HOW WILL $60 MILLION HELP OUR ECONOMY?

The UN agency UNfPA, an arm of the United Nations relief fund that funds "family" planning in foreign countries, but is really a front for contraceptives and abortion for clinics around the world. Is asking for 60 million dollars from the United States in this fiscal year.
The critics of this program, including ex-President Bush, say that Communist China is using their share of the UN funds to help their enforced family planning, that limits the number of children a family can have, by abortion and forced sterilization. The president of Americans for UNFPA, Anika Rahman, denies this, but it is a fact that China does use abortion and sterilization as the heart of it's family "planning"!

My question is this. How can President Obama give 60 million taxpayer dollars to the UN for this questionable cause when our country is in the midst of what he and his supporters call the worst economic period since the Great Depression?

The web page "Politics 08" has this to say about Obama's position on this dastardly action.
"President Obama kept a low profile on Friday as he fulfilled a campaign promise by reversing President Bush’s policy barring U.S. aid to international organizations which provide abortions or advise women on how to get them.
His low profile is illustrated by this quote from John Gerstein: "there were also indications Obama and his advisers sought to minimize press attention to the polarizing issue and may have tried to avoid antagonizing anti-abortion activists. The administration skipped the chance to issue the directive on Thursday, the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, as thousands of abortion opponents gathered in Washington for an annual rally.

However, the new president also extended an olive branch to anti-abortion groups and expressed a desire to end what he called a “stale and fruitless debate.” (my opinion is that it is a moral issue that has become political, not as Obama says a fruitless debate!)

“It is time that we end the politicization of this issue,” Obama said in a written statement which accompanied an official presidential memorandum canceling Bush’s abortion-related restrictions on American aid money, referred to by critics as a “gag rule.” The new president promised “a fresh conversation on family planning” and said his aides would “reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies.”(HE MEANS AS LONG AS THE PRO-LIFE GROUP RECOGNIZES THAT HIS MIND IS MADE UP, HE WILL LET THEM TALK TO HIM)

And to add more emphasis to his pro-abortion stance he and the Democrat controlled Congress have included in the so called "stimulus package"contains hundreds of millions for contraception and abortions as reported to Reuters News by Congressman John Boehner(R).

AND TO SHOW ANOTHER CARD HE HAS NOT PLAYED YET. HE DISMISSED OFF HAND the idea that during a recession he will not raise taxes!!

The ban on funds for this UN agency has been a political football since Ronald Reagan introduced the measure at the UN conference in Mexico City during his Presidency.

IS PRESIDENT OBAMA INCLINED TO GRANT AMNESTY TO ILLEGALS?

IN APPOINTING THE NEW SECRETARY OF LABOR, OBAMA MAY HAVE GIVEN US A LOOK AT HIS INTENTION TO GRANT AMNESTY TO THE ESTIMATED 12 MILLIONS ILLEGALS HERE IN THE USA.
The following is an excerpt is from the January 9, 2009 issue of the Sacramento Bee newspaper.
UNITE HERE, president John Wilhelm of one of the fastest growing U.S. unions, organizes workers, many of them immigrants and ethnic minorities, in businesses ranging from garment factories to hotels and casinos.He had this to say about illegals in America,

"I don't think it's possible to fix the economy without comprehensive immigration reform," Wilhelm said.


The union leader said he believes immigrants have always fueled U.S. economic growth and filled legitimate labor needs. But he said the country needs a new immigration system that can better manage and admit workers legally to fill labor shortages.

Wilhelm urged offering an earned legalization program to an estimated 12 million undocumented workers. He said it would help increase all workers' bargaining power and boost tax collection.

"In the interest of the economy, we've got to bring the 12 million out of the shadows,"

And from what President Obama did this week it would indicate to this blogger, that Amnesty for illegals is on the mind of our new President.
Despite the fact that in December of 2008 524,00 legal American workers lost their jobs, and in 2008 a total of 2.589 million Americans lost their jobs. The worst job lost since 1945!

Janet Murgia, president of National Council of la Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, responded that most Americans are "tired of naysayers" on immigration issues.And Leftist Cardinal Mahoney joined the call to give blanket amnesty to all illegals.My comment is who is she listening to!

She and others are buoyed by Obama's statements of support for immigration reform and Cabinet appointments such as Los Angeles-area Rep. Hilda Solis, Obama's nominee for secretary of labor.

On its Web site, UNITE HERE calls Solis, the daughter of Mexican and Nicaraguan immigrants who were union supporters, "a proven advocate." This in case you have not grasped it, is the indication I believe, that Obama is leaning toward amnesty!

Lined up on the other side of this issue are most legal Americans who not only are not only worried about job loss, but the amount of drugs coming across the border between Mexico and the USA, and the crime and violence associated with it!

I feel that the correct way to approach the illegal problem is to beef up the borders at both our North and Southern divisions by creating thousands of jobs for border guards and for the government to help unemployed Americans by moving as many of the 7 million illegal aliens out of their jobs as feasible,and by reducing the 138,000 monthly foreign workers allowed by the present immigration laws, as close to zero as possible.

Perhaps those who want to compare Obama with President Roosevelt should be reminded that FDR did not increase immigration during the Depression -- or legalize illegal aliens. Instead, net immigration actually fell below zero many years while FDR conducted mass roundups and deportations of illegal workers. He did however, put together the same type coalition that President Obama did to get elected with the exception that he did not have the gay and lesbian issue to deal with. He put together the New Deal coalition of labor unions; farmers; ethnic, religious and racial minorities; intellectuals; the South; big city machines; and the poor and workers on relief( aka welfare).

Today Marks 36 Years of Infamy

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 22nd, 2009 | 03:31 pm

Hollywood and the Cable Networks keep showing episodes of the Nazi death camps. Certainly a low point in mans inhumanity to his fellow man. But there is a genocide ongoing right here in the USA, that was started by seven men in Black Robes(kind of appropriate)36 years ago.
This quote from the Patriot Post,illustrates my feelings on this atrocity to those in the most protected place on earth--their mothers womb!
"On Thursday, the most tragic Supreme Court fiat in America's history will turn 36. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision federalized a legal issue that historically had been individually decided by each state. Seven unelected justices struck down Texas' abortion law -- and by extension, those of the other states -- instead of having elected legislators properly decide the matter. The primary issue, of course, remains the right to life affirmed in our Declaration of Independence. Since Roe, nearly 50 million babies have been denied this foundational right, trumped by the so-called "right to choose" supported by our new president and Democrat-controlled Congress."
Tags: abortion, genocide, opinion

DO NOT CLOSE "GITMO" PRISON

During his campaign for President, Obama promised to close "gitmo" prison. The ACLU is licking it's chops to get the hundreds of terrorist in the USA, and so are the large group of supporters of Obama. The trial lawyers.
The reasons given for the closure are that violations of the Geneva Convention have been repeatedly perpetrated. Water boarding is the "cause celeb" in the Halls of Congress by those calling for closure ,including the new appointee designated Attorney General.

But I contend, and offer for your consideration, that most of those incarcerated at GITMO have no right to protection under the Articles of the Fourth Revision of the Geneva Convention.
Article four details who is covered, and article five details who is by their actions exempt from coverage.

This quote comes via the web site:Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, adopted in 1949 as a result of the atrocities committed by Hitlers Germany.

Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.Italics and bold letters are mine for emphasis.

There has been every effort possible made to try these terrorist in military courts, but the courts have been very busy trying American soldiers for alleged violations such as murder of civilians.( they were found guilty in some cases, and not guilty in some, so it was important to try them) These cases have clogged the judicial calender, and now President Obama has delayed the most heinous, alleged imprisoned man for 120 days. The trial of the mastermind of the bombing of New York's Twin Towers blg.
Bringing them to the USA will be a problem since at least three Federal Prisons have already said they do not want them, because they cannot accommodate them. Returning them to the Country of origin will result in one of two things. They will be killed by their own people, or they will return to the task of killing Americans!

COMPARING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO LICOLN COULD BE MISTAKE

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

As we were during Lincoln's era, we are once again a nation at war, and the laws of war are different. I know that this is a difficult concept to grasp, because most people today are not used to thinking in terms of wartime and peacetime. But in reality, the laws of war are different. And Obama's delay of the alleged mastermind of 9/11/2--1 and his proposal to close "gitmo" prison are examples of a President who apparently is letting A special interest group of voters cloud his attitude toward the war situation in which we presently are involved.

Think about this: We lost 620,000 people over the four years of the Civil War. We could lose that many people in one day if we realized a chemical or biological attack at the hands of terrorists.

The horror of, and after, September 11, 2001, has again raised tensions between and dialog about American security and personal liberty. As Lyndon B. Johnson said on January 20, 1965, while taking the presidential oath, "We can never again stand aside, prideful in isolation. Terrific dangers and troubles that we once called `foreign' now constantly live among us."3

Today, I hope to provoke not only thought, but also comments and questions from you regarding those issues that President Lincoln confronted in the area of civil liberties and those facing our current Commander in Chief.Source: Heritage Foundation


In the words of historian James G. Randall: "No president has carried the power of presidential edict and executive order (independently of Congress) so far as [Lincoln] did.... It would not be easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the limit of his powers.

In the 80 days that elapsed between Abraham Lincoln's April 1861 call for troops--the beginning of the Civil War--and the official convening of Congress in special session on July 4, 1861, Lincoln performed a whole series of important acts by sheer assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia to "suppress said combinations,"6 which he ordered "to disperse and retire peacefully" to their homes.7 He increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade--an act of war--and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.

Lincoln termed these actions not the declaration of "civil war," but rather the suppression of rebellion. We all know that only Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war, but suppression of rebellion has been recognized as an executive function, for which the prerogative of setting aside civil procedures has been placed in the President's hands.

Lincoln's critics, especially abolitionists and Radical Republicans, said he moved too slowly as President to end slavery. In his written response to Horace Greeley's editorial (see below), having already discussed a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation with his cabinet, Lincoln wrote, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."EMPHASIS IS MINE

During the American Civil War, Lincoln used the war powers of the presidency to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free" but exempted border states and those areas of slave states already under Union control. As a practical matter, at first the Proclamation could only be enforced to free those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side. However, millions more were freed as more areas of the South came under Union control.

Although Lincoln initially resisted efforts by his generals to free slaves in areas captured by the Union[citation needed], including revoking emancipations proclaimed by some of his generals such as Freman, eventually he gave in to necessity and drafted the Emancipation Proclamation. The war powers were the basis for the Emancipation Proclamation. The technical language of the Proclamation never actually freed slaves in the border states or in areas of the Confederacy already back under Union control, but strategically only gave freedom to slaves in Confederate territories where Lincoln did not have actual power and would disrupt the enemy. Many slaves were freed however, as the war continued. Lincoln was hesitant about pursuing broader emancipation during the war for areas already under Union control[citation needed], not wanting to provoke sedition in those Union areas that would be affected. Lincoln also attempted to compensate former slave owners for their losses throughout the war[citation needed]. The border states were pressured to abolish slavery on their own (all but Kentucky did so), and in doing so contributed to the more than 180,000 blacks in the Union Army and Navy. Lincoln credited these soldiers and sailors with turning the tide of the war[citation needed], and argued that their sacrifice earned both freedom and the right to vote. The Thirteenth Amendment made abolition permanent.
And history shows that Lincoln was not adverse to revoking the Constitutional rights of citizens. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and set up military courts in several states in the South and Midwest. Many at the time felt that Lincoln had superseded his authority, and in 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from performing civilian law enforcement without congressional approval.

Do the members of the team of President Obama want him to be compared with this side of President Lincoln that cannot be found in school room text books today?

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA BE A REPEAT OF NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN?

Unfortunately history has a tendency of repeating itself.Particularly if people ignore the facts that resulted adversely from actions by leaders who made bad decisions with serious, even disastrous consequences!

One of Planks of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to change what he called the "saber rattling" diplomacy of president Bush. He spoke often about his desire to restore friendly relations with Countries like North Korea and Iran by talking to their leadership with no reservations preconceived before the talks took place. He also voted to not invade Iraq when almost all of the Senate, including his new Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton, agreed that it was the appropriate reaction to Saddam's refusal to comply with many UN resolutions about dismantling weapons of mass destruction.

Renewing American Diplomacy includes the following statements about what people like MoveOn.org and the Peace/anti Iraq war crowd expects Obama to do regarding our foreign policy decisions. Particularly with Iran.
"The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama and Biden are willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. SOURCE:OBAMA /BIDEN The Challenge To Restore Our Standing

My opinion is the OBAMA and his supporters act as though the years of failed efforts by Countries in the European Union, to dissuade Iran from going nuclear simply didn't happen. That is blindness, not continuity. And that's without Mr. Obama's pledge to meet personally with Iran's leaders, an incredible act of legitimization he seems willing to give away for nothing.

In 1937 the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain thought that talking and making concessions to Hitler would avoid war with Germany.
He went to Munich by airplane. This was the first time he had flown in an airplane!
Hitler appeared charming and promised that if the French and Great Britain would give back the geography called the Sudetenland to Germany. It had been taken from Germany at the the treaty of Versailles after world War. Hitler would stop his plans to invade Czechoslovakia .

Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain on 28th May, 1937. Over the next two years Chamberlain's Conservative government became associated with the foreign policy that later became known as "appeasement".

Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.


In November, 1937, Neville Chamberlain sent Lord Halifax to meet Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Goering in Germany. In his diary, Lord Halifax records how he told Hitler: "Although there was much in the Nazi system that profoundly offended British opinion, I was not blind to what he (Hitler) had done for Germany, and to the achievement from his point of view of keeping Communism out of his country." This was a reference to the fact that Hitler had banned the Communist Party (KPD) in Germany and placed its leaders in Concentration Camps.

In February, 1938, Adolf Hitler invited Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, to meet him at Berchtesgarden. Hitler demanded concessions for the Austrian Nazi Party. Schuschnigg refused and after resigning was replaced by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the leader of the Austrian Nazi Party. On 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria and proclaimed union with Germany.

The union of Germany and Austria (Anschluss) had been specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Some members of the House of Commons, including Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, now called on Neville Chamberlain to take action against Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government.

In March 1938 Hugh Christie told the British government that Adolf Hitler would be ousted by the military if Britain joined forces with Czechoslovakia against Germany. Christie warned that the "crucial question is 'How soon will the next step against Czechoslovakia be tried?' ... The probability is that the delay will not exceed two or three months at most, unless France and England provide the deterrent, for which cooler heads in Germany are praying." German Historians allege that when Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, he told Hitler about the plot that was being hatched by the German General staff headed by General Beck!

On 29th September, 1938, Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred to Germany the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region that contained a large German-speaking population. When Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia's head of state, who had not been invited to Munich, protested at this decision, Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.

The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Germany. However, some politicians, including Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, attacked the agreement. These critics pointed out that no only had the British government behaved dishonorably, but it had lost the support of Czech Army, one of the best in Europe.

One staunch critic of appeasement was the journalist Vernon Bartlett. He was approached by Richard Acland to stand as an anti-Chamberlain candidate at a by-election in Bridgwater. Bartlett agreed and in November, 1938, surprisingly won the previously safe Tory seat. Henry (Chips) Channon , a junior member of the government wrote in his diary: "This is the worst blow the Government has had since 1935".

In March, 1939, the German Army seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. In taking this action Adolf Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement. The British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, now realized that Hitler could not be trusted and his appeasement policy now came to an end.Source: www.Spartacus Educational.com

I am not suggesting that Obama is as naive or stupid as Chamberlain, but if he tries to fulfill a promise to the "pecenik" crowd by trying to talk to Tyrants that run North Korea and Iran. I believe they will see a sign of weakness and take advantage of it. Dealing from a position of strength is the only way to deal with Bullies!

OBAMA IDEA OF NATIONAL BANK FOR BAD LOANS IS REJECTED IN GERMANY

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Trying TO FIND A QUICK SOLUTION FOR THE GROWING "BAD PAPER" THAT U.S. BANKS HOLD.
The Obama transition team is floating the idea that the government establish a Federal Bank to absorb the bad paper held by banks in the USA.
This concept is not a new idea. It has been mentioned in political circles among Germany's political parties, and as expected the opposition has been immediate and critical.

In Great Briain the news is eqally bad. Britain launched a second bank rescue plan on Monday and Royal Bank of Scotland recorded the biggest loss in UK corporate history, while a cut in Spain's credit rating caused fresh market wobbles.

Announcing Britain's bank bailout, finance minister Alistair Darling said fourth-quarter GDP figures on Friday would confirm the UK was in recession for the first time since 1992.

RBS shares closed down 67 percent, denting British share indices, while concern about the rescue plan's multibillion price tag drove UK gilt futures to five-week lows and helped push sterling down nearly 1.6 percent against the dollar. Source: Reuters,UK

Britain has pumped 37 billion pounds($55billion) into it's banks, but credit loans are still scarce, UK will not allow it's banks to insure itself against loses on its riskiest investments assets (aka: bad loans).
The statement that follows sums up this blogger feelings toward the bail outs."If recent history is a guide, any market euphoria related to such a bailout package generally evaporates on the realization that such mammoth support was required in the first instance," said Daragh Maher, Deputy Head of Global FX Strategy at Calyon.
Sooner or later we will have to pay the piper!

Perhaps the Obama team should look at what has happened to Germany's adventure ino socializing some of it's banks.
The partial nationalization isn't just aimed at helping Commerzbank, the largest Bank in Germany. The government above all wanted to revive its financial sector rescue plan in the face of growing criticism. The problem is that the package with its €400 billion in state guarantees and additional €80 billion in equity assistance has so far failed to restore the banks' trust in each other -- the banks are still refusing to lend each other meaningful sums of money.
This sounds strangely similar to what resulted from the first part of TARP in the USA.

Der Spiegel report this: "The Finance Ministry in Berlin estimates that the entire German banking sector is still holding risky securities totalling up to €1 trillion(398 billion US$). Given that volume, Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück of the center-left Social Democrats, believes it would be irresponsible for the government to set up a so-called "Bad Bank" as a repository for toxic assets stemming largely from the devastated sub prime mortgage market, as banks have suggested.

"In the worst case that would cause the federal government debt to more than double," said one member of Steinbrück's staff. At present the federal government debt amounts to almost €1 trillion.

Several banks have said that stalled bank lending won't resume unless banks can offload their toxic securities in a Bad Bank."

Unlike the USA, in Germany many of the Banks are Federally owned to begin with. The private banks are called "Landesbanken". The German banks have only written off as worthless one quarter of the bad loans held.

The majority of the bad loans are American. Reports show their non-performing securities are linked to American mortgages and student loans, according to a survey of 20 major German banks conducted by the German central bank and banking watchdog BaFin.Source: BaFin

It would appear that the Obama teams Bank idea would be a bigger help to the Germans than to the American taxpayers who would eventually have to pay for the lost money. This would be in the form of another hidden tax as the dollar is certainly going to be devalued due to all these bail outs!

REASONS WHY OBAMA WILL FAIL TO SAVE JOBS

If our immigration policies remain unchanged, the Obama Administration will authorize 3.3 million new, working age foreigners to take U.S. jobs over the next two years -- enough foreign workers to fill every job created under the Obama plan, plus 1.3 million existing U.S. jobs.
Obama says that his stimulus plan will create 2.1 million new jobs, and prevent 1.6 million currently employed worker from losing their jobs.But there is a problem that no one is talking about that will cause this effort to be another left wing failure.

It is the present USA policy on legal immigration that allows an estimated 138,000 new immigrants to enter the country legally!
The program originally called the H1D immigrant policy, was created to allow those people from foreign countries with skills that cannot be found in the USA or are in short supply, to enter the country.This is approximately 19% of the Legal immigrants that enter the USA. The other 90% are classified as immigrants who are eligible via the current policy of family re-unification.

Last Friday 40 thousand people lost their jobs in one day, and unless the loop hole that allows 1,656,000 people to enter the USA who need jobs.

This does not even consider the 20 million or more illegals that are in the USA today, and come pouring over our southern borders daily!

NUMBERS USA says that to create the 2.1 million jobs and prevent the loss of the 1.8 million who have jobs in the next two years, as Obama has promised. The taxpayers will have to shell out between 775 billion dollars and 1.2 trillion!

During 2007 the Bush administration allowed 744,531 foreigners to come into the USA legally that were aged 20 to 64 and needed employment. In addition he issued 854,186 new employment documents(EAD's)for immigrants to be admitted on temporary visas. History has proved that these temporary visas are almost impossible to enforce!

What do you think the chances are for Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress to cut off the flood of people who will become part of the "gimme-gimme" group that helped elect Obama> Slim and none, but those who vote for him to see him restore our economy will be witness to the transition of the USA from a Free enterprise country to a Socialist haven for those who look to the government for cradle to grave support! God help us, or is it too late!

BANKS GET A "WINDFALL" AND TAX PAYERS GET THE SHAFT!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

As president elect Obama rolled into Washington to await his coronation on next Tuesday. Many people are making comparisons and analogies to President Lincoln. I guess since Obama is partly Black, and Lincoln freed the slaves by waging a war that killed over 600,000 brothers, sisters, uncles and cousins in the un-Civil war,there is a comparison if you stretch your imagination far enough.

The Obama transition team and the willing accomplice Media seem to want the public to think that the "Great Emancipator" has once again arrived in Washington DC. But there are too many dis-similar traits between Obama and Lincoln and the the way they both looked at America to believe there is any similarity.

Lincoln waged the assault on the South to keep the Nation together. He believed in the status quo. In fact history shows that slavery was not on his mind until after the war between the States was well under way! He wanted to save the Union!

Obama.in my opinion, wants to destroy the status quo. He and his wife (she even said it publicly) do not believe the Country is something that they can be proud of in it's present form. They come to Washington to radically change things, and from what I have heard from his own lips. I do not like what he is intending to do!
In fact, I believe , that when he takes the oath of office for the Presidency, he will, I believe, be lying if you can believe his own words(said on his way to Washington) about Our Constitution?
Invoking hope and history, President-elect Barack Obama rolled into the capital city Saturday night pledging to help bring the nation "a new Declaration of Independence" and promising to rise to the stern challenges of the times.
At the War Memorial Plaza in Baltimore, Obama called on Americans to take up anew the principles of the nation's Founders, capping the inspirational message of the journey to Washington with a call for "a new declaration of independence." Source:Breitbart.com

"We are here today not simply to pay tribute to our first patriots but to take up the work that they began. And yet while our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence not just in our nation, but in our own lives..independence from ideology…

We should not forget we are the heirs of those who declared independence…and who somehow believed that they had the power to make the world anew, that’s the spirit we must reclaim …for the American Revolution did not end when the British guns fell silent…it was never something to be ended on a battlefield, or fulfilled in our founding documents…the American Revolution was and remains an ongoing struggle in the minds and hearts of the people…so starting now, let’s take up in our own lives, the work of perfecting our Union. Let’s build a government…let all of us do our part to rebuild this country , let’s make sure this election is not the end of what we do to change America, but just the beginning.”
Later in another city, he made reference to the need for our Constitution to be rewritten as “more perfect”.

Who gets to define that? And why is that definition expected to be better than the definition left us by the Founding Fathers?

I believe that Obama has Socialism on his mind, and most everything he proposes to do are involved with making an already Big government, BIGGER!

One such example is the mess that has resulted in the TARP deal. The whole bail out scheme was sold to the American public as a way to pump more money into Banks so they would loan it to taxpayers who desperately need the loans. But apparently that is not what has happened, nor is it the intention of the recipients of the billions of dollars in taxpayers money to help the "little guy"!

The following is and excerpt from the Los Angeles Times article.

"as mounting losses at major banks like Citigroup and Bank of America in the last week have underscored, regulators are still searching for ways to stabilize the banking system. The Obama administration could be forced early on to come up with a systemic solution, getting bad loans off balance sheets as a way to encourage banks to begin lending, which most economists say is essential to get businesses and consumers spending again.

In U.S., the new frugality has unintended consequences
Individually, banks that received some of the first $350 billion from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, have offered few public details about how they plan to spend the money, and they are not required to disclose what they do with it. But in conversations behind closed doors with investment analysts, some bankers have been candid about their intentions.

Most of the banks that received the money are far smaller than behemoths like Citigroup or Bank of America. A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen banks around the country found that few cited lending as a priority. An overwhelming majority saw the bailout program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future.

Speaking at the FBR Capital Markets conference in New York in December, Walter Pressey, president of Boston Private Wealth Management, a healthy bank with a mostly affluent clientele, said there were no immediate plans to do much with the $154 million it received from the Treasury.

"With that capital in hand, not only do we feel comfortable that we can ride out the recession," he said, "but we also feel that we'll be in a position to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves once this recession is sorted out." Not a word about doing something to help the people who need money to stay in their homes or keep the small business they own from going under. The "fat cats" get the money and the taxpayer gets the "shaft"!

Where is the CHANGE in that?