There is no doubt that the individual freedoms and liberties that Americans enjoy, as well as our nation's sovereignty, are in danger because of the actions and inactions of our federal elected officials, both Republicans and Democrats. Although the Democratic party is equally responsible for the mess this country is in, if not more so, the 2008 election was a clear repudiation of the Republican administration's out-of-control spending policies, their failure to stop illegal immigration and control our borders, their out-of-control expansion of big government into our everyday lives, their active support of NAFTA and other treaties that hurt American workers, as well as their fraudulent financial bailout of the big banks and Wall Street firms that has pushed our country deeper into debt by trillions of dollars. The Republican leadership, particularly at the national level, has not only failed their fellow republicans, but has failed the American people as well.

Registered Republicans in record numbers voted for Democratic candidates in the last election because they honestly believed that the Republican Party no longer represented their interests. The injuries the Republican Party suffered from the massive loss of congressional and Senate seats in the 2008 election were mostly from self-inflicted wounds.

The majority of registered Republicans wanted a conservative candidate for president, not a so-called maverick who was a moderate republican at best, and one who frequently voted with the liberal Democrats for bigger government programs. Don't get me wrong. I believe that John McCain is a good man who has served his country honorably for over 40 years and would have made a better president than Barack Obama, but John McCain is no conservative republican. The Republican Party leadership at the national level has proven time and time again that they are out of touch with Main Street America. If the Republican Party fails to get back to its conservative roots, uphold the constitutional principles it was founded upon and select more conservative candidates, it will become irrelevant and cease to exist as a viable party.

Five straight quarters of losses and a 70 percent slide in its stock this year haven't stopped Merrill Lynch & Co. from allocating about $6.7 billion to pay bonuses.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, both still on track for profitable years, have set aside about $13 billion for bonuses after three quarters, down 28 percent from a year ago. Even some employees at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which declared the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history last month, will get the same bonus they received a year ago.

The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a $700 billion taxpayer bailout, public outcry over excessive pay and the demise of three of the biggest securities firms won't deter Wall Street from offering year-end rewards to employees on top of their salaries, compensation experts say.

``Critical producers and critical managers will be retained with the same bonus they had last year,'' said Robert Sloan, head of U.S. financial-services recruiting at Egon Zehnder International, a New York-based executive-search firm. ``The others will see sharp cuts.''

Goldman, the biggest and most profitable Wall Street firm until it opted to become a bank holding company last month, has set aside about $6.85 billion for bonuses, or an average of $210,300 for each employee, down 32 percent from $339,400 a year ago. Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest securities firm until it also converted to a bank, has $6.44 billion for bonuses, or $138,700 per person, down 20 percent from last year. Both firms accrue a fixed percentage of their revenue for compensation, so the decline in bonus pools matches the drop in revenue.

Merrill's Compensation

The money Merrill has set aside for bonuses equates to an average $110,000 for each of its 60,900 people, up from $108,000 a year ago because more than 3,000 jobs have been cut.

The bonus figures are based on estimates that about 60 percent of the compensation and benefits expenses reported by the companies will be paid in year-end bonuses, as occurred in past years. Average bonuses aren't an indication of how much any employee will receive, since payments range widely from assistants to top traders. Bonuses aren't paid until the end of the fiscal year, so firms could choose to reallocate the funds.

``We are in the process of determining appropriate levels of year-end compensation, and no decisions have been made,'' said Mark Lake, a spokesman at Morgan Stanley. Ed Canaday, a spokesman for Goldman in New York, declined to comment.

Merrill spokeswoman Jessica Oppenheim said the firm's accrued bonuses aren't down as much as those at Goldman and Morgan Stanley because the firm reduced expenses last year, when it also had a loss. Compensation costs are down 18 percent this year, compared with the first nine months of 2006, Merrill's last profitable year.

`Moratorium on Bonuses'

A worldwide economic slowdown, caused in part by the financial industry's losses, and a U.S. Treasury plan to spend $250 billion of taxpayer money buying stakes in banks, have made pay a political issue this year.

``There should be a moratorium on bonuses,'' Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told reporters last week. ``If nobody gave them, there wouldn't be a competitive aspect.''

In Zurich, protesters blocked UBS AG's private-banking branch on Paradeplatz last week to seek curbs on executive pay after Switzerland's largest bank was forced to ask for government aid.

$145 Billion

``I'm just flabbergasted that the financial community has failed to show any sense of leadership on this issue and doesn't seem to understand how angry people are at them,'' said Nell Minow, editor of Corporate Library, a Portland, Maine-based corporate-governance research firm. ``They are just a bonus away from having the villagers come after them with torches.''

New York-based Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill, Lehman and Bear Stearns Cos. awarded their employees a cumulative $145 billion in bonuses from 2003 through 2007, according to estimates based on company reports. That's more than the annual gross domestic product of the Philippines. Last year the firms paid out a record $39 billion.

At the end of this year, companies may decide against paying the money accrued for bonuses and instead use part of it to cover severance costs, said Rose Marie Orens, a New York-based partner at Mercer, the human resources consulting unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos., who specializes in executive compensation for financial- service companies. Goldman and Morgan Stanley end their fiscal year in November, and Merrill's ends in December.

Lehman Bankruptcy

``Whether what you see is what they're going to pay, you can't tell yet,'' she said. ``It's highly unlikely they'll add to those numbers and more likely they'll bring them down.''

Lehman filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15. Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns were rescued in emergency sales to Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. Goldman and Morgan Stanley are each receiving $10 billion of capital from the government.

Bank of America is offering Merrill's U.S. brokers bonuses of as much as 100 percent of the revenue they generate to keep them after the deal is complete, people briefed on the plan said last week. Scott Silvestri, a spokesman for Bank of America, declined to comment.

Employees at Lehman Brothers in Europe have been promised by their new owner, Nomura Holdings Inc., that they will receive the same bonus as last year, according to two people familiar with the situation. A Nomura spokesman declined to comment.

Earnings Slump

Share prices and profits have dropped more than bonuses so far. Goldman's profit has fallen 47 percent this year, and the stock is down 53 percent. Morgan Stanley's earnings have tumbled 41 percent, and the shares have shed 69 percent of their value.

``Performances have certainly not been what investors would expect,'' said Daniel Moynihan, a principal at Compensation Resources Inc., a 25-year-old company in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey that advises companies on pay practices. Still, ``smart companies are going to reward those people who performed well,'' he said.

Even without bonuses, Wall Street's traders and bankers typically receive salaries that range from $80,000 to $600,000 a year. That compares with the mean annual wage for the average U.S. employee of about $40,690 and a mean for CEOs of $151,370, according to a May 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics report.

For many on Wall Street, those salaries aren't enough. Top employees expect to receive bonuses that can be in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. Lloyd Blankfein, 54, Goldman's chief executive officer, was awarded a $67.9 million bonus last year on top of his $600,000 salary.

`Obscene' Mindset

At Merrill Lynch, CEO John Thain, 53, received a $15 million bonus when he was hired in December. Peter Kraus, 56, who is leaving after joining Merrill last month as strategy head, may be eligible to collect on a pay package originally valued at $95 million, including stock and options that replaced a Goldman stake he had to forfeit, people familiar with the matter have said.

While some of the most senior executives may choose to forgo their bonuses, like Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack, 63, did last year, others whose compensation isn't disclosed can still take home millions, said Mercer's Orens.

At investment banks, ``the largest compensation doesn't necessarily get paid to the top five executives,'' she said. ``They could be zeros, but there still will be people making $28 million.''

``When you work on Wall Street and you get no bonus, that is a huge shock to the system,'' said Bill Coleman, chief compensation officer at Salary.com, a software provider based in Waltham, Massachusetts. ``Wall Street has created this mindset that most people find obscene, which is that it's hard to live on just half a million dollars a year.''

`No Wall Street'

A Morgan Stanley investment banker in Europe, speaking on the condition that he wouldn't be identified, said his bonus last year was five times his salary and that he would quit if he didn't get a bonus this year, unless his salary was doubled.

``There is no Wall Street without bonuses,'' said Andy Kessler, a former analyst and hedge-fund manager turned author. ``The guys who know how to make money are the ones who are in demand. If you want to keep them, you have to pay them something.''

More than 148,000 financial jobs have been eliminated worldwide since the middle of 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Securities industry jobs in New York fell by 9,000, or 5 percent, through August 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said in an Oct. 23 report. The mean annual salary of securities-industry employees in 2007 was ``slightly less than $400,000,'' according to the Fed report.

Goldman Cuts

Goldman Sachs plans to cut about 3,200 people, or 10 percent of its employees, a person familiar with the matter said last week. That's a reversal from Sept. 16, when Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said he expected the number of employees to grow this year. Viniar told analysts in March that compensation costs make up two-thirds of the firm's expenses and that year-end bonuses are roughly two-thirds of compensation.

More job reductions are likely, especially at Merrill and Lehman. About 10,000 Merrill employees may lose their jobs, estimates Richard Bove, an analyst at Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Options Group, a financial services recruitment and consulting firm in New York, estimates that global banking job cuts could reach 200,000, with as many as 50,000 in New York.

``The vast majority of the guys who are being let go are not going to find another job in this environment on the Street,'' said Fred Joseph, the former CEO of Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. who's now co-head of Morgan Joseph & Co. in New York. ``Middle- market firms like us are growing, but all of us won't hire enough people to dent the 10 percent of people that Goldman's going to let go.''

Hedge Funds

Barclays Plc, which is acquiring Lehman's North American investment banking and capital markets businesses, will cut about 3,000 jobs, Barclays President Robert Diamond said in an Oct. 10 Fortune magazine article. While London-based Barclays has a $2.5 billion pool of money to pay severance and other compensation, it hasn't promised former Lehman employees any bonuses. Seth Martin, a spokesman at Barclays, declined to comment.

Competition for top employees, a standard explanation for paying large bonuses, is less fierce this year. Hedge funds, which have poached top traders from securities firms in the past, may cut as many as 10,000 jobs this year after their biggest losses in more than 20 years, estimates Options Group.

``People don't have a whole lot of alternative places to go to, and it's pretty clear to everybody that they're lucky to have a job,'' said Roy Smith, a former Goldman partner who's now a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business. ``It has never been easy to find industries away from finance where you can make millions of dollars a year.''

Who Are Keepers?

Fewer employees means more bonus money will be available for those who remain, said Mercer's Orens.

``You determine these are keepers, and you've got to keep them, so they'll receive a disproportionate amount of the money that remains,'' she said. ``You want to make sure they're not there and angry.''

Joseph, the former Drexel CEO, recalled the time at Shearson Hammill & Co. in 1973 when he had to deliver some good news and some bad news to a young employee.

``The good news is we're firing half your class, but we love you and we want you to stay; the bad news is you're not going to get a bonus, and we're cutting salaries 10 percent,'' he said. ``He stayed and he built a whole career, and he's been a successful investment banker ever since.''

The following table compares compensation and estimated bonuses for the first nine months of 2008 with the first nine months of last year. Bonus estimates are 60 percent of total compensation. Bonus awards are typically determined at the end of the year, with payments made in December or January.

 

                    Goldman        Morgan Stanley      Merrill
Nine Months 2007
Total Compensation  $16.92         $13.37              $11.56
(in billions)
Estimated Bonus     $10.15         $8.02               $6.94
(in billions)
Employees*          29,905         47,713              64,200
Bonus Per Employee  $339,408       $168,067            $108,075
Nine Months 2008
Total Compensation  $11.42         $10.73              $11.17
(in billions)
Estimated Bonus     $6.85          $6.44               $6.70
(in billions)
Employees*          32,569         46,383              60,900
Bonus Per Employee  $210,322       $138,749            $110,049
*Employee numbers are figures in third-quarter earnings reports
and don't reflect any cuts or additions since then.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Christine Harper in New York at
charper@bloomberg.net;
Serena Saitto in New York at
ssaitto@bloomberg.net.

Article From WorldNetDaily:

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor who says that the Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document.

By Jerome R. Corsi© 2008 WorldNetDaily

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama."It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.

The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.

WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.

Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists.In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born."

Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.

---------------------
Comment from John Wallace:

If Barack Obama has a valid birth certificate, why doesn't he just produce it and end the controversy? I guess only Barack Obama knows the answer to that question, but the American people also have a constitutional right to know that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and meets all of the contsitutional requirements to be President. We just want the truth.

John Wallace
www.NYCampaignForLiberty.com

Has anyone noticed that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama are talking about what they are going to do with the 15 to 20 million illegal aliens that are in this country?

Ever wonder why the members of our nation's media have not asked the candidates any questions on this subject during the debates? The answer is simple. The majority of American citizens would not like their answers.

Well, here's a brief summary of McCain's and Obama's positions for you:

John McCain:

Rather than throwing illegal aliens out of the country, John McCain has voted in the past to extend social security benefits to the illegals who illegally enter our country, take jobs from American citizens, bankrupt our state and local governments with welfare costs, overload our schools at the expense of local taxpayers, bankrupt our hospitals because they don't pay their medical bills, and overload our criminal justice system with criminals. McCain co-sponsored the Senate immigration bill that would have legalized millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. and still backs what he calls a "sensible" guest-worker program for workers who are in the country without legal documentation ( a nice way of saying illegal aliens), although he has recently called for strengthening penalties for those who hire undocumented immigrants.

Barack Obama:

He has voted to continue to provide federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities," voted for the Senate immigration overhaul bill was supposed to strengthen border controls, although the bill would also create an expanded guest-worker program and eventually legalize millions of undocumented foreign workers ( a nice way of saying illegal aliens) who are here now. He has sponsored a bill to allow states to offer illegal immigrants in-state tuition and has also supported giving driver licenses to illegal aliens who have no legal right to be in this country, never mind driving on our roads.

If we want to switch the subject to the economic crisis brought about by fraudelent mortgages, why aren't McCain and Obama asked to comment on the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fraudulent home mortgages that were given to illegal aliens that was spelled out in a recent report of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The problem began years ago when the federal government began their social engineering experiments in housing with the American taxpayers' money. In the name of political correctness, diversity and so-called fairness, congress and the executive branch began coercing the banks into giving mortgages to people who would normally never qualify for mortgages. The banks (with federal loan guarantees from Fannie Mae) became willing partners in this scam and gave mortgages to millions of people with bad credit histories, without confirming the borrowers' social security numbers, employment, true identification or even their legal status in the country. As a result, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens were given home mortgages which they could not afford and to many who had no intention of ever making a payment.

"When is the last time you applied for a car loan, a personal loan or a mortgage and did not have to provide valid identification or a social security number? The answer is never.

I believe there is no fundamental difference between the McCain and the Obama approaches to dealing with illegal immigration. No matter which candidate wins the election, it will be up to the American people (again) to keep them from giving the illegal aliens amnesty.

John Wallace
NY Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/

The words "No Taxation without Representation" began as a slogan in the period 1763-1776 just before the first American Revolution. The slogan summarized the primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who believed the lack of representation in the British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as English citizens. The colonists believed that the laws excessively taxing them for services they did not receive were illegal.

It has become apparent to most Americans that both houses of our Congress, just like the British Parliament of the 1760's and 1770's, no longer represents the interests of the American people. Our congress routinely passes legislation that benefits a wide variety of special interest groups at the expense of the average American citizen and taxpayer. Through the use of special interest bribes (I mean campaign contributions), it can now be said that America has the best congress that money can buy.

American taxpayers are seeing their taxes go up at every level of government, oftentimes for services and programs that they do not benefit from, nor approve of. Our local and school taxes are rising at a rate far exceeding any increases in our incomes. The U.S. congress and the Federal Reserve are printing fiat money (backed by nothing) as fast as the printing presses can print it and the American taxpayers are starting to get angry about the increasing burden of taxation placed upon them and they have every right to be angry.

The American taxpayers who live up to their responsibilities and who work hard (often holding two jobs) to pay their bills with less take-home money are:

1. paying for ongoing failed social engineering experiments in housing and education,
2. paying for the funding of anti-American, socialist organizations like LaRaza and ACORN,
3. paying for a variety of services provided to 15 million +/- illegal aliens,
4. paying for the bailout of large international banks,
5. paying for the bailout of Wall Street firms,
6. paying for the bailout of real estate investors and
7. paying for the bailout of people who are unable or unwilling to be responsible adults and who fail to pay their own bills, including their mortgages.

Many American citizens, particularly those who pay taxes, are frustrated by a government that no longer represents them, but rather represents the interests of an oligarchy of about one thousand political and financial elites who exert unconstitutional and illegal control over our government and economy for their personal gain.

The members of this oligarchy are not loyal Americans who have the best interests of the county in mind, but rather they are people who benefit financially or politically by keeping our country in a constant state of war, by dumbing down our education system, by devaluating our currency, by separating us into categories by race and ethnic origin, by drugging 6 million of children with mind altering drugs, by flooding our country with illegal aliens, and by chipping away at our nation's sovereignty, freedoms and liberties.

I believe that Americans are fast approaching a point of frustration and anger with their own government similar to what the American colonists reached in 1776. They want to take their country and government back from the corrupt political and financial elites who control it. Let's hope that the second American Revolution that we see on the horizon, is accomplished via the ballot box.

John Wallace
New York Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/ `

In 1938, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was created to help Americans get mortgages. Fannie Mae is a private GSE (Govt. Sponsored Entity) regulated by Congress and it was created to help the country get out of the depression by making it easier for American to buy homes. Although Fannie Mae was established as a private company with shareholders and was supposed to make a profit, the American taxpayers would still be stuck for the bill if Fannie Mae suffered any losses.

A similar private organization, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac), was established in 1970 and charged with creating a national secondary market for conventional home mortgages. By doing so, Congress hoped to level out the disparity among regions of the nation in regard to availability of and interest rates on home mortgages.

In 1977, however, Congress decided that it was time for the federal government to intrude into the free-market mortgage business through the introduction of welfare state type legislation. It passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which required banks and other lending institutions to make extraordinary efforts to give loans to “communities of color” disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines that were so successful in the past.In the name of ending alleged discrimination, members of these “communities of color” were no longer required to provide all of the standard mortgage documents such as verification of income, proof of employment, credit history, or even provide a down payment.

Because of the federal loan guarantees that came with the legislation, many banks and mortgage companies bundled billions of dollars of “subprime” loans and sold them to investors both in the USA and in foreign countries. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act type mortgages, that were doomed to fail, that would eventually cause the near collapse of U.S. and global financial markets in 2008.

In 1997, The Clinton administration, pushing the socialist idea that home ownership is a right of all Americans, placed even more pressure on banks to grant even more mortgages to the poor, minorities and people with bad credit. Reacting to the pressure applied by the Clinton Administration and the threat of federal lawsuits by Janet Reno, American banks began making thousands of bad loans, many with no money down, no documentation and even loans for up to 120% of actual values. Executives at Fannie Mae started to receive huge bonuses when mortgage loans targets were met. To help push the program, Franklin Raines and Jamie Garelick, from the Clinton Administration, were given top positions in Fannie Mae.

In 1998, Fannie Mae reported the following bonuses to some of their executives: chairman and chief executive James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines, chairman-designate, received $1.11 million; Chief Operating Officer Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Vice Chairman Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Chief Financial Officer J. Timothy Howard received $493,750; and Robert J. Levin, an executive vice president, received $493,750. These bonuses increased in future years as fraudelent entries were made in the financial records.

In 2001, Enron Corporation collapses and congress the SEC and the FBI investigates. In the ensuing years, many of the Enron executives were charged with various federal crimes and many of them were sentenced to years in federal prison. The chielf executives of the company were found guilty of cooking the books. As a result of this business failure, in 2002 congress passed the Sorbanes-Oxley Act, which introduced major changes to the regulation of financial practice and corporate governance. Named after Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley, who were its main architects, it set deadlines for the record keeping compliance by the nation's corporations.

In 2003, President George Bush called for legislation to give the government more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but his proposal fell on deaf congressional ears, many of whose members were receiving substantial bribes (I mean campaign contributions) from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2004, the Office of Management and Budget, found that massive fraudulent bookkeeping practices were occurring at Fannie Mae and that these practices were very similar to the fraudelent practices in the Enron Corp case. The OMB determined that these annual false mortgage statistics were used to justify the top executives getting excessive bonuses every year. Unlike the Enron case, however, congress decided not to hold any hearings and the FBI did not launch any criminal investigations. As a result of the OMB report, Franklin Raines & other top execs were forced to resign from Fannie Mae for doing the same thing that Enron executives did (cookin the books), but unlike the Enron case, the Fannie Mae executives only had to give back $31.4 million dollars in fines after a civil proceeding.

In 2005, Senators Chuck Hagel (NE), Elizabeth Dole (NC), John Sununu (NH) and John McCain (AZ) proposed legislation entitled, " The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act" (S-190) that was designed to give the federal government increased federal oversight over Fannie Mae, Freedie Mac and other institutions, but the legislation was met with fierce Democratic partisan opposition and it went nowhere. In support of this legislation, Sen McCain stated: "if Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

TWO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS THAT CONTIBUTED FOR THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY FAILURES:

1 - The National Council of LaRaza, a racist and pro-illegal alien amnesty group, along with its Development Fund, have received millions of dollars in federal funds to "counsel" their constituents (including illegal aliens) on how to obtain mortgages with little to no money down. For years, there has been a rapidly expanding illegal alien home loan racket that the media and the federal government still are unwilling to talk about. Many banks looking for more federal guaranteed loan handouts, led by Wachovia and Bank of America, launched aggressive campaigns designed to attract more illegal alien homebuyers, subsidized by the American taxpayers of course.

2 - Another socialist Racist group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) demanded “affirmative action” in all lending practices and programs. They pressured banks to make subprime loans to poor people of color with bad credit. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, has even boasted of “dragging banks kicking and screaming” into these dubious loans. As conservative community activist Robert Woodson put it, “The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton also pay ransom to ACORN.” The ACORN organization actively supports candidates of the Democratic Party and many ACORN people have also been arrested on various charges involving voter fraud.

To make matters worse, The most recent House and Senate Democratic bail-out legislation contained a well-hidden provision that would forward some of the profits, indirectly, to help fund organizations like LaRaza and ACORN. If this provision is included in the final versions, the American taxpayer will be giving more cash to the very groups that helped create the lending mess in the first place.

By 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had loaned or underwritten about $5.3 trillion of the total $12 trillion of outstanding mortgage debt in the United States. Because of the shear magnitude of mortgages held, many in government and in the private sector believed that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were too big to be allowed to fail and the government had to take them over completely with taxpayers money.

Because of this philosophy, American Taxpayers either have or shortly will have shelled out close to $1.4 Trillion in bailout money for various reasons in the last 14 months alone.Here’s a list of some of the more recent Federal government's actions in the financial markets recently published by Reuters:

Cost to taxpayers and the Bailout Type

$ 700 billion+ - Proposed current Treasury Department legislation
$ 29 billion - Bear Stearns financing
$ 200 bilion - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization
$ 85 billion - AIG loan and nationalization
$ 300 billion - Federal Housing Administration housing rescue bill
$4 billion - Mortgage community grants
$87 billion - JPMorgan Chase repayments
$200 billion+ - Loans to banks via Fed's Term Auction Facility
$ 50 billion - Loans from Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund
$144 billion - Purchases of mortgage securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

TOTAL: $1.8 trillion+
COST PER US HOUSHOLD: $17,064+

I believe that the solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the free market. It is time this process is put to an end, or at the very least, reigned in. The government should sell off the assets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac quickly and close down these corrupt organizations. Government must stop pandering to special interest groups, reduce the volume and complexity of regulations it imposes on lending institutions and stop passing social engineering legislation, like the Community Reinvestment Act, that interferes in the free market economy and which has ultimately led to this financial crisis.

It's a tough battle for those Senators and Members of Congress who have stood tall and who have voted against this massive fleecing of the American taxpayers for the benefit of Wall Street investors and big commercial banks. Unfortunately, if congress can be judged by its past practices, any proposed bailout legislation that comes to a vote will undoubtedly be loaded with riders, earmarks and all forms of other "pork" so that the special interests that are looking for us to bail them out will win and the American taxpayers will lose again.

John Wallace
NY Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/

 

The President and the Congress seem to be moving quickly to bail out the crooks at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the insurance giant AIG. Why are we bailing out these crooks with honest taxpayers money?

Rather than printing another $785,000,000,000. in worthless fiat money that puts each taxpayer in the hole for over ten grand, why not just give the money directly to the taxpayers instead.

Let's give the $785,000,000,000. to American taxpayers instead. Let's give 135 million American taxpayers a "citizen bailout" dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 135,000,000 bona fide U.S. taxpayers (accourding the IRS figures for 2005). Now divide 135 million taxpayers, into the $785 billion and that equals $5,800. for each taxpayer! If we have to bail out someone, isn't it better to bail out the people who are actually paying the bills. Why are we rewarding incompetence and criminal behavior with taxpayer bonuses that will go to the very crooks that caused this crisis.

I say if we are going to bail out anyone, let's give $5,800 to every American taxpayer as part of a "citizen bailout" plan. A husband and wife would get $11,600. to do with what they want!

John Wallace
NYCampaignforLiberty

At a time when our economy is struggling and unemployment for American citizens is increasing, two new anti-American worker bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives. The first bill (H.R. 5882) is designed to create 550,000 additional green cards for foreign nationals and the second bill (H.R. 5924) will make it easier for foreign nurses to come to the United States to compete with American citizens for nursing jobs and the legislation will even help pay for the foreign workers education. These bills are in addition to earlier House bills, H.R. 4088 and H.R. 5642, that are also designed to increase the numbers of foreign workers admitted to the country, at the expense of American citizens.

In August of 2008, 592,000 additional Americans were added to the official unemployment rolls. The total number of Americans who are officially unemployed now stands at 8.28 million. The current official unemployment rate (highest in 5 years) is currently 6 percent. The official unemployment rate is considerably higher for Hispanic women at 8.7% and is twice as high for Black American men at 12.3%. The last thing this country needs in tough econimic times is a large increase in foreign workers and immigration.

In these uncertain times, with so many American citizens losing their jobs, why are certain members of congress insisting on giving away 500,000+ additional American jobs to foreigners. Some House members want to increase the number of new permanent immigrants allowed into the country by using a fraudelent sceme designed to “RECAPTURE” work visas that were supposedly never used in previous years, although this turns out to be outright misinformation.

These two new bills will add a minimum of a million additional permanent immigrants, plus their families, to the United States over the next ten years. This number does not include those already being added under other immigration and visa programs. That is one million additional foreign workers, plus their families, who will be competing for jobs and wages currently held by American citizens.

Legal permanent immigrant visas are mostly comprised of two categories: family-based visas and employment-based visas. Each category has a loose limit to how many visas can be allocated in each category every year. In theory, these caps exist to protect Americans from unfair labor competition and from runaway population growth, but there are many loopholes built into the law that undermines these protections.

The law, originally written by Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1965 to increase third world immigration while limiting immigration from Western Europe, allows any unused visas from one category to automatically roll over into the other category for the following year. This guarantees that there would never be any unused visas.

The "RECAPTURE" scheme being proposed in H.R. 5882, adds a provision that essentially will count any "unused" visas twice (once to roll over into the other category and once to add that number again to the existing category). The authors of the H.R. 5882 are not "recapturing" anything. They are just devising a fraudulent anti-American Worker scheme to increase the number of permanent foreign workers and their families who can be admitted to the U.S. every year.

When it comes to importing more foreign workers into the USA, it seems that Special Interest Money from the big corporations is more important than the will of the majority of the American people. These type of imigration bills pose a danger to the economic future and well being of American citizen workers, particularly those currently unemployed, or employed as nurses, blue-collar workers and in the information technology field.

The H-1B visa program was originally created to assist American employers who were having trouble finding American high-tech workers for their businesses. It allowed a fixed number of foreign workers come to the United States to “temporarily” fill those positions while the American companies and the federal government invested time and money in upgrading the training of American workers to meet the new skill levels required.

Although the program was originally designed to benefit American businesses, it has now become a program that benefits foreign companies with offices in America, rather than American companies, because the majority of the H-1B visas are now going to foreign-owned companies.Data just released by the federal government shows that offshore outsourcing firms, mostly from India, dominate the list of companies awarded H-1B visas in 2007.Indian outsourcers accounted for nearly 80% of the visa petitions approved last year for the top 10 participants in the program. These statistics should set off some alarms in congress that the H-1B visa program is not working as it was intended.

According to data from the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, Infosys Technologies and Wipro, two companies based in Bangalore, top the list of visa beneficiaries in 2007, with 4,559 and 2,567 approved visa petitions, respectively. Microsoft and Intel were the only two traditional U.S. tech companies among the top 10. Microsoft received only 959 visa petition approvals, or one fifth as many as Infosys, while Intel got only 369. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

The H-1B work visa program was supposed to be used to bolster the U.S. economy by helping American-owned companies and American citizen workers. Under the program, American companies can use the specialty visa to hire foreign software programmers or computer scientists with rare skills in order to encourage innovation and improving competitiveness. Instead, foreign companies such as Infosys and Wipro are using our own government program to undermine the American economy by wiping out American jobs.

These foreign-owned companies are bringing low-cost workers into the U.S., training them in the offices of American business clients, and then rotating them back home after a year or two so they can provide low cost, out-sourced tech services that causes American IT workers to lose their jobs. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

Even though over 8 million Americans are unemployed in August of 2008, incredibly some members in the House of Representatives continue to introduce legislation to help these big foreign-owned international corporations bring in an increasing number of foreign workers that will put even more Americans out of work.

Since its inception, the H-1B Visa program has been rampant with fraud. In the first half of 2006, the Programmer’s Guild, a group representing U.S. worker interests, filed over 300 discrimination complaints against companies who posted “H-1B visa holders only” ads on internet job boards. It’s obvious that these foreign-owned companies are only targeting foreign workers and undermining the system by bypassing the American worker. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

While a bill to reduce illegal immigration (HR-4088) is stalled in Congress with the House leadership refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote, Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) has also introduced “The Innovation Employment Act” (HR-5630) that would increase the cap of H-1B visas from 65,000 a year to 130,000 a year.In addition, there would be no cap on H-1B applications for foreign graduate students attending U.S. colleges and studying science, technology and related fields. Currently, there's a 20,000 student-a-year cap on visas for graduate students in all fields. The legislation would eventually increase the H-1B cap to 180,000 and the total number of foreigners admitted under this work and graduate education proposal could reach almost 300,000 a year.

To make matters worse for the American Citizen workers, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has introduced the “Strengthening United States Technology and Innovation Act” (H.R. 5642), which would TRIPLE the current H-1B visa cap to 195,000 in 2008 and 2009 and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) wants to make Rep. Smith’s increase permanent. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

here is no real shortage of American information technology workers. It’s just that the large high-tech international companies want to turn these hard earned information technology skills into as cheap a labor commodity as possible at the American workers’ expense. On March 12th Bill Gates appeared before Congress calling for an increase in H-1B visas. Two days later, without soliciting comments from any representatives of American IT workers, Congress introduced two bills that would double or triple the H-1B base cap.

Why weren’t the representatives of American IT workers allowed to be heard? Could the average of $25 million dollars a year that members of congress receive in bribes (I mean campaign contributions) from the Computer Equipment and Services Industry, have something to do with this?

Here’s some interesting campaign contribution statistics compiled by the Center for Responsible Politics at http://www.opensecrets.org/ that shows why congress may be so eager to support the requests of the Computer Equipment and Services Industry over the American IT workers.

Here’s how much the high-tech industries have contributed to federal campaigns:

2000 - $38.9 million
2002 - $26.7 million
2004 - $29.0 million
2006 - $18.4 million
2008 - $15.5 million (partial)

These four bills (H.R. 4088, H.R. 5642, H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) will do nothing to curb the fraud in the H-1B visa program and they will have serious consequences for American citizens that are employed in the fields most effected by this type of legislation. We must learn from our mistakes.

The current H-1B visa program has not served the best interests of American workers nor American companies. The current program has actually helped foreign competitors, with branch offices in the USA, hire almost no Americans and shift as many American jobs overseas as possible. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

The current H-1B Program, as designed, is detrimental and harmful to the welfare of American workers and American high-tech businesses. It should be abolished. In it’s place and only if it is needed, H-1B type legislation should be written in a way that actually benefits American companies, American workers and American students thinking of embarking on a high-tech career.

Any new H-1B Visa legislation should be simple and have the following criteria to help Americans only:

IT MUST BENEFIT BOTH AMERICAN WORKERS AND AMERICAN COMPANIES: The H-1B Visa Program was originally designed to help American companies. Any new H-1B Visa Program should apply ONLY to American-based business entities and the H-1B visas should only be issued to foreign employees after proof is supplied that no American worker has either applied or is otherwise qualified for the position.

BENEFIT FOR AMERICAN STUDENTS: Companies that hire H-1B visa holders should pay an annual fee for each visa holder they hire to be used to fund scholarships for American citizen high school and college students interested in high-tech careers and enrolled in STEM educational programs (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) or nursing education programs.

John Wallace
New York Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/

 

Back on September 25, 2007, the US House of Representatives passed the Global Poverty Act (HR 1302) that basically commits the U.S. to spending a minimum of 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid to developing countries. The bill was passed by a voice vote with no discussion of the effect this legislation will have on our sovereignty or the potential costs to the American taxpayers. Attempts are currently being made to push Senator Barack Obama’s version of the “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, although no hearings have been scheduled.  If the Global Poverty Act is passed by both houses and signed by the President, American Sovereignty would suffer another blow by making US foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates and whims of corrupt United Nations bureaucrats.

The Global Poverty Act would require the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” While the goals of the Global Poverty Act sound laudable, the adoption of the UN supported plan will mandate the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of its GNP in increased foreign aid spending that would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002 to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this will amount to $845 billion.

America is the most generous country in the world in terms of how much it spends on foreign aid, not to mention the billions of dollars donated by individual Americans through private non-profit aid organizations.   Let us continue to give the people of developing countries the aid they need, but don’t give the corrupt United Nations any legal rights to tell us to whom and how much we should give.

Most of the poverty in the third world is created by corrupt governments that are oftentimes aided by corrupt UN bureaucrats. Much of the money we donate goes never gets to people we are supposed to be helping because of this corruption. Giving any control of our foreign aid funds to the corrupt United Nations will surely enhance, rather than reduce corruption. It will aggravate the current poverty levels, rather than reduce or eliminate them.

Americans should also be aware of another stated United Nations Millennium Development Goal that if implemented, will mandate the elimination of trading in small arms. The real goal of this particular mandate is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately will supersede the laws of all nations, including our own Second Amendment, which means nothing to the globalists at the United Nations.

Americans should not discount the growing power of international law, whether through changes in the United Nations charter and UN mandates, the World Trade Organization, Global Poverty Acts, Law of the Sea Treaty or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties which are direct assaults on America’s sovereignty. American citizens must understand that the forces behind the new world order movement and the expansion of the United Nations powers are hostile toward our Constitution and America’s sovereignty.

For additional information, contact:

There's no room at the Xcel Energy Center for maverick Ron Paul, so his acolytes have packed their cars, hitched rides on "Ronvoys" and will pitch tents at Ronstock '08 in defiance of next week's GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.

Almost 9,800 tickets had been sold for the Rally for the Republic, being held in Minneapolis, which seeks to bring together activists who are anti-war, anti-government regulation, anti-immigration, anti-taxes, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-outsourcing, pro-individual liberty, pro-civil liberties and pro-Paul.

The Ronvoys — fleets of buses and vans carrying Paul's loyalists — were to begin arriving Saturday. A few rally-goers planned to walk from Green Bay, Wis., and join up with Paul for the final miles of their Walk4Freedom. Other attendees are driving, carpooling or flying in for the convention alternative.

Paul, a Texas congressman who failed in a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, considers the rally a celebration of traditional Republican values of limited government — and a poke in the eye of the GOP. They don't plan to crash the Republican party, but to show they and their Campaign for Liberty are not going away."No matter how much our message is ignored or ridiculed, as was done in the campaign, no matter how much they did to us, it only energized our grass roots," Paul said.

The rally builds on Paul's presidential bid, in which he set a record for single-day fundraising on the Web and touched a nerve with some disaffected voters, largely in the Republican Party.

In a few Western states, Paul was a serious contender for votes, placing second ahead of Republican John McCain in Nevada and Montana. He drew 14 percent from McCain in New Mexico, a battleground state.But Paul has no speaking role at the GOP convention. He said his staff made overtures to the party, but nothing came of its efforts.

Republican Party spokeswoman Joanna Burgos said she had to research whether Paul was invited to speak when asked about a convention role for Paul."Our focus is really on this side of the river," Burgos said. "We think there's enough excitement and energy on this side." McCain's campaign spokesman did not return a phone message.Paul's faithful still hope to permeate the ranks of the establishment by winning local and state races and pulling in disenchanted party members.

There are a couple dozen Paul delegates attending the GOP convention, though some loyalists say there are more delegates who support Paul.Meanwhile, their focus is on their own political convergence in Minneapolis."We only want to cause noise in the sense of letting people know there are other movements out there that other people believe in," said Kathleen Buchholz, 28, of Denver. Unable to take time off from school for the rally, Buchholz is attending Tuesday's events, when Paul will speak. She's bypassing sleep to save on hotel costs and flying out early Wednesday.

Rally organizers reported last week they sold all 500 tickets priced at $85 each for their Real Politics Training School scheduled for Sunday. Attendees will learn political-organizing skills and "how to compete and win at the political game," organizers said on the rally Web site.

Speakers at the Paul rally include former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, tax activist Grover Norquist, former California Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., political commentator Tucker Carlson, former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and the baby-delivering doctor supporters call Dr. Paul.A few entertainers also are joining in, such as country star Sara Evans; pop singer Aimee Allen, known for the song "Cooties" from Hairspray but whose favorite song among rally-goers is "Ron Paul Anthem"; and Texas blues guitarist Jimmie Vaughan.

Paul backers who aren't staying at the Minneapolis hotel or a budget motel for the rally planned to bunk in group cabins at Camp Ihduhapi on Lake Independence, park RVs or pitch tents at campgrounds. Many others also prepared to head to a Goodhue, Minn., dairy farm for Ronstock '08, an imitation of the 1960s Woodstock counterculture festival; organizers there say a neighbor of the farm's owner is donating a cow to feed the flock.

Sonny Thomas of Springboro, Ohio, plans to drive 12 hours to attend the rally, leaving Sunday. He was offering in a Web posting to fit one or two others in his car."I feel as one person who stands up, I have a voice and letting it be heard sends fear to the establishment," said Thomas, a gas station manager who was laid off a previous job.

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer

There is a Congressional Resolution (H. Con. Res 362) currently in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that if passed, could lead to war with Iran. There is also a similar Resolution being considered by the Senate (S. Res. 580).

The House version begins as follows: "Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes."

A key part of this resolution, in subsection (3) states:

"demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program;"

H. Con. Res 362 is nothing short of an "authorization to go to war" resolution without passing a formal Declaration of War. It has been these types of resolutions and authorizations of force that have eventually gotten us into war in the past. Here's how it works: Congress gives the President an authorization to use the power of our military against a country that we are not at war with and in return, individual members of congress get wiggle room to change their minds if things do not go well.

The current resolution demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran, and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials. This is a proposed blockade of another country that we are not at war with. What right do we have to close down a country and where do we get the legal or moral authority to do so? Such authority or power is definitely not contained in our constitution. This is the type of action that led to the war in Iraq.

I know that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened violence against us and our allies. He is also aiding terrorist organizations and is suspected of developing nuclear weapons and that's wrong. But why is our making threats of blockades, sanctions and violence against Iran OK?

Congress and the President must take more time to look at this situation very carefully because their decision in this matter will effect not only us, but the rest of the world as well. Why are Members of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) and their new world order friends so eager to keep us in an endless cycle of war without ever declaring war?

If congress is privy to information about Iran that they are using to justify some sort of military action on our part, then inform the American people of what it is because it is their sons and daughters who will have to pay the price if we go to war. Let the administration and congressional leaders follow the constitution and publically lay out their case to the American people, before we get into another undeclared war that will cost American lives.

The text of the resolution can be found at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:

For Freedom, Liberty and Sovereignty,

John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY's 20th Congressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

Sandy Treadwell has filed a "Request for Judicial Intervention" with the Dutchess County Supreme Count in an attempt to keep John Wallace, of Columbia County, off the September Republican primary ballot.

There are over 60 different allegations outlined in the court filing that accuse Wallace and the people who helped him obtain the signatures for the nominating petitions of just about every technical violation there is in the election law regarding petitions.

"This is a classic example of the millionaire candidate using his vast resources to silence the grassroots candidate and at the same time disenfranchise all of the Republican voters who signed my petitions. Treadwell has accused me of everything but stealing the kitchen sink." Wallace said.

Wallace was still waiting to hear from the State Board of Elections when a copy of Treadwell's filing was delivered to his house on Friday afternoon via US mail. In the adjoining 21st Congressional District, the Republicans running in the primary did not file objections to each other petitions.

Wallace said: "I do not know why Sandy Treadwell is so afraid of givng the people in the distict a choice in the primary. What's wrong with an honest discussion of the issues that are facing the people here and in the rest of the country? Whether I win this petition fight or not, I think Sandy Treadwell, by his own actions in this matter, is showing that he is afraid of a candidate who talks about the corruption of our congress by special interest money and the federal government's increasing attacks on the freedoms and liberties of its own citizens."

A copy of the court papers can be found at:

www.FreedomCandidate.com/Treadwell-JudicialIntervention-072308.pdf

For more information contact:

John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
www.FreedomCandidate.com