There is a need for souls today to understand how to apply principles of spiritual awareness to every aspect of life including political perceptions and choices and the observation of the political arena in general. In this way, what has been a compartmentalized spiritual life can remove itself from the more protected corner of our awareness, to inform all areas of choice and decision that we make, from the most lofty to the most mundane. r />

Within this view, to be a spiritual being is to treat consciousness as the precious gift that it is in all its manifestations and to become aware of the need to hold this gift responsibly when we are asked as members of a family, as partners in a relationship, or as citizens of a nation, to make decisions. To be responsible for our consciousness allows us to draw conclusions that are more aligned with truth and light in all areas of our life, including the public and political arena.

The need to hold choice in a sacred way as it applies to these spheres involves us in a need to understand ‘discernment’ – what it is, how to cultivate it, what interferes with it, and how to stabilize it as a process within ourselves. To do otherwise, especially in relation to those things that affect us as members of a community or nation, is to allow ourselves to be swayed by the prevailing public view of something – a view whose shape is often defined by fear rather than by wisdom.

Our choices in the public or political arena are often influenced by what media would have us believe about events, their causes, the merits of persons in public office, and the need for actions of different kinds. To become discerning involves not only being aware of the influence of media as it shapes, informs, and cultivates public awareness, but also includes the understanding of how energies of darkness can play a role in this shaping through the effect that they have on our emotions. These energies are more potent today because we are living at a time of expanding light and expanding consciousness, and their role and intent is to prevent such expansion. Discernment involves knowing when something that is affirmed as true is really true, and when something that creates fear in us, is actually worthy of fear.

Often, the basis for fear is the incorrect belief that something that is offered as the ‘only’ way to view things is actually the ‘only’ way. This profession becomes even more disturbing when the ‘only’ way has grave consequences for life or is reprehensible in some way. Discernment, when present, conveys to us that there is another way, and that what appears to be a necessity, is often not. The capacity to foreclose the sense of choice is one of the primary tools of darkness, and it causes many within the public sphere – both elected officials and the public in general – to reduce their capacity for more creative solutions to problems out of a perceived sense of threat. This sense of threat reduces the feeling of choice and gives rise to a perception of need for immediate action.

Discernment involves us in an interactive process that joins reason with intuition. It relies on our capacity to join with our higher intuition to arrive at a closer approximation of truth than is possible through information alone. Sometimes this intuitive knowing comes easily. At other times, it is necessary to immerse ourselves more deeply in the practice of alignment with light so that a sense of truth can emerge from a different level of our consciousness.

The capacity for aligning with light is central to our ability to discern truth. For if darkness or motivations that are more ego-based color our mental or emotional perceptions, we will not be able to discern truth, but will be held in bondage to the public opinion that prevails at a given time or to our own fears. The capacity for discernment is the bridge between our spiritual life and our life in the public arena, and the practice of alignment allows us to live with a sense of truth on both sides of this bridge. Such a practice allows us to release our smaller self and ego and to join with the higher aspects of ourselves. It increases our ability to hold light in the world and our ability to hold truth for the benefit of ourselves and others. As we seek to commit ourselves to a unified life, a life that is sacred in all its aspects, it is essential to anchor ourselves within a practice that supports our capacity to hold light and to remain anchored within the wholeness of our being. Out of this anchoring, discernment can emerge, as well as a broader ability to live life fully and completely from our sacred humanity.

Watch the video related to politic news

Watch more at www.theyoungturks.com … the young turks cenk uygur ana kasparian comfort wipes info mercial commercial funny ass pooh commentary analysis documentary political news grassroots outreach infomercial reach around poo butt rear behind toilet paper

Help answer the question about politic news

Following an historic election, we take a moment to examine just what an Obama presidency will mean to the United States – what we have to look forward to, and how he will deal with our current financial crisis. And according Jim Davidson, some of the numbers just don’t add up.

One of Obama’s prime campaign planks has been his promise to mercilessly raise taxes on the “rich,” a group initially defined as those making more than $250,000 per year. This was later dropped to $200,000 per year, and more recently has been defined as those Americans making more than $150,000 annually.

Setting aside the precipitous downward slide in the definition of “rich,” there is ample reason to suspect that Obama’s tax changes portend much higher, if not confiscatory, taxes on the most productive Americans. Obama has strongly argued for higher taxes as a way of employing government to alter the pre-tax distribution of income, which he believes has concentrated too much of the gains from productivity in recent years in the hands of the very rich.

He seems to think that the ‘very rich’ are a closed caste of more or less fixed membership, which changes little from year-to-year. This figures in his concept of ‘fairness,’ which supposes that it is perfectly just to burden a small fraction of the population with a majority of the costs of running the Federal government. This was detailed in a New York Times article on “spreading the wealth” by David Leonhardt. He wrote of Obama:

“He would then pay for the cuts, at least in part, by raising taxes on the affluent to a point where they would eventually be slightly higher than they were under Clinton. For these upper-income families, the Tax Policy Center’s comparisons with McCain are even starker. McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush’s tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners – those making an average of $9.1 million – by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year. ‘It’s hard not to look at that figure and be a little stunned. It would represent a huge tax increase on the wealthy families. But it’s also worth putting the number in some context. The bulk of Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy – about $500,000 of that $800,000 – would simply take away Bush’s tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn’t nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, their inflation-adjusted pretax income has roughly doubled.’

“To put it another way, the wealthy have done so well over the past few decades, with their incomes soaring and tax rates plummeting, that Obama’s plan would not come close to erasing their gains. The same would be true of households making a few hundred thousand dollars a year (who have gotten smaller raises than the very rich but would also face smaller tax increases). As ambitious as Obama’s proposals might be, they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it burdensome on the young entrepreneur who was making his first millions as it would on the aging plutocrat who actually had enjoyed the prosperity of the past-quarter century since Reagan cut marginal tax rates.”

An October 13 editorial in The Wall Street Journal clarifies the mysterious arithmetic of Obama’s sweeping claims to cut income taxes for millions who currently have no income tax liability and pay no taxes:

‘For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase ‘tax credit.’ Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

“- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to ‘make work pay’ that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

“- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

“- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

“- A ’savings’ tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

“- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

“- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

“- A ‘clean car’ tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

“Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be ‘refundable,’ which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this ‘welfare,’ or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a ‘Demogrant.’ Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

“The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

“The total annual expenditures on refundable ‘tax credits’ would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as ‘tax credits,’ the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.”

After all the sloppy definitions are parsed, one point remains clear. The top 5% of U.S. income earners, who presently pay 60.14% (2006 figures) of all income tax, are destined for a huge federal tax increase under Obama.

One of Obama’s specific proposals is to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%, which will sharply increase capital confiscation as increasing percentages of “gains” will reflect inflationary depreciation of the currency. In the U.S., an investor must pay tax on the difference between the sales price of an asset and it purchase price, with no adjustment for inflation. Consequently, when the tax rate and inflation are high, a large portion of the “capital gain” is illusory. Any asset that appreciates by less than the rate of inflation will result in its owner losing purchasing power and having to pay taxes on the illusory gains. At Obama’s higher tax rates, (he has suggested that capital gains and dividend taxes should be hiked to as much as 25%,) capital confiscation would result from modest levels of inflation.

And the Great Credit Crunch implies that inflation will be far higher than in recent experience.

Setting aside whether it is moral or equitable to force a small fraction of the population to essentially pay for the whole cost of government, much of which entails the shuffling of checks to purchase votes of various aggrieved groups, there is a bigger question. Can it be wise for the whole fiscal regime to stand on the shoulders of a small group, like a pyramid tottering on its point, so that any tribulation which undermines the prosperity of those who pay would promise to bankrupt the state?

It is a worthwhile question to ask if you have considerable assets. In light of the worldwide credit crunch, which has deflated assets of all kinds, the prospect of burgeoning prosperity at the magnitude required to enable one-in-20 Americans to become “Super Rich” benefactors of Big Government is vanishingly small. There won’t be enough rich people to fill the role assigned to them in Obama’s scheme. The result to be expected, in addition to confiscatory taxation, is a dramatic shortfall of revenues. This, in turn, implies surging deficits and deficit financing requirements that will rapidly swamp the capacity of the Treasury to borrow.

Source: The Danger Lurking Behind Obama’s Tax Policy

Watch the video related to Obama

As a guest on The Ellen Degeneres Show, Barack shows off his dancing skills.

Help answer the question about Obama

So out of 150,000 troops in Iraq both Bush and Obama are only planning on withdrawing 50,000. ( Obama on his website calls for withdrawing Combat troops, he makes no mention of the others) How is this change?

Multi-Talented, Political-Themed Artist Re-Releases ‘Yankin’ The Food Chain’
Polarity/1, the multi-genre artist best known for bold, honest, hard-hitting songs, is re-releasing his hit album, Yankin’ the Food Chain, now with re-mastered tracks. Polarity/1’s music has been incorporated by dance theaters and documentarists, including Danny Schechter’s feature-length film documentary ‘In Debt We Trust’ and Battery Dance Company’s 26th Annual Downtown Dance Festival last year.

Yankin’ the Food Chain fuses electronica, acid jazz, alternative and electro-folk to create a set of funky-fresh beats infused with crucial political messages to future generations. The serious issues covered on Yankin’ force listeners to reanalyze their own ethics, especially when cornered with their own self-images in “Look at Your Shoeshine”: “Can you see yourself in your shoeshine?/ Step back!”

From the excitingly chilly vocals of “Salesman,” to the persuasive political raps found in “News Goo,” to the astoundingly real lyrics of “Di Hard” (”The good die young/ and the bad get paid”), Yankin’ has something to offer every music-lover. Perhaps most notable, though, are the album’s funky, upbeat tracks, such as “Boomers Blues,” “Jam Inya Jimmies” and “Cincinnati Pink.” With lyrics like “She’s catchin’ the groove and won’t let go,” it’s obvious that once you put on this Polarity/1 record, you won’t be letting go of the groove either.

But don’t take our word for it; here’s what others have to say:

“Polarity/1 is a musical force unleashing some of the hippest beats and timely lyric[s] on the scene” (MediaChannel.org).

“‘Di Hard’ is a medium tempo groove with rapped and sung vocals, everything done by Polar except for exquisite backing vocals by Scott Parker Allen and Sabina Sciubba. The song is a comment on Princess Di’s demise, the role of the media, and the times we live in, serious without becoming sentimentalized or preachy. An interesting exercise in a style that’s very hard to pull off” (Recording Magazine).

“Polar succeeds in his mission of forcing you to pay attention and not lull into the sounds you ‘expect’ to hear” (StarPolish.com).

The music of Polarity/1 is exactly what the name suggests—”conjoined opposites,” including the new (cutting-edge electronica, hip-hop and nu-jazz) and the old (roots music of America, including blues, funk, country and early jazz, Brazil (samba, pagode, etc.) and West African groove science).

After a few years of playing percussion in samba bands at S.O.B.’s and other venues. Polar landed in hip hop which combined his interests in grooves, samples and wordplay into one form. He and rapper D.A.V. became Medicine Crew. In the aftermath of 9/11, Polar was asked to do a remix of Nile Rodgers’ We Are Family Project released on a compilation by Tommy Boy Records. His experience of 9/11 which was perpetrated in his neighborhood led to a collaboration with multi-platinum Pakistan rock band Junoon resulting in their hit song ‘No More’. John Hollander has choreographed four Polarity/1 compositions for New York’s Battery Dance Company’s fall season opening in November 2006 and has been touring extensively with the piece. In 2008, he scored “The Other Side” for the Quorum Ballet from Lisbon Portugal. P/1’s new collaboration, Koko Dozo, released their first album Illegal Space Aliens in February 2008.

And you can check out Polarity/1 for yourself and learn how to purchase Yankin’ the Food Chain by heading to http://www.musicdish.net/polarity1/  or http://www.myspace.com/polarity1music

Watch the video related to politic news

FOX’s Glenn Beck Uses “Watermelon Prop” While Slamming Obama’s Climate Change Bill … Glenn Beck Watermelon Prop President Obama Climate Change Bill

Help answer the question about politic news