ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Obama's 2012 run to be non-starter?

Amplify’d from www.wnd.com
CERTIFIGATE

Obama's 2012 run to be non-starter?

Lawsuits seeking to stop Democrats from certifying candidate's qualified

By Bob Unruh
Barack Obama

Just when the White House probably thought those pesky lawsuits seeking a court determination that Barack Obama fails to meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements for a president were finished, something new has appeared on the horizon.

Or in this case, the court docket.

The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits in state and federal courts that don't ask anything about Obama's birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility. Or his birth certificate, for that matter.

Instead, they name the national Democratic Party as a defendant, and ask the court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.

"This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term 'natural-born citizen' under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party.

"This complaint requests this court to affirm the Supreme Court's definition of 'natural-born citizen' as 'all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.'"

That definition comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Minor v. Happersett from 1875.

"This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States."

It continues, "Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama's constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama's natural-born status.

"Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent."

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, told WND that one lawsuit was filed in federal court in Arizona to focus on the question of defining the term "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution.

"We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit," he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.


Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.

"The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee secretary of state. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama's Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number," he said.

Other lawsuits also are planned, he said.

Irion said that an injunction obtained through the legal actions would deprive Obama of Democrat Party certification.

"Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election," his organization said in an announcement about the cases.

"Neither lawsuit discusses Obama's place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF's lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined 'natural-born citizen' as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen's birth. Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant," the group said.

"LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of representations made by the political parties that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only targets the entity responsible for vetting the Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government.

"The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages," the group said.

LLF also reported it learned that presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. Consequently LLF partnered with FEC-registered Dummett, a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be followed.



While WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation that Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state's election ballot in 2012, there also are other developments, too.

WND also has reported on an investigation that revealed a major online court opinion resource, Justia.com, allegedly edited references to the Minor v. Happersett court decision from dozens on documents it posted online.


The issue developed when a Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were altered at Justia.com.

The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of "natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

There have been multiple court and other challenges to Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office. Essentially they have argued that he either isn't eligible because he wasn't born in Hawaii as he's said, or that he was never qualified because his father was a Kenyan citizen, giving Barack Obama dual citizenship (the U.S. and the United Kingdom) at his birth. Those people argue that the Founders, with their requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen," disqualified dual citizens.

The White House in April released an image of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama's claim that he was born in the state. However, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated it appears to be a forgery.

The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:





Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

Read more at www.wnd.com
 

Man Pleads Guilty to Trafficking Kidneys in New Jersey

Today, the 60-year-old Israeli Levy Itzhak Rosenbaum pleaded guilty in federal court to helping an FBI informant procure a kidney as part of an elaborate federal sting. At the same time, he admitted arranging transplants for three other New Jersey patients with failing kidneys — all of whom underwent surgery in out-of-state hospitals after paying Rosenbaum. None of the patients or hospitals was named, nor were they charged.

Amplify’d from www.wired.com

Man Pleads Guilty to Trafficking Kidneys in New Jersey

Levy Itzhak Rosenbaum, 60, of Brooklyn (left) is led by his attorneys Ronald Kleinberg (center) and Richard A. Finkel (right) into the Clarkson Fisher Federal Courthouse in Trenton today to plead guilty for his role in trafficking human kidneys. (Tony Kurdzuk/Star-Ledger)

TRENTON — The price was steep. As much as $160,000 to secure a donor willing to give up a human kidney for transplant.

And Levy Itzhak Rosenbaum — who told neighbors in Brooklyn he dabbled in construction and real estate — bragged on surveillance recordings that he had participated in many such black market deals.

Today, the 60-year-old Israeli pleaded guilty in federal court to helping an FBI informant procure a kidney as part of an elaborate federal sting. At the same time, he admitted arranging transplants for three other New Jersey patients with failing kidneys — all of whom underwent surgery in out-of-state hospitals after paying Rosenbaum. None of the patients or hospitals was named, nor were they charged.

It marked the first time in this country anyone has ever been convicted for brokering illegal kidney transplants for profit.

The case served as one of the more bizarre chapters of the sweeping federal sting that led to the arrests of 46 people on charges of money laundering and political corruption in July 2009 — a case that included three mayors, two legislators and more than 20 candidates for public office who were charged with taking cash bribes to help green-light questionable development projects.

Separately, five Orthodox rabbis from Brooklyn and the Jersey shore were charged with laundering millions of dollars through various religious charities.

At the center of the three-year investigation was failed Monmouth County real estate investor Solomon Dwek, who began secretly cooperating with prosecutors after he was caught passing a $25 million bogus check at a bank drive-through window in an unrelated Ponzi scheme.

Rosenbaum’s connection to the high-profile sting had been a mystery when the investigation first came to light. But it was later revealed Dwek had long known of the kidney broker, who was familiar in Brooklyn as the “go-to” guy with connections for those with the means who did not want to wait for a suitable donor organ, or did not qualify to be placed on a transplant list.

According to criminal complaints in the case, Dwek set up Rosenbaum by claiming a desperately ill uncle of his secretary needed a kidney transplant, and that he was willing to pay for one. The “patient” was fictitious and Dwek’s supposed secretary was actually an FBI undercover agent.

Transcripts of surveillance recordings revealed a stark business transaction. In February 2008, Dwek drove to Rosenbaum’s home in Flatbush. He was accompanied by FBI agent Jessica Weisman, who played the part of his secretary and was later identified in court as part of a separate trial connected with the sting.

Dwek told Rosenbaum he wanted to arrange a kidney transplant for his secretary’s “Uncle Teddy.” The cover story was that her uncle had polycystic disease, a genetic disorder leading to the growth of cysts that eventually fill with fluid.

In the surveillance transcripts released as part of a criminal complaint, Rosenbaum explained the proposed transaction in detail.

“I am what you call a matchmaker …,” he said. “My obligation to you is to bring you a person (who) will have it done … If for any reason, for any reason, the guy I will bring you will not go through, then I have to bring you somebody else.”

The cost would not be cheap — the price tag was set initially at $150,000, and later grew to $160,000.

“One of the reasons it’s so expensive is because you have to shmear all the time,” Rosenbaum said on the transcripts, referring to money paid under the table to everyone involved in the deal. “I take care of (the donor) after; after the surgery also… I place him somewhere. You have to babysit him like a baby because he may have a language problem; maybe not.”

He said the donors, all of whom came from Israel, got $10,000 for giving up one of their kidneys. “There are people over there hurting,” Rosenbaum explained.

The kidney sale was never allowed to proceed beyond an initial deposit paid by Dwek.

But in a proceeding today before U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson in Trenton federal court, Rosenbaum, in a dark suit and a heavy accent, acknowledged not only taking Dwek’s deposit, but also arranging three other transplants on behalf of New Jersey residents that took place in December 2006, September 2008 and February 2009.

In questioning by assistant U.S. Attorney Mark McCarren, Rosenbaum said he was paid between $120,000 and $140,000 by the recipients. “The son told me the father has kidney failure,” Rosenbaum told the court of one transaction. “I helped him.”

His attorneys, Ronald Kleinberg and Richard Finkel of New York, said all of the recipients sought Rosenbaum’s assistance, and the transplant surgeries occurred in U.S. hospitals.

“Each of the recipients was suffering from kidney failure, was enduring the pain and serious health dangers associated with kidney dialysis and was facing death unless a transplant was arranged,” the attorneys said in a statement.

U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman called the transactions an affront to human dignity.

“A black market in human organs is not only a grave threat to public health, it reserves lifesaving treatment for those who can best afford it at the expense of those who cannot,” he said.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, Rosenbaum is the first person ever convicted under a 1984 law prohibiting the black market sale of human organs from paid donors.

He faces up to five years in prison on each count of the four-count information, and $250,000 in fines when he is sentenced in February. He also faces deportation and agreed to forfeit the $420,000 he received to broker the four transplants.

Read more at www.wired.com
 

Mom on anti-bacteria crusade banned from 8 McDonald's sites

Amplify’d from content.usatoday.com

Mom on anti-bacteria crusade banned from 8 McDonald's sites

By Melanie Eversley, USA TODAY

An Arizona mother of four has been banned from eight McDonald's restaurants where she repeatedly swabbed play areas for bacteria in a personal crusade for better cleanliness, various news organizations report.

Erin Carr-Jordan in a fast-food restaurant play area on June 6 in Chandler, Ariz.
By David Kadlubowski, AP
Monday, Erin Carr-Jordan, 36, of Chandler, Ariz., received a hand-delivered letter informing her that she is prohibited from setting foot in eight McDonald's restaurants in Gilbert, Chandler and Phoenix and that she will be charged with criminal trespass if she does, The Arizona Republic reports.

"It doesn't mean much to me personally," Carr-Jordan told ABC News. "I've gotten positive responses from parents who said, 'Hey, I'm not banned. Give me swabs.' "

Carr-Jordan tells the Republic that she believes the incident that set off the ire from McDonald's was one that took place at a Gilbert, Ariz., restaurant, where she found MRSA in the restaurant's PlayPlace and informed the manager as well as customers with children. When she saw one child licking the equipment, she demanded the restaurant close down the play area.

"I can't imagine knowing there was MRSA and not doing anything," Carr-Jordan tells the Republic. "I make no apologies for what I did."

All of the locations where Carr-Jordan is banned are owned by Ernie Adair, Carr-Jordan says, and he could not be reached by ABC News. The Republic says the letter was drafted by Phoenix lawyer James Stipe, who declined to name his client.

Dayna Proud, a McDonald's spokeswoman in Illinois, told the Republic the corporation remains "committed" to communicating with Carr-Jordan to address her concerns but recent actions by Carr-Jordan "have become disruptive to the employees and customers within our franchise's restaurants." Proud said, "We remain committed to working with an internal team on ensuring that our PlayPlaces are clean and safe for all customers."

Carr-Jordan's campaign, which covers six states, began in earnest after she had grime samples tested that she'd collected from a play area at a McDonald's in Tempe, Ariz., and discovered they contained pathogens found in fecal material and mucus, the Republic reports.

Read more at content.usatoday.com
 

Amazing Discoveries TV

Our Internet channel is now available in Adobe Flash player and smart phone native players. This means that everyone--even Safari users and those on their Androids and iPhones--can easily watch our satellite channel at amazingdiscoveries.tv. Tune in today!

Haven't got ADTV on Satellite?

Amazing Discoveries TV is now officially part of the Adventist Satellite programming.


Get your dish by calling toll free at 1-866-425-1524 or order online at www.adtv.glorystar.tv

Already got a satellite but not getting ADTV?

Tune to:

Satellite: Galaxy 19 (G-19)

Position: 97° West

Transponder: 6

Band: Ku

Frequency: 11842

Symbol rate: 22000

F.E.C. ¾

Polarization: Horizontal



You can still watch the streaming version of ADTV online at www.amazingdiscoveries.tv

Helpful links:

Web Based Satellite Aiming Calculator - www.GeoSatFinder.com

Satellite Dish Installation Service - www.FTAinstall.com

"There is to be no undermining of the fundamental truths that the Lord has submitted by many miraculous evidences.

A voice is to be heard in clear affirmation of the truth, in contradiction to the skepticism and fallacies that have been coming in from the enemy of truth."


This Day With God

Amazing Discoveries - 1-866-572-9457


www.amazingdiscoveries.org

www.amazingdiscoveries.tv

www.amazinghealth.com

Address: P.O. Box 4480, Blaine, WA 98231, USA

Amazing Discoveries™ is a registered non-profit organization in Canada and the US (501c3)

committed to exposing deceptions and errors in the religious realm, history, science, media, and health.

Biblical Archaeology By Dr Richard Kent

Biblical Archaeology part 1





Biblical Archaeology part 2







"Dr Richard Kent discusses Biblical Archaeology on Revelation TV"

VIki Knox's husband defends his wife's right to speak out against gay pe...

Radical Homosexuals want Mrs. Knox banned from teaching for life

Public AdvocateLast week Public Advocate officially announced its support for Mrs. Viki Knox and began mobilizing supporters like you to make phone calls on her behalf.



Radical Homosexuals want Mrs. Knox banned from teaching for life, all because she spoke up on Facebook against an openly biased and immoral display in her school.

And now the Battle is raging!



The entire establishment has come out against her.  Her district is investigating her and she has been placed on indefinite leave.



The Radical homosexuals are determined to run Mrs. Knox out of her school and out of a job.  Their radical supporters are staging aggressive protests at her school to frighten her into quitting.



And now Republican governor Chris Christie has publicly attacked Mrs. Knox for her words.  He is just the latest so-called conservative to take a stand against the Family!



Outrageously, Governor Chris Christie has come out against the Family in this fight, calling Mrs. Knox’s Christian beliefs “disgusting.” It’s no wonder that he has publicly endorsed Mitt Romney for president, who has had more positions on the Family than Newt Gingrich has had wives.



Please watch the video below to see everything that has been happening, and then I urge you to take action!

You and I are her only hope for justice.



Please call or email her superintendent Patrick Martin right now and demand he dismiss this vile investigation and restore Mrs. Knox to her job at once!





Superintendent Patrick Martin

908.851.6407

pmartin@twpunionschools.org




Thank you very much for your support in advance.



For the Family,



Eugene Delgaudio

Margarine vs. Butter









Enjoy life now - It has an expiration date!


























A health note




















































http://www.betterbeerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gabf10-butter.jpg












Having Worked at Unilevers Premier Margarine Factory in the UK for 1 Year, as a Management Trainee, and then in Sri Lanka Managing Margarine Manufacture, I can safely admit that what you are about to read is true!!










Pass The Butter ... Please.



This is interesting
. .. .



Margarine
was originally manufactured to fatten turkeys. When it killed the turkeys, the people who had put all the money into the research wanted a payback so they put their heads together to figure out what to do with this product to get their money back.


It was a white substance with no food appeal so they added the yellow coloring and sold it to people to use in place of butter. How do you like it? They have come out with some clever new flavorings...



DO YOU KNOW.
..The difference between margarine and butter?



Read on to the end...gets very interesting!




Both have the same amount of calories.


Butter is slightly higher in saturated fats at 8 grams; compared to 5 grams for margarine.



Eating
margarine can increase heart disease in women by 53%over eating the same amount of butter, according to a recent Harvard Medical Study.na



Eating
butter increases the absorption of many other nutrients in other foods.


Butter has many nutritional benefits where margarine has a few and only because they are added!



Butter
tastes much better than margarine and it can enhance the flavors of other foods.



Butter
has been around for centuries where margarine has been around for less than 100 years.




And now, for Margarine...



Very High in Trans
fatty acids.



Triples risk of coronary
heart disease ...



Increases total cholesterol
and LDL (this is the bad cholesterol) and lowers HDL cholesterol, (the good cholesterol)



Increases the risk of cancers up to five times..




Lowers quality of
breast milk



Decreases immune response.




Decreases
insulin response.



And here's the most disturbing fact...HERE IS THE PART THAT IS VERY INTERESTING!




Margarine
is but ONE MOLECULE away from being PLASTIC... and shares 27 ingredients with PAINT.




These facts alone were enough to have me avoiding margarine for life and anything else that is hydrogenated (this means hydrogen is added, changing the molecular structure of the substance).




Open a tub of margarine and leave it open in your garage or shaded area. Within a couple of days you will notice a couple of things:




* no flies, not even those pesky fruit flies will go near it (that should tell you something)




* it does not rot or smell differently because it has
no nutritional value; nothing will grow on it. Even those teeny weeny microorganisms will not a find a home to grow. Why? Because it is nearly plastic . Would you melt your Tupperware and spread that on your toast?



Share This With Your Friends...


(If you want to butter them up')!





Chinese Proverb:


When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others.




Pass the BUTTER PLEASE

Bernie Sanders: The big banks rule the Fed, here's how to fix it

Amplify’d from finance.fortune.cnn.com

Bernie Sanders: The big banks rule the Fed, here's how to fix it

The independent senator from Vermont is taking aim at the make-up of the Federal Reserve's board of directors, arguing it has too many bankers.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders

FORTUNE -- At a time when the rally against Wall Street and corporate greed gains momentum, a U.S. government report released last week raises a question few protesters probably think about: Are too many members of the U.S. Federal Reserve board of directors from the banking sector? After all, the Fed regulates many of the very same companies that its members run, and so this potentially poses a conflict of interest, according to the Government Accountability Office.

While the report didn't find that these firms directly benefited from the Fed, it confirmed worries that several financial firms and corporations could have gained from their executives' close ties to the Fed. For instance, JP Morgan Chase could have benefited from its chief executive Jamie Dimon's position on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. According to the GAO, the bank received bailout loans from the Fed while it served as one of the clearing banks that facilitate payments for the Fed's emergency lending program.

Now self-described Democratic socialist Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, who spearheaded the report, has gathered a team of top economists to draft legislation to reform the Fed. Sanders (or "Bernie" as most call him) joins Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and others in their call to restructure the Fed as the agency comes under increased scrutiny in recent years. Sanders is one of only two independents in the U.S. Senate. The 70-year-old politico has long slammed the excesses of Wall Street and U.S. businesses. Only recently, as The Guardian points out, has he become less of a political outsider.

Fortune caught up with the senator this week over telephone from his home state of Vermont. He talks about the inequitable influences of Wall Street and how to give the rest of America more say over policies to restart the U.S. economy.

Does anything in the GAO report surprise you?

No. In many ways what the GAO was telling us is what many of us already knew but the significance is that for the first time the GAO is telling it. You have representatives from the largest financial institutions in the country sitting on Fed board of directors ostensibly regulating their own banks. For many of us by definition that's a conflict of interest.

The other point that the GAO made, which I think is significant, is it identified 18 former and current members of the Federal Reserve Board who are affiliated with banks and companies who received emergency loans from the Fed. That included General Electric (GE), JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and Lehman Brothers.

The GAO also found that the firms these board members represented did not receive special treatment. Should we breathe a sigh of relief?

No. I think any objective look at a situation where you have CEOs and representatives of the largest financial institutions in the country sitting on boards, which are ostensibly regulating these same institutions, I think, would tell the average American that there is something very, very wrong that needs to be changed.

I'm not here to say that in every instance there were improprieties, but just by definition you shouldn't have the regulators being the same people who are being regulated.

But some would say having actual bankers on hand to provide their expertise and perspectives on the market would be invaluable in helping the Fed achieve financial stability. What are your thoughts on that?

I think you certainly want the advice and experience of bankers. The function of regulation in terms of a federal agency like the Fed is to protect the interest of the people of America. And if the people who are sitting on the boards are the same people who run the largest financial institutions I think the overwhelming majority of the American people would see that as a conflict.

Some of the largest financial institutions are charging 25% to 30% interest rates on credit cards. Wouldn't you want to hear from consumer representatives sitting on there what that means to the average American? I think you might.

Also, one of the Fed's mandates is to maximize employment. In my view the Fed hasn't responded very strongly on this. Wouldn't you want a representative from organized labor to talk about what it means in this country when you have 16% unemployed or underemployed?

You've gathered a team of top economists to reform the Fed. What would an improved central bank look like?

We can learn from best practices from other central banks. Many other countries have much more stringent rules regarding conflicts of interests – such as who can sit on the board, etc … I think Australia and Canada have something that we can learn from.

Another very important issue is with unemployment so high, how can we strengthen the Fed's full-employment mandate and ensure that it conducts monetary policy to achieve maximum employment? In other words the Fed has a number of mandates and one of them is to control inflation. But one of them also is to pursue policies that lead to full employment. Is the Fed doing that in an adequate way? Well I would argue that by definition when you have 16% of people unemployed and underemployed it really is not.

During the financial crisis the Fed through a revolving loan fund lent out $16 trillion at very low interest rate to every major financial institution in America, central bank around the world and large corporations. They did that in order to prop up Wall Street and make sure there wasn't a financial collapse. Right now 16% of the American people are unemployed or underemployed. Do we see the same sense of urgency on the part of the Fed in addressing that crisis as we did in the Wall Street crisis three years ago?

Another issue: The Fed has the responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system. That's one of its mandates. Right now, the six largest financial institutions in this country have assets that are equivalent to 65% of U.S. GDP (over $9 trillion). Three out of the four largest banks are now bigger than they were before we bailed them out because they were too big to fail. Do you think that the Fed has responded effectively to address the too big to fail crisis when three out of the four largest financial institutions are bigger than they were before the bailout? I think probably not.

How do you think implementation of Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform act is going?

I think Wall Street is doing everything that it can to make it as weak as possible. But again now we're talking about the role of the Fed, not Dodd-Frank. In my view I think the proper response on the part of the Fed would be to break up the large financial institutions. Right now their concentration of ownership in the financial industry is much too great. But again these are the kinds of questions that need to be answered.

There's a lot of anger against Wall Street. What are your thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street movement?

I think they're doing a good job in focusing attention on the greed of Wall Street and certainly pinpointing the reality that Wall Street is directly responsible for the terrible recession that we're in right now. And while millions of workers have lost their homes and their jobs and their life savings, many of the CEOs on Wall Street are doing better than they ever have before.

So I think focusing attention on that is correct. And the other issue that they're focusing attention on, which I think is very appropriate, is income and wealth inequality in America. We now have the 400 wealthiest people owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. This gap between the very rich and everybody else is the widest that it has been since 1928.

Do you plan to run for president and do you see yourself as the next Ralph Nader?

No I think I've answered that question many, many times.

Read more at finance.fortune.cnn.com