Obama Administration: These things that are now "torture"

With the discloser of the memos it has become very obvious that our definition of torture has softened a bit. I read through the events and lunched at times. I know it was not nice... but a caterpillar.. come on. I was thinking that would terrorize my daughter (she too thinks insects are out to get her). Then I thought, don't psychologists recommend things like this to help you overcome your fears (heights, crowds, elevators)?

I looked through the list and wondered how all of this was so bad. These are people that blew up buildings, cut of the heads of people and have no respect for any American life. And we have to talk nice to them for "shouting" is not in the handbook. Then it clicked... it all makes sense now. If you remove thought and logic and go back to base emotions of a 5 year old. If the left has softened us so much that all of this is torture, then so are all the rest of these items the left is trying to stop!

9. Getting up for work is torture [welfare].
8. Getting yelled at or fired for bad performance is torture [unions].
7. Having to study for a test is torture [social promotion].
6. Living in a rundown apartment is torture [community reinvestment act].
5. Having to spend within my means is torture [Congress, Obama's budget]
4. Knowing what people will want to buy is torture [auto bailouts].
3. Listening to conservatives is torture [fairness doctrine].
2. Basic training is torture [cut the military].
The number one liberal torture policy
1. Having to be a responsible adult is torture [et al].

It works great is you have a whiny child read these to you...Dennis Kucinich comes to mind.

Lying through statistics.. Mexican gun trade

USA today: "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives records show 90% of the weapons recovered and traced originate from a growing number of sources spanning from the Northwest to New England." and this "2,000 weapons a day"

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico...come from the United States"

Diane Sawyer: "95 percent of the guns used were out of the United States. What is the U.S. going to do to stop the guns from getting there"

William Hoover, ATF: "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

Lies Lies and more Lies...

The source of this is supposed to be...
The (ATF) reports that more than 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are traced back to the US.

Here is the full text from the report. You will also see the "2,000 a month" statistic in context.
From FY2005 through FY2007, ATF traced just over
11,700 firearms recovered by Mexican authorities, and approximately 90% of those
firearms were traced back to the United States. In January 2008, ATF announced
that e-Trace technology would be deployed to an additional nine U.S. consulates in
Mexico (Mérida, Juarez, Monterrey, Nogales, Hermosillo, Guadalajara, Tijuana,
Matamoros, and Nueva Laredo). The number of traces performed by ATF for
Mexican authorities this fiscal year, FY2008, has increased markedly. For example,
from March 10 to April 9, 2008, ATF has traced nearly 2,000 firearms recovered by
Mexican authorities, as compared with the 11,700 firearms traced over a three-year
period, FY2005-FY2007.

This is what it should have said.
The (ATF) reports that more than 90 percent of the traceable guns returned to the US have been verified as originating from the US. Due to new offices and advancements in technology, we were able to trace 2,000 guns last month.

See the difference? "of the traceable guns returned" You see not all of the guns recovered in Mexico are returned to the US. Why would they be, if you see Russian, Korean or Chinese markings on them? And not all guns returned are traceable, many would have been sold on the black market or without serial numbers.

Special note: Notice that the 90% reference does not overlap 2008 and therefore does not include the new volume. It is pure supposition to assume that the new offices and new technology will result in the same statistic. An interesting exclusion from the report?

So all this statistic tells us is that the Mexican authorities are right 90% of the time when we can trace it back. So what percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico are sent to the US for tracing? Based on overall numbers complied by FoxNews : 32%. And what percentage of guns sent to the US for tracing can actually be traced to legitimate sources? Less than 50%.

So the real number of guns recovered in Mexico that can be traced to US sources is 5,114 of 28,000 or ... 17%. But it gets better. Some of those sources identified were the US government. We supply weapons to the Mexican government, some of which were illegally resold in Mexico. We also supplied Central American countries with arms during the 1980s. How many times have you heard than mentioned?

The actual percentage of guns making it into Drug lords hands from US suppliers is actually unknown, but seems to be less then 17%. Nowhere near the 90% being pushed by the Administration. The RPGs, grenades, AK-47s and other weapons are not coming from US gun shops either. So why blame the US for the problem? Well, "blame America first" is the normal stance of the American Left. Especially, when they are so much smarter than and disagree with those right-wing radicals that wrote that damn second amendment.

Pure and simple this is a convenient excuse to tighten the gun laws in the United States and the media is simply parroting a misleading statistic to push the President's agenda. They are either biased or stupid... you decide.

Political correctness gone amuck

Chia Pet Creator 'Shocked' After Walgreens Pulls Obama Model From Shelves

Come on. I would expect this to be a hot seller to his supporters. Is an Obama bobble head racist? What about the new Pepsi can? Should those be banned? I know this is "decisions made by a public company" not the government. But the decision was made because "it might offend people." Sucking up to liberls offends me, so lose-lose. I like Walgreens but I think I will take my business elsewhere.

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse...

I think we were all coming to grips with the "Socialist" Obama. Washington is now running the banks, running the auto companies, dictating salaries and planning to move into other sectors should the need arise. Some were convinced that these actions were necessary to stabilize the economy. Others believe that the economy is a convenience to enact these policies planned from the outset. Whichever, the cause and whichever the effect, we have adjusted to the current realities and Republicans and much of the public are gearing up for a fight.

Well, it just got worse. A whole lot worse at the G20 summit. I am digging for the expect text ... which of source the media can't seem to find time to publish. But I have found this from Bloomberg.

The leaders agreed on principles for financial market regulation, including expanded controls on hedge funds and derivatives trading, and tax havens, as well as rules on compensation and bonuses. They also pledged additional financing for the International Monetary Fund and other institutions.

Didi that just say we agreed to take our draconian actions, our socializing of the US economy and blend it with the G20 and the world. Are those "on world currency" folks actually not wackos? We now have the G20; of which we were 50%+ of the GDP and 1/20 of the votes; in charge of our economic policies and executive compensation?

So the big question is what does "on principles" mean? Is it that generally we agree to work together (as we have been) to solve these issues? Well, if it said that then why say anything? We have been doing that! So saying something would seem to indicate a shift. No? A shift to a more Socialist agreement on principals (dare I say controls), is most likely the case.

It could be far worse with a G20 panel appointed to set forth controls, restrictions and fines for non-compliance to the new world order. A board consisting of predominately or completely non-US members, that combined control less then half the world's money supply, now given the reigns to manipulate our markets to their advantage.

So what does "on principles" mean? Does anyone in the media do any investigation anymore or just regurgitate talking points? YO MEDIA...A LITTLE HELP! The text would be of huge value here. I will find it an update accordingly.

"Barack Obama is the smartest President"?

Have you heard it before? We have all heard how "dumb" George Bush is/was. I think it is about time to reveal that there is a big difference between book-smart and street-smart; Obama being the former and in no way the latter. The media being much of the former as well, has little to no respect for the latter. I guess, for the sake of honesty, I would be the reverse. I respect more what people have done and how the interact with people then I do what their grades were and where they went to school.

Obama can't find the door.
1. Might have seen this one. Yes that is a window. Dear Sir, Please note that there are no hinges or a handle. I am sure you have seen this one (again and again). But note it has handles and hinges and is simply locked. Even when it is covered, Bush must be mentioned and bashed. Mr. Obama simply "hasn't gotten acquainted" with his surroundings. That was not an excuse for Mr. Bush who was in CHINA. The Bush gaff was often labelled "Bush has no Exit Strategy"; including by the network news (see below). Is also became a top ten list on Letterman.

In the opening tease at 7:00am, co-host Charlie Gibson announced over video of Bush trying to open the locked doors: "No way out. President Bush tries the wrong door on his trip to Asia and has fun for the cameras. But the big question now: Does he have an exit strategy for Iraq?"

Not the same "oops, ha ha" coverage Obama got is it?

Gifts for our UK "friends".
2. Anyone can make a silly honest mistake...but it take a special person to insult a respected ally. Have you heard about the gift exchange between President Obama and Gordon Brown (UK Prime Minister)? Probably not. This article covered it but missed one of the gifts given to our President; The framed commission from the ship that was used to make his desk. How thoughtful and personal. And from the US 25 pack of DVDs. I hope they were not Region 1 (US) encoded. I am sure their were personalized by making sure they were Region 2. Like school on the weekend... no class.

Obama the stock advisor.
3. The confidence his policies give the stock market has been pretty obvious. Maybe one of those books he reads should have include the definition of P/E Ratio (Price to Earnings). Of course, his definition may explain a lot of his policies. I am so glad we have someone so smart now running our economy. No sense in leaving it in the hands of those Bankers and Finance folks. By the way Price to Earnings only matters when there are Earnings! Otherwise, it is called speculation .. a practice that helped us all so much in the Internet boom.

More brilliance to come, I am sure.

Well played, Mr. Obama

Many is the media are "confused" by the seeming contradictions in the ever expanding spending coming from Washington and the statements about the desire to "balance the budget". Since most of them are devoid of 5th grade math skills they can't make the connections that most of the rest of us can make..."this just does not balance out". But I believe that it does balance out and very quickly. I believe the President is honest is his desires to get the budget deficit cut in half by the end of his first term and that this is in no way a conflict with the current spending or his budget.

The goal is not to try and pay for this or to worry about revenue at this point. The goal is to establish government dependence and control. I believe that President Obama is playing this perfectly. He is spending out of control because the public is demanding that they "do something". True, this spending will have little impact on stimulating the economy. It will however create entire agencies and government dependence among those that will now survive based on the bailouts. Many believe that this is overplaying their hand. I think not. This is their hand. What will happen to the public economy is obvious to almost everyone and the public outcry shows this as well. But many believe that he is misjudging the economy or the American people. I believe this is exactly the intent.

As these policies and the next budget are passed (there is little chance enough Democrats will change sides to stop it) massive spending will hit many sectors of the economy. Government funding will push out private equity. Dependence will be created. More bailouts, Healthcare takeovers, locking up the energy industry will all limit the economy and limit tax revenue. But Mr. Obama has stated he wants to balance the budget and soon. Unlike many that see this in opposition to his current spending and budget, I take him at his word. Revenues will not go up. Unemployment will not go down. But this increasing crisis is exactly what is needed for the next phase of the project.

That is the "need" to tax everyone at a very high level to balance the budget. Many look at the budget as written and say that this must occur anyway. They are correct and believe that it will therefore be stopped early on. But with a complicit media, no 5th grade math, and a struggling economy, it will pass. Once you lock out private investment, once agencies are established, once your industry, your health care and your energy are a service of the Federal Government; could you (would you) "deny" yourself those services as they are transitioned back to a free market? Not enough will, a new recession and risk will be avoided by the American voters; and under a tax load of greater than 50%; the control is established.

This level of control cannot be undertaking directly. You already see the concern building based on the individual policies today. But Obama has learned from the mistakes of socialized health care that gave us the Republican Revolution in 2000. You cannot get these changes passed in a good economy and in the light of day. He is ensuring that our dependence and need are sufficient so that we have little choice.

Well played Mr. Obama.

2,239.11

Obama has stated that he wants to undo much of the "era of Reagan" and he is on the way. He is tightening the noose on capaitalism taken over more industies and adding restrictions and higher taxes to others. Those with means and money in the market are reacting.

It will not be long before the market reaches the levels it was at when Regan left office. The close on January, 19th 1989; the last full day of the Reagan presidancy; was 2,239.11. At this time and not before, do I believe Obama will be complete. He will then try to remake ths country in his image.

Remember the number, buy the bumper stickers.

Is Obama a muppet or the puppet master?

Those that know me well, know that, during the election, I had the opinion that Obama was a muppet. May argued he was left wing, and that may be true. Other argues that he was more center-left. Though I believed that he was likely far more left then his words, what he said and what he believed was of little consequence in this election. Besides foreign affairs the President if mostly a figurehead. He has little to do with writing or enforcing law. In this case a figurehead for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

I hoped that I was wrong or even if I was right that he would have a mandate and the quest for power would allow him to manage congress. But like the old Star Trek episode, "Patterns Of Force" where they "instituted a theoretical form of Hitler's National Socialism upon the lawless Ekosians because he believed that it is the most efficient system of government ever devised", the government has taken over and supplanted the figurehead.

Obama talked about "fixing roads" and "helping the states" yet the stimulus bill is full of pork and pet projects that dwarf the valuable spending. Now we have a "funding bill" that is full over 4900+ earmarked projects. So I, I believed that I was right. That he had no power and no control over the Congressional leadership and that they he was a puppet to the puppet masters.

At least I thought I was right until Tuesday and Wednesday. He spoke the other night about restoring the upper tax brackets to those under Clinton. To cut spending in non-critical programs and cut the deficit in half in 4 years. Then the news about his plan began to release on Wednesday including 650+ Billion to begin universal healthcare. The numbers simply do not add up. Then the tax increases began to to leak; including limiting home interest deductions [that should help the housing market]. A total "estimated" budget of 3.7 trillion on tax payer funded income of 2 trillion. If the economy contracts a bit more and/or the price tag goes up (duh) then we are talking about government spending on a pace that is double revenues. This does not include the "one time" spending in the bailouts. So we are looking a deficits that would require tax revenues to double or triple in the coming years.

There is no amount of taxation on "the rich" that can cover that bill. Since over 40% of wage earners already pay zero income tax, this burden will be carried by the ever decreasing population of the employed "wealthy" [which will now be defined as anyone that makes over the median income]. The GDP of the US is estimated to be 13.75 Trillion dollars in 2008. So we are talking about taxation at 30% of all GDP (higher to cover the bailouts). To put that in perspective: taxation has never been over 20% of GDP. In fact it is well understood that tax revenue and GDP are tied tightly together at about 18.5%. [I have found reputable sources that have out tax burden at about 30% already. Based on 13.75 Trillion in GDP and 2.67 Trillion in revenue..my simple math gives me 19.4%] . So we will need to get from 2.67 Trillion to well over 4 trillion [note that none of this includes growth in already expanding government programs].

Now it is possible that we will not actually pay for this. Seems that "paying for things" is simply out of vogue right now. But either we will pay for it or our children and grandchildren will pay for it with interest.

Based in these simple facts, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that the puppet is part of the game (that reminds me of a Twlight Zone episode). That he is using his popularity and oratory skills to say what we want to hear and then turn around and sell us out. So it looks like, some where right, he is a left wing liberal and intent on creating a socialist republic within the United States with an overall tax burden of 40+%. Either that, or his economists have failed 5th grade math and they are completely inept (since they don't pay taxes maybe this is the lesser of two evils). 2010 is coming, I pray we will not be too late.

The sublety of bias... Senator Gregg edition

It is sometimes tough to recognize bias. Especially, when it is the terms of "exclusion". Simply, leaving out information that might change your view on the situation. The recent situation of Senator Gregg's removing himself from cabinet consideration is a key example.

The media is trying to spin the message as a "partisan Republican, unwilling to work with the ever-flexible and conciliatory Obama." It fits well into their overall massage that Republicans are trying to kill the "bipartisan" stimulus bill. Which is funny since they were not part of writing it in the house or part of the negotiations on the rewrite. Only in the Senate, could this bill itself even be categorized as bipartisan.

But what did they leave out of almost all of their newscasts? The 2010 US census and the shift of power from the Commerce Department to the White House. This purely political move was one of the reasons (labelled "slight catalyzing reason" by Gregg) for his withdrawal. Yet, in the LA Times/AP story, ABC, NBC and CBS the soundbite was trimmed or skipped. But the CBS Evening News story from Chip Reid did find time to give us this, "a top Democratic source on Capitol Hill was more blunt, saying Gregg actively campaigned for the job, then' erratically dropped out without warning.' CNN picked it up (yeah CNN) and had this to say, "sources close to Senator Gregg say the bigger issue for him was the White House's effort to take control of the census."

You see the politicalization of the US census doesn't fit the "Obama the bipartisan" or "Republicans are partisan" spin. If you mention that the shift of power by the President had an impact you could defeat your own argument and views on the subject. Of course, Gregg refusing to vote for the porkulus bill also had impact. I like Gregg's words as they speak volumes, "Obviously the president requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives." That does not sound bipartisan. sounds like "my way or the highway". What did the Obama team say about this, "very clear throughout the interviewing process" that Gregg could "support, embrace and move forward" with Obama's agenda [Fox reports].

Truth is that they are all partisan. Obama is building on his left wing agenda and there is no room for a fiscal conservative. Gregg was elected because of his views by the people he represents and should not change those views to get a cabinet post or pass a bad bill. [I am happy my Senators and congressmen voted against this bill. They are performing their duty as I would expect.] Just cover the facts, put out the quotes and do not tell me what to think or hide valuable details.

Does the media know what Bipartisan means?

It would seem from all of the press coverage of the "stimulus" bill that the term bipartisan is a bit confused. Based on a quick review on dictionary.com, I found that it means "representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions"... odd. Based on the coverage of the vote it would seem to mean "voting for something that democrats vote for" and though that would then create a bipartisan vote it is not the definition.

There were two bipartisan votes yesterday on the "stimulus" and both are getting very little coverage. The first was a vote against the big pork barrel main bill all the Republicans and 11 democrats voted against the bill. By definition that would be bipartisan. The other vote was for the Republican alternative bill which garnered 10 Democrat votes. But I see no coverage of this fact.

I did see Howard Dean on CNBC. He expressed the overarching "new definition" for bipartisan. He words were cleaned up but the basic message was this "we won the election, vote like us or you will keep losing". No understanding for the bipartisan opposition to the pork in this bill. No value is placed on the constituents that put these Representatives in office. Simply "vote like us".

This bill is not stimulus. Even the CBO stated that only .12 of every dollar (For the Obamatons that would be "a lot less than half") will go towards stimulating the economy. So 88% of the money goes to what? Pork...the NEA, Acorn, Alternative Fuels, an ATV trail (that might count on the 12%) and adding more children (with family income over the median and up to age 30) to the government healthcare roles. In other words pet projects for Democrat constituents that got them elected. I know many will say that is why they are there and this is what their constituents expect. I tend to agree. The American people say they want change they say they want things to be different. But in the end they want something for themselves and if it means $9000 for every tax paying family to that they can get some spare change back. They continue to put these people in power.

But Taxes are not going up and the economy is in decline. So this "money" does not exist. How can a project be run on money that does not exist. How can the programs that can't be paid for now, be increased? It is called "printing money" or "deficit spending". I thought this was the reason Republicans lost power in 2006. Too much spending and yet we have turned the spicket into a fire hose and left on on full.

I blame us. We put them there. We keep them there. We are rewarding deficit spending. They overspend, we overspend, we are all in debt and the economy is collapsing. So we spend more. What sense does that make. We are the greedy &^*&(%^ that care more about soaking the other guy then preserving the economy for future generations.

Unfortunately, I do not think the spending will stop. This "porkulus" bill will fail to help the economy. It will grow government and government jobs and dependency. And we will ask for more help and another bill will be passed, spending even more money we do not have.

If it were to continue, the interest on these payments will eventually outpace revenue (that would be money taken from most of us...still most for a few more months) and out debtors will realize we are in default. The economy will go deeper into recession (probably depression at this point). But that is ok because this bill "saved jobs". They will argue that it would have been a lot worse, the media will parrot the sentiment and the spiral continues.

Some will remember the brave 188 that voted in a bipartisan vote to slow this train, they tried to take another course. I hope enough will join will them in the coming months and years to stop the train. The path out of deficit spending is hard and disciplined. It means cutting back not spending more it means putting votes at risk to do what is right. I wonder if enough of them have that much courage.

Obama Recession hits -20%.

Yeah, I said it. This current downturn since November (even earlier) is now on Obama. As the economy rolled quickly down the hill, Obama had the option in each debate, his stump speeches, his acceptance speech and to any microphone since to stop the bleeding. He has not. All he would need state is that any economy in turmoil cannot afford higher taxes. Especially on capital gains. What is ironic is that raising the capital gains rate will have little impact by the time it is passed anyway. Anyone with gains to take is getting out of the market and no one is getting back in. The economy is shrinking, companies are fighting to stay above water and they are laying people off.

Obama threatened to raise taxes, threatened investors with a near doubling of the capital gains rate, threatened companies with more oversight, more taxes and more unions. He backed down on none of it and now he is elected.

Many thought the market had already taken its lumps, found a new low and prepared for this before November 4th. I thought it had to and I put some back in. What many missed, including me was the senate fight for 60. Some were talking about it but it did not seem likely. But as the election approached it became possible. Then on November 5th three elections were undecided and three seats was all that was needed...and down the market went.

Since that time those elections sat undecided. One concluded this week and the Democrats are now two away. One is so close and in a Democrat controlled state, so that is likely to change hands... leaving us with one...Georgia... and down goes the market.

The fears Obama put in every business owner, every investor, and any tax payer that was really listening look even clearer now then they did before the election. The ability to implement each and every program [deficit be damned], raise taxes, limit corporations, empower unions...kill growth, drive up unemployment, capital the US economy for years to come... these are now all possible... and the markets sink.

I believe in irony and I believe if the Dems hit 60 the Dow hits 6000 (a < 50% decline from its highs).

Obama is not Robin Hood he is Prince John

Let's get something clear here. This Robin Hood, "Take form the Rich and Give to the Poor" babble is completely off base. It is dead wrong and insulting.

Dead-Wrong because Robin Hood did not take from the "rich" indiscriminately. He took from the elite insider class of the government to give it back to the peasants. He did not take from the store owner, the farm worker or the blacksmith. He took from those connected to the Prince because the Prince had created an unfair tax burden on the working class and was lining his and his friends pockets. This tax system created scenarios where people tried to hide their money to protect it from taxation. Obama is no Robin Hood. His eilite Harvard and Acedemic circles are not the working class.

The second and more insulting part of the metaphor is the notion that the "rich" in this country came into wealth by wringing the money from the poor working class by force. Companies that provide jobs, services and goods are the elite class separated from the people? In fact, these companies and individuals are from the people. They are construction companies, farmers, and service organizations of all shapes and sizes.

The metaphor is a joke both illustratively and literally. I do believe that it shows the underlying distaste of success now popular in today's Liberal thinking.

Obama's statements on taxes explained

Having the benefit of years of pouring through data and trying to correct entrenched assumptions about what that data is telling us, has been far more useful in this election than in the past. I find it fascinating to listen to the "words" and "speeches" of Oabama and the ease at which he uses statistics and statements to back up false arguments. It is not surprising that many fall for it.

Statements like 'tax cuts for 95% of Americans" leaves out the little fact the close to 40% of Americans do not pay taxes so their "tax cut" is actually a check based on someone else's tax payments. That didn't uses to be called a tax cut. It used to be called welfare or socialism. But "tax cut" sounds so much better and 95% is such a high number. The Wall Street Journal went in to this as well yesterday. Un fortunately their numbers are worse then I thought, they say under Obama 44% of people will n0t pay taxes. Then others will get a refund check that pay very little taxes. We are approaching the 50% mark when all Liberals will have to do to retain full power in blame the rich Republicans for trying to tax you. 50% of the population will do almost whatever it takes to vote themselves money out of other peoples pockets. An economy built on those principles will not last. Can we make it even 2 or 4 years under this model? Will it ever be reversed? I fear the incline of the slippery slope just got higher and Obama is greasing the skids. In fact I see that the Wall Street Journal just hit on this point today. This is far more scary then any tax policy could ever be.

The other statements about "taxing the rich" or that "most small business make under $250,000" . I had heard (maybe seen) that 2/3 of the tax returns in the top 5% are s1 corporations and small businesses. How can these two be reconciled. Let me add in this simple fact, "most small businesses fail". So since most fail and only a few succeed, Barrack Obama is right. Most small businesses due make under 250,000. The problem is that those that succeed and make money and want to grow and hire people are the ones he wants to tax an additional 10%. Those that succeed created 80% of the jobs in the last five years. Guess what... The Wall Street Journal hit on this yesterday.

I am glad to know I have this much influence over their reporting. Or maybe it is that they too have a bit of common sense. I am sure I will have more lying through statistics soon.

Obama tax plan: $1000 Tax credit to replace your job

The fundamental stupidity of the Obama tax plan is that he will increases taxes on companies that actually make profits in these tough times. The impact of those taxes will be two-fold. He does not just want to increase the corporate tax rate but also the capital gains taxes on anyone that happens to want to invest in that company (individual shareholder, mutual funds, 401ks) So when many companies struggle to turn a profit and have to let people go, just who will be left to employ them? Not so many. Even those that are hiring are likely to stretch out those decisions over multiple months or quarters. Compound this slow hiring over 100,000s of companies and millions of jobs; the overall unemploymment rate will climb rapidly.

So how does Obama's plan counteract that impact. You will get the $1000 tax credit that Obama is setting up. Looks like a lot of people will be needing that credit. Maybe he will extend the time at which you can collect unemployment benefits. At least he is trying to help out. I am guessing that regardless of your job you can outperform that $1000 tax credit over the course of a year. If not let me know and I will find someone to help you out.

Many think that there is no way Democrats would let this happen, that this makes absolutely no sense to let the economy spiral downward. But those people are looking at this from the perspective I out forth on tax revenue and the impact on jobs. I submit that you are looking at this from the wrong angle if you want to understand the motive. Obama and his ilk look at this as creating more fairness. Revenue and jobs do not matter in that contect. The fact that is also creates more dependent people is a "pleasant" side-effect. Their reaction to the inevitable impact is to direct the angry unemployed people to lash out against anyone that still has a job and those companies that dared to try and profit from "their pain". They will demand more government intervention and more fariness to help them out and the spiral continues.

Sounds almost unbleiveable, but pull your head from the sand and truly look at the programs put in place (or tried) by Democrats since the great society.

Date Line Washington DC: Feb 14, 2009

President Obama, appearing in the Rose garden, after his emergency economic summit with the Democratic leaders of Congress, today announced emergency action to help resolve the economic crisis. "Today I asked Congress to act quickly to enact my tax proposals. Unfortunately, due to the depth of crisis started by the failed policies of the Bush administration, we must move quickly to address the coming budget shortfall. I am asking for an across the board 10% tax rate increase. Because we cannot wait any longer to resolve this crisis, this rate increase will be retroactive to 2008 ." The President did not take questions following this press conference. Tomorrow the president will be hosting meetings on universal health care proposals and increased funding for education.

Kurtz has read the facts and connected some dots.

I originally thought that the fact that they sat on a board together for a few years was a questionable relationship. One that really required us to wait on Obama and see just what kind of legislator her will be. I think that is even more evident after reading the Kurtz article today.

The now connected dealings between Obama, Ayers, Wright and anti-American, anti-capitalist ideas are downright scary. All of those relationships are protected by the shroud of racism. Since the majority of Americans and journalists did not grow up as black men, how can they judge such things? Most of them would not dare try.

These tighter connection gives even more credence to the idea that Ayers helped Obama write his first book while both serving together. I figured this was fun reading and a interesting technical conspiracy theory but the ties seem to be pretty tight.

I have a simple answer on how to answer these questions fully and completely... time. Give us all time to see if these are "political relationships"" from Chicago politics or weather these are truly the "belief system" of this man.

Obama's own campaign convicts him for Fannie Mae collapse

Wow this is this most tainted twisted story I have ever seen! The narrator should lose all credibility and his job (if he has one beyond being a shill for the campaign).

The arguments layed out here absolutely set up Senator Obama for an investigation. The campaign contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac implicate him in a plot to stop regulation of those companies. No different then the allegations against Senator McCain at the time.

McCain was exonerated after the investigation and 3 Democrats were indited. Somehow this was missed. This investigation set John McCain on the path to clean up corruption and undue influence in Washington and his record proves it.

I say it is now time to bring Senator Obama in front of the congress and the American people to answer for his campaign donations. As this video sets forth, he woudl have demanded no less from John McCain. Let us see if he too can come out clean.

Thanks for opening the door to fair play.

Can someone educate me on just when it is communism?

In a call to Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings on Tuesday, for example. Obama spoke of how President Obama could revisit bankruptcy laws to give judges more leeway to restructure residential mortgage payments when threatened with foreclosure. Obama didn't need to lay out a quid pro quo because the message was clear. And Cummings, a no vote Monday, told Obama he was “open” to changing his vote but wasn’t there yet. "I have to look beyond [the bailout] to a rainbow called Obama," he said. "When you bring in the Obama factor, that's very very important."

Dear John: I hope we can work this out (page 1)

Dear John McCain,

Please stop "I can reach across the isle" platitudes. Everyone knows you have and everyone understands. What you have to do is explain where you stand and where you believe Obama stands. Gov. Palin started on a few points but missed the clarity that is required to convert the undecided. It is time to walk people through the conversion and pin Obama down.

Based on last weeks debates and stump speeched since, here are a few points I think need clarification. No spin just straight talk and facts.

1. Where does Obama stand? He says that he will only raise taxes on the top 5% and you say that should not be trusted. Not enough...step us through.

"Obama says that he will only raise taxes on the top 5% of wage earners. Though I fundamentally think that is wrong-headed, I understand the concerns others may have with the deficit. I will get to that a bit later. I would like to take Senator Obama at his word as many Americans would as well. But looking at his very short senatorial record he has voted 94 times against the taxpayers and for higher taxes for individuals with income as low as 42k (earning him a lifetime rating of 14% in favor of taxpayers). With a record as short as his, it is possible that this does not represent the full view of the man. Let's look back at his state legislative record. That too is a bit murky with a large number of votes of "present". Hard to gauge that. That's OK, let's take one more step. We can look at his community service and the character of the people with which he surrounds himself. Well... there is that work with Acorn...maybe that series of board meetings and work with Bill Ayers... well at least his is attended church regularly.

There is nothing in his background at all that would indicate that he is nothing but a far left liberal that would raise taxes on everyone. But again, I do not want to call him a liar. If he says he won't, then maybe we should take him at his word. For example, he said he supports our troops...but then voted to cut off their funding. He said he would accept matching funds... but then decided not to. He says he understands the middle class and then says that they are bitterly clinging to their guns and religion.

I am sorry my friends, his background and the facts simply do not support his words. I am a man of action and my record on that is clear. The difference is also just as clear."

Continued on Page 2

Who is working for us and who is lining their pockets?

Let's let the congressional record speak for itself.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190
Note the “Reform act of 2005”. Comment dated May 25, 2006.The most significant statement… If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

Someone had their finger on the pulse of this issue and was trying to address it and save the disaster we are trying to fix today. Someone was looking cause and effect, actions and impacts. Someone was completely in touch with the situation and trying to do what was right. That someone was four republicans including John McCain.

Contrast that with this.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
Note the dates 1989-2008. Obama was elected in 2004 and has reached number 2. I guess he is an “up and comer” [in lining his own pockets]. Note that McCain is not in the top 25. Wonder why?

So the simple question is, "Who is working ofr us and who is working for themselves?" It would seem to be so obvious at this point that to change Washington we need someone that is willing to for us.