In the internet there is a situation called "IFW" or "Internet Freebie Websites" (http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=371063) and there is also this means of making money on them http://makemoneyforbeginners.blogspot.com/2007/01/project-payday-review-whats-ifw-how-to.html.

What I found interesting is in this webinar audio, which I received by subscribing to learn about one of these programs, hoping it was a legitimate system to promote my website.  http://makeitforfree.info/6165978000_277269(2).wav

The point to this link is that there is a discussion about taxes, and avoiding them.  Yet there was all this love for Obama shown earlier in it.  They are talking about making $200 a day and more from these programs.  It's just amazing how on one hand they voted for Obama, on the other hand they are mad about "paying tax liability on $7,000 I didn't get to enjoy."

Understand that I find it noble that they want to make money, not a problem at all.  What I find hypocritical is their entirely pro Obama position, their anti John McCain point of view "if you are John McCain you don't need money," while complaining about the income taxes they'll have to pay.

Just, one more reason to "Trust Obama" -- A man elected in by people who have issues with his policies, and therefore, obviously didn't know Obama's tax policies.  They will be very willing recipients of his "spread the wealth check," you decide if they are also deserving.  Just ask yourself, "What do they produce?"

Of course the audio is a great education in the world of network marketing and why they often seem so closely associated with Ponzi Schemes.  Keep in mind what the host of the webinar in the audio above said about "putting money in their hands" and how then "what you say is golden," imagine the political influence that goes with this.  We may be listening to the real wave of hypocritical Obama supporters who made the difference in the last election.


Thanks for reading.

That is the headline that should be on every newspaper tomorrow, for the clock is getting turned back to just after the Civil War, or at least before the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

The electorate so busy taking out vengeance on conservatives has forgotten the devil is in the details, they haven't any care or concern with the tax shelter haven that Obama has promised to create for the billionaires who assure him a means to have this much money to buy our election.

All they had to do was appeal to the anger of the last 2 elections.  No one cares about the issues, about the 500 billion dollars surrounding Obama now, his friends so long as he give them the benefit they seek:  Tax Shelters.

I guess when liberal education breeds and raises Godless liberal values into every aspect of existence it only stands to reason that the people of a nation have no reason to care about their country.  Personal narcissistic interest take precedence over anything else.  I'd site history but what's the use.  Many an American will have died in vane in a few short years, and those who believed will continue to believe even while all that's meant anything of America is evaporating from existence.

But I guess there is a pride to being angry and then the sacred right to vote of all the nation's people being bought for 600 million dollars and sacrificing the Foundation of America.

Should this trend continue throughout the night I am certain the left will enjoy this moment, but moreso, they will enjoy it into the years, for they never admit wrong doing, FannieMae and FreddieMac have proven this.

Hang on folks!  Here comes Carter's 2nd term!

John McCain has been on the side of the middle-class for a very long time, taken from a February 2000 New York Times Article:

"MR. McCAIN'S tax-cut plan is valued at $238 billion over five years and $500 billion over 10 years. Its centerpiece is an expansion of the lowest income tax bracket, 15 percent, to cover higher incomes.

"Under the plan, the ceiling for the 15 percent bracket would rise to $70,000 from $43,050 for married couples filing jointly, and to $35,000 from $25,750 for single taxpayers. The effect would be to give a $3,504 tax cut to a couple with taxable income of $70,000 or more.

"Mr. McCain's plan would also double the child tax credit to $1,000 a year, expand tax incentives for savings and investment, reduce the tax on large estates and reduce the marriage penalty for some people by increasing the standard deduction for couples. Mr. McCain would offset a portion of the tax cuts by closing corporate tax loopholes.

"His pitch is that the plan is modest enough in size that it leaves plenty of money from the surplus tax revenues to deal with other needs. By expanding the 15 percent bracket to cover millions of additional taxpayers, he says, his plan amounts to a start on creating a system of flatter tax rates. And he argues that his plan gives much less of its benefits to the wealthy than Mr. Bush's plan does.

''I want a balanced approach,'' Mr. McCain said in the South Carolina debate. ''The difference between Governor Bush's proposal and mine is that I put a whole lot of money into Social Security, Medicare and paying down the debt. He puts a whole lot of money into tax cuts.''

"An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice found that only 1.8 percent of the benefits of the McCain plan would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. Most of his proposed tax cuts would go to a broadly defined middle class: more than 52 percent to taxpayers making $65,000 to $130,000, and 21 percent to taxpayers making $39,000 to $65,000.

"Mr. McCain's plan, however, would do almost nothing for taxpayers with incomes below $39,000. Mr. Bush asserts that Mr. McCain's plan would leave too much of the surplus in Washington, where, Mr. Bush says, it would inevitably be spent not on Social Security but instead on bigger government and wasteful programs. And Mr. Bush regularly criticizes Mr. McCain's plan, contending that it would not help the working poor."

What I find really good here is that this problem they found with McCain's plan in 2000 he fixed this time around, by adding to his proposal what Bill Bradley suggested in 2000:

"As a former member of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the fathers of the 1986 overhaul of the tax code, Mr. Bradley arguably has more experience with tax policy than any of the other candidates...

"....The only specific tax cuts he backs are tax breaks on health insurance payments, an expansion of the earned-income tax credit for the working poor and an expansion of the child care credit in a way that would help low-income people."

Senator McCain also incorporated an issue from Al Gore regarding Research and Development:

"Mr. Gore has proposed allocating $250 billion to $300 billion to tax cuts over the next decade for specific goals. In particular, he supports expanded tax incentives for education and retirement savings....a permanent extension of the tax credit for corporate research and development."

The entire article is located here:  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DC1F30F934A15751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


Additionally John McCain promises a ban on Internet taxes and Cell phone taxes, from his website:

"Ban Internet Taxes: John McCain believes we must make a farsighted, robust, and fervent commitment to innovation and new technologies to sustain our global competitiveness, meet our national security challenges, achieve less costly and more effective health care, reduce dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil, and raise the quality of education in the United States. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity.

Ban New Cell Phone Taxes: John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message - and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes."

The main thing missing right now is the raising of the income the lowest tax bracket, and I believe that's probably a good thing since, we have quite a bit of government debt to afford right now.

The point of this is to show that John McCain learns from his past, he does pay attention to the American People, that with all this talk of corporate lobbyists, there remains this man who only had a corporate tax benefits even 8 years ago of 1.9% to corporations.  Admittedly 8 years ago our corporate tax rates were competitive, they no longer are.  Look at how aggressively McCain's 2000 tax plan pursued getting the lower tax rate into the lower and upper middle-class incomes (70,000 a year) in 2000.  I am certain that once our economy recovers John McCain will pursue raising the income level that the 15% tax covers, to "start on creating a system of flatter tax rates."

And McCain will do this without creating the corporate tax shelters that Obama does:

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk Obama says this at almost the end of the conversation.)

McCain is keeping the 15% capital gains tax in place, while phasing out the alternative minimum tax.

So the question boils down to:  Is 500 or 1000 dollar checks (essentially an economic stimulus) the answer to our economy, or, providing a framework of growth by generating wealth for decades into the future?  The answer to this is clear to me, John McCain.


Thank you for reading.

Obama has earned America's distrust.  It's the tail end of Obama's pitch to Joe the Plumber.  Obama walks right up to Joe to get his question.  Then Obama puts forth a number of his beliefs and expresses his logic to conclude a tax increase of 3% on "those making over $250,000" is necessary to give a tax break for those making less, asserting it's the government's role, the government's job to assure our incomes meet our personal needs -- that government's control of our personal input will improve our personal output.

The following transcript of what Obama said during the entire interview with Joe Wurzelbacher,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk. I wanted to keep the entire train of thought together so I omitted what Joe said, however I referenced it for context in brackets where the context would be lost, so without further delay I give you by transcript, what Senator Barack Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" when he believed there were no open mics:

"If your revenue is above 250, then from 250 down your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that, say for 250 up, say from 250-300 or so....you'd go from 36 to 39% which is what it was under Bill Clinton.

"So the uh....and the reason we're doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250, and so what I want to do is give them a tax cut I wanna give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I wanna give them a tax cut and so what we are doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250, that that marginal amount above 250 that they are going to be taxed at a 39% instead of a 36% percent rate.

"Here's a way of thinking about it, um....How long you been a plumber?...Okay so over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current Tax Code.

"So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful....through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much, which I understand. But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks, who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they're bein taxed to the higher rate than they would be under mine.

"So, what I'm doin is...put, project yourself back 10 years ago, when you were only makin...whatever, 60 or 70, under my tax plan you'd be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be having lower taxes, which means, you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are [now] faster.

"Now look, nobody likes high taxes, off course not. So...But what's happened is, we end up, we cut taxes a lot, for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven't given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last 8 years. So all I want to do is, I want to....I've got a net tax cut. The only thing that changes this, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and with the 5% of the folks who've been doing very well, even though they've been working hard, and I understand and I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts.

"Now....I respect the disagreement, I just want you to be clear it's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody, who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too.

"I'd be open to it [a flat tax] except for, here's the problem with the flat tax, the uh...is that actually if you put a flat tax together, you probably, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that's the value added, making it up [making up for the lost revenue]. Now some people say 23 or 25 but in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it.

"So....I do believe that, for folks like me, who are, you know, have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's things were slow and, she can barely make the rent, you know, because.

"My attitude is if the economy's good for the folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so that business is bad for everybody and I think, when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody. But I, listen I respect what you do and I respect your question and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still going to be working hard on your behalf cause I want to make sure...Small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it."

Obama utterly reverses himself in this last paragraph with Joe the Plumber.  Is rich $250,000?  I mean, Obama himself doesn't seem to think so.  It is Obama who uses this amount as his example in making a specific mention of this "elimination of capital gains" to Joe, numbers relative to Joe's situation, Joe's business and Joe's hard work -- remember $250,000 is the line for "rich" when Obama is imposing his 3% tax increase.  Yet Obama has said small business will get a "tax cut" under his plan.  Well with this last paragraph, that certainly is a tax cut and on those making over $250,000, "the rich."  Now using the same figures as Obama did, the tax increase Obama proposes is $7,500 on income taxes while the capital gain tax amount would be around $37,500 of capital gains taxes -- a net loss of $30,000 to the government!

Of course this means government will come up with a large shortfall, and, the solutions will range from lowering the definition of "rich" below $250,000 to increasing the tax upon them to 5% or 10% or more, they become our source of income over time, maybe even entirely.  The government would become beholden to these wealthy, to their influence and job creation, as the source literally "over and above" the American People.  The free enterprise system and Our Will, the will of the many, would lose its authority to the will of the majority of wealth -- the top 5%.

In other words, the great "change" that is about to happen, if we take Obama's word for it, is to make the people, the poor and middle class, of this nation pay the taxes while providing the upper .1% of this nation with the largest tax cut in the history of the United States of America because of the amount of wealth they already hold.  This explains very well the list of those supporting Obama: George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, the majority of Exxon Mobile executives, and a host of others including Wall Street Banks.

These elite of wealth and power are finally going to have a President who recognizes their right to control to achieve a complete enslavement of the American people.  They will be justified if we vest this right in these elite by voting for their candidate, to be subjected to their influence on him, their will.  This is, by Barack Obama's own words, the future if Obama becomes President of the United States of America, according to this capital gains tax cut to those making over $250,000 as Obama notes to Joe above.  Please understand that those making well more than $250,000 will be able to eliminate 150 million dollars of tax on every billion they make merely by creating small businesses as tax shelters.   This capital gains tax cut creates a Ponzi Scheme for the rich, growing numerous entities, to split them again and keep them small businesses.  Mass accumulations of wealth without any responsibility to pay anymore than the tax code provides, which will be less than these billionaires would pay on their consolidated wealth.

It will look good folks, very good, but this will be short lived because the government shortfall will be so great that the threshold of the increase in income taxes will need to be lowered, lowered to include everyone who doesn't have any capital gains.  The 1986 Tax Reform Act is what brought an end to income tax shelters for the wealthy.  Are we now going to bring them back and give the wealthy elite even more places to hide their money?

This is what one must believe in light of Obama saying what he did to Joe and believing there were no open mics at the time. I have no reason not to believe Obama either considering the 600+ million dollars Obama has raised for his campaign -- Obama is just another bought and sold politician, his price was just 6 times higher than anyone else, and the above paragraph reflects his promise to the wealthy.

For weeks now I've been posting this with a variety of notions it brings up, the reason is simple:  If you read the entire transcript, or listen to it, and noticed the last thing Obama said to Joe, you can't help but walk away wondering which part is the lie.  However now I realize it's all true and this is an even greater threat to America than European socialism.  This here is the creation of a communist politburo.  We the people to be reliant on those whose wealth is so great that their desire to lead cannot be denied, they just needed a candidate willing to sell out on principle, sell out on America.  Senator Obama's election to identify with his African roots, to read angry black authors and associate with people who wish to see America and/or it's systems, especially capitalism destroyed, is that candidate.

I am convinced Obama is going to do both because his esteemed backers need recognition, and We the People whose will has defeated them time and time again must be put in our place -- what better way to do that than if we elect to be slaves?

Do the math...

Is Obama going to tax the rich or is Obama going to give the rich a break, or both and enslave 95% of Americans?

What's the truth?

The following transcript of what Obama said during the entire interview with Joe Wurzelbacher,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk. This is the last paragraph of what Senator Barack Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" when he believed there were no open mics:

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it."

I kid you not, that's why I posted the video link to the entire interview.

Do the math...

Is he going to tax the rich or is he going to give the rich a break?

What's the truth?

The following is a transcript of what Obama said during the entire interview with Joe Wurzelbacher, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk.  I wanted to keep the entire train of thought together so I omitted what Joe said, however I referenced it for context in brackets where the context would otherwise be lost.  So, without any further delay, I give you by transcription, what Senator Barack Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" when he believed there were no open mics:

"If your revenue is above 250, then from 250 down your taxes are going to stay the same.  It is true that, say for 250 up, say from 250-300 or so....you'd go from 36 to 39% which is what it was under Bill Clinton.

"So the uh....and the reason we're doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250, and so what I want to do is give them a tax cut I wanna give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I wanna give them a tax cut and so what we are doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250, that that marginal amount above 250 that they are going to be taxed at a 39% instead of a 36% percent rate.

"Here's a way of thinking about it, um....How long you been a plumber?...Okay so over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been getting a tax cut from me.  So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current Tax Code.

"So there are two ways of looking at it.  I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful....through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much, which I understand.  But another way of looking at it  is 95% of folks, who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they're being taxed to the higher rate than they would be under mine.

"So, what I'm doing is...put, project yourself back 10 years ago, when you were only making...whatever, 60 or 70, under my tax plan you'd be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be having lower taxes, which means, you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are [now] faster.

"Now look, nobody likes high taxes, off course not.  So...But what's happened is, we end up, we cut taxes a lot, for folks like me who make a lot more than 250.  We haven't given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last 8 years.  So all I want to do is, I want to....I've got a net tax cut.  The only thing that changes this, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and with the 5% of the folks who've been doing very well, even though they've been working hard, and I understand and I appreciate that.  I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts.

"Now....I respect the disagreement, I just want you to be clear it's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody, who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too.

"I'd be open to it [a flat tax] except for, here's the problem with the flat tax, the uh...is that actually if you put a flat tax together, you probably, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax.  I mean that's the value added, making it up [making up for the lost revenue].  Now some people say 23 or 25 but in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it.

"So....I do believe that, for folks like me, who are, you know, have worked hard, but fankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's things were slow and, she can barely make the rent, you know, because.

"My attitude is if the economy's good for the folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody.  If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to higher you, and right now everybody's so that business is bad for everybody and I think, when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody.  But I, listen I respect what you do and I respect your question and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still going to be working hard on your behalf cause I want to make sure...Small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes.  So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more.  So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan.  I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it.  Alright?  Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it."


The importance of this and Obama's 2001 radio commentary on WBEZ is that in this instance Obama thought there were no open mics, and in the 2001 instance Obama nor anyone else was looking at it as for comparison to his presidential platform and policies as they obviously didn't exist yet....or so we thought.


Hope this was helpful to anyone who could use it, thanks for reading.

United States Constitution,

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

    No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 6:

    No preference shall be given by an Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.


The above Constitutional Articles are cited to set forth why Barack Obama's "Share The Wealth" government application of a direct tax on a particular class of individuals (the top 5% of the population based on income) for the sole purpose of direct redistribution to another particular class of individuals (the other 95% of the population based on income) is unconstitutional.

The following, Constitutional Amendments are invoked as protections when there is a violation of Article I, Section 8, clause 1 and Article I, Section 9, clause 4:

Amendment X. to the United States Constitution [1791]
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIII. to the United States Constitution [1865]

    Section 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Another reason the Obama "Share The Wealth" redistribution of wealth program is unconstitutional by the terms of the 10th Amendment is because the entire population, including the 5% of the wealthiest Americans, have these reserved "extraconstitutional powers" vested in them by the 10th Amendment. This amendment invokes Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 because the design of the "Share The Wealth" program specifically claims it is government application of a direct tax on a class of people solely on the basis of income with the intention of a direct redistribution of whatever property is extracted.

Further, the “Share The Wealth” income redistribution program is a capitation or, more specifically, a direct tax not being applied in proportion to the census, and thus illegal on its face per Article I, Section 9, Clause 4.

This causes the taking of property without any Constitutional Authority to be extra-constitutional, and in this case, a form of slavery where those being taxed are being held accountable by the government for the wellbeing of those who the government designates shall directly receive the funds taken.  The government has total control of the private property it is seizing from this class of citizens and is effecting the life, fortune and liberty of that citizen without that citizen deriving any benefit from the government, the institution created by the Constitution to be the uniform servant of the people by providing benefits to those who pay into the United States Treasury, the Treasury of a legitimate government which provides benefits to its citizens in relation to taxation.

Without a derived benefit from the government to the payor of the tax, the taking of private property from a citizen by the government, using the Public Treasury as a pass-through for a direct distribution to a particular private individual or class, there is a legitimization of theft from citizens by the government and sets a precedent of the government taking private property from citizens as its subjects, and, at pleasure of whosoever the government favors as a private recipient.  This is a violation of the Public Trust by the government against its citizens.

Further, this is The United States Government appeasing a particular special interest group using the public taxing power to the detriment of those they are taking the funds from, and again, not for a public purpose but for a private one which also can be used by the government to elicit political favor from private citizen recipients of this redistribution. 


To tax and directly particular class(es) of citizens from a direct tax that violates Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, based solely on the criteria of income is no less than raising tax rates on a class of people based on the particular criteria of race, religion, or other prejudice.  This is tantamount to the original Constitutional claims of  "three fifths of all other persons" being applied particularly to accounting for slaves in the course of determining population, an unreasonable inequality when comparing people and their labor, their worthiness to receive just compensation in the form of value that they deserve, their property in exchange for their hard work as a whole person no less than any other citizen.   “Share The Wealth” asserts that the wealthiest Americans’ effort is worth less than 95% of Americans in an identical way to the demeaning of slaves.

This means the "Share the Wealth" redistribution plan to "95% of Americans" is not just a socialist program but one that sets civil rights back 219 years.  Now however, the idea of slavery, "that civil right relation to which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another," is implied when government taxes one person’s income, without designating or providing any benefit to the person paying the tax, and instead specifically taking the funds to provide them to another person or class of people.

The "Share The Wealth" program is a direct trespass on private property of a citizen for a use not provided by nor a power delegated to the government of the United States by the Constitution.  With income taxes benefits derive to the individuals paying in to the income tax system.  "Share The Wealth" provides no identifiable government benefit whatsoever to the person paying into it.

I submit it appears that Barack Obama's lack of being a descendant of a slave has left him unaware of the constructs of civil rights violations, that his book knowledge alone is all that he knows how to apply and renders him inept by lack of experience in regard to the Constitutional limitations of Government and acts against the American People prohibited under the 13th Amendment as slavery.

Thank you for reading.

Obama has created a maelstrom of reasons not to trust him:

- Change isn't defined  (Lie by absence.)
- Failing to salute the American Flag (Malcom X style).
- ACORN  (Lying about his working with them since 1992.)
- Black Liberation Theology (Reverend Wright, "I never heard anything like that.").
- Che Guevara pictures displayed in campaign offices without explanation.
- Saul Alinsky's dedication of "Rules for Radicals" to Satan.
- Bill Ayers lack of remorse yet Obama standing by him, Why?
- Louis Farrakhan referring to Obama as the Messiah.
- Obama Submits a letter from his Doctor that he's in good health as "medical records" while being plagued by hip problems at age 47.
- Lying about the $79 billion dollar Iraq surplus (it doesn't exist).
- Posting 2 different "Certifications of Live Birth" which have been edited in Photo Shop.
- Failing to rebut any lawsuit (and there are 7 of them) about his being a natural born citizen by producing, even in camera, a physical paper copy of his birth certificate.
- Regularly saying "As I've always said..." before saying something he's never said before.
- Instructing his Universities not to release any records of his time there.

All of the relationships above at least 15 years old and Obama claims he had no idea of any of the well known, published, and documented negatives about them, or, that he believed they were rehabilitated.  This is what a former Harvard Law Review President and professor of Constitutional law and lawyer says to explain his lack of due diligence regarding the company he keeps?  And what do they see in him that so many flock to him?  With all the indirection, misdirection, and consistency to evade requirements that everyone else has to abide by, such as filing medical records, all I can see is a man who has every grudge possible against the American People.  How can I believe he would at all answer to us as our President?  Many may see the current administration failing in this manner, and they'd likely be right, however, how does that qualify us to endure another President just as willing to pit us against each other and not answer to us?

It's so much mysterious and cloudy, unexplained and, though few will say it, stubborn, arrogant, rebellious and defiant of the American people's need to know to not provide simple and easy to get documents that all previous candidates and current contenders have had to provide so that answers are available to us whether we look now or in the future for it.  Not one bit of this is some special scrutiny on Obama.  Any that he or anyone else may feel is occurring due to lawsuits to get he or someone in control of the record to produce it, is solely due to his lack of willingness, his defiances of making sure we are informed about him or can be should we ever want to be.  That is secretive and, for someone who claims to want openness and transparency, failing to provide medical records or a genuine Certificate of Live Birth under seal and with wet signatures of your doctor, is just amazingly arrogant.  McCain provided these things Senator Obama, McCain's Certificate of Live Birth, as described above, and more than1500 pages of medical records. 

How do you justify providing as little as possible Senator Obama?  Senator Obama you have no direct lineage ancestors who were slaves.  You have no special needs creating a special treatment category for you.  You are actuall 50% majority caucasian.  What is your justification? 

I guess it doesn't matter does it Senator Obama, if Americans are stupid enough to vote for you without you meeting the requirements that everyone else has, that's all that matters..  If we are willing to buy an undefined package, which is solely undefined due to arrogant defiance, a package that can only be defined as "scant" when reviewed for the truth it has presented, that's all that matters. 

And it further doesn't matter because George Soros the convicted criminal under French Law is willing to afford you, Warren buffet and his Berkshire Hathaway which costs 130,000 dollars a share loves you, Oprah loves you, and the combined wealth of these few people, who are also your private campaign contributors, of around 100 billion dollars, just loves you.  It must be nice to have those people and their deep pockets love you so unconditionally.  You must really be happy no one believes for a minute any one, if not all, of these people expect special treatment of any kind from you, and that you owe us nothing for funding your campaign due to having taken no public financing as you once promised you would do.

600 million dollars you have raised and spent to run for President of the United States of America, some of which is illegally from foreign sources, and this amount is more than 6 times the highest amount ever spent before.

No wonder you have the audacity to defy the American People:  We are bought and sold like cattle, Soros reflexivity manipulations by using the market as he did when he broke the Bank of England, our stock market a tool to get you elected, nothing else.

No none of it matters, you have every right to feel elite beyond elite, to feel elevated beyond the necessity to serve the American people.

Whatever you do Senator Obama defy us.  Defy us because we will have no control over anything you do after the election.  All you have to do is wait, the sheeple you've created by promises you cannot keep will follow you, will vote for you, and will not have to answer to anyone.  You already know the greed and corruption in Washington can't wait to do whatever they want to America, the nation they've been trying to destroy from the first National Bank Act. 

I am glad you set me straight on our stupidity, our sheer incapacity to reason anything but that you are The Obama, The One, The Messiah.  I wonder if your national salute will be that we Faint limply in your presence, and do not rise again until after fire-hosed by the domestic military you wish to raise.  Our national guard under the direction of the States isn't enough, you want to equally fund a domestic army, as you've said yourself.  I wonder how much they'll resemble the Missouri "Truth Squads."

For any who read this, here is some more food for thought on a lighter note but no less an example of how long Senator Obama has been willing to lie to us so directly, to mock us and make fun of us while defying us knowing we are powerless to do anything about it:

While Obama & Co. were snooping around Sarah Palin....

 Barack Obama, the one running for President of the United States, is becoming a known commodity:

- Known for his ability to fabricate lies to maintain charismatic momentum,
- known for his lack of recall of situations he knows would be politically detrimental to him,
- known for his lack of consideration of who he surrounds himself with (known terrorists are not generally sought for friendship and comradery but by other known terrorist),
- known for his willingness to be a part of the Daley Machine and the patronage system with a reputation for corruption known throughout the world (The best comparison for the Daley Machine is "The Sopranos.")
- And this is while Obama may have received anti-American, even Jihadist, Muslim teachings as a child.

In any event, if the Obama campaign is exercising their right to delve into and compare notes with Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin's record, to criticize "experience" then clearly U.S. Senator Obama, the Democratic Presidential Nominee for President of the United States has opened Pandora's Box on himself. This appears particularly true since Obama is a sitting U.S. Senator. U.S. Senator Obama may in fact have a duty to make his background information available to the public in chronological order if requested by FOIA. Though Obama's Campaign may claim some "campaign strategy" privilege, I submit that his duty as a U.S. Senator supersedes, especially when the strategy appears solely to keep particular information from being revealed that would lead to Americans knowing who he is based on his actual record, and not the fractionalized, and sometimes fictional one, he wishes to promote. Case in point:

"My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars."

Please note this statement is from Obama's self touted speech against the Iraq War in 2002, when he wasn't even a member of the Federal Government, and clearly he wants everyone to just look at him being against the Iraq War at the time. Obama doesn't want us to consider his reasons, that if the reason he was against it is being delineated by an entirely fictional account, then his being against the Iraq War was a political stunt and any claim otherwise another outright lie. To be blunt: Obama never had this conversation with his grandfather unless of course it was after his grandfather acquired Alzheimers or a similar memory disorder, or, the grandfather lied to his grandson, Obama.

Now I'd have believed that about his grandfather, if not that, sadly, in May of this year, Obama repeated, the Auschwitz portion of the lie, only this time it was his uncle who "who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz."

An article discussing this at length is found here and notes most importantly "The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated them [Auschwitz] on Jan. 27 1945." http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-repeats-auschwitz-gaffe-on.html

I believe there is a term for all of this, well 2 of them: Narcissism and Pathological Liar, and, according to Senator Obama's admitted record, from denial of Muslim teaching, to not hearing any of these "Best of" Reverand Wright political rants from the pulpit, to repeating impossible claims regarding Auschwitz, and his most recently repeated lie "Iraq has a $79 billion dollar surplus," along with the fact that his stint in the Illinois State Senate resulted in 130 "present" votes and he's not even a footnote mention regarding the reporting of any corruption in the City of Chicago, U.S. Senator Barack Obama has demonstrated a greater willingness to fabricate whatever he wants us to hear than get anything done. Enough is enough and I can only Pray American people supporting Obama fall out of mesmerization driven by blind hatred for George Bush and remember that their country is at stake, that reason is lost when operating by such emotional drives.

My apologies for length, however, Barack Obama's mystery and appeal are one and the same, and it's high time this is discussed and debated, irrespective of the MSM blackout on any review of Obama because the lies or truths of it all need revealing. It's the only way a mere mortal like myself knows how to even attempt to dispel the mesmerizing effect of a seasoned conman being compared to Jesus on the Congressional floor.

Please, if you give a damn about America, check your vote, check your reasons for voting, this is about America, not an election.

Thank you for reading.