Benz Speaks! - As we approach this Memorial Day Weekend...

... in a lot of the corporate boardrooms across America, there is no patriotism. Many of America's largest companies have rejected various requests to say the Pledge of Allegiance before the start of their annual stockholders' meetings. The pieces below, I think, show this quite. well.

Corporate Elites Reject Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S.

by Ralph Nader

Dozens of America's largest and most famous corporations have refused a modest request to recite the pledge of allegiance at their annual shareholders meetings. In response to a written request by left-leaning free trade opponent Ralph Nader, only one of 100 CEO's of America's biggest corporations said that reciting the pledge was a good idea. Most did not respond or rejected the idea outright.

In his letter, Nader asked the CEO's "to establish a regular practice at every annual shareholders meeting whereby you and the board of directors stand and, in the name of your domesti­cally chartered corporation, pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands.....

Carol Sanger, vice president of Ohio-based Federated De­partment Stores, Inc., gave the only positive response, saying "we...think it would be a positive statement on many levels." But the other tycoons ignored the request or denounced it as a bad idea.

Aetna Insurance CEO Richmond Huber told Nader, "I be­lieve that demanding recitations of allegiance -in language that may not reflect the beliefs of all persons present -is actu­ally contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded."

August Busch of Anheuser-Busch said his company does not want to be linked to the U. S., saying "While our company headquarters remains in St. Louis, we are a global company."
He said that the company's shareholders meetings "include many international employees, shareholders, representatives, and visi­tors."

Other responses to the pledge request:

Allstate: AMOCO: Anheuser-Busch ARCO: Caterpillar: Citicorp: Delta Airlines: Ford: GM: Hewlett-Packard: Johnson & Johnson: J.P. Morgan: Kimberly-Clark: Kodak: 3M: MCI: Motorola: New York Life: Prudential: RJR Nabisco:

"inappropriate" "does not plan to include" "we see no reason to" "no plans to do so" "would not be productive" "not our practice" "will not implement" "inappropriate" "unnecessary" would "not be productive" "not appropriate" "we do not agree" "not. ..appropriate" "would not be productive" "unacceptable" "unacceptable" "will not be adopting" will "not consider" "do not plan on" it "not at this time"

Patriotism in the Boardroom

by Patrick J Buchanan

Not until two-thirds of the states ratified the Constitution did America become one nation under God. Yet some patriots still date the birth of the nation to Philadelphia, July 4, 1776.

And as we celebrated the 222nd anniversary of that glorious day, many feared we are losing our country. The new century, we are instructed, wilI see an end of nations, as each surrenders its sovereignty to immerse itself in the Global Economy.

Across the Atlantic, the nations of Europe are giving up control of currencies, economies and borders to the European Union. New power centers replace old capitals, and a mighty rival has risen up to chalIenge the nation-state -the transnational corporation.

"General Motors now has a bigger budget than the government of Denmark," writes the traditionalist newsletter Triumph of the Past, "Toyota surpasses Norway, WalMart tops Poland, and Ford exceeds South Africa. Mitsubishi and Unilever outsize Indonesia and Vietnam. In fact, the hundred biggest economies in the world are equally divided between businesses and governments." As America headquarters more of these behemoth businesses than any country, we are told the future belongs to us.

But are these transnationals completely loyal to America?

Corporate gadfly Ralph Nader decided to test the issue. He wrote to the 100 largest U.S. corporations, urging that, at their next shareholders meetings, their CEOs lead the company in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States. From the responses, one would have thought "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy had just demanded that the entire 1950 Harvard facl,llty take a loyalty oath.

"[D]emanding recitations of allegiance -in language that may not reflect the beliefs of all persons present -is actually contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded," thundered Dick Huber of Aetna, of a pledge some of us took every school day.

Allstate said the pledge of allegiance would be "inappropriate at a business meeting." Why? Countless unions open their meetings with it. August Busch of Anheuser-Busch declared, "While our company headquarters remains in St. Louis, we are a global company." Our shareholders' meetings, he went on, "include many international employees, shareholders, representatives and visitors."

But if U.S. Olympic medal winners can stand in silence as the national anthems of other athletes are played, why cannot foreign visitors stand in respect as August A. Busch III booms out the pledge of allegiance to the flag and republic of the United States?

Arco and Amoco said no. AT&T said it would consider it. Defense contractor Hewlitt-Packard said a pledge of allegiance to the flag would "not be a productive use of time." Said Boeing, "It is the opinion of the board that it is not necessary to institute the practice you propose." Boeing's CEO Phil Condit two years ago expressed his hope that the world, 20 years hence, would no longer see Boeing as an American company but a global one.

,Bristol-Myers found the suggestion of a pledge of allegiance "an interesting one which we have not considered before.... We will have to carefully consider whether the proposal advances the best interests of the company, its shareholders and employees."

Caterpillar "concluded that a symbolic once-a-year gesture would not be a productive use of our time at our stockholders' meeting." But a recital of the flag pledge takes 15 seconds!

Calling itself an "international company," Coca-Cola said, "If a share owner were to propose that we pledge allegiance, we would certainly consider it in the context of our global business." Dayton-Hudson called the pledge not "consistent with the goal of running an efficient annual meeting."

Delta said no.

Kodak said a pledge of allegiance to the flag "would not be a productive use of our shareholders' time." Kodak must "maintain a global perspective to compete effectively in a global economy."

Ford Motor does "not believe that the concept of 'corporate allegiance' is possible." 3M said it would be "disrespectful" to other countries where it operates "to ask them to be bound by a pledge of allegiance to a country not their own." But in what country does 3M belong?

American taxpayers guarantee the Export-Import Bank loans of these companies; we bailout their investments via the International Monetary Fund; U.S. Marines have been sent to protect their property; and U.S. consular officials and presidents have promoted their sales. If they cannot pledge loyalty to America, why should Americans be loyal to them?

Consider the response of Federated Stores: Good idea; we will take it up!

Happy Independence Day! And may Americans never stop celebrating it, our global corporate elite notwithstanding.

McCain Dumps Both Hagee and Parsley

By RICK KLEIN with JOHN SANTUCCI

May 23, 2008

This is one way to avoid those new baggage surcharges.
Sen. John McCain's rough run continues -- the unending stream of lobbyists now joined by a new pastor and an old pastor in being shown the door. (One day, two rejected endorsements -- there's a sign of cardiovascular strength.)
Whose health should give us more concern -- McCain's, or the McCain campaign's?
Much more on the former Friday -- with the release of his long-delayed medical records. (Three hours for 400 pages -- read fast -- and the AP got a preview to set the day's agenda.)
As for the campaign -- Team McCain unloads the laundry in a week where the main story has still been the Democrats. But all that time to rest and rejuvenate while the Democrats spar has resulted in what, exactly?
McCain, R-Ariz., may be a young and vibrant 71, but his campaign (in the midst of its roughest week since wrapping up the nomination) suddenly seems tired before its time.
"Republicans are increasingly concerned that he could wind up badly outgunned, saddled with serious deficiencies in money, organization and partisan intensity against the likely Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama," Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen report for Politico.
"After making a promising debut as their nominee, McCain has worried many Republicans by seeming to flounder during the past few weeks," they write. "Some see the McCain campaign as a pale imitation of the well-financed Bush campaigns, both models of precision and ruthless efficiency."
The AP's Philip Elliott: "Republican John McCain has been slow to take advantage of his potential head start for the presidency against Democrats, who are better organized and generate more excitement among voters."
It was the Nazi comments that put McCain over the edge with the Rev. John Hagee, after months of controversy over the endorsement: "crazy and unacceptable," he called Hagee's words, in rejecting his endorsement perhaps minutes before Hagee withdrew it.
"A source close to McCain told ABC News the Arizona senator thinks these sentiments [about Hitler doing God's will] are crazy, and that back in February when the campaign accepted Hagee's endorsement, no one on the campaign, and certainly not McCain, had any idea that Hagee believed these types of things," ABC's Jake Tapper reports.
The Rev. Rod Parsley joined Hagee overboard -- and it only took hours, not months, for McCain to toss him there.
"I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement," McCain said in a statement Thursday, per ABC's Bret Hovell.
Just hours earlier, ABC's Brian Ross reported on "Good Morning America" that Parsley had called Islam "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil," and said Islam is an "anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world."
It all serves to obscure McCain's message: "At the start of his Northern California fundraising and campaign trip, the dominant news of the day was not on McCain's official agenda," per the San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci and John Wildermuth.
"McCain's visit underscored how the senator's presidential campaign has been challenged on multiple fronts by potentially damaging news. Those stories included the planned and limited release of his health records to a handful of media outlets today -- raising questions about his medical history -- along with a new focus on his ties to lobbyists."
What makes the Hagee/Parsley issues particularly troublesome for McCain is the damage it does to the his brand; how easy is it to point out that this would not have happened to McCain 2000?
"Mr. McCain has been courting Christian conservatives after attacking them eight years ago as 'agents of intolerance,' " Neela Banerjee and Michael Luo write in The New York Times. "The latest Hagee remarks to surface may strike at the heart of Mr. McCain's efforts to reach a critical group of voters, Jews, some of whom have viewed Mr. Obama with suspicion."
"In the end, it was just too much," David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network writes. (And what took so long?)
It could have a lasting impact: "John McCain's rejection of John Hagee's endorsement today is the starkest example yet of McCain's ham handed approach to dealing with the Christian Right and with handling religious matters generally," Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff writes. "It's a striking contrast to era of George W. Bush."
Gilgoff continues: "Having been newly chastened by the Hagee ordeal, McCain may be loath to reach out to other Religious Right figures. Come November, that cold shoulder could have McCain in more political hot water than controversial endorsements from evangelical leaders."

McCain, Parsley and Hagee

McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil'

By BRIAN ROSS, AVNI PATEL and REHAB EL-BURI

May 22, 2008—

Despite his call for the U.S. to win the "hearts and minds of the Islamic world," Sen. John McCain recruited the support of an evangelical minister who describes Islam as "anti-Christ" and Mohammed as "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."
McCain sought the support of Pastor Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio at a critical time in his campaign in February, when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was continuing to draw substantial support from the Christian right.
At a campaign appearance in Cincinnati, McCain introduced Parsley as "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide."
Campaign aides positioned Parsley right behind McCain for photographers, apparently unconcerned about Parsley's well-established denunciations of the Islamic faith in a book "Silent No More" and on DVDs of sermons about Islam.
"Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world," Parsley says on the DVDs reviewed by ABC News.
"America was founded with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed," Parsley says, "and I believe Sept. 11, 2001 was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
Parsley's views and his connection to the McCain campaign are now beginning to show up on Arab Web sites and newspapers.
Al Moheet, a regional Arabic Web site operating in Egypt, carries the story with a picture of McCain and the headline: "McCain's Spiritual Adviser Calls for the Destruction of Islam."
"If there is a McCain presidency, he will start with a serious handicap in the Arab world," said former CIA intelligence officer John Kiriakou. "And the handicap is that it is already assumed in Muslim countries that they will not get a fair shake from a McCain administration," said Kiriakou.
In a statement to ABC News about Parsley's comments, McCain's campaign said the senator "obviously strongly rejects such statements." The campaign did not answer the question of whether it was aware of Parsley's widely publicized statements prior to seeking his endorsement in February.
McCain has not disassociated himself from the pastor, but the campaign statement said, "Just because someone endorses John McCain doesn't mean he endorses all of their views."
McCain has repeatedly urged the U.S. to show respect for Islam. "Our goal must be to win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists," McCain told the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles on March 26.
But well before he was asked to endorse McCain, Pastor Parsley took a much different view about moderate Muslims in his book and sermons. "I would counter respectfully that what some people call extremists are instead mainstream Muslim believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam," he said.
McCain said in his March speech, "We must remember that our freedoms are not only defended by our diplomacy and military power but, very importantly, by the decency and respect with which we treat one another."
Parsley says he can be silent no more about Islam. "I will rail against the idea that the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are the same being. I will sound the alarm about the pernicious agenda of the enemies of my country and the cross of my Christ, and I will proclaim the truth at every opportunity."
Parsley, through a spokesperson at his church, declined to be interviewed by ABC News.
In a statement, a spokesperson, Gene Pierce, said Parsley's comments "were in response to militant Islamic leaders' repeated pledges to kill Americans and destroy the United States and Western culture and democracies."
His Web site, said the spokesperson, "also makes a distinction between Muslim terrorists and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims."
Parsley says he has served in the public ministry for more than 30 years and now has a congregation of more than 12,000 people.
He hosts the television show "Breakthrough" on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, aired on 1,400 television and cable channels around the world.
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Benz Speaks! - - Approval of U.S. Congress lower than Bush

Gee! What a surprise!!

I wonder why??

Could it possibly have something to do with behavior of its members -- both at work and after work?????

Published: May 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- The approval rating of the U.S. Congress dropped to near-record levels and is lower than U.S. President George Bush's mark, a Gallup poll indicates.The telephone survey of 1,017 U.S. adults indicates 18 percent of those interviewed May 8-11 approve of the current Congress. The score matches record lows from similar Gallup polls in August 2007 and March 1992.Gallup said Wednesday the reason for the low approval rating is because "rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution."The same poll indicated approval ratings of Bush hover around his record lows, with 29 percent of respondents voicing support for the president.Gallup reported a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

Race Cards and Speech Codes

By Patrick J Buchanan

"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

So said Bill Clinton in New Hampshire of Obama's claim to have been a constant opponent of the war. Clinton cited Obama's voting record, which was the same as Hillary's in his early Senate years.

Yet, for this, the ex-president, designated by Toni Morrison as "our first black president," was charged with playing the race card.Clinton spent days explaining the "fairy tale" remark.Came then the morning of the South Carolina primary, where Barack was rolling up a smashing victory. Bill volunteered: "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina, twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign, and Sen. Obama's running a good campaign."That broke it. Bill Clinton was openly "playing the race card."Now, undoubtedly, Clinton was trying to belittle, to diminish the importance of the South Carolina vote for Obama. But why is it racist to say what Clinton was implying: That, in a Southern state where a huge share of the Democratic vote is African-American, a strong black presidential candidate can be expected to do well?Political history proves this. What is racist about saying it?Aware of the truism, every political analyst was looking closely at the racial breakdown of the South Carolina vote.Last week came Hillary's turn. After her victory in Indiana and loss in North Carolina, which pundits said rang down the curtain on her presidential bid, she advanced an argument candidates have used since primary elections began. "I can win -- and my opponent can't."The argument was made against Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan.In an interview with USA TODAY, Hillary argued that the coalition she has put together would be stronger against John McCain than the coalition Barack has cobbled together.She began by relating an AP article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.""There's a pattern emerging here," said Hillary. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."This shot Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post into low orbit."As a rationale for why Democratic Party super-delegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry ..."Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say ... that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist."But Hillary was saying no such thing. Describing her coalition, she was implying that Obama's coalition -- a George McGovern-Jesse Jackson combine embracing 90 percent of African-Americans, plus liberals, students and cause people -- has less chance of beating McCain than does she and her more Middle American coalition.Democrats, not liberal Democrats, are the swing votes who decide presidential races. Here Hillary beats Obama three to two or two to one, North and South.Has she no right to make this argument? Can Brother Robinson explain exactly how Hillary can describe her Ohio-Pennsylvania coalition without using the dread word "white"?Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks.Bill and Hillary have lost luster and sustained damage to their reputations because, in the Democrats' universe, such smears stick. The question for Republicans is whether they will let themselves be intimidated, as they too often are, from using legitimate political weapons to defend what they still have.It is thus a sign of trouble ahead that John McCain declared the Rev. Wright off limits and berated the North Carolina GOP for bringing him up. Let your adversaries circumscribe the content of your campaign, and you usually end up losing your campaign.

Did somebody say something about Government "Budget Deficits"?

by Dick Fojut

Our State and Local government "BUDGET DEFICITS" may not reflect large SURPLUSES of CAFR money income our governments' ACTUALLY possess! For example: in 2003, the State of Arizona had an $11.45 BILLION SURPLUS of Taxpayers money it was not using! The City of Phoenix had a SURPLUS of $2.34 BILLION! (See details further below.)

WHY ARE MEDIA PEOPLE NOT PUBLICLY ASKING ABOUT THESE LARGE, SOME HUGE, CAFR SURPLUSES OF MONEY?

CAFRS are the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports sent each year to Washington, revealing the ACTUAL financial investment earnings, income, etc., and SURPLUSES of money separately possessed by 84,000 Government related entities - States, Counties, Cities, School Districts, Pension Funds, etc.

A State ONE BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT sounds enormous! (It was in Orange County too years back! See further below how they "solved" their deficit.*)
But publicly reported yearly BUDGETS and BUDGET DEFICITS do not reveal ACTUAL government financial conditions - especially SURPLUSES! Only the CAFRS do!

If there are LARGE SEPARATE ("off normal budget") CAFR SURPLUSES in the State of Arizona, its counties, cities and school districts, etc., it appears possible the proposed money-saving closing of schools, non-hiring, layoffs of teachers and other public employees - and tax increases - may NOT be as critically necessary as thought! (Probably the great majority of government officials, employees - and media editors, reporters are unaware of the CAFRS and CAFR surpluses.)

About the CAFRS: the COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS...
Since 1946 (legislated by a wiser Congress), 84,000 Government entities including States, Counties, Cities, School Districts, etc., have been required yearly to report the ACTUAL accumulated financial assets and income they each separately possess.

---------------------------
THE NATIONAL CAFR SCANDAL WAS FIRST EXPOSED BY WALTER BURIEN...

Arizonan Walter Burien http://cafr1.com/ was the first to alert us that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports have intentionally been kept largely "invisible" to the American public, now for over 60 years!


Burien further revealed that:

The composite totals of investment assets held internationally by USA government is staggering. Between local and Federal government, the total of liquid investment assets held Internationally is a conservative sixty (60) Trillion dollars.

- And if Burien is correct with these percentages, note the following incredible revelation about behind-the-scene government ownership of American Big Businesses:


...Government owns most through Bond - Loan investment / stock ownership [EXAMPLES: 82% stock ownership of Microsoft Corporation, Disney 61%, AOL - Time Warner 58%, EXXON 72%] to manufacture abroad so that Government would realize greater returns on their investments at the Peoples of the USA's expense in jobs and wealth retention.

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

About Arizona specifically...


In 1999 Burien persuaded fellow Arizonan, retired Air Force Intelligence Officer and expert Govenment Auditor, Lt. Colonel Gerald Klatt, to do the necessary accounting to reveal the yearly CAFRS for some 39 States including Arizona - along with the two major Arizona counties and some cities. Colonel Klatt (cafrman.com), did so each year - until he died in 2004. The following CAFR reports are only through 2003. (But it should reasonably be expected that the CAFR government surpluses TODAY in 2008 total MORE than shown through 2003.) Valid question: Are the current proposals to cut teachers, government employees, services and increase taxes REALLY necessary? Consider the following...

Separate CAFR surpluses in Arizona through the year 2003 (from Klatt's website)...

The State of Arizona Has At Least $11.45 Billion In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-AZ-S1.htm
----------------------
Phoenix Has At Least $2.34 Billion In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Phoenix-AZ-CY1.htm
---------------
Maricopa County Has At Least $845 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-MaricopaCounty-AZ-C1.htm
-------------------
Pima County Has At Least $239 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-PimaCounty-AZ-C1.htm
-----------------
Scottsdale Has At Least $483 million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Scottsdale-AZ-CY1.htm
---------------
Tempe Has At Least $341 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Tempe-AZ-CY1.htm
-----------
Glendale Has At Least $385 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Glendale-AZ-C1.htm
----------------
Mesa Has At Least $245.4 Million In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
FY 2003 Report
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Mesa-AZ-CY1.htm
---------------
One nearby State...
The State of CALIFORNIA Has At Least $59.83 Billion In Surpluses of the Taxpayers Money it is not using.
http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-CA-S1.htm
FY 2003 Report

"RAINY DAY FUNDS."
I've lived in Tucson for over 50 years, but until about year 2000 when some of us asked about the CAFRS, I had never heard about any "RAINY DAY FUND" - that our then County Manager said he "didn't want to dip into." Soon after, the then Arizona Governor also mentioned "not wanting to dip into the State RAINY DAY FUND." Recently on TV I heard one Network commentator say that some States may have to "dip into their RAINY DAY FUNDS." I am suspicious the term "RAINY DAY FUND" has been presented locally and nationally, to avoid admitting the existence of the publicly unknown (often HUGE) CAFR surpluses of money funds not being used (or returned to Taxpayers) by local and State governments!

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

*Referred to at top, about another (past) ONE BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT - in Orange County, California... The following is extracted from Burien's article further down "CAFRS: THE BIGGEST SECRET"

* When Orange County lost a little over $1 billion in derivatives investments, they were crying "poverty" and threatening to shut down schools, police would have to be laid off etc. However someone dug into the Orange County CAFR and found out that the county had about $16 billion in profitable investments! The county, from their profitable liquid investment funds / cash position could have continued performing the same services, without collecting one dime in taxes, and could have done so for another 11.9 years from the existing funds prior to running out of money! The crying stopped.

* While he was a Mayor, Jesse Ventura's city council wanted to raise $360,000 in taxes to cover a short fall on their "city budget for schools." Ventura objected when he discovered the city owned $48,000,000 in idle investments funds from which the $360,000 could be drawn from without raising taxes!

From Walter Burien's current website...

THE GOVERNMENT OWNS IT "ALL" BY INVESTMENT - By Walter Burien
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - CAFR
http://cafr1.com/
May 2, 2008

Excerpts only...

THE CAFR SHELL GAME - THE REVOLUTION - BE A PART OF IT!

"GROSS" INCOME of government is now 1/3rd "TAX" income and 2/3rds NON-TAX income derived from: return on INVESTMENTS and money generated from government Enterprise projects.

------------------
Any Company or in fact Country can be "made" or "broken" through the use of those government investment funds. China just cut off further new US "Government" investments, now several trillion dollars worth in China so that would not happen. China learned by seeing what happened to Mexico then Russia.
_______________

The #1 Profit makers for Government from their investments are: The War Industry; Oil Companies; Pharmaceuticals; and Banking. (300% to 400% profits) - for NY CLICK HERE (on web page) TO SEE THE INVESTMENTS SHOWN IN JUST ONE (1) CAFR ( 2006 - NYSR-CAFR ) or for CA ( 2006 - CALPERS - CAFR ) .pdf file

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

Local and Federal Government's gross income in 1999 was 8.5 trillion dollars and the entire population's of the USA gross income, "net after taxation" 4.8 trillion dollars.

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

After you look at a state CAFR review, then look at your many city, county, school district, State University CAFR. Government Enterprise operation such as Toll ways, Bridges, Ports, water, sewer, power, recycling, CAFRs should then be looked at.
Pensions, self-funding debt financial authorities, self insurance authorities CAFRs should be looked at also. As of 2005 there are over 84,000 "individual" Annual Financial Reports (the CAFR) produced by just our local government operations. Each with their own investments and cash accounts...

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

The composite totals of investment assets held internationally by USA government is staggering. Between local and Federal government, the total of liquid investment assets held Internationally is a conservative sixty (60) Trillion dollars.

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

Could it be that our own Government over the last several decades has been promoting to those fortune 500 companies, of which Government owns most through Bond - Loan investment / stock ownership [EXAMPLES: 82% stock ownership of Microsoft Corporation, Disney 61%, AOL - Time Warner 58%, EXXON 72%] to manufacture abroad so that Government would realize greater returns on their investments at the Peoples of the USA's expense in jobs and wealth retention.



Additional articles by Burien...
CAFRs: The BIGGEST Secret -
$60 Trillion Invested By Fed, State, & Local Governments! 6-30-00
http://www.rense.com/general2/bigsecret.htm

Excerpts only...

Reported - but for all purposes HIDDEN from American taxpayers - Local, State and Federal governments currently hold about 60+ trillion dollars of profitable investments in real estate, pension funds, insurance companies, liquid investment funds, bond financing accounts and corporate stock portfolios (32 Trillion) over 53% of America's stock market, and a large percentage of the international stock market, etc., are all revealed in their required filing of CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) and noted reports therein.

Walter Burien, who has been blowing the whistle on this gargantuan scam, says, "Americans OWN the majority of America's WEALTH and don't know it." With the profits rolling in from international investments, you now know the true motive behind NAFTA and GATT.

* When Orange County lost a little over $1 billion in derivatives investments, they were crying "poverty" and threatening to shut down schools, police would have to be laid off etc. However someone dug into the Orange County CAFR and found out that the county had about $16 billion in profitable investments! The county, from their profitable liquid investment funds / cash position could have continued performing the same services, without collecting one dime in taxes, and could have done so for another 11.9 years from the existing funds prior to running out of money! The crying stopped.

* While he was a Mayor, Jesse Ventura's city council wanted to raise $360,000 in taxes to cover a short fall on their "city budget for schools." Ventura objected when he discovered the city owned $48,000,000 in idle investments funds from which the $360,000 could be drawn from without raising taxes!

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

CAFRs And Pending US 'Economic Collapse

By Walter J. Burien, Jr
WalterBurien@cafr1.com
http://www.rense.com/general74/cafrss.htm
Oct. 29, 2006
Excerpts only...

1. Composite wealth may now be 80 trillion but I always use a conservative 60 trillion plus. This money is standing investment and cash accounts.

2. There "is" an Economic Disaster looming. Government in their greed to hoard the wealth has taken over the market. In fact government "is" the market now.

In 1929, the public was the primary holder and they would and did have panic selling spree causing the collapse. Now government is the primary holder and they orchestrate continued gains to perpetuate their balance sheets.

Here a bubble exists but a bubble under ultimate control. If 100% of the public panicked and sold every share they owned, the market would have a severe dip but then come right back and then shoot higher with government now picking up most of those shares at a discount and then by effect would own 100% of the market.

Government did this before and after 911. They had massive short derivatives held going into 911 whereby a few trillion were picked up on those derivatives almost overnight as time goes when the derivatives were exited from.

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

The Government Economy Con-Game = "Derivatives"

By Walter Burien
http://CAFR1.com/NGE.html
March 15, 2008

A few excerpts only...

One way Government now "creates wealth" out of thin air is by covertly taking it "all" as a monopoly from everyone else. The ever-growing 516 trillion dollar international derivative market is a key tool used by Government to do just that. Read the article linked below, (see URL links in website article) but before you do, please read my comments below the link first:

Many of these investment funds are now managed outside of the US (off-shore) with trillion dollar US Government account balances that are not even visible for ease of inspection per their trading activity.. Do the lower level government employees know this? No, for most they do not.

Last year the Chinese Government cut off further US Government investments in China (US Government investment funds, especially on their derivatives market were taking over). India on the same day put restrictions on US Government investments in their derivatives market for the same reason also. The following day the US Stock Market was down 650 points. (Some thought the game was over, but it was not)

But don't worry about the US Stock market foolks, whoops, sic: folks) US Government local and federal owns the primary corporations in the US Market by composite stock ownership. Private sector ownership is insignificant in comparison. Salute Comrades!

To have a NWO (New World Order) under your control, derivatives are an important step to knock-out all opposition by taking their wealth and they will come in-line for management soon enough and then be accepted into the ranks of the inside players...

Not a peep on TV per the core of this game? Well, Silence is Golden it seems.





Dick Fojut is a long time Tucson resident and businessman.

Benz Speaks! - When ordinary lying isn't enough, you need help!

James Madison on Enemies of Public Liberty

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
-James Madison

McCain's Jeremiah Wright?

By FRANK RICH

BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and

endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including

twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.
Since then, Mr. McCain has been shocked to learn that his clerical ally has made many other outrageous statements. Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”
Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a

pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001,

televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.
None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

When Rudy Giuliani, still a viable candidate, successfully courted Pat Robertson for an

endorsement last year, few replayed Mr. Robertson’s greatest past insanities. Among them is his best-selling 1991 tome, “The New World Order,” which peddled some of the same old dark conspiracy theories about “European bankers” (who just happened to be named Warburg, Schiff and Rothschild) that Mr. Farrakhan has trafficked in. Nor was Mr. Giuliani ever seriously pressed to explain why his cronies on the payroll at Giuliani Partners included a priest barred from the ministry by his Long Island diocese in 2002 following allegations of sexual abuse. Much as Mr. Wright officiated at the Obamas’ wedding, so this priest officiated at (one of) Mr. Giuliani’s. Did you even hear about it?

There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as

we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.

A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”

An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of

a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.

This year Mr. McCain has called for a respectful (i.e., non-race-baiting) campaign and has gone so far as to

criticize (ineffectually) North Carolina’s Republican Party for running a Wright-demonizing ad in that state’s current primary. Mr. McCain has been posing (awkwardly) with black people in his tour of “forgotten” America. Speaking of Katrina in New Orleans, he promised that “never again” would a federal recovery effort be botched on so grand a scale.

This is all surely sincere, and a big improvement over Mitt Romney’s

dreams of his father marching with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Up to a point. Here, too, there’s a double standard. Mr. McCain is graded on a curve because the G.O.P. bar is set so low. But at a time when the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows that President Bush is an even greater drag on his popularity than Mr. Wright is on Mr. Obama’s, Mr. McCain’s New Orleans visit is more about the self-interested politics of distancing himself from Mr. Bush than the recalibration of policy.
Mr. McCain took his party’s stingier line on Katrina aid and twice opposed an independent commission to investigate the failed government response. Asked on his tour what should happen to the Ninth Ward now, he called for “a conversation” about whether anyone should “rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is.” Whatever, whenever, never mind.

For all this primary season’s obsession with the single (and declining) demographic of white working-class men in Rust Belt states, America is changing rapidly across all racial, generational and ethnic lines. The Census Bureau

announced last week that half the country’s population growth since 2000 is due to Hispanics, another group understandably alienated from the G.O.P.
Anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority nation in three to four decades. Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nation’s perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.

Frank Rich is a columnist for The New York Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Rich

Why You Need To Meet The Real John McCain

A message from
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt,
Sr. Policy Advisor,
U.S. Dept. of Education
during the Reagan Administration


As a delegate to our state convention this coming weekend we have a solemn obligation to know the truth about the man who has been anointed the “presumptive nominee” of our party. Our job is not to be a rubber stamp for anyone else’s agenda, no matter how “nobly” the cause is presented. The Republican establishment in Maine is counting on us not having the documented information on this sheet. It is counting on our willingness to be told what to think in the same way that the mainstream media has been telling us what to think throughout this entire election cycle. We are expected to suspend any other concerns we may have in the name of “party unity.”



The truth is that a patriot who loves his country makes it an ultimate priority to be well-educated about the decisions he or she must make. Unless we have come to understand how dominated by the leftist military-industrial complex America’s major media has become, and done some research, we are not prepared to do our duty at the convention.



This letter, supported by many delegates to the Republican Convention, is literally about saving the party and the nation from a maniacal neoconservative war monger, who supports a United States presence in Iraq for 100 years, and who is not really even a Republican!



“War hero” image is a media creation not supported by the facts



McCain graduated 894th of the 899 cadets in his class at the Naval Academy. Google it. Why would we want someone who was a failure and took his responsibilities so flippantly as our commander-in-chief?



McCain was an irresponsible pilot who crashed 6 planes, and started a major fire on an aircraft carrier through negligent action. Why would we want someone this reckless in the most-important office on the planet?



McCain collaborated with the enemy, was given “soft” treatment because his father was an admiral, and is known as “Songbird McCain” by those who were imprisoned with him. (http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com) He is the MIA/POW family’s worst enemy for his constant attempts to belittle their concerns and stifle their inquiries while serving in the Senate.



McCain ditched his ill wife to marry an heiress when he returned from Vietnam



Is this the type of morality we Republicans condone? Is this type of heinous lack of loyalty we want in a President? He also has a track record of shocking verbal abuse, including screaming profanities against his Senate Republican colleagues. Senator Thad Cochran, MS, says “The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine.” Other Senators relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum or Jim Imhofe. “The man is unhinged,” one senator said. “He is frighteningly unfit to be commander-in-chief.”



The truth is, John McCain is not even a Republican. He is a phony stalking horse who is a liberal in disguise. He not only can’t win this fall because he is so out of step with the majority of Americans and with the principled stands of Republicanism, but if we support this person for our nominee, he will likely destroy our party. Consider:



He was intimately involved in the “Keating 5” Savings & Loan scandal.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating ]

He has been endorsed by the liberal/leftist New York Times.

He is a big advocate of the extreme “green” global warming scare, and the economically horrific “solutions” being proposed by people like Al Gore.



He has promoted illegal amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.



His McCain-Feingold Bill has destroyed much of the rights of people to take part in the political process the way they see fit. This bill remains un-Constitutional and a major affront to the First Amendment protections on the right of free speech.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act ]


He is a big-time gun grabber who is an extreme advocate of restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights.



He opposes repeal of Roe v. Wade, and opposes a Constitutional amendment to protect all life.



He is no fiscal conservative, and he supports raising taxes on Social Security benefits.



He continues his aggressive support for the Iraq War, which costs the U.S. taxpayer $12 billion a month, even though only 34% of Americans support the war. (According to Paul Craig Roberts, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, and vocal opponent of the Iraq War: 4,538 Americans have died in the war, 29,780 have been wounded, 300,000 soldiers are suffering from major depression, and 320,000 received brain injuries, all as a result of this unconstitutional and immoral war.)



We will hear much about “unity” at the Maine State Convention. However, it is very important that we understand that to unify behind this man is tantamount to nominating a Democrat. We can vote our consciences or abstain from voting.



John McCain did poorly in our Maine caucuses. By most estimates he got fewer than 20% of the delegates to the State Convention coming out of our caucuses and was soundly trounced by both Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. McCain did not win a single county in the straw poll, with 15 counties going to Romney and one (Aroostook) going to Dr. Paul. McCain has little support nationally…there are never huge rallies for McCain, unless people are paid to show up. In short, he is a media creation and the darling of the Trotskyite neoconservative warmongers who have hijacked our party. He does not support our own platform!



Former Romney supporters who receive this info sheet DO NOT have to follow the “uncalled for” advice of the Massachusetts governor that you go over the cliff with support for this unstable man.



DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF OR YOUR VOTE TO BE PROSTITUTED IN THE NAME OF PARTY UNITY. PUT YOUR COUNTRY FIRST!



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and for being such an important part of our representative form of government -- the envy of the world!

Clinton mailing attacks Obama on guns

By Ben Smith

Hillary Clinton has re-opened her sharp attack on Barack Obama's position on guns, with a mailer in Indiana that seeks to raise questions about him with both supporters and opponents of gun rights.

The mailing -- perhaps the sharpest-edged of Clinton's five negative mail pieces in Indiana -- casts him as a typical politician, saying different things to different audiences. It also revives his damaging comments in San Francisco that small town people cling to guns.

Then, making the harsh case more broadly, the mailer asks: "What does Barack Obama really believe?"

The piece is particularly striking coming from Clinton, who has been seen for most of her career as a firm advocate of gun control, but more recently has emerged -- without dramatically shifting her stance on specific issues -- as a defender of the Second Amendment who fondly recalled being taught to shoot by her grandfather in Scranton.

Ben Smith is a columnist at www.politico.com
e-mail: bsmith@politico. com

Gun Control Poll from PollingPoint.com

Gun Control Results

The shootings at Virginia Tech in the spring of 2007 left the nation reeling. PollingPoint asked for your views on this tragic event and what it implies for gun control in America. Most of you believe that tougher gun laws could not have prevented the shootings at Virginia Tech.

In a recent PollingPoint survey, 72% of you told us that tougher gun laws could not have prevented the Virginia Tech tragedy, compared to 21% of you who believe that tougher gun laws could have helped. 7% of you are not sure whether tougher gun laws could have prevented the shootings. The gender divide is apparent in your views on gun control and the Virginia Tech tragedy. While only 15% of men believe that tougher gun control could have prevented the shooting, more than double the amount - 34% - of women think that tougher gun control could have helped.

Do you think tougher gun control laws could have prevented the shootings at Virginia Tech?
http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7

We asked you what you thought is more important – protecting the right of Americans to own guns or controlling gun ownership. Most of you (68%) think that protecting the right to own guns is more important, while 29% believe that controlling gun ownership is more important. Race appears to be a strong factor in how you view this question. More whites (68%) believe that protecting gun ownership is more important than controlling it (28%), while blacks are likely to say that controlling gun ownership is more important (57% versus 38%).

What do you think is more important - protecting the right of Americans to own guns or controlling gun ownership?
http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7

One question raised by the Virginia Tech tragedy is the relationship of violent movies and video games to crime. We asked you whether you think such movies and video games inspire mentally unstable people to commit acts of violence like the Virginia Tech shooting. Nearly half of you report that violence in video games and movies does encourage some people to violence (49%), while about a third (35%) believes that violence in such media has no effect.

Do you think violent movies and video games inspire mentally unstable people to commit acts of violence like the shootings at Virginia Tech?
http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7

We also asked you about your views toward political candidates who support gun control. Across the board, most of you say that you would not support a presidential candidate who favors stricter gun laws (61%). Interestingly, we also see a huge gender difference: men overwhelmingly say that they are less likely to support political candidates who favor gun control (73% less likely, 17% more likely), while women are about evenly split in their views on this issue (36% less likely, 39% more likely).

Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate for president who favors stricter gun control laws?
http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7

Ron Paul is interviewed by John Roberts on CNN's American Morning

Benz Speaks!

Recently ( April 28, 2008) , Ron Paul was interviewed by John Roberts on CNN regarding his (Paul's) new book - - The Revolution - A Manifesto and also Paul's continuing campaign for the Presidency. Watch the almost eight minute video posted on YouTube. Click the title to go to YouTube.

Book Description (via Amazon.com)

This Much Is True:

You Have Been Lied To.
The government is expanding.
Taxes are increasing.
More senseless wars are being planned.
Inflation is ballooning.

Our basic freedoms are disappearing.

The Founding Fathers didn't want any of this. In fact, they said so quite clearly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, that beautiful, ingenious, and revolutionary document is being ignored more and more in Washington. If we are to enjoy peace, freedom, and prosperity once again, we absolutely must return to the principles upon which America was founded. But finally, there is hope . . .

In THE REVOLUTION,Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has exposed the core truths behind everything threatening America, from the real reasons behind the collapse of the dollar and the looming financial crisis, to terrorism and the loss of our precious civil liberties. In this book, Ron Paul provides answers to questions that few even dare to ask.

Despite a media blackout, this septuagenarian physician-turned-congressman sparked a movement that has attracted a legion of young, dedicated, enthusiastic supporters . . . a phenomenon that has amazed veteran political observers and made more than one political rival envious. Candidates across America are already running as "Ron Paul Republicans.""

. About the Author

Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman from Texas, is the leading advocate of freedom in our nation's capital. He has devoted his political career to the defense of individual liberty, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."

After serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, Dr. Paul moved to Texas to begin a civilian medical practice, delivering over four thousand babies in his career as an obstetrician. He served in Congress from 1976 to 1984, and again from 1996 to the present. He and Carol Paul, his wife of fifty-one years, have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests."

"There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles," added a congressional colleague. "Ron Paul is one of those few."

Will the Right Sit It Out?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

April 29, 2008

If John McCain wins the presidency, his comeback -- after the bankrupt debacle his campaign had become in the summer of 2007 with his backing of the amnesty bill -- will be the stuff of legend.

And as nominee, he is entitled to conduct his own campaign and be cut slack by a party whose brand name is now Enron.

That said, McCain seems to have decided to win by love-bombing the Big Media and putting miles between himself and the base.

Consider his "Forgotten Places" tour of last week.

It began in Selma, Ala., where McCain went to Edmund Pettis Bridge to hail John Lewis and the marchers night-sticked and hosed down by the Alabama State Troopers on the Montgomery march for voting rights.

Now that was a seminal movement in the fight for civil rights.

But this is not 1965. Today, John Lewis is a big dog in the "No-Whites-Need-Apply!" Black Caucus. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is sermonizing White America. The Rev. Al Sharpton is trying to shut down the Big Apple. And the fight for equal rights is being led by Ward Connerly.

With no help from McCain, Connerly is trying to put on five state ballots a Civil Rights Initiative that declares white men are also equal and not to be denied their civil rights because of the color of their skin.

And where does McCain stand?

From Selma, McCain went to the Gee's Bend Quilters Collective, where black ladies make the famous blankets. The stop could not but call to mind the hundreds of thousands of textile and apparel jobs in the Carolinas and Georgia lost after NAFTA and Most-Favored Nation for China, both of which McCain enthusiastically supported.

McCain's next stop was Inez, Ky., where LBJ declared war on poverty. But LBJ's war was a politically motivated scheme to shift wealth and power to government, which led to a pathological dependency among America's poor, his own abdication and Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign against Big Government that ushered in the Conservative Decade.

McCain then went to New Orleans to backhand Bush for failing to act swiftly to rescue the victims of Katrina.

But the real failure of New Orleans was of the corrupt and incompetent regime of Mayor Ray Nagin and the men of New Orleans, who left 30,000 women and children stranded in a sea of stagnant water.

No doubt Bush hit the snooze button, but why the piling on?

Then McCain headed up to Youngstown, Ohio, to tell the folks their jobs are never coming back and NAFTA was a sweet deal.

But why, when America's mini-mills and steel mills are among the most efficient on earth -- in terms of man hours needed to produce a ton of steel -- aren't those jobs coming back?

Answer: It is due to the free-trade policies of Bush and McCain, which permit trade rivals to impose value-added taxes of 15 percent to 20 percent on steel imports from the United States while rebating those taxes on steel exports to the United States. We are getting it in the neck coming and going.

An America First trade and tax policy could have U.S. steel mills rising again, while those in Japan, China, Russia and Brazil would be shutting down as uncompetitive in the U.S. market.

But we no longer put America first.

The U.S. government burns its incense at the altar of the Global Economy. The losers are those guys in Youngstown McCain was lecturing on the beauty of NAFTA. And the winners are the CEOs who pull down seven-, eight- and even nine-figure annual packages selling out their country for the corporation.

Does McCain think $6 trillion in trade deficits since NAFTA, a dollar rotting away and 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush was all inevitable? Does he think we can do nothing to stop the deindustrialization of a country that used to produce 96 percent of all it consumed?

Why should those guys in Youngstown vote for McCain?

So the feds can teach them how to shovel snow?

Even Hillary, whose husband did NAFTA with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole's help, now gets it.

Then McCain took a time out to denounce the North Carolina GOP for ads tying the Rev. Wright to Obama, and the pair to two Democratic congressional candidates. To their credit, the North Carolinians told McCain where to get off and are running the ads.

What does a McCain victory mean for conservatives?

Probably a veto on tax hikes and perhaps a fifth justice like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or John Roberts, to turn two pair into a full house. Fifty years after Warren, it could be game, set, match for the right.

But McCain may also mean more Middle East wars, more bellicosity, more manufacturing jobs lost, malingering in the culture wars, and more illegal aliens and amnesty.

In Pennsylvania, thousands of Republicans re-registered to vote Democratic, and 27 percent of the GOP votes went to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. McCain may just stretch this rubber band so far it snaps back in his face.