Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Ryter
Articles:

"Men in Black" The Cult of The Judges

 


 

 

 

AMERICA'S WORST NIGHTMARE
PART 1 of 2

 

By Jon Christian Ryter
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Prior to October 14, 2008 few people outside of Holland, Ohio (and most of those living there) had ever heard of Joe Wurzelbacher. Today, if the Springfield, Ohio native could be inserted into the race for Ohio's 9th US congressional seat, which is held by Marcy Kaptur, Wurzelbacher would give the 13th term Toledo congresswoman a run for her money. Kaptur, who has held her seat since 1982, will easily defeat her current Republican rival, steelworker and US Navy veteran Bradley Leavitt. If GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin [R-AK] prevail in the voting booths on Nov. 4, it will be solely because of one man—"Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

Likewise, Joe's entering Sen. Barack Obama's life on Tues., Oct. 14 was the turning point in Barack Obama's campaign. As Obama made his way through a handshaking campaign swing in Holland, Ohio, he was approached by Wurzelbacher who asked him to explain his tax plan, and the impact it would have on his own plan to buy a local plumbing business that was grossing $250 to $280 thousand per year in sales.

Obama explained that if his new business earned over $250 thousand, he would be taxed at a higher rate under Obama's tax plan. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" Joe asked Obama.

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama replied. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody...I think if you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." When you think like a Marxist, that argument makes sense. In reality, while Obama poses as a middle-income tax cutter, logic defies his argument since when you spread the wealth from the bottom up, the tax payers who are going to feel the tax bite are not the wealthiest 5% whose wealth is sheltered from the tax-man by tax-exempt foundations, but middle-class families, working 10-to-12 hours a day and earning $65 to $150 thousand per year—Joe-the-Plumber, Joe-the-Baker, Joe-the-Mechanic, or Joe-the-next-door-neighbor.

Obama told Joe that he didn't want to punish Joe's success but Joe, he remarked, needed to be prepared to help those who weren't quite as successful as Joe with the "excess of his success." That's what he meant when he told Joe that "...if you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Obama made it clear what he meant by spreading the wealth around when he addressed the NAACP during their 99th Annual Conference at Cincinnati's Fountain Square on July 14, 2008.
"Social justice," he told his black audience, "is not enough...It matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch." After outlining a litany of new welfare programs for black Americans, Obama pledged to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to include most working families (this will be the tax cut he promised 95% of the American people). Obama pledged to the NAACP that he would begin the redistribution of wealth on Inauguration Day. He assured his NAACP audience that he would return to their podium after having achieved social and economic justice for all "...next year on the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, and I will stand before you as the President of the United States of America. At that moment, you and I will truly know that a new day has come in this country we love."

Speaking later in an online chat on Washington Times.com, Wurzelbacher observed, "When I was face-to-face with him, my honest impression was that I expected something more. I had heard so much about 'his presence,' in the media that I was suprised to find that he seemed so average. My gut feeling as he answered my questions? I was scared for America." Commenting about Obama's remark about wealth, Joe the Plumber continued: "What worries me is that he is deciding that $250 thousand is rich right now, but what's to stop him from changing his mind? As we know, politicians change their minds at the drop of a poll. Personally, I think it will have to go lower. How else will he pay for all he wants big government to do?"

Sounds scary, doesn't it? Wurzelbacher, who has become known as Joe the Plumber on the conservative radio talk show circuit, started the firestorm that is actually making the American voter look at the facts-and-fiction of Obama's tax rhetoric. Obama's plan actually does begin with a tax increase on the top 5% of the taxpayers, starting at gross incomes of $250,000 or more.
However, it does not stop there. The far left has been secretly assembling a litany of new tax laws and spending bills they intend to spring on Congress as soon as the 111th Congress is sworn in on Jan. 6, 2009. The most important of these is the rehashing of Hillary Clinton's failed Health Security Act of 1993 which would have nationalized 1/7th of the US economy—and force the US taxpayer to pay a new national healthcare tax that will take as large a bite from their paycheck as their income taxes. But, to Obama, the health care tax is not a tax—its a national healthcare premium.. The welfare class, of course, will once again get a free ride on the backs of the working class.

If the left's predictions—supported by approximately 15.4 million Barack Obama and George Soros-financed ACORN voter registrations—are correct, the far left will have a veto-proof Congress (something the country has not seen since FDR's New Deal years when Franklin Delano Roosevelt's socialist legislature wrote the laws that made the American people enemies of its own government. The New Deal Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933 let international bankers steal the wealth of America by outlawing the private ownership of gold (with a 10-year prison sentence for any American found with any gold coins or gold certificates in their possession). The authority to unconstitutionally (albeit temporarily until 1976) removed our currency from the gold standard was not found in the Emergency Banking Relief Act or the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, where one would expect to find such an important monetary authorization. Instead, it was found, innocuously concealed, as Title Three (The Thomas Amendment) of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of March 12, 1933—also passed in one day with no member of Congress being allowed to read it.

What was a provision to remove America's money supply from the gold standard doing in a farm bill instead the Banking bill, or better yet, a bill on the gold reserve? It wasn't because the Democrats were afraid that Republicans would find the measure in either bill since, with the super majority the Democrats had in the House and Senate, there was absolutely no debate on the Banking Relief Act of 1933, nor three days later on the Agriculture Adjustment Act. One hour of debate on each bill was granted by the House and Senate leadership—during which time no member of either the House or Senate had ever seen the legislation they were about to enact into law. Not even the members of the House or Senate Banking Committees had seen the legislation since the bills were written by the bankers themselves and not Congress. The GOP protested.

When the discussion period ended, the vote was cast and—without a single member of either House ever seeing the legislation they were voting on—those elected by the American people as their advocates before the government of the United States, blindly voted for the rape of the financial wealth of the working class. Whenever one party has absolute control over every branch of government—executive, legislative and judicial (as FDR did—that government becomes arbitrarily totalitarian.

Between 1933 and 1936, most of the New Deal laws that gave the newly created, very unconstitutional federal bureaucracy capricious control over life in America were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. It was not until the high court believed FDR had the votes to add 3 to 6 more justices to the high court, or at the least, force high court justices to retire at age 65 or 70, that the justices softened their position on the illegality of the New Deal laws. They reexamined the laws they had previously overturned and suddenly discovered new, heretofore unknown, legal ground for almost all of them based on FDR's trite "national emergency" (the recession which, because of FDR's meddling, became a decade long depression that was blamed, by the revisionist Democratic media, on President Herbert Hoover). Hoover carried the stigma into history. The "national emergency" executive powers FDR used to manipulate the New Deal economy was actually declared a "national emergency" in 1917 by Woodrow Wilson. The United States remained in a state of national emergency until Congress took that power away from the President in 1976. The "national emergency" served its purpose for the bankers because it allowed the President of the United States, aided by a super majority of Democrats, to redefine the ownership of private property in the United States. (As you know, today, the right to seize the property and assets of US citizens without due process is now one of the paramount weapons of government. The IRS uses it. The Department of Homeland Security now uses it. And, your local, county and state law enforcement agencies use that power to "arrest" your property when you commit a crime—proposition a prostitute or get stopped with an illegal substance in your car even if you are not arrested at the same time. They seize your property only because they can. The separation of powers that is supposed to protect you has merged into a supra government agency controlled by the bureaucracy that is answerable and accountable to no one.)

Forty-nine year old Ethel Hylton had her entire life savings seized by the DEA at Houston's Hobby Airport. Drug-sniffing dogs liked Hylton's carry-on luggage. DEA agents searched her luggage and found $39,110 in cash. Hylton, who worked as a hotel maid and as a janitor in a local hospital, explained she didn't trust banks, and carried her money with her when she traveled. Even though the DEA found no drugs, nor any traces of drugs in her luggage or on her person when they strip-searched her they "arrested" her retirement nest egg. They did not arrest her because she had done nothing wrong.

Sam Thach was traveling by train from Fullerton, California to Boston. He paid for his Amtrak ticket with cash but refused to give the ticket agent his home phone number as required by Amtrak for cash purchases over a specified amount. The Amtrak agent called the DEA. DEA agents boarded the train in Albuquerque, New Mexico and searched him. They found $147 thousand in cash in his suitcase. He had no drugs. Nor did drug-sniffing dogs pick up the scent of drugs on him. He had done nothing illegal. But, because he, like Hylton, didn't trust banks, they seized his money. Neither Hylton nor Thach got their money back.

Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested a few days before Christmas in 1990 in their New Jersey home. Kathy Schrama was charged with stealing UPS packages valued at $500 from neighbor's porch. Mark Schrama , who had no knowledge what his wife had done, was charged with receiving stolen goods at his place of residence. A neighbor witnessed Schrama take the packages and called the police. Local police seized the Schrama's $150 thousand home—including its furnishings, clothes and even the Christmas presents they had lawfully purchased for their 10-year old son. Schrama was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses when the police forfeiture squad arrived with a court order allowing them to seize 100% of the assets at the "crime scene." Schrama was not allowed to take his eyeglasses with him when they were forcibly evicted from their home. There was no due process. Liberal judges simply ignored the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments and arbitrarily seize the assets of people by classifying those assets as "people" and not property. This is what happens to a nation when the people stupidly give any political party a super majority over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

People wonder how Benito Mussolini, who was duly elected in a Republican form of government could successfully overthrow that government and become a dictator. They likewise wonder how Adolph Hitler, whose National Socialist Party was elected as a minority party in a Republican form of government could, within 33 days, become the Chancellor of Germany and dictator, and ultimately, possess the power of life and death over two third of Europe.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Give any political party veto-proof supra-control over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and a dictatorship will result every time. Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed office with a super majority on March 6, 1933. He held that office until his death on April 12. 1945. FDR ruled as a democratic dictator with the help of the socialist liberal media and the Democratic leadership in Congress. For part two click below.

Click here for part -----> 2,

2008 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

[Read Jon C. Ryter's book, "Whatever Happened to America?" It's out of print and supply is limited.]

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com


Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joe the Plumber said he hoped other Americans wouldn't be afraid to question the political candidates seeking to run our country because of the microscope he was put under.