ISIS is Israeli Secret Intelligence Service

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Ron Paul: Obama Is Another Corporatist, Not a Socialist

Ron Paul: Obama Is Another Corporatist, Not a Socialist
Written by Steven Yates
Tuesday, 13 April 2010 11:59

The idea that President Barack Obama is a socialist is popular
among many conservatives; all of us have seen automobiles
sporting the bumper sticker reading, Don’t Blame Me; I Didn’t
Vote For the Socialist — obviously referring to Obama. Not so
fast, says, of all people, Ron Paul (R-Texas).

Addressing the Southern Republican Leadership Conference during
its third day, Dr. Paul told the audience, “The question has been
raised about whether or not our president is a socialist…. I am sure
there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical
sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's
not a socialist.”

Dr. Paul continued, “He's a corporatist. And unfortunately we have
corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take
care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

What he means, and whether or not he is right, depends on what
we mean by socialism and what by corporatism.

In its classical usages (classical here meaning within classical
Marxist usage and its derivatives) socialism means: an economic
system that is abolishing or has abolished the private ownership of
the means of production in favor of public (i.e., state) ownership,
with all wealth shared.

In this classical sense, Obama is clearly not a socialist. Nothing he
has done, not even in the recent healthcare bill, seems aimed at
abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Much of what he has done since taking office, however, has vastly
increased government control over the means of production — e.g.,
when he personally demands that a CEO step down (think General
Motors). Is this what we mean by corporatism?

Ron Paul described the healthcare bill as containing many
corporatist provisions: “We see [corporatism] in the financial
institutions, we see it in the military-industrial complex. And
now we see it in the medical-industrial complex.”

Corporatism is often seen as monopolistic capitalism in which
business and governmental elites partner with each other.

This isn't too far from the mark.

Business elites possess what we might call the power of the purse —
they have the money. Governmental elites possess what we might
call the power of the sword — they write the rules.

We might debate which one, if either, is truly dominant since both
scratch each other’s backs and benefit handsomely from having
thwarted both genuine marketplace competition and a truly open
political and electoral process.

Corporatism hardly began with the current administration, of
course, or its predecessor.

In an article published in 2002, which deserves far more attention
than it has ever received, commentator Robert Locke outlined the
basic ideas behind corporatism and traced some of its history and

According to Locke, corporatism “has the outward form of
capitalism in that it preserves private ownership and private
management, but with a crucial difference: as under socialism,
government guarantees the flow of material goods, which under
true capitalism it does not.” (Emphasis in original.) Corporatism
does not really trust the marketplace to provide. It manipulates
the marketplace “to deliver goods to political constituencies
[which now include] basically everyone from economic elites to
ordinary consumers.”

What has made corporatism so tempting is thus not hard to see.

Locke explains further:

Big business, whatever its casuists at the Wall Street Journal
editorial page may pretend, likes big government, except when
big government gets greedy and tries to renegotiate the division
of spoils.

Although big business was an historic adversary of the introduction
of the corporatist state, it eventually found common ground with it.

The first thing big business has in common with big government is
managerialism. The technocratic manager, who deals in impersonal
mass aggregates, organizes through bureaucracy, and rules through
expertise without assuming personal responsibility, is common to both.

The second thing big business likes about big government is that it
has a competitive advantage over small business in doing business
with it and negotiating favors. Big government, in turn, likes big
business because it is manageable; it does what it is told.

It is much easier to impose affirmative action or racial sensitivity
training on AT&T than on 50,000 corner stores. This is why big
business has become a key enforcer of political correctness.

Locke traces the history of corporatism to the idea that the
marketplace is not really self-regulating, since the "big boys"
will not "play fair"; hence economic activity requires outside
management, be it through regulation, subsidy, or control over
the monetary system.

The first major corporatist enterprise of the 20th century was
none other than the Federal Reserve, a private corporation that is
embedded within the federal government — as its own literature
states, “independent within the government.”

Then, in the 1930s, the (Fed-caused) Great Depression further
eroded confidence in the marketplace to deliver material goods
without government intervention.

That period gave us Social Security and Medicare: the beginnings
of the intergeneration redistribution of wealth we have been stuck
with ever since.

As political constituencies both large and small have grown, the
corporatist edifice has grown along with them, often with the
full support of the mainstream voting public both liberal and

The Left likes corporatism for three reasons, says Locke: (1) it
satisfies government’s (i.e., politicians’) lust for power; (2) its
machinery makes redistribution of wealth to favored constituencies
possible; and (3) it enables politicians to accomplish this while
remaining personally affluent.

The Right likes corporatism for three different reasons, says Locke: (1) big business can achieve enormous profits, capitalist-style, while unloading some of the cost and risk onto government; (2) the merger of business and government enables those at the helm of big business to influence government in ways favorable to themselves (e.g., thwarting true competition, which big business has seen as a nuisance since John D. Rockefeller, Sr. was heard to pronounce competition a “sin”); and (3) this merger seems able to minimize or dissipate whatever social unrest its policies create in the masses.

Locke provides several examples of corporatist endeavors besides the Federal Reserve. Some are even more obvious in today’s post-bailout climate:

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the insurance industry generally (especially evident given Obama/Pelosi-care!), real estate, federal financing of scientific research, agricultural price-supports, and many others; we would probably want to add to our list so-called "free trade" agreements (e.g., NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.).

The point to all this is that if we going to criticize the Obama administration’s economic policies, we need to be sure we have its economics right — and if we are paying attention, we see far more continuity with past administrations than we do change.

There have been no fundamental changes, despite candidate-Obama’s mantra about “change you can believe in.” (For this reason, many on the Left have grown as uneasy with this administration as any Tea Partier, even if for different reasons.)

Isn’t corporatism just a form of fascism? Yes and no.

The most famous quote attributed to Italy’s Mussolini (the quote appears to be apocryphal) is that “fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Under fascism, unlike socialism, government did not assume ownership over corporations but controlled them, allowing nominal ownership.

I would submit that if there is a difference, it is that in the English-speaking world more of a partnership between the two has emerged, and over a longer period of time — perhaps born of the quiet realization that many in the upper echelons of the corporate domain are as interested in power as any statist authoritarian has ever been, and that the two can achieve far more working together than they can separately.

Working separately will, in fact, ensure that the two will butt heads more often than not.

Corporatism may be thought of as “soft fascism,” which is oligarchic but not totalitarian.

Part of its genius has been to win acceptance from the voting public through (1) having created a mass and organizing it into groups, or political constituencies; (2) delivering goods to those constituencies; (3) all the while creating a sense of security for them if they play ball; and (4) (although the idea calls for a separate article) corporatism has sponsored “public schools,” further encouraging its acceptance through consistent ratcheting down of education not just about our founding principles but absent clear thinking about economics and even personal finance, while ratcheting up the current mixture of pop culture and job skills training (e.g., school-to-work, no-child-left-behind, etc.).

The vast majority of teenagers educated this way will not question the system; the few who do can be safely marginalized.

Ron Paul has been the one Republican operating clearly outside
the corporatist mindset. This might help explain why he and his supporters have been marginalized within the Republican Party,
the mainstream of which serves corporatist interests. There are probably Democrats who are not corporatists. Dennis Kucinich
might be an example.

All of which brings us to the question: If corporatism really is the
best name for the economic system currently throttling America,
can it be fought — and perhaps undermined?

Of course, we have to identify it first. Most people have never heard the term. Then we might argue that corporatism is, in the long run, unsustainable: Social Security and Medicare, those two 1930s corporatist standbys, are both technically broke and on the federal equivalent of life support.

As Baby Boomers retire, the situation will grow progressively worse! It was not without reason that Keynes said, "In the long run, we are all dead."

Corporatism incorporates Keynesian economics and encourages
massive spending by both government and consumers as the key
to rising prosperity without looking far into the future.

When people will not spend, generally because they cannot spend, there is an incentive to get money into their pockets; otherwise the economy falls into crisis. Spending money one does not have creates debt. The temptation is to monetize government debt.

The result is the slow erosion of our dollars' purchasing power. The dollar in fact has lost 10 percent of its value in just the past year. Massive and still-growing indebtedness has the potential to be our downfall and the downfall of corporatism.

These considerations are all imminently rational, but the
corporatist edifice we now live under has been built up
under such a long period of time — several generations, in
fact — that dismantling it all at once would precipitate chaos.

Moreover, the public is now accustomed to it. They fear the loss
of their safety nets, and might argue reasonably that they spent
their lives paying into Social Security and are now entitled to
benefit from it.

Healthcare costs are indeed astronomical; moreover, without
Medicare (or some type of government aid), they would be
priced beyond the reach of many elderly people.

These are the main reasons Social Security and Medicare are
politically untouchable, and that any politician proposing to
abolish them would be rejected immediately by the majority
of voters except for libertarians.

This issue is much larger than Obama. One way or another, he'll be gone in a few years.

The problems will remain, and would have worsened even if McCain had been elected in 2008.

How do we “turn back the clock”? Can we?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

An American's Creed

An American's Creed

By Dean Alfange
May 25, 2010

I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon
--- if I can.

I seek opportunity --- not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole.

I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout.

I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done with my own hand, I am a Man.

I am an American.

Professor Emeritus Dean Alfange

Sunday, May 23, 2010

God, Please Send Us An Angel

from tony whitcomb
date Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:53 PM
subject Initial Business Proposal

Dear Google Team:

Thank you for your very timely response and for also taking a
very sincere interest in our Expotera entrepreneurial endeavor.

My name is Tony Whitcomb and I humbly represent the 4 billion low-income consumers constituting a majority of the world’s population and we make up what is called the, “base of the (economic) pyramid” or BOP, and we would like to discuss partnering up with Google to develop and to create the world's first Small Business, Social Networking, Monthly Membership Fee and Monthly Residual Commission based Company/Website called, Expotera.

We are currently seeking and desperately in need of a Multi-Billion dollar Angel Investor/Technology Partner to help us legally separate and replace our current, Multi-Billion dollar Non-Angel Investor/Technology Partner on this global project.

From the technology side, our business plan does not require the inventing of any new technologies because social networking scripts and centralized e-commerce packages are a dime a dozen these days and the technology we would need to handle the sales and marketing side of the company/website, has already been fully researched and developed by an outside third party technology vendor.

From the sales and marketing side, our business plan utilizes a relationship/direct sales marketing system (business to business and/or person to person) as the primary model for initially attracting our new Co-Owners/Community Members to Expotera.

Our Company's business strategy is based on 3 keys: (1) building
a powerful field-based marketing and sales channel of Co-Owners
/Community Members that it can effectively manage and control;
(2) creating a Web-based marketplace that generates value for its
Co-Owners/Community Members through the products and services that it offers; and (3) leveraging the membership distribution channel to sell a growing number of additional products and services that can be co-branded or private labeled.

Our Company will recognize revenue from multiple sources including:
(1) revenues from the initial sale of memberships to new Co-Owners/
Community Members; (2) on going monthly membership/advertising fees received from its Co-Owners/Community Members; (3) banner advertising received from global vendors who have identified the Co-Owners/Community Members as a target market; and (4) consulting and/or service referral fees for the delivery of high end projects or Internet Websites for e-commerce.

Our objective for the Expotera website is to create a online community for small to mid size businesses to showcase their company's on the Internet. Our initial target market is the severely undeserved and completely underdeveloped, small business market with a 95% global market opportunity. A company can use the website either as their sole web presence or to enhance the marketing strategy of their existing website and non small business owners can use the web site for both social networking as well as shopping/business networking.

I currently am the Founder and CEO of Expotera and I currently own 51% of the company and I have approximately 50 private investors who loaned/invested $500,000.00 to the company in exchange for the opportunity to convert their loans/investments into future non-voting shares in Expotera at the initial offering price of $1.00 per share.

The other 49% of the company is currently owned by a private investment/technology group led by this gentlemen, and I am not sure how much of a legal fight Mr. DeVaan and his group are going to be willing to put up in regards to these matters especially in light of the very public allegations that I have now leveled against him and his partners, but from what I know of these men, they absolutely hate losing and I am anticipating a potential huge legal battle ahead.

If Google still has a very sincere interest in Expotera and in working with all of us on this project after reviewing this initial business proposal from Expotera, then I would humbly suggest trying to come up with a financially creative way for all of us to continue this conversation in person at some point at your Corporate Headquarters out in beautiful Mountain View, California.

From all of us here on the Expotera Team, we wish all of you nothing but continued peace, prosperity and success, in all of your current and future endeavors and we greatly look forward to hearing from you and continuing this conversation amongst Friends, Colleagues and Angels, from here.

Very Best Regards,

Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Facebook, MySpace Caught Releasing User Data

Facebook, MySpace Caught Releasing User Data
By Brett Michael Dykes
Fri May 21, 5:47 pm ET

In a seemingly never-ending string of damaging disclosures about its users' privacy concerns, Facebook has reportedly been releasing user data to ad companies that hadn't even asked for the info.

Facebook isn't alone this time: rival social-media site MySpace has also been called out in Friday's Wall Street Journal report by Emily Steel and Jessica E. Vascellaro — together with the content-sharing sites Livejournal and Digg.

The report says that the companies have delivered user data to major online advertising companies such as Google's DoubleClick
and Yahoo!'s Right Media, despite explicit pledges to protect such information.

The released material includes user names and ID numbers, together with data that could be used to accumulate a host of additional information on individual users, such as where they live, their names, occupations, incomes and places of employment.

As Steel and Vascellaro write:

"Across the Web, it's common for advertisers to receive the address of the page from which a user clicked on an ad. Usually, they receive nothing more about the user than an unintelligible string of letters and numbers that can't be traced back to an individual. With social networking sites, however, those addresses typically include user names that could direct advertisers back to a profile page full of personal information. In some cases, user names are people's real names."

Representatives of both DoubleClick and Right Media told the Journal reporters that they were unaware they were receiving such data — and stressed that they hadn't tried to make use of any of it.

After the Journal contacted Facebook, the company announced a change in software to prevent transmission of the identifying code, the Journal said. MySpace announced that it's in the process of adopting the same user protections.

Digg, Livejournal and other sites named in the report are apparently holding off on enhancing privacy safegaurds because they don't require users to register with real names.

Still, the report is another black eye for Facebook, which has already caused such an uproar that four U.S. senators — not exactly your typical Web activists — entered the fray over the company's user privacy standards.

Meanwhile, Facebook is generating plenty of bad PR all by itself, with an executive's backlash-provoking Q&A at the New York Times and recent reports that users who posted comments critical of founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg have seen their profiles mysteriously deleted.

These episodes may well explain the company's other piece of bad news this week: a poll disclosing that 60 percent of Facebook users have considered deleting their accounts because of qualms about the site's privacy policy.

— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Power To The People!!

Power To The People!!

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us.

We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?

Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world.

There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest that glory of God that is within us; It's in everyone.

And as we let our own light shine, we consciously give other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

President Nelson Mandela

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Poll: 4 out of 5 Americans don't trust Washington

Poll: 4 out of 5 Americans don't trust Washington
Apr 19, 2010 8:04 AM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - America's "Great Compromiser" Henry Clay called government "the great trust," but most Americans today have little faith in Washington's ability to deal with the nation's problems.

Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center.

Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don't trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America's ills, the survey found.

The survey illustrates the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall's elections.

Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.

The survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it.

Nearly half say the government negatively affects their daily lives,
a sentiment that's grown over the past dozen years.

This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.

"The government's been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don't follow through," says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 - the tax filing deadline.

"There's too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he's certainly not helping fix it."

Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it's interfering too much in state and local matters.

The public is split over whether the government should be responsible for dealing with critical problems or scaled back to reduce its power, presumably in favor of personal responsibility.

About half say they want a smaller government with fewer services, compared with roughly 40 percent who want a bigger government providing more.

The public was evenly divided on those questions long before Obama was elected. Still, a majority supported the Obama administration exerting greater control over the economy during the recession.

"Trust in government rarely gets this low," said Andrew Kohut,
director of the nonpartisan center that conducted the survey.
"Some of it's backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of
other things going on."

And, he added: "Politics has poisoned the well."

The survey found that Obama's policies were partly to blame for
a rise in distrustful, anti-government views.

In his first year in office, the president orchestrated a government takeover of Detroit automakers, secured a $787 billion stimulus package and pushed to overhaul the health care system.

But the poll also identified a combination of factors that contributed to the electorate's hostility: the recession that Obama inherited from President George W. Bush; a dispirited public; and anger with Congress and politicians of all political leanings.

"I want an honest government. This isn't an honest government. It hasn't been for some time," said self-described independent David Willms, 54, of Sarasota, Fla. He faulted the White House and Congress under both parties.

The poll was based on four surveys done from March 11 to April 11
on landline and cell phones. The largest survey, of 2,500 adults,
has a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points; the others,
of about 1,000 adults each, has a margin of sampling error of 4
percentage points.

In the short term, the deepening distrust is politically troubling for Obama and Democrats. Analysts say out-of-power Republicans could well benefit from the bitterness toward Washington come November, even though voters blame them, too, for partisan gridlock that hinders progress.

In a democracy built on the notion that citizens have a voice and a
right to exercise it, the long-term consequences could prove to be
simply unhealthy - or truly debilitating. Distrust could lead people
to refuse to vote or get involved in their own communities. Apathy
could set in, or worse - violence.

Democrats and Republicans both accept responsibility and fault the other party for the electorate's lack of confidence.

"This should be a wake-up call. Both sides are guilty," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She pointed to "nonsense" that goes on during campaigns that leads to "promises made but not promises kept." Still, she added: "Distrust of government is an all-American activity. It's something we do as Americans and there's nothing wrong with it."

Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican who won a long-held Democratic
Senate seat in Massachusetts in January by seizing on public
antagonism toward Washington, said: "It's clear Washington is
broken. There's too much partisan bickering to be able to solve
the problems people want us to solve."

And, he added: "It's going to be reflected in the elections this fall."

But Matthew Dowd, a top strategist on Bush's re-election campaign who now shuns the GOP label, says both Republicans and Democrats are missing the mark.

"What the country wants is a community solution to the problems
but not necessarily a federal government solution," Dowd said.

Democrats are emphasizing the federal government, while Republicans are saying it's about the individual; neither is emphasizing the right combination to satisfy Americans, he said.

Yes We Can??

from Stacy Ming
to Robert Barnett
cc Tony Whitcomb
date Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 4:40 PM
subject Expotera

Dear Mr. Barnett:

My name is Stacy Ming and I am a business associate of Mr. Whitcomb and investor in his Expotera entrepreneurial endeavor.

I will be speaking on behalf of Mr. Whitcomb in this response to give more of a 3rd party point of view and as one of his many investors, however, Mr. Whitcomb wholehearted shares in the comments and statements made in this reply.

First of all, thank you for your willingness to listen to Mr. Whitcomb's unfortunate situation and asking the question of, "what is it he wants?"

What we would like to see happen is the correction of a huge injustice that occurred to an African American entrepreneur whose only goal was to come up with an innovative product which utilizes the Internet and Social Networking that would give the American public access to these resources for economic purposes (This opportunity is not currently available to Main Street America.)

This innovative idea will allow every American the capability to generate additional monthly residual income to help increase their current standard of living or for many Americans in today's economic climate, the opportunity to just generate income period.

The overall net results for the economy would be the fact that less
people would be unemployed (or collecting unemployment benefits
if they still qualify), additional jobs and additional taxable income
would be generated which would be beneficial to both State and
the Federal Government.

Mr. Whitcomb has been trying to get President Obama's attention
to this matter since he believes Expotera can immediately help
with the current economic crisis that is occurring in America today.

Mr. Whitcomb has been trying to get a response from President
Obama, his Administration at every level, and/or his advisors for
the past 2 years and had not received any acknowledgement until
your email response dated January 9, 2010.

What we want is President Obama’s administration to partner with us in Expotera since it clearly demonstrates a new way to solve social problems where government serves as an investor in innovations that are developed and identified by citizens outside the government.

Expotera and what we are requesting from the Obama Administration definitely falls into President Obama’s newly created Office on Social Innovation and Civic Participation.

How many entrepreneurs approach the government to form a partnership before launching their company?

Mr. Whitcomb so strongly believes that this is the right thing to do for the American people and the Obama administration that he has done everything he possibly can do or made every attempt to bring this to the immediate attention of the Obama administration.

As Mr. Whitcomb has previously stated, “Expotera is going to
be one of the big stories of 2010."

We sincerely hope that history will show that the Obama
Administration was a partner of Expotera and was on the
side of Justice and the American People.

Best Regards, Stacy L. Ming

from Barnett, Robert
to Stacy Ming
cc Tony Whitcomb
date Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM
subject RE: Expotera

Thanks for contacting me. I now understand what you are seeking.

Unfortunately, because I represent the President on various matters,
I cannot intermediate in any way on behalf of third-parties. I hope
you understand.

Robert Barnett

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

An Open Letter To The American People

My Dear Fellow American Citizens:

My name is Tony Whitcomb. I am a 44 year old Social Entrepreneur, Founder and CEO of an Internet startup currently based in Minneapolis, Minnesota called Expotera.

Expotera is a new small business/social networking concept that
is seizing financial opportunities that others like MySpace and
Facebook have missed or have simply ignored, because it was
far easier to continue exploiting and taking full advantage of
the web's, "Free Labor Economy" versus financially empowering
and taking full advantage of the web's, "Paid Labor Economy."

Expotera is an innovative and systematic approach for meeting
the finanacial needs of the marginalized, the disadvantaged and
the disenfranchised populations that lack the financial means
or political clout to achieve any lasting benefit on their own
which at this point, pretty much represents all of us who make
up the bottom 99% of the American and Global Population.

In February of 2007 I put together a $10,000,000.00 Confidential Private Placement Memorandum for my Intellectual Property with, who is one of my former bosses.

Our original legal and binding agreement called for me to maintain a 51% majority ownership stake in the company and a private technology/investment group led by Mr. Devaan, would maintain a 49% minority ownership stake in the company.

In April of 2008 after a very successfully proof of concept, this
private technology/investment group led by Mr. Devaan suddenly
realized that Expotera was going to eventually be worth Billions
of dollars annually out in the global marketplace and the initial
$10,000,000.00 market evaluation had been extremely conservative.

So in keeping in the tradition of doing business here in good old, "Corporate America" this private technology/investment group led by Mr. Devaan decided they now wanted to own a 80% majority ownership stake in Expotera and they also wanted to replace me as the CEO of Expotera with one of their fellow, "Conniver's" as well.

They wanted me to agree to do all of this after I had basically
worked for, "FREE" on this project for two years and had given
these gentlemen $500,000.00 of my Private Investors money
and my entire Intellectual Property, for my originally agreed
upon 51% majority ownership stake in the company.

When I refused to sign 80% majority control of the company over
to these gentlemen for oh by the way, "$1" to be paid back to the
company, they decided to close down all of the company's offices,
shut down the company's web site and closed all of the company's
bank accounts to try to bully and force me and my investors into
finally accepting their illegal inside hostile takeover of the company.

When I still refused to sign 80% majority control of the company over to these gentlemen, they basically then dared me and my group of investors, to legally try to come after them simply because they are Microsoft and they can pretty much intimidate and/or, "Bribe" anyone in a reasonable position to help us at this present time as clearly illustrated below.

In May of 2008 while President Obama was still running for
president, we began to naively reach out to him and to his
campaign for help with our unfortunate situation because
we honestly believed him when he said things were going
to, "CHANGE" under him as President and when he became
President in 2009, we continued to reach out to him and
to his Administration for help and assistance.

But now after 2 years of not receiving any type of acknowledgement or response to the numerous e-mails we have sent to President Obama and to his Administration in regards to these matters, we believe we have now discovered the real reasons why President Obama and his Administration do not wish to acknowledge and/or deal with any of us at this time.

You see my fellow Americans, we live in the land of the Golden Rule, "He who owns the most gold makes and gets to break all of the rules" and in 2008 Microsoft contributed well over $800,000.00 to President Obama's presidential campaign placing Microsoft at number 4 on President Obama's top contributors list for 2008.

And of course included in this total amount above is the $28,500.00 campaign contribution made by Mr. Devaan to the, "Obama Victory Fund" on July 25, 2008 under the slightly different spelling of his last name, "Devann."

And of course this highly questionable large campaign contribution to President Obama's 2008 presidential campaign came only 3 months after, "We The People" had started contacting him and his campaign for help in regards to these matters as well.

But in 2008 President Obama had been given over 800,000 reasons to continue looking the other way and pretending he is completely unaware and totally oblivious to this huge social economic injustice that has now occurred on his watch as Commander and Chief.

So for over 2 years now Mr. Devaan and his group of, "Somali Software Pirates" have been able to successfully, "HIGHJACK" Expotera and hold me, my investors and founding members in Expotera, "HOSTAGE" simply because our entire financial, political and legal systems here in America are constantly being put up for sale to the highest bidder by some of the most dishonest, unethical, immoral and corrupt Politicians in our Nation's 233 year history.

Our Country now sits on the verge of a 21st century depression all because of the continued dishonesty and greed of a few, have now resulted into the sufferings of the many.

This is why I now say to all of you my dear fellow American Citizens, it is simply time for a major political and economic Revolution in this country and I have a grassroots business/technology plan called Expotera that we can use here in the beginning to get this process started because I can't honestly speak for all of you but, "I Am Mad As Hell And I Am Not Going To Take It Anymore!"

I would personally like to thank each and everyone of you for taking the time to read this open letter to the American People and for checking out my new Blog.

Instead of being a Blogger and Corporate Whistleblower these days, I would much rather be back running and growing my company and helping people to become their own, "Moses" and create their own, "Promised Lands."

But until then, I am going to continue using this Blog to try to bring plenty out of lack, justice out of injustice and function out of dsyfunction and if any of you would care to join with me, please feel free to send me an e-mail to the e-mail address listed below.

God Bless You and God Bless America!


Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera

Monday, May 17, 2010

I'm a PC and making Illegal Political Campaign Contributions was My Idea

Stephanie Devaan
Political Campaign Contributions
2010 Election Cycle
Contribution Totals

Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount3/$3,000
2008 Transaction Count/Amount3/$2,350
2006 Transaction Count/Amount4/$7,100
2004 Transaction Count/Amount5/$11,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0

Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Stephanie Devaan Contribution List in 2010
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
Amount Date Primary/
General Contibuted To
Devaan, Stephanie
98039 Self/Artist $1,000 06/23/2009 P DELBENE FOR CONGRESS - Democrat
98039 SELF/ARTIST $1,000 03/07/2009 P FRIENDS OF BLANCHE LINCOLN - Democrat
Devaan, Stephanie
98039 Self/Print Artist $1,000 03/06/2009 P WASHINGTON WOMEN FOR CHOICE

Stephanie Devann
Political Campaign Contributions
2004 Election Cycle
Contribution Totals

Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2006 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2004 Transaction Count/Amount2/$3,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0

Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Stephanie Devann Contribution List in 2004
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
Amount Date Primary/
General Contibuted To
Devann, Stephanie
98039 Self Employed/Artist $1,000 10/19/2004 P MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC FARMER LABOR PARTY - Democrat
Devann, Stephanie
98039 Self employed/Print Artist $2,000 07/10/2004 P ALBEN2004 - Democrat

Microsoft Admits Stealing Code From Startup

Bobbie Johnson, San Francisco
Tuesday 15 December 2009 22.10 GMT

Microsoft has suspended a new internet messaging service in China, after it emerged that the site was partially based on code stolen from a rival startup.

The site, Juku, launched in November is similar in concept to other online messaging systems like Twitter.

But earlier this week the team behind Plurk, a young internet company based in Canada and popular with users across Asia, accused Microsoft of directly copying as much as 80% of the code to run the program.

"If this was just a case of visual inspiration gone too far, we could probably have lived with it," Plurk said on Monday. "That's not the case here. This is something far more sinister."

After investigating the accusations, the world's biggest software company said it had confirmed that some of the code for Juku had been used without permission.

In a statement, Microsoft apologised and said the transgression had been made by a developer hired by MSN China.

"Questions arose over a beta application called Juku, developed by a Chinese vendor for our MSN China joint venture. The vendor has now acknowledged that a portion of the code they provided was indeed copied," it said.

"This was in clear violation of the vendor's contract with the MSN China joint venture, and equally inconsistent with Microsoft's policies respecting intellectual property."

Microsoft added that it was suspending access to the service and would be discussing potential resolutions with Plurk.

"it was never our intent to have a site that was not respectful of the work that others in the industry have done," it said.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Microsoft Illegal Campaign Contributions 2008

From tony whitcomb
Date Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:59 PM
Subject FBI Election Fraud Agent/Illegal Campaign Contributions Microsoft
Cc stacy ming

Dear Federal Bureau of Investigation:

My name is Tony Whitcomb and this is my former boss/business partner,

Below is a list of Political Campaign Contributions Mr. DeVaan has made to the Democratic Party going back to the year 2000 under
the correct spelling of his last name, "DeVaan."

On this list you will see in 2008, Mr. DeVaan donated $28,500.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on March 31, 2008.

Below this list is another list of Political Campaign Contributions Mr. DeVaan made in 2008 to the, "Obama Victory Fund" on July 25, 2008 for another, $28,500.00.

But you will notice Mr. DeVaan made this second large political campaign contribution to the Obama Victory Fund under a slightly different spelling of his last name, "DeVann?"

You will also notice, "Mr. DeVann" has all of the same address and
employment information as, "Mr. DeVaan" but, "Mr. DeVann" has
only donated money in the 2008 election cycle while, "Mr. DeVaan"
has donated money in every election cycle going back to the year

I am not an attorney, but is it normal/legal for a private citizen to
be able to make multiple large political campaign contributions under
two different spellings of their last name?

It is my understanding the following limits apply to contributions
from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices:

$2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.

$30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.

$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees.

$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee.

It is also my understanding that, "No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person."

And it is also my understanding, "It is a federal crime to evade the following donation limits listed above through a straw donor scheme" which is exactly what I think Mr. DeVaan may have been a part of through the 4th largest contributors to President Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign, Microsoft.

Upon your request I can provide the FBI with a copy of a
$10,000,000.00 Confidential Private Placement Memorandum
that Mr. DeVaan and I put together back in 2007 in regards
to my Intellectual Property called Expotera to help you verify
my relationship to Mr. DeVaan and his relationship to me.

Thank you for your time and for your immediate considerations into these matters and if you should need any additional information from me you can feel free to reach me via this e-mail address.


Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera

Jon DeVaan Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle Contribution Totals

Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount3/$33,100
2006 Transaction Count/Amount5/$13,300
2004 Transaction Count/Amount12/$50,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount3/$3,000
2000 Transaction Count/Amount4/$4,000

Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Jon Devaan Contribution List in 2008

Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount Date Primary/General Contributed To


$2,3000 3/12/2007 P AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - Democrat Farm Labor

$2,3000 3/12/2007 G AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - Democrat Farm Labor

Jon DeVann Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle Contribution Totals

Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount2/$30,800
2006 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2004 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0

Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Jon DeVann Contribution List in 2008

Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount Date Primary/General Contributed To

DeVann, Jon S Mr.MEDINA, WA 98039 Microsoft Corp/Executive
$28,5000 7/25/2008 P OBAMA VICTORY FUND - Democrat

DeVann, Jon S MEDINA, WA 98039 Microsoft Corp/Executive
$2,300 12/27/2007 P OBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat

Barack Obama (D)Top Contributors this table lists the top
donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle.

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835