past 150 years, neither character nor "other qualifications" have anything to do with being elected. It's all about the money!

The next question raised in my mind was, "Where does that money come from? Their personal bank accounts? I'm sure a bit does, but where does the bulk of it come from? Could it be from those $10, $20 or $100 donations 'the little people' in the 'fly-over states' make individually?"

Here's the way I see it... the office of POTUS is bought and paid for primarily by corporate, union and PAC money. These entities don't consider it a 'campaign contribution'... their money is basically gambled on the candidate(s), and considered invested when they are elected. Perhaps John and Jane Q. Public, did out-contribute the big money interests $20 at a time, but... the hundreds of thousands of individuals who constitute John and Jane Q. are not easily identifiable! Who is easily identifiable are those corporations, unions, and PACs that invested tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, or millions) of dollars to make - for example - Barack Hussein Obama president of these United States.

Politics is like WalMart, in that you don't get much for $20 these days, or the "Big Three" motor companies - you don't get much of a vehicle for $15,000 any more (thank the UAW for that). But, they have to make up those campaign investments somehow, don't they? Oh sure... the federal election law prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit, and far be it from me to even suggest that there is anything that is not completely honest and aboveboard in the election process. However, there is a limit of $2,500 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

Now, let us just suppose that - hypothetically - this month, January of 2012, every one of the 1,000 employees of XYZ Corporation gets a $3,000 "performance bonus". There is an unwritten caveat (admonishment) attached to that "bonus" though: $2,500 of it must be contributed to the corporation's presidential candidate of choice, and the remaining $500 is the employees to do with as he or she chooses. That gives the corporation $2.5M of investment in the election of their candidate. Unions and PACs can do the same thing, and I'm fairly certain that they have much smarter (and more devious) people than I, finding loopholes and back-doors that allow them to do so without technically violating the FEC laws.

Poor John Q. Public (or his lovely wife, Jane - to be PC) who toils for a living stands no chance of ever being elected to anything of greater importance than perhaps president of his local Rotary Club or Elks Lodge. The Public family lacks the personal money, prestige and financial/political connections to run for a federal, or even state, political office. Personal qualifications be damned! If we weren't born into big money, or personally accumulated big money, our government will always be controlled by those who DO have big money... their own, or that of someone else; some shadowy figure waiting in the wings for that eventual return on his/her investment. Big money has bought and paid for our government! Government of the people, by big money, and for big money...

Am I possibly cynical? Without a doubt! Is that cynicism justified? Inasmuch as it is my personal opinion, it is fully justified - in my own mind anyway, and that's the only place I really have to justify anything.

The preceding is not meant to convince anybody of anything, it is simply offered as a personal viewpoint. I could be as wrong as wrong can be... and the sun may not rise in the east tomorrow morning.

If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge in New York City and some very wet land in Florida that I'd like to offer you... at fair market value, of course.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH GOVERNMENT

From the Declaration of Independence, dated July 4th, 1776...

“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.”

Many people feel that our present government is betraying the principles upon which this once-great nation was founded. It is not just the Obama Administration and the current Congress that have erred in the navigation of the "Ship of State". This erosion of principle has been going on for decades, in the same fashion as one would eat an elephant - one bite at a time. There have been rare occasions where an administration has gone on a diet, and taken smaller bites of the elephant - but they ate nonetheless. There have, however, been more frequent instances of the government gorging itself on the elephant... and then taking slices of it with them that they may have a late-night snack. Congress "legally" embezzled our Social Security Fund, and now they're trying to blame the lack of funding on what? Too many elderly people that paid into it are now expecting their return? Obama adviser Cass Sunstein has the right idea... eliminate the elderly! Anthropophagically speaking, his solution is reminiscent of the movie "Soylent Green". (If you aren't old enough to remember it, Google it)

Although the president himself is not blameless in this Democratic Detour, neither is he solely to blame for our loss of direction. He has his majordomo - now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelousy - her in-house crew of sycophants, and a fairly large number of other mutineers who wish to divert our ship of state from its originally intended course. Add to those numbers the Democratic Senators who feel they must maintain the "party line" in order to have party support in their next re-election bid, and you create a government of Titanic proportions.

There have been questions raised, such as "Why doesn't the Congress impeach Obama?" The answer is not terribly complicated. Impeachment proceedings must be initiated in the House of Representatives, where the most junior of our elected "representatives" reside (I hesitate to use the word "work" when referring to politicians). We must also understand that roughly 90% of our "representatives" are attorneys. Do you know why sharks won't eat attorneys? It's called "professional courtesy." Unless they are caught in a compromising situation which they cannot intimidate, lie or buy their way out of, politicians won't eat other politicians. They realize that "there but for the Grace of God...", and that awareness keeps them guarding one another's back. If you believe that our "representatives" represent anybody other than themselves and their largest financial supporters, I have this land in Florida I'd like to sell you. It borders a large body of water known as the Everglades. (I would venture a guess that perhaps 1% - certainly no more - 1% of our elected officials at the national level can even recognize integrity, much less possess any themselves.)

Besides... Congress - both the House and Senate - are co-conspirators in the ongoing reduction of the United States of America from world leader and world power, to the insignificance of a 3rd World Banana Republic. Who impeaches the Congress? According to the existing laws, nobody. And who wrote those laws? Congress. Does this seem like a Catch-22 situation to anybody besides me? Why aren't those laws that grant specific rights and benefits for Congress placed on the ballot for a public referendum? That would be their "report card"! Why do members of Congress have the power to grant themselves rights and benefits that no other citizen has? Because they can. The laws they have both created and approved allow it. These 535 people control the fate of an nation of 308,000,000 - and they don't really give a rat's ass about the other 307,999,465 - except for those who financed their campaigns, of course.

All of us have "feet of clay"... those (usually) hidden flaws and weaknesses that make us human. Our imperfections are what make us "perfect", in that our Creator designed us to be imperfect. Unfortunately, some humans nurture their imperfections, rather than strive to minimize their impact upon others. In the world at large we refer to them as criminals... and in the practice of government we call them politicians. (We can't really call government "business", because any business that was run like our government would be bankrupt!) Oh, come to think of it... (never mind - I rest my case.)

And, yes, my introduction was the document our founding fathers created, and the government they were revolting against was that of King George II of England. Do the words still count? Do they carry weight? The principles those words identify are timeless. We are being led "down the garden path" while wearing "rose colored glasses". Even if everything looks fine to you, be careful where you step... the garden path is covered with bullshit!

OBAMA ADMITS ON VIDEOTAPE THAT HE IS NOT A NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN!

I am assuming (yes, I know...) as I post this video, that it has not been altered in any way... or at least any significant way, since it is made up from segments of various presidential "performances". HOWEVER... the first segment is where the verbal admission is made, and it appears to be virginal - the flow appears to be uninterrupted, and much too smooth for anybody to have edited. Here it is for your consideration...

The facts presented in this video are not particularly recent ones, as evidenced by the claim that Obama "spent $800,000 to date" on keeping his birth and school records (normally these documents are "public records") secured. The most recent figure I have heard was $1,500,000. That's ONE MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND U.S. dollars! Who in their right mind would spend even a small fraction of that amount, to insure that such records were unavailable to the public... unless they had something to hide? My guess would be that the first segment speech was made just after his election to the U.S. Senate, after which he was magically transformed into a citizen.

There have been numerous (over a dozen the last I heard) lawsuits filed, challenging Obama's eligibility to even run for the office of President of the United States, much less serve in that office. The courts thus far have refused to hear them. I wonder why? I also wonder where the full Congressional Investigation into this matter is. Oh, that's right! I forgot for a moment that Congress is too busy investigating professional sports - and other extremely important things, to be bothered with something as trivial as answering the question of, "Is the person sitting in the office of the President really eligible to be there?"

OBAMA'S ARROGANCE CONTINUES TO ALIENATE ALLIES

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, returned to Israel after an apparently disastrous meeting with the US President, Barack Obama, in Washington.

According to leaked accounts reported in the Israeli media, Mr Obama humiliated Mr Netanyahu by leaving the meeting early.

''I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls,'' Mr Obama reportedly said, adding that Mr Netanyahu should consult his aides about goodwill gestures Israel was prepared to make towards the Palestinians before renewed peace talks. '''I'm still around,'' he said. ''Let me know if there is anything new.''

Obama insisting that Israel's Prime Minister to release land to Palestine, is similar to Netenyahu doing something really stupid, like demanding that Obama give the USA back to the native Americans. The only differences being that Israel's land - the kingdoms of Israel and Judah - was stolen from them almost 2,000 years ago by the Romans, and restored to them in May 14, 1948 by the United Nations. There was NO PALESTINE PRIOR TO THAT INITIAL ACT OF THEFT BY ROME! We stole the USA much more recently, so it remains in our collective memory by way of our history books... until the liberals are done re-writing history, that is.

In the face of increasing violence between Arabs and Jews, the British handed the issue over to the United Nations. The result was Resolution 181, a partition plan to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs. On 29 November 1947, the plan was put to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly. The result was 33 to 13 in favor of the plan, with 10 abstentions.

Obama has no right to attempt to dictate to the leadership of other sovereign nations, and then childishly snub them when they refuse to comply. He can request or suggest, but he has no right to demand specific behavior on any internal matter... unless he's considering a Declaration of War. (That would not surprise me in the least, considering what a Muslim-lover he is, as verified by his canceling the National Day of Prayer this year while inviting Muslims to worship at the White House.)
Never before in our history has a President made a World Apology Tour, while almost simultaneously demonstrating such arrogance!
And last, but not least, remember this...

It's time to set this country back on its intended course!

LET'S TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME - DEFINING "RIGHTS" UNDER THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"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 sentence is not about Constitutional guarantees, nor are they even Constitutional issues. They were a Jeffersonian philosophy defining the main issues that fomented the American Revolution, and he put them to paper in the Declaration of Independence.

Looking at that sentence logically, we know immediately that all men are not created equal in neither the physical, intellectual nor emotional sense. Jefferson was talking about the equality of their God given rights! And it's not just "men" who have these rights, women have them as well. "Men" was the predominant term in the 1700's because women had few officially sanctioned and supported rights at that time. In fact, in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified proclaiming that all citizens were granted the protections of the Constitution against unjust state laws. This Amendment was also the first to define "citizens" and "voters" as "male." It wasn't until 1920 that women were granted the right to vote in the United States, after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.

The "right to Life" should be obvious, inasmuch as we have laws prohibiting the unlawful taking of a human life. The only discussion now appears to be one of establishing beyond any question precisely when "life" begins. That's a subject for an entirely different blog.

The "right to Liberty" would insure our ability to come and go freely. We should remain unrestrained and unmolested in our travels within the United States, and need not request permission from anyone to move freely from point to point within those borders. This right, and all the others, are guaranteed by the Articles of our Constitution!

Which takes me to the "right to the pursuit of Happiness". Evidently this one is a bit difficult for some people to grasp. It is not a right to always be happy, and to think so would be an indication of mental deficiency. The English dictionary defines "pursuit" thus:
transitive verb
1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek
The implication here is that one must take action, or chase after a thing to be pursuing it. We do that through personal effort, using whatever physical, mental or emotional skills and talents with which we were blessed and/or developed. Pursue does not mean we sit on our butt and wait for happiness to come wandering by so we can grab a handful. It means that you have a right, through you own efforts, to chase after those things which you feel will bring you "happiness". You do not have a right to take from someone else without just compensation, nor do you have the right to take rewards from the taxed labors of others. When the ants tire of supporting the grasshopper, the grasshopper will eaten by them. And, as William Shakespeare wrote, "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much; such men are dangerous."

Barack Obama - Leader of the Quisling Party!

I have seen no indications to the contrary... Obama is the leader of the de facto Quisling Party. I understand that most of us have never heard of Vikdun Abraham Lauritz Jonnsøn Quisling. His is a name hidden in history's Vault of Shame. He was Norway's version of our own Benedict Arnold. Quisling assisted Nazi Germany in conquering his own country, and then ruled the collaborationist Norwegian government. The term 'quisling" is synonymous with one who collaborates with the enemy - a traitor.

Quisling even captured a spot in our dictionary as: n. A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country. We do have enemies in our midst... some are in your neighborhood, many are in your town, thousands are in your city, and tens of thousands are in your state. They do not meet the military definition of "occupying forces", but they are "occupying" much of America's real estate.
Obama showed his true colors with his appointment of communists, Marxist-socialists, and others who despise America as it is and has been for over two centuries, to power positions within our government. If "a man is known by the company he keeps", we now know Obama.
His "borrow, tax and spend" philosophy is textbook Cloward-Piven strategy, designed to collapse the system by creating crisis where there is none, and then correcting those man-made crises by throwing money at them, thereby overloading the system with unrealistic financial burdens - such as welfare for non-citizens and those capable of working, and other give-away programs. The Cloward-Piven strategy has not yet achieved its goal of total system breakdown and the establishment of a Marxist state... the key word being yet. Our current administration is doing everything it can to move us in that direction. The Cloward-Piven strategy is, quite simply, economic sabotage.

The 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" imposed time linits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Cloward and Piven were in attendance when President Clinton signed the act into law. However, the Obama administration has for any practical application suspended the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, with multiple extensions on unemployment compensation, and the granting of welfare to illegal aliens - just two more means of overburdening the financial system.

The left-wing socialist-progressives are using our system to destroy our system. Inflation due to unbelievable debt, permitting outsourcing of American jobs (thereby adding to already high unemployment) because of exorbitant union wages , pushing "amnesty" for tens of millions of illegal aliens (essentially buying votes for socialist-progressive politicians), and blatantly buying votes in the House and Senate to support Obama's health care program with political plums. Obama refused to host the traditional "National Day of Prayer" for Christians, yet worshiped at a mosque with his Muslim co-conspirators. Isn't that de facto promoting of one religion over another?

The unofficial Quisling Party moves forward under the direction of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, et al. Those elected officials in Washington who lack the courage to stand against the Quislings are as much to blame as those active participants in the destruction of our Republic!
TAKE A STAND AMERICA! TELL THEM "TOO MUCH"! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD THIS NOVEMBER, AND SEND THIS MESSAGE:

Goldman Sachs Running the Fed... Is The Fox Guarding The Hen House?

Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs has a long list of graduates who have gone into government service... that is, if we can stretch the meaning of the term "government Service". The most interesting of which is the appointment of Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO, Henry M. Paulson Jr. as the head of our Treasury Department!

But company officials have filled in heavy-hitting posts in less visible areas, too. The Goldman Sachs' alumni who have served in government include Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick; former president and chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States Kenneth D. Brody; chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and former director of the National Economic Council Stepehn Friedman; Reagan Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead; and Reagan Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Robert Hormats. Goldman Sachs' alumni James Johnson served as president and CEO of quasi-government housing lender Fannie Mae.

Most of the job posts involve economics, but some have broadened their professional portfolios by serving in an array of other government policy positions. names like New Jersey Gov. Jon Cprzine, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Corzine was CEO of the Goldman Sachs brokerage before he won a Senate seat in 2000. Until taking up work with the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000, Bolten was executive director for legal and government affairs at Goldman Sachs International in London. Rubin was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs until 1992, when he was confirmed for his Cabinet seat in the Clinton administration.

"Richard Linowes, a business professor for Kogod School of Business at American University, and a former Goldman Sachs employee, said 'the job duties of Goldman employees combined with their lucrative salaries, frequently tapped for political donations, make them ripe for the pickings of government service. When people make campaign contributions, they're recognized for their support by being put into presidential appointments," Linowes said, adding, "They know how international financial markets work, and they've been part of it. They come in with finance expertise."

Georgetown University corporate law professor Donald Langevoort cautioned that those looking for a conspiracy behind the link between Goldman Sachs and government service won't likely find one.

"I don't think it necessarily makes them more powerful," Langevoort said. "I think every Wall Street firm has its way of exercising influence in Washington and around the world. Goldman no doubt benefits from its political contacts, but the other firms have their own tools."

On the other hand, it certainly doesn't make Goldman Sachs less powerful, and if the other financial firms exercising influence in Washington have one fifth of the power that GS has, "We the people" are skrood!

According to Wall Street Watch, "The financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report issued today by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation. The report, "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America," shows that, from 1998-2008, Wall Street investment firms, commercial banks, hedge funds, real estate companies and insurance conglomerates made $1.725 billion in political contributions and spent another $3.4 billion on lobbyists, a financial juggernaut aimed at undercutting federal regulation."

There's no doubt about the fact that we need people with strong backgrounds in finance in government service... but is it prudent to have the majority of them coming from one powerful Wall Street firm? Is there not an above average chance for conflicts of interest with each appointment from Goldman Sachs? Such an arrangement could have easily been responsible for our current financial crisis.

Right now there is in excess of two dozen current and former Goldman Sachs employees and officers, working within our government's financial infrastructure. The "feather your nest" possibilities are endless if they should all work in concert, for a single self-serving goal. But that would never happen, would it? Let's just ignore the fact that Goldman Sachs was the first Wall Street investment firm bailed out, and that their chief rivals and competitors were the first ones to be allowed to go under. Our government is staffed with nothing but altruistic, forthright and honorable people, who put the good of the nation above individual profit. That is correct, isn't it? (If you believe it is, I have this property at the southern tip of Florida, called the Everglades, that I'd consider a reasonable offer on. I'll even throw in the George Washington Bridge!)

I could be wrong about the possibilities that I see in this arrangement. But, worse yet... I could be right.