Since “Joe the Plumber”’s emergence, many facts have come to light concerning Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who plays the role of Joe the Plumber, which reveal the entire premise of his question to Obama and all of its elements and facets to be a lie.

According to many respectable news sources (among them

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/politics/17joe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin,

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html,

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4961157.ece),

“Joe the Plumber”’s real name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher and he says he has been a plumber for 15 years. We now know that he is not a plumber, he just works for one. He is not licensed as a plumber, he has never served a plumbing apprenticeship and he does not belong to the plumber’s union. If he does plumbing work, as he says, he is working illegally. Moreover, the man who plays the part of “Joe the Plumber” owes back taxes in the amount of nearly $1,200 and therefore has a lien against his property. 

According to these same news sources, Mr. Wurzelbacher admits that he earns significantly less than $250,000 a year and, even if he purchased the business he says he wants to purchase, he admits that he actually would make much less than $250,000 and that he would, in fact, get a tax cut under Barack Obama’s plan. Despite this, this man, Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, complained to Barack Obama about his tax plan because Obama would raise his taxes. Thus, the man himself debunked the entire premise of his complaint and in this way also revealed that “Joe the Plumber” does not exist.  

These are facts. What is worrying is that I was able to turn on the Fox News channel last night and see Samuel J. Wurzelbacher as a guest still introducing himself and being introduced and glorified as “Joe the Plumber” and nobody, not the audience, not the interviewers, naturally not Mr. Wurzelbacher, nobody present on the show addressed or even alluded to any discrepancy between the fictitious character “Joe the Plumber” and their guest, Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. As I watched, I felt as if I was viewing parents holding a discussion with a santa claus for the entertainment and pacification of their children.

The question is, why is the McCain campaign (evidently with the support of Fox News) sticking its proverbial head in the sand in denial and making an icon out of a voter who is so gripped with a penetrating irrational fear of paying taxes he isn’t even liable to pay, that he has fabricated an entire persona and an entire scenario that doesn’t even exist? Why is the Republican campaign idealizing a voter who has proven his dishonesty and lack of integrity by fabricating these lies, by not working legally in his trade and by not paying the taxes that he is responsible to pay under the Bush administration?

According to McCain, "[Obama] claims that this honest, hard-working small businessman could not possibly have enough income to face a tax increase under the Obama plan." By this flagrant denial of the facts, are McCain and his supporters insisting that the average American is a dishonest, tax-evading, unprofessional, fear-laden citizen just like the "honest, hard-working" Mr. Wurzelbacher? And is Mr. Wurzelbacher their idea of the model American citizen that they want to promote and reward? What about the hard-working American who plays by the rules? What about the hard-working Americans who do pay their taxes? What about the hard-working Americans who pay their bills on time? What about the hard-working Americans who do live with integrity? 

As Winston Churchill once said “...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.” While most of us already know that Santa Claus and Joe the Plumber aren’t real, McCain’s campaign and Fox News wrongly continue to do their public and the integrity of the American people a disservice by perpetuating a grand myth around Mr. Wurzelbacher and by denying a truth that their public is already apt to deny. 

This means that the Westminister system is not as democratic as it appears to be as the MPs cannot always do what they strongly believe in and due to this, individuals may not be interested in being under such high survaillance by their own party. Not to mention, the only significant difference that can be made by an MP would be as long as they are in the Government. The rest of the MPs who are not in the Government are categorised under the Opposition whereby they are most likely unable to successfully reject a referendum/bill proposed by the Government as the Government has the working majority. This could lead to apathy as an MP may not be able to influence policies or legitimation.

Civic engangement in political participation is becoming an issue in the United Kingdom. The figures of those who did not vote in general elections has increased by 18% since 1964. The main age group that was not active in forms of political participation was 18-24 year olds. This shows that political participation of respondents below the age of 25 is of a negative correlation which determines that the younger population in Britain have a very low interest in political issues. The ambigious concept of civil engangement can be refered to attitudinal or behavioural orientations to politics. These are important in understanding the likely prospects of political participation as the relationship between the individual and their power of influence is vital in this case. More fundamentally, the social relationship and trust between MPs and members of the public is becoming slim as it has been said that the society we live in now has become more cynical due to the influence and the reliability of the media. The ethnic population is also wary of the trust situation between individuals and their MPs due to the difference in moral values.

Parliament does not have many ethnic MPs whereby the ethnic population feel that they cannot relate politically with their MPs over behaviour and understanding of certain cultural expectations, or needs, along with difference in religion. On top of that, many individuals do not feel that they can personally influence political decisions by voting as direct democracy hardly takes place in the United Kingdom (e.g. referendums), and the inconvenience to communicate with their MP is of no intention to many as it is also in their state of mind that an MP is a busy person and would probably have no time to address a matter brought up by a single member of the public. Party dealignment has become a big issue in politics as well. Both the right wing and the left wing are trying to become more centralised as the living conditions today have changed dramatically in comparison to the 19th century. By being more centralised, parties will be able to deal with more issues that concern majority of the society thereby hopefully gaining publicity and supporters.

This therefore does not differentiate parties by drastic measures as they used to before, and on the surface, parties appear to be focusing on the same issues and coming up with more or less similar policies. Due to this, members of the public may be turned off to vote as parties are no longer clearly distinguished. It is also a point that individuals have become more independent and are less likely to participate in collective activities as they are more concern with local issues that will directly affect them. Last but not least, within the social structure, the consequence that certain groups are unlikely to benefit from the types of social connections, or to participate in the types of organised civil associations will interfere with facilitating political participation.

In conclusion, citizen engangement and party participation in politics has become a minority pursuit in Britain and this matter has become politically aware by Parliament. Parliament is now trying to overcome this issue by promoting political participation through the media, internet, referendums and many other sources.

How does our illustrious state legislature (democratic controlled) respond to such violations of public trust? It passes legislation allowing convicted felons to be returned to the voting rolls thus assuring Ophelia's return to the state senate. They are still working on the sticky issue of the dead people who voted for Ophelia in the election which was thrown out.

Nationally, the democrats have been more than helpful in promoting voter fraud; Pres. Bill Clinton's “Motor Voter Registration” has allowed millions of un-qualified voters to be added to the rolls. You know, non citizens, people who have moved out of their registered districts, people who have died and not been removed from the rolls, convicted felons. Honest hardworking taxpayers like you, right?

This is not surprising since one line from the democratic national platform reads: “We oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or register to vote.” That's encouraging, isn't it? No chance of fraud there. With the possibility of this election being as close as the past two, every honest vote counts and the democrats want to insure that every dishonest vote counts, too, or two or three.

“Corporate interests should make all the rules, you know, since we put up all the money, it's our right, right”?

You see with the “War on terror” “War on drugs” “War on poverty” “War on the middle class” “War on liberals” “War on the press” “War on values” “War on families” “War on everything” “The world has gone to hell in a hand basket and no one can save us but the Evangelical Republican War Machine”.

After creating an unnecessary War in Iraq, attempting to destroy the Justice Department, ensuring incompetence in FEMA, allowing insurance companies to write the law on healthcare, allowing the oil companies to write the policy on energy, employing lobbyists to lie, cheat and steal their way into the hearts and minds of the US Government and the people, allowing the banks to write the economic policy and deregulating industry that now takes it's RIGHTful place with elevated status as “not everything”, but “the only thing” that matters in America, the Republican Party would have you believe that they and they alone are the salvation for the ills which they have, if not always created, certainly fed, watered and fertilized for decades. Doctors have a name for this syndrome; Munchausen by Proxy. It's the condition that has a nurse or doctor cause or exacerbate illness only to swoop in as the savior. It's the diseased mental state that lets a mother or father cause harm to their child resulting in an opportunity to appear as the “hero” and save the day as “only I can do”. It's the style of governance that frightens people with terror alerts, codes red, admonishments to remain vigilant and yes even be wary of your neighbors as they, too, could be part of a sleeper cell. It's the governing principal that encourages lenders to live fast and loose, risking the welfare of Americans in the name of quick and huge profits and when all the money has been extracted from the consumer then asserts that the taxpayer should provide assistance and a bail out to the now troubled corporations which gave all the money to a few greedy executives in lieu of publicly responsible managerial intent. Republicans would have you believe that they and they alone can save the American people from the disasters that Republicans created.

This is Political Munchausen.

It is the pinnacle of cynicism to create a political machine based solely on a party's ability to protect the people from conditions that the very same machine nourishes and in many cases creates. Munchausen's patients are deluded into believing the rescue of their victims is salvation for themselves. The Republican Party makes no such assertion. It is pure unadulterated cynicism for they do their dirty deeds with complete awareness and execute their plans as a conscious choice. This is much more sinister than the individual who acts as the result of mental illness. It is not mental illness that drives the Republican Party to these malicious acts. Mental illness would be “understandable” and a place to begin developing proper treatment. This is, however, a type of diseased condition. It is a disease of spiritual, ethical and moral failure. Failure to put America first over the interests of War Contractors, failure to put Americans first over corporate greed, failure to see how Faith demands of us that we serve the poor, the sick, the hungry, the aged, the helpless, the hopeless and the needy in advance of other interests, not as an afterthought or political slogan. These failures of spirit, morality and ethics have been designed, developed, marketed and expanded by the very Party that seeks to have you believe that they are here to save you from death, immorality, destruction and financial ruin.

In the U.S. there are about 206 million people that could vote. All of them may not, but if you are one of them, maybe reading this article will help you choose who to vote for. This is an unbiased article to help some decide. Some candidates may change their view on a specific party's usual standpoint on an issue. However this article shows what the presidential party's usual standpoint is.

First the main thing is:

• Democrat- Liberal- Wants to change.
• Republican- Conservative- Follows established tradition more often.

Here are some common issues:

Military

• Democrat- Would like to decrease military spending, and strengthen organizations like NATO and the UN.
• Republican- Would rather have a strong military.

Gun Control

• Democrat- More gun laws are needed.
• Republican- Against new gun laws.

Gay Rights

• Democrat- Usually for gay rights and sees it as OK for some to be with who they choose.
• Republican- Usually hold the view that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Minimum Wage

• Democrat- Believes a living wage above the poverty line should be given.
• Republican- Believe that free market should determine wages.

Death Penalty

• Democrat- Does not believe a live should be taken as punishment.
• Republican- The death penalty can be necessary.

Taxes

• Democrat- The most taxes should go to those with the most money.
• Republican- Believes that taxes should stay low to benefit the economy and believes in tax cuts.

Flag Burning

• Democrat- It should be allowed due to freedom of speech.
• Republican- Should not be allowed as that is not what the constitution intended.

Abortion

• Democrat- It should be the woman's choice.
• Republican- The government should protect the unborn child's life.

So now after that article, maybe you will go out and vote for which party the president should be that will run this country.

McCain has also been critical over Obama's call for a freeze on drilling off the coast when he has not been working on making alternative fuel and vehicles that use them, a reality in the states. Otherwise America will always be dependent on the very nations they cannot control. Amazing how he had the nerve to desire a debate with Obama after the primaries and before the elections especially when the popularity over continued war in south Asia is not good. Americans are busy bombing civilians in a never-ending struggle.

Clinton is indirectly in the race even though she gave up to Obama in July. In fact one wonders whether she is supportive of Obama because she is just looking for her own spotlight because she was certainly vehement about his political outlook when they were running for Democratic nomination. It is a pity for democratic voters who should have been united against the Republican alternative that has no sense of what the economy is about. A recent question period on the economy made McCain look unknowledgeable to say the least.

To vote for Barack Obama is not like how America is doing and headed and taking a risk to see change in America's future.

Not to vote (with the ability to vote) is being happy with the way things are now with America (including the economy) and not caring about America and it's future.

Take a stand and make the right choice!

I know what many are saying as soon as they see Liberalists, but can we American's afford not to back them? Will you wait till you have absolutely no freedom left before you all realize it's too late? Have the American people become so weak and dependant upon the government to tell you what to do before you will do anything at all? None of them are perfect, but at least we can make decisions for ourselves as to what is right for us under the Liberalists. Each community, township, city and state can dictate what is best for its people with no Federal intrusion without proper documentations.

You want protection we will actually have it, not promises of it but the real thing which we don't have now. There is NO protection set in motion nor is there likely to be in the near future considering the large government in place right now is working overtime to incorporate Mexico and Canada into us as one giant world unit complete with a highway going from Mexico all the way through to Canada. Do you think they will tell you this? Not when so many are opposed to it. Do you think that will stop them? Well, have any of our oppositions stopped them yet? Has anything “we the people” voted for that should have passed actually gone into affect or did the power hungry government find ways to put a stop to them? It took thirty years to get a ruling on the gun ban issue; do we have another thirty years?

Yes I'm sure many will find excuses as to why the Liberalists shouldn't be voted for, but if you really think hard about it there isn't much of a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats this term either. Both are floundering, both are flipping and flopping all over the place so doesn't that tell us American's anything yet? This inflated government needs to be deflated!

Our boarders need to be secured, Our troops need to come home, If we have no security reasons for having basses with our troops in other countries they need to come home too, we need to take back control over our homeland, we need to reestablish jobs here in the USA, We don't need to be told what to eat or how to live but we need to know that the food coming into our country for our own consumption is good to eat. More money is apparently spent on telling us how to eat and live than insuring that the foods we get are not going to make us sick. I would have thought the governments primary concern would have been their inability to find the cause for the illnesses due to the contaminated food, but apparently the people of America are expendable. It's just an illness now but it could have been and still can get worse because we have NO CONTROL

Seniors are concerned about their future, well since most of you claimed you didn't want to be a burden to your children than this is the way to go. As things sit right now the children will, if not already are paying for your Social Security Income which is a burden on them because then they will have to rely on their children to pay for them, and so on. You have all been told to invest in something with your money to insure your retirement for the past at least two years if not more. If you are short on food or clothing or in need of something appeal to a local church for assistance that is one of their jobs, taking care of their community.

It's time for the communities to start taking better care of their local churches enabling them to take care of the elderly, homeless, etc. as it was meant to be. A church house is just a building; the church is nothing without its believers. I hear people often complaining about how the churches don't help. Fact is, the people have a responsibility to their churches and if those responsibilities aren't met they can't help. Can you pay rent with out the money to do so? Can you wear clothes you do not have? Can you eat food if you have none in your pantries? Well, neither can they but many of them try to. If you really study your scriptures you would find that ten percent is not just money that is required of its people, farmers and ranchers should have been giving ten percent of their crops and animals for food stores to their churches as well. People creating clothes, shoes, etc. should have been giving ten percent of their products and so on above and beyond the ten percent of the financial income. If people did what they were suppose to be doing in the first place no one would be hurting as bad as they are right now.

If people did what they were suppose to be doing the government wouldn't be as inflated and over powering as it is right now either. We are on very dangerous grounds here people. Are you really prepared for what's going to happen if we don't go this rout? This may be our last good choice; I pray we as a people make the right one.

My name is…..well, I will leave that out now because of various legal reasons that will become apparent as I continue with this and later commentaries, but suffice it to say I am not just some angry person that wants to rant on, but rather inform you and let you make your own decisions. I received a BA in political science from Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville in 2003 with a minor in history and a detailed background in basic psychology. Through extensive study and political theory, I have come to believe that this country and its government has become the very thing that our forefathers fled England to escape, namely, the political oppression of mankind to live their lives free from government oppression and the ability to do as they please in the privacy of their own land so long as it does not cause harm to another living person. That said, let me now take the time to get to the meat of my first commentary, the true definition of democracy and how this country has moved from an egalitarian, or equality based, system, to a system in which 99% of the population is subjected to the beliefs and behaviors of 1% of the population, or what will from here on be referred to as the “ruling class”.

To understand how we are no longer a true democracy, we must first look at the definition of democracy taken from Webster's Dictionary. A democracy, or democratic government, is a government in which the laws and rules are based on popular opinion. A democracy is a form of government in which the governed consider themselves self ruled and in which no ruling class exists. It is a form of government exercised either directly by the people or through elected officials that are SUPPOSED to act on the people's wishes. It is a rule by majority and the practice of political and social equality.

With that said, this country has become more of an oligarchy, a form of government in which the ruled are controlled by a small majority (interest groups) for corrupt or selfish purposes (financial gain or power). We live in a system in which interest groups “bribe” politicians to enact laws for their own gain with no concern for OUR wishes! Lets look at the issue of Marijuana legalization to give a clear example of how interest groups control how you live.

Marijuana was legal until 1937 and not totally criminalized until the 1960's. Today, more than 76 million Americans currently use cannabis in the privacy of their homes not causing any harm to anyone else. There has NEVER been a documented case of a Cannabis overdose. George Washington and Ben Franklin grew hemp not only because they could, but because it was required. I cannot think of one American that would call George Washington lazy, or Ben Franklin a pothead! Hemp provides clothing, paper, oil, and many other products that are useful and far more environmentally safe than their man made counterparts. Recent laws enacted in 15 US states have made the medical use of marijuana legal by state law to treat many mental and physical disorders. Why, you may be asking, is it illegal then? The answer is simple, the ruling class has allowed the tobacco and alcohol lobby, both products extremely dangerous to humans, to line their pockets and keep it illegal so big business can continue to profit off the deaths of the American people. If almost one third of the people use, or have tried, marijuana, how can its continued prohibition be considered an act that represents the people? The answer is simple, it does not! Rather, it is a phenomenon that I call the self-disenfranchisement of the electorate that started in the 1960's and has only gotten worse through the last 48 years.

In the 1960's there was a slogan, “turn on, tune in, and drop out”. That way of thinking has not only hurt the freedom of the American people, but have allowed for the continued control of power to lie in the hands of those who do not care about the way you want to live your life. I am not someone who does not care. I served in the US Army from 1993 to 2001. I was a correctional officer for a state county jail for 6 years. I am someone who cares about this country and is pained by how the apathy of the people have hurt what she once stood for: freedom, equality, and true pursuit of happiness!

In following articles, should reader response warrant them, I will discuss how some of the powers of the federal government need to be returned to the individual states. I will also discuss in further detail how the self disenfranchisement of the people have hurt the democratic way of life, as well as other important topics in today's political atmosphere. For now I wish to say get out and vote, no matter who it is for, because if you don't you deserve everything that is done to you!