OUR FLIGHT FROM REALITY

“Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FREEDOM AND LICENSE!
In recent years the Greatest Nation on earth has been slipping into the licentious nature off a Country that has entered into the trap that substitutes the rights we have as God given rights, and rights granted to Us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights with the acceptance of permissiveness and immorality.

Ronald Reagan said: "The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas - a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated".

I have been lucky enough to have lived from the great depression to the present day. During this time I have been fortunate to witness the development of Penicillin that saved at least two of my younger brothers, and many more "miracle drugs" that have both prolonged life and made life more endurable for those suffering terminal illnesses.
Unfortunately I have also been witness to the degradation of our culture via the miracle of television and the Internet. In my boyhood days television was seen from late afternoon until midnight, and shows like Milton Berle's Texaco Star Theater, Ed Sullivan's Toast of the Town and Hody Doody were watched on 5 inch black and white televisions.
In my home state color TV was not available until the early 1950s, and then only on a limited basis for lots of money! Ten inch sets were the maximum size.

Today the choices are numerous. Satellite, cable and the old standard TV antennas depending upon your location and ability to pay. But the one constant is that no matter what your mode of reception, there is a avalanche of sexual content and violence available twenty four hours, seven days a week!

With programs like Sex and The City, there has been a significant increase in the number of television shows with sexual content over the last two years. Just one in ten of these shows includes a reference to safer sex or to the possible risks and responsibilities of sex.
These are among the findings of SEX ON TV: Content and Context, the largest study ever of sexual content on television. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation released the study at its Sex on TV conference for entertainment industry leaders at the Museum of Television and Radio.

Their study shows that Sexual intercourse is depicted or strongly implied in 10% of shows, up from 7% during the 1997/98 season. Nearly a quarter (23%) of the couples in scenes with intercourse appeared to be young adults ages 18 to 24, and 9% appeared to be under age 18. In 16% of all scenes with intercourse, the couples have just met.

Nine percent of all shows on TV include sexual content involving teens (8% two years ago). In addition, more teen television characters are involved in sexual intercourse. Two years ago, 3% of all television characters involved in intercourse were teens; that figure is now 9%.

Ten percent of TV shows with sexual content make at least a passing reference to the risks and responsibilities of sexual activity about the same as the nine percent of shows with sexual content that included such a reference two years ago. Dramas are most likely to include such references (15%), and sitcoms are least likely to do so (5%).

And if you think television has degraded the morals of this country then the statistics about the movie industry are just as bad, if not worse from a moral point of view.
Movies were the most likely to contain sexual content (89%), followed by sitcoms (84%) and soap operas (80%). Reality shows were least likely to do so (27%). The largest increase occurred in situation comedies, which went from 56% to 84% of all episodes.

The purveyors of sex and violence have used the freedom of speech and tolerance to give way to permissiveness, and moral degeneration!

As a result the rate of teenage sexual activity has increased from a relatively small percentage of promiscuous teen age children in the 40s and 50s to the present high rate of teenagers, who despite taking birth control pill and available contraceptives, become pregnant.

Of the 29 million young people between the ages of 13 and 19, approximately 12 million have had sexual intercourse. Of this group, in 1981, more than 1.1 million became pregnant; three- quarters of these pregnancies were unintended, and 434,000 ended in abortion (What Government Can Do, 1984). The number of pregnancies increased among teenagers in all age groups during the 1970s, but among those who were sexually active the pregnancy rate has been declining. Because of increased and more consistent use of contraceptives by teenagers, the rate of pregnancy among them has been increasing more slowly than their rate of sexual activity. Although the number of teenagers who are sexually active increased by two-thirds over the 1970s, over half of U.S. teenagers are sexually inactive (Teenage Pregnancy, 1981).

About five percent of U. S. teenagers give birth each year. A recent study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute showed teen birthrates here to be twice as high as Canada, England, and Wales, three times as high as Sweden, and seven times higher than the Netherlands.

Although these statistics are somewhat deceiving because of the now mandated ability of a teenager to have an abortion without parental consent. The rise in the out-of-wedlock birthrate has continued among almost all groups of teenagers. The rise has been steepest among 15- to 17-year-old whites.
Repeated Unintentional Pregnancies
As might be expected, 78 percent of births to teenagers are first births. However, 19percent are second births, and four percent are third or higher order births.
Source: Subcommittee on Census and Population of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Ninety-Ninth Congress,

After falling steadily for more than a decade, the birth rate for American teenagers jumped last year, federal health officials reported yesterday, a sharp reversal in what has been one of the nation's most celebrated social and public health successes.

The birth rate rose by 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 among 15-to-19-year-old girls, after plummeting 34 percent between 1991 and 2005, the National Center for Health Statistics reported. And not just coincidentally the number of explicit and suggestive sexual content shows has been increased during the same period!


The marriage rate also dropped to 7.3 in 2005 from 7.6 the year earlier and 7.7 in 2004, the report said. People are taking longer to decide who they'll marry and more are considering financial security, whether to have children.This tracks right along with the high rate of couples living together outside of marriage, and the high rate of abortion for connivance in career women.

Fifty-two percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33 percent of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19 percent. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely. Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant,despite knowing that their religion considers abortion a Mortal sin, 27 percent identify themselves as Catholic.

Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women. Over 60 percent of abortions are among women who have had 1 or more children. On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. the sum substance of all three are abortions( killing a human being) for convenience!

More than 50 million abortions have been performed since Roe-Wade, and now we have partial birth abortions!
And we elected a President who voted twice not to give medicine or sustenance to a live baby born after a botched abortion!
And we call us a civilized Nation!

WAS IT ALL A LIE?

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 countries develop their industry, rapid urbanization and higher living standards drive up energy use, most often of oil. Thriving economies such as China and India are quickly becoming large oil consumers. China has seen oil consumption grow by 8% yearly since 2002, doubling from 1996-2006.
It was about this time that people like "experts" Kenneth Deffeyert and Matthew Simmons began predicting that the world was running out of crude oil reserves, and the cry for the ethanol substitute reverberated throughout the USA. Congress stepped up their demands that American car makers had to make lighter more fuel efficient cars, even though the majority of Americans rejected them for SUVs and trucks.

The truth is the world price of crude oil is driven by supply and demand. In 1998( just ten years ago) a barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) Nymex crude sold for as little as US $12 - a low price that reflected a significant glut of crude available on the world market. The world price for crude oil has increased dramatically since 1998. WTI Nymex crude averaged US $56.69 in 2005 and hit a high of over US $90.25 in October 2006 due to world concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. The interaction between supply and demand of crude oil constantly affects the price.Fast forward to 11/26/08 and the price was $46.25! The world price for crude oil can be influenced by extreme weather and natural disasters as well as by political, civil and military unrest, particularly when these activities take place in a significant oil-producing region. Not by greedy Oil Companies as The Leftists in Congress would have you believe!


For example, 2005 saw record crude prices driven by increased demand during an unseasonably cold winter in North America, along with growing global demand in China and India. The supply of crude oil was further tightened when hurricanes along the Gulf of Mexico shut down crude production and distribution infrastructure, and affected refinery operations.

Fast forward to 2008 and we find that OPEC ministers have decided the supply of crude oil is too much for the demand, so they are going to cut back on the extraction and production of crude to drive the price back up! Thus, we have this report from Saudi Arabia:
"The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has scrambled since September to stem the fall in oil prices, which is putting pressure on OPEC budgets from Ecuador to Kuwait. Ineffective in blunting the price spike earlier this year, the organization is proving similarly hapless in putting a floor under collapsing prices".


Bloomberg News/Landov reports that:
OPEC's secretary-general, Abdalla Salem El-Badri, said the crude-oil market is oversupplied, as he arrived Thursday in Cairo for Saturday's meeting.
The group's 12 ministers will meet Saturday in Cairo to decide whether to move ahead on another cut of a million barrels or more after agreeing to a total cut of two million barrels a day at two meetings over the past two months.

After hitting a record of nearly $150 a barrel in July, crude prices have since fallen to nearly a third of that in just four months, the steepest price collapse since formal futures trading began in 1981.

Thursday afternoon, the front-month January Brent contract on London's ICE futures exchange was down 36 cents at $53.56 a barrel.


The cartel's de facto leader and the world's largest exporter, Saudi Arabia, finds itself in a bind. Most OPEC members will face real economic problems if crude prices see a sustained drop below $50 a barrel.I am sure the American consumer will not shed a tear for the Oil rich Arabs!

OPEC's ability to affect the market either way has been minimal, though, as demand continues to fall across the industrialized world and investment flows dry up.

Some analysts now predict that global demand could turn negative both this year and next, adding to a growing spare supply cushion that the world hasn't seen for years.

OPEC countries appear so far to have abided fairly well by pledges made since September to cut supply.

OPEC provides around 40% of the 86 million or so barrels of oil the world consumes daily. But that cohesion could begin to fray as exports and prices both fall.

With financial and social pressures rising, some OPEC nations are nearing an inflection point economically that could result in members such as Venezuela, Ecuador and Nigeria flatly ignoring additional production cuts.

A Nigerian oil official said the country doesn't want any more output reductions because Nigeria already is pumping below its OPEC allocation due to militant attacks on oil infrastructure that have shut around 600,000 barrels a day of production in past months. Nigeria is pumping around 1.95 million barrels a day, below its quota of 2.05 million barrels a day.

"We would have to go even farther below our quota if OPEC cuts more and that would hurt our government budget," the official said.

And less than six months ago the "tics"(blood sucking politicians and Leftists) were telling US that there was a finite limit to the crude oil supply! They cannot have it both ways! But then again, maybe they can with President Obama coming in with his bag full of promises of social welfare. A probable source for the money to fund some of them, and at the same time satisfy his eco freak supporters. A 50 cent increase in the gas tax "to offset the bad economy" might be in the winds of CHANGE!

McCarthy MAY HAVE BEEN ON TO SOMETHING!

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

THE WORD McCarthyism HAS BEEN USED AS A PEJORATIVE DESCRIPTION OF ANYONE WHO POINTS OUT THAT THERE ARE ULTRA-LEFTISTS IN POSITIONS OF POWER AND INFLUENCE IN OUR COUNTRY.
The history surrounding the McCarthy era shows he was correct in his statements that people like the Rosenbergs, Wittaker Chambers, Alger Hiss and his brother Donald, Less Pressman of the AAA. The VENONA papers later showed that he was correct as this report from Wikapedia shows.
"McCarthy is said to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." The famous "List", as it has come to be known, has always engendered much controversy. The figure of 205 appears to have come from an oral briefing McCarthy had with Hoover regarding espionage suspects the FBI was then investigating. The FBI had discovered on its own five Soviet agents operating in the United States during World War II; defector Elizabeth Bentley further added another 81 known identities of espionage agents; Venona materials had provided the balance, and by the time a full accounting of true name identities was compiled in an FBI memo in 1957, one more subject had been added to the number, now totaling 206".

Many people believe that unlike the Russians, American Leftist do not pattern their quest upon Marx or Lenin, but today Marxist elements within American society endeavor to bring about revolutionary change with an ideology and methodology built on Critical Theory and Gramscian cultural Marxism. Critical Theory goes beyond traditional social analysis and seeks social transformation or revolution to foster conditions favorable to Marxism that will bring about the downfall of capitalism. Critical Theory is an anti-capitalist theory advocating destruction of free market democratic values, social and political structures and policies to further human emancipation. It is an outright rejection of western civilization and an endorsement of a Marxist, utopian society.
Gramscian cultural Marxism, based on the work of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, stems from the recognition that the structure of capitalist society was defined by the culture, faith and values of Christianity. Recognizing the central role of Christianity as the moral and cultural foundation of Western society, Gramsci endeavored to transform society by replacing the worship of God with the worship of man, "secular humanism." Gramsci was intent on destroying the "hegemony" of Christianity and its vast societal influences, including in government, education, media and the family. He sought creation of re-education and indoctrination programs to bring about a new moral and intellectual order based on Marxism.
The components of this progressive-socialist-Marxist attempt to take over the West include: 1) destruction of a free press, 2) educational revisionism, 3) infiltration of government and political systems, 4) destruction of the military and intelligence services, 5) development of an anti-globalist, anti-war philosophy, and 6) creation of a one world government.
Within the United States, the tentacles of the Kremlin-sponsored, Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington and its vast network of affiliates aids in the promulgation of this anti-capitalist pro-Socialist agenda.
IPS in the United States and the Transnational Institute (TNI) based in Europe are the main Communist fronts promoting an anti-capitalist, pro-Socialist agenda for cultural transformation. The IPS purposely understated the Cold War threat to the West in order to shift America's priorities away from the military-industrial complex toward social programs. The organization has attempted to penetrate government, academia and the media to work toward disarmament, non-intervention against Soviet aggression and the termination of military alliances. They have targeted NATO, the Defense Department, defense contractors, arms manufacturers and intelligence agencies with disinformation and propaganda.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, TNI advocated environmental issues to slow economic growth and hasten the disarming of the West. IPS and TNI work with a cadre of intellectuals, journalists, professors, politicians and government officials who support and promulgate cultural Marxism by manipulating public opinion and structuring policies and legislation to undermine the government, subvert the U.S. Constitution and aid in the transformation and radicalization of U.S. institutions. The IPS has successfully advanced a laundry list of taxpayer-financed entitlement programs under the cover of "equality and fairness," endeavored to limit corporate power and damaged U.S. military supremacy by working to cut military and intelligence spending.

They are aided by the Main Stream Media. As part of its silent cultural revolution in America, the radical Left has successfully allied with the print and broadcast media and Hollywood to aid in the assault on traditional values and help spread propaganda and disinformation. The American media has become an unbalanced bastion of political correctness that advances a biased, Leftist agenda which obtains much of its disinformation from the IPS. The news media and Hollywood have helped shape public opinion to support the Marxist intent to destroy Western values, beliefs and institutions.

Progressive-socialist-Marxists also use America's democracy to lead the country toward acceptance of socialism. They exert tremendous influence on the liberal-dominated Democratic Party. Under the cover of "equality and fairness" the Left has attempted to use its influence to support politicians and policies that limit corporate power and undermine U.S. military and intelligence. The IPS has injected itself into the political process and changed the political culture of the Democratic Party. Through the Congressional Progressive Caucus, an IPS affiliate, it has amassed a base of 72 out of 232 members of the House (almost one-third) that promote its policies on immigration, fair trade, military spending and other issues dear to the progressive-Socialist-Marxist agenda.

In recent years, the "Shadow Party" -- a nationwide network of unions, non-profits groups and think tanks that subscribe to leftist ideology and receive funding from billionaire George Soros -- has infiltrated the Democratic Party. Their goal is to take control of U.S. politics using a strategy that includes think tanks, training centers and media centers. Using the radical, community-organizing methods of Saul Alinksy, they have engaged in questionable fundraising tactics, aggressive voter drives, oppositional research and media manipulation as they push a hard-left line of racial and sexual equality, abortion on demand, class inequity, drug legalization, anti-war positions, assaults on sovereignty and global taxation and government.Source: Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, The Global New Left, and Radical Islam By Robert Chandler

The only conclusion this blogger can come to is that United States is at a critical juncture in its history faced with threats from international Marxists, an internal socialist movement and global jihadists. Once any of these elements achieves significant positions of power within the United States, they will proceed with their plans to destroy Western civilization. Our freedom, sovereignty and way of life could be extinguished by any of these forces that are acting against our democratic republic.
Some will call me an alarmist, but some also called Patrick Henry and Paul Revere alarmists! We have two choices. Eternal vigilance or suffer the consequences!

THE ROBIN HOOD OF OUR TIMES

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

In my youth Errol Flynn made A movie about a Nobleman who turned robber to take from the rich to give to the poor Saxons in Great Britain. He was called Robin Hood!
Today, it appears, the Federal government is trying to play Robin Hood, but I believe their efforts are directed in the wrong direction.When the smoke clears and the dust settles in the fight going on in Congress. They will have run the tab for the so called bail out up to three trillion dollars!

We don't have that much free money in circulation to spend it on corporate welfare, but the key to this whole charade is that the government has printing presses that allow them to print money in vast amounts that have little or no backing. It will fall upon the taxpayer to pay for this government largess in the form of taxes. All kinds of hidden taxes and reductions or elimination of deductions that the average taxpayer has now when he/she files the annual Federal tax return.
Many tax deductions have been taken away from us in the last thirty years and I suspect many more will follow!

The following is an article released in today's edition of the Internetedition of the Wall Street Journal. It details the massive amounts of money that are being poured, literally dumped into the institutions that control the flow of money in the name of helping the economy. But I question if the intended results will reflect the actual affect of delaying the Crash that surely must come-sooner or later- due to the fact that as each industry is "helped" another comes to Washington with it's hand out for cash infusion. The potential list is never ending!

President Roosevelt tried to buy his way out of the Great depression,with make work programs and welfare, but if it were not for the War that started the military industrial complex. His efforts would have failed. Will we need a war to solve the dilema we now face?

We have the modern day equivalent of Robin Hood, Barrack H. Obama riding on a cloud of "CHANGE" in to Washington promising his supporters that he will give them many social welfare "goodies" at the expense of the RICH!

Meanwhile, "The Federal Reserve says it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-backed debt issued and backed Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Banks in a bid to lower the elevated costs of home loans at a time when the housing market and wider financial markets are still stricken by the credit crunch. The Fed plans to lend an additional $200 billion to support entities willing to buy asset-backed securities collateralized by student loans, auto loans, credit card loans and small-business loans. In announcing that move, the Fed noted that interest rates for such debt have soared at a time when all credit is deemed a riskier investment, and said that its new loan program is aimed at making more loans available to consumers and businesses".
SOURCE: JOSEPH SCHUMAN OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Yesterday's moves mean the loans and other assets listed on the Fed's books will probably soon be at around $3 trillion -- triple what it was in mid-September, Business Week notes. And The Wall Street Journal adds that Washington at this point has now "made more than $4 trillion of financial commitments, ranging from direct investments to debt guarantees, through a wide range of rescue programs hatched by the Fed, Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp," and that this number "could grow if markets worsen." The message from the Fed and the Treasury, as the New York Times puts it, is "that they would print as much money as needed to revive the nation's crippled banking system." And while yesterday's new measures are "gargantuan," they were "probably not the last of the federal government's initiatives to absorb the shocks that began with losses on sub prime mortgages and have spread to every corner of the economy,"

Analysts tell report that "the (bail-out) program will do little to reduce the tidal wave of home foreclosures ... because most of the foreclosures are on subprime mortgages and other high-risk loans that were not bought or guaranteed by government-sponsored finance companies like Fannie Mae." Bloomberg points out while the new programs are supposed to make credit more accessible to nervous consumers, those consumers may still not want to spend: "Households and lenders may not respond much because of the wealth destruction from plunging property and stock values, and the deepening economic slump.

DESPITE ALL THIS MONEY INFUSION INTO THE INSTITUTIONS THAT CONTROL OUR MONEY FLOW;
The Washington Post reports that "fueled by rising unemployment and food prices, the number of Americans on food stamps is poised to exceed 30 million for the first time this month, surpassing the historic high set in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina."
It appears to me that we need more fiscal responsibility from our elected "Princes" in Congress, and less, not more hand outs to sate the appetite of a corrupt and inefficient monetary system that needs to be put on a diet not gorged with tax payers IOU's!

ANOTHER COST ASSOCIATED WITH OBAMA'S PLANS FOR CHANGE

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

Either through legislation or regu?lation, efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions will impose costs through?out the economy. The impact on the overall econ?omy, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is substantial. The cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house?hold.

Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026.(Note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations--so-called green jobs--are taken into account.

Hardest-hit are man?ufacturing jobs, with losses approaching 3 million. Particularly vulnerable are jobs in durable manufacturing (28 percent job losses), machinery manufacturing (57 percent), textiles (27.6 percent), electrical equipment and appli?ances (22 percent), paper (36 percent), and plastics and rubber products (54 percent). It should be noted that since the EPA rule is unilateral and few other nations are likely to follow the U.S. lead, many of these manufacturing jobs will be out?sourced overseas.

The job losses or shifts to lower paying jobs are substantial, leading to declines in disposable income of $145 billion by 2015--more than $1,000 per household.

Conclusion

Virtually every concern heightened by the eco?nomic downturn, especially job losses, would be exacerbated under the ANPR. As with cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA's suggested rulemaking would be poison to an already sick economy. But even in the best of economic times, this policy would likely be the "death Knell" that ends them.

The estimated costs--close to $7 trillion dollars and 3 million manufacturing jobs lost--are staggering. So is the sweep of regula?tions that could severely affect nearly every major energy-using product from cars to lawnmowers, and a million or more businesses and buildings of all types. And all of this sacrifice is in order to make, at best, a minuscule contribution to an overstated environmental threat. Congress has wisely resisted implementing anything this costly and impractical. The fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to do the opposite is all the more objectionable.SOURCE: PATRIOT POST

While Obama is apparently planning to further destroy our economy and way of life to satisfy his ECO freak supporters. Russia is making money helping to build up our avowed enemies. The New media Journal had this piece of information in today's edition. I will pass it on to you with a tip of my hat to the ever informative NMJ!
"Gordon Thomas, The Epoch Times
MI6(the British version of our CIA) has warned that Russia is poised to sell its own sophisticated S-300 missile defense system to Iran if the European Union and Washington push for Georgia and Ukraine to have NATO membership. The revelation came hours after EU heads had met at a Brussels conference to discuss how best to handle the ever-mounting tensions with Moscow. The Secret Intelligence Service discovered Moscow’s plans after monitoring visits to Tehran last month by a team of Russian military scientists who had helped to create the S-300 system.

Dan Goure, a senior Pentagon arms adviser on the system, described it as “one that surely scares every Western air force”. It can track up to 100 targets at once and destroy aircraft at a range of 75 miles. Operational, it could dramatically affect any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, MI6 analysts believe the Moscow offer to provide the system to Iran is to create a foreign policy confrontation to test the mettle of a new US president.( note to President elect Obama, you cannot talk your way out of this threat, please do not try!)

It could also prove a test of resolve for Britain’s Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who has been leading the EC drive to confront Moscow over militants in the Caucasus region. "Using the S-300 is a powerful bargaining move that has been clearly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin. He sees the steady encroachment of NATO into the former Soviet bloc and the recent granting of independence to the ex-Serbian province of Kosovo as a threat”, said an MI6 analyst. Last week MI6 agents confirmed that some of the basic components of the S-300 system had been transferred to its close ally, Belarus, ready for a possible transfer to Tehran.

Be thankful this Thanksgiving day that this has not happened, YET!

A CONSERVATIVE QUISLING AT WORK!!!

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

THE WAY THE CONGRESS AND THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ARE GOING ABOUT THROWING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD REMINDS ME OF THE NORWEGIAN TRAITOR QUISLING WHO BETRAYED THE NORWEGIANS TO THE NAZI OCCUPIERS, BECAUSE HE SAID HE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE NORWEGIANS IN THE LONG RUN THAN TO FIGHT THE GERMAN OCCUPIERS.

President-elect Barack Obama wants to project fiscal restraint even as his economic team assembles a massive recovery package that could cost several hundred billion dollars.
A day after introducing the captains of his economic team and promoting a giant jobs plan, Obama on Tuesday was to lay out his budget belt-tightening vision. The dual images(big spender and disciplined budget watcher)were designed to give both political and economic assurances to the public, the Congress and the financial markets.

Obama's economic team embodies what at first glance seem to be mutually exclusive goals.Save the economy and spend,spend, spend tax payers money!

Timothy Geithner, Obama's choice for treasury secretary; Lawrence Summers, who will head the National Economic Council, all have links to Robert Rubin, who as President Clinton's treasury secretary pushed for a balanced budget.
But all three will also be part of an administration that will drive deficits to new heights with an economic plan designed to save or create 2.5 million jobs( most will be govt. created and govt. controlled), and redirect the economy over the next two years. Economists from across the political spectrum, including some who have served as informal advisers to Obama, have put the size of an economic recovery package as high as $700 billion over two years.Considering that the a few months ago Henry Paulson gave $700 billion in taxpayers money to help taxpayers aid their "neighbors" who could not pay their mortgages, it would seem the estimate is low!

AS bizarre as it may seem, CitiGroup has announced that they have to lay off thousands of employees worldwide, but that they still will pay 500 million dollars to have their name on the new New York Mets stadium.
These are the same directors and officers that will receive taxpayers bail-out monies to the tune of a guarantee loan of $306 billion!

This fact was announced by a joint statement issued by the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.this week.
The deal involves Treasury injecting an additional $20 billion in capital into Citigroup. Citi had already received $25 billion in aid from TARP.

The Bush Administration surprisingly, said rescuing the battered bank was imperative to stabilizing the financial system, and ultimately putting the economy back on track. In my unhumble opinion, he is just delaying the inevitable debacle until Obama takes over the Oval Office!

This action was also cheered by Senator Schummer of New York, and I begin to believe that the Government is bailing out their New York friends and benefactors more than they are trying to help the American people.
The "fat cats", who just a few days ago were poised to leap out the windows of their corner offices. Can now breath deeply and exhale a sigh of relief for their friends in Washington have come to their rescue! Maybe they should invite a failed mortgagee over for Thanksgiving dinner as a token of thanksgiving!

How can it be a good thing, when the Congress and the President print worthless money to give to failing enterprises(in this case Banks, Mortgage Houses and later Detroit auto) without demanding a radical reshaping and structure of the way they run their business, and whom continues to show no signs of restraint!

During the campaign, Obama proposed a $175 billion stimulus package that included infrastructure spending, tax credits to small businesses for hiring new employees, targeted tax credits for middle class families, investments in alternative energy and aid to local and state governments.
Democrats now say the package will be much larger. Sen. Charles Schumer put the figure at $500 to $700 billion and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it would be "in the several hundred billion category," making it one of the largest spending bills for economic recovery since the New Deal.
Obama Senior Adviser David Axelrod wouldn't put a dollar figure on the package, but he said on "FOX News Sunday" that the plan "has to be big enough to deal with the huge problem we face."

And guess who will have to pay for all of this so called "stimulus"! There is only one way to get the money--from the taxpayers unless they want to continue the printing of worthless money!!!

SO THIS IS HOW LIBERALS REWARD THE PUBLIC!

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

Just last April gas stations were selling gas for more than $4 a gallon. At that time
"experts" were saying that part of the blame for the jump at the pump is a lack of supply.They backed up there assertions with the statement that the latest government data showed a sharp drop in gasoline supplies. Never considering the off-shore or ANWR capacity for exploration and production.

"Unfortunately demand for gasoline has been rising faster than our ability to produce it domestically, “said Geoff Sundstrom, AAA spokesperson.

Even President Bush bought into the "ecofreaks" assertion that a big part of the problem is America's addiction to oil. And of course there were the socialists who hate "big-business", that said the oil companies "greed" was the cause for the gas price spikes.

Judy Dugan of Oilwatchdog.org said, "The oil companies have found that it is more profitable for them to sell less gasoline at a higher price and because current laws do not do anything to stop them, they do it."She obviously had a biased approach!

The so called experts were quoted as saying, "most Americans are not changing their driving habits because of the high prices"! Well, fast forward 7 or 8 months and we find that they all were wrong!

Today the U.S. Department of Transportation said that gasoline taxes paid into the highway trust fund fell by $3 billion in the 2008 fiscal year.

"Our current approach has us encouraging Americans to change their driving habits and burn less fuel while secretly hoping they drive more so we can finance new bridges, repair interstates and expand transit systems," Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said in a statement. "We need a new approach that compliments, instead of contradicts, our energy policies and infrastructure needs."

So guess what "experts" have to say about how to recapture the tax moneies lost due to the changing driving habits of the consumer and the rapid drop of gasoline.

One new approach would be to raise the federal gasoline tax from its current 18.4 cents a gallon. By comparison, the tax rate in the U.K. is about $2.85 a gallon. So it seems as likely in the current economic climate that Congress will entertain a plan to raise gasoline taxes. Especially if the Democrats achieve the super majority they need in the Senate. Tax and spend President-elect Obama would love to sign such a bill!And is right in line with Obama's promise not to tax the middle class, RIGHT!

Higher gas taxes they say, would finance improvements to roads and mass transit, encourage further conservation or offset the costs of the various federal bailouts. But the collapse of gasoline prices since the summer,a drop of more than $2 a gallon in my neighborhood, is an economic stimulus worth an estimated $200 billion a year.If gasoline prices stay low, demand for vehicles that use sophisticated technology to consume less gasoline per mile will depend on consumers making long-term decisions that aren't in their short-term economic interests. Otherwise, these new high-mileage cars might not sell for high enough prices to cover their higher costs.

And the ethanol industry , high cost alternative for gasoline, will become just one more industry to come, "with hat in hand", to the Congress for a bail-out! Which you can bet the farm that they will give them all they need. And guess whose pocket and pay check this money will come from. The middle class working man/woman!

OBAMA SOCIALIST CO-CONSPIRATORS BEGIN THEIR MARCH

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

Senator Ron Wyden and the co-sponsors of the Healthy Americans Act sent Barack Obama a letter today:
“As former colleagues in the United States Senate, we would like to congratulate you on your election as the 44th President of the United States and offer our commitment to working with you in a bipartisan fashion to reform our health care system,” wrote the group of seven Democrats, seven Republicans and one Independent. “Over the last two years, we have come together as Democrats and Republicans because we believe that for health reform to succeed it must be bipartisan… we believe [these] principles outline the best way to reform the nation’s health care system and create the best “roadmap” to build bipartisan consensus on reform.”
The principles include: Ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage; Making health care coverage both affordable and portable; Implementing strong private insurance market reforms; Modernizing federal tax rules for health coverage; Promoting improved disease prevention and wellness activities, as well as better management of chronic illnesses; Making health care prices and choices more transparent so that consumers and providers can make the best choices for their health and health care dollars; and Improving the quality and value of health care services.

The letter was signed by: U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

Healthy Americans Act. The fundamental principle of that bill was the end of the employer-based market and the total reorganization of how most Americans purchased health insurance. That made it harder to pass, but much better than the alternatives. The plans we're seeing from Obama and Baucus and other players, however, don't take that risk, and so this letter isn't defining it as core to the legislation's principles. It's important for everyone involved to be able to claim some intellectual influence on the final legislation, and that means they have to stick to principles that might be in the final legislation. But even if we pass the sort of bills we're looking at, and even if they show themselves a happy improvement over the current arrangement, in 10 years, we'll be looking at cost estimates, and wishing we'd been more attentive to Mr. Wyden. That said, I've heard that Obama has actually looked fairly closely at the HAA, and was rather impressed by its structure. So we could see some of its more radical lessons given life yet. But no one is willing to bet in that direction. SOURCE:EZRA KLEIN THE AMERICAN PROSPECT

Meanwhile, the Country that has had Socialized Medicine for decades has a new report out that was published in the Telegraph today that illustrates the severe problem that has developed in the government run Health Care system.
"The Healthcare Commission tested 51 trusts unannounced and found that only five adhered to Government rules. Its sample represents around a third of acute health trusts in England and were part of the largest ever programme of hygiene inspections in the NHS.
While most of the failures did not pose an immediate risk to patient safety,(blogger comment;since when does the spread of infection not pose an immediate risk?) the Commission found almost all acute trusts had more work to do to control the spread of infection.

In the areas where breaches did cause a serious risk, managers were told to take immediate action.(How about reporting what they will do to correct the problem?0

Three trusts were given improvement notices to tackle failures in decontamination processes.

Just over half of the 51 trusts failed to keep all areas clean and well-maintained, the Commission said.( This is probably the one most common cause of the spread of infection!)

However, it found that most had improved in relation to leadership and ensuring uniforms were clean and fit for purpose.(I would hope so!)

Anna Walker, chief executive, said: "At nearly all trusts we have found gaps that need closing. It is important to be clear that at these trusts we are not talking about the most serious kind of breaches. ( That would be deaths caused by post -operative infections!)

"But these are important warning signs to trust boards that there may be a weakness in their systems.( The whole system run by a bureaucracy is the problem-and I was privy to a serious one three years ago in the hospital in Italy. One of many European Countries that have "universal health care!)

"In particular, trusts need to ensure that their wards are consistently clean and well maintained, and that they have good decontamination and isolation arrangements.
( And the Obamaistas want us to have a system like this to replace the sterile and clean environment we now have that may be expensive, but is not a threat to your life!)

And to top it off the British Government announced today that: "Workers face higher tax and national insurance payments to fund a £20 billion package meant to help Britain spend its way out of recession, Alistair Darling has announced.

National insurance contributions will rise by half a penny in the pound for everyone earning more than £20,000 from April 2011 under the Chancellor's plans. Taxes will rise by a total of £7.5 billion in 2011/12.

However markets welcomed the announcement, with the FTSE posting its biggest ever daily gain." But the workers who cannot buy stock on the FTSE will not look at their paycheck with pleasure as it shrinks once again to pay for a bloated bureaucracy!
And as an added note, after 60 years of National Health Service, the British people finally get the freedom to choose hospitals! This article appears in today's addition of NHS's "About Choice Bulletin".

"A dramatic expansion of patient choice in the NHS got under way in April 2008.

Surveys have consistently shown that patients want choice. The 2005 British Social Attitudes survey revealed that 65% of patients said they wanted choice of treatment, 63% wanted a choice of hospital and 53% welcomed a choice of appointment time.

The introduction of free choice means that patients referred to see a specialist are themselves able to choose where they are treated from any hospital that meets NHS standards.

The list includes many private hospitals as well as all NHS providers. Between them offer everything from treatment to your cataracts to open-heart surgery.

Under the move to free choice, if you and your GP decide that you need to see a specialist, you'll be able to choose the hospital that best suits your needs.

Tell me the average person in the USA wants to change the excellent health care we now have for this type travesty!? British National health Service began in 1948, and it took sixty years to give the 61.4 million people covered by NHS to get freedom to choose their doctors and hospitals! Guess what over 200 million people will bring to a NHS in the USA. If you think Wall Street and the Banks are a mess just wait to see what the Obama people do to our health system!

THE REAL REASON FOR THE DETROIT BAIL OUT!

THE EXECUTIVES WHO TRAVELED TO WASHINGTON TO PLEAD FOR BILLIONS OF TAX PAYERS DOLLARS TO AVOID BANKRUPTCY , FLEW IN PRIVATE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR JETS!

The executives of the Big Three auto makers had the guts to tell the Congressional committee that they testified before. That they could not declare bankruptcy because no one would buy a car from a company that went bankrupt.

The real reason these fat cats will not declare bankruptcy is that to do so they would have to reorganize and make drastic cuts in Union pay and benefits, as well as restructuring executive pay and perks! Easier to go with hat in hand to Washington and try to sell the American public that if they go bankrupt the z"sky will fall" on the already fragile economy!

It appears these high paid "stuffed shirts" think the public is stupid enough to have forgotten what the Airline industry went through during the 70's, 80's and 1990's.
In 2003 American Airlines went through bankruptcy during which the flight attendants had to work 47% more hour at a pay reduction of 33%. The airline pilots also agreed to pay cuts. In 2006 Northwest Airlines went bankrupt and re-organized. Then there was United Airlines and Continental, and in 2007 delta airlines bankruptcy was approved.

All of these companies had to restructure their union pay scale and benefits, and their salaried employees all took cuts to satisfy bankruptcy judges. They had to present a plan for the re-organization, but the Auto giants came to Washington without a plan"B" if the Congress failed to cave in to their demands!

When people get paid $73 an hour to supervise computers that make the cars, and can retire at age 50 with full benefits and a generous medical and dental plan. There has to be some room for re-negotiation.

Question of the day -

"So why can't GM be allowed to go into bankruptcy?"

Seems to me that United Airlines and half a dozen other companies I can name have gone into bankruptcy without also going out of business. GM goes into bankruptcy it gets relief on some of its debt but gets "reorganized" which can't be a bad thing if you ask me.

Might it have a little something to do with the juicy union contracts that would become toast in bankruptcy court and thus the political drive to "do something"?

Having GM shed a dozen asinine contracts and unjustifiably expensive health and benefit plans would seem to me to be a good thing for everyone. I dont have a problem giving GM money, but like any investor I want to see the business plan that goes with it before the dollars cross my desk. So far the business plan seems to be to keep doing the same moronic things they have been doing only on a whole new class of investors dollars. Since when did working at GM become an entitlement?

Just say no to the Auto bail out! The airlines are still flying and passengers are buying tickets to fly them! source: The Pajamas Media

AMERICAN JEWS REWARDED WITH TREACHERY

Obama has not even been sworn in as President , but he is already making promises that should give American Jewish voters pause. In a report printed in today's Jerusalem Post it is revealed that President -elect has promised the head of the Palestinians that he will work toward getting them their own Palestinian State. The only way he can do this is to convince Israel , or should I say coerce the Israelis to give up lands they have paid for with the blood of heir sons and daughters!

US president-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday spoke on the phone with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and pledged that his administration would back the peace process with Israel, a senior Palestinian negotiator said.

In a statement sent to reporters,spokesperson Saeb Erekat said that during the conversation Obama expressed support for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

"Obama promised that he'll continue efforts to push the peace process forward in order to arrive at a two state solution," Erekat said. "He said he will work with both the Palestinians and the Israelis to achieve peace, which is in the interest of both parties."

Erekat said that Obama's remarks showed his determination to help reach a permanent status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

It is important to understand that a sovereign state of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948. Nor was a state of Palestine ever promised by UN Security Council Resolution 242. Contrary to popular understanding, a state of Palestine has never existed. Never!

Even as a nonstate legal entity, "Palestine" ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate. During the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence (a war of survival fought because the entire Arab world had rejected the authoritative United Nations resolution creating a Jewish state), the West Bank and Gaza came under the illegal control of Jordan and Egypt respectively. These Arab conquests did not put an end to an already-existing state or to an ongoing trust territory. What these aggressions did accomplish was the effective prevention, sui generis, of a state of Palestine. The original hopes for Palestine were dashed, therefore, not by the new Jewish state or by its supporters, but by the Arab states, especially Jordan and Egypt!

Both Israel and the United States will soon have new leadership. Neither Jerusalem nor Washington should be deceived by the so-called "Road Map To Peace in the Middle East," a twisted bit of highway that makes entirely inaccurate claims about "Palestinian Territories" and "Israeli Occupation." For substantially documented reasons of history and national security, it is imperative that a twenty-third Arab state never be carved out of the still-living body of Israel.

If anyone should still have doubts about Palestinian intentions, they need look only to former Prime Minister Sharon's "disengagement" from Gaza, an area that is now used by Hamas to stage rocket attacks upon Israeli noncombatants. Source: LOUIS RENE BERES

Now, are you still happy you voted for Obama?

WHO WILL DEFEND THE ONCE MIGHTY FREE WORLD?

With he election of Obama there comes many unanswered questions about just will the CHANGE he promises will bring to US Americans.
We know he has promised a form of National health care, national Service Corps with a stipend of $1800 a month for a force equal to the military we now have, and the "free-bees" list goes on.

But the big question is how will he , or I should say how will we pay, for all this largess? Will he cut the military budget to substitute welfare for defense? Or will he tax the middle class out of existence?

The reason the answer to this question is so important is that a report from JANE'S Military Report details that our once strong ally Great Britain is about to become an effete military power. The report which is excerpted in the following paragraphs illustrates that the once proud an powerful "Lion" of Great Britain has been reduced to a toothless cat.

Since 1953 when the Korean war was being fought the British Prime Ministers have drastically reduced the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product spent on defenese from 10% of GDP to a present 2.3% in 2007!
The last Prime Minister to raise the pounds Sterling that was spent on the defense of the "Realm" was Margaret Thatcher in 1982. She raised the amount from 4.1% of GDP to 5.4%, but even the strident talking friend of President Bush, Tony Blair, reduced military spending while at the same time committing forces to fight in Desert Storm that were poorly equipped to fight. Now the present administration has reduced the amount of money spent for their defense budget to 2.3% of GDP!

All this puts the strain to defend freedom of the rest of the FREE World on the U.S. of America. Will Obama and his Obama-maniacs take up the slack?

"As of August 1, 2008, the authorized strength of the British regular armed forces was slightly under 185,000, including untrained personnel. This is down 12.3 percent from 211,000 in April 1997, before Blair was elected. In 2007, only 0.9 percent of the labor force was employed by or serving in the military, compared to 1.4 percent in the U.S.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) has suffered the sharpest decline, reduced by 14,000 to slightly over 43,000 authorized. The Royal Navy has been drawn down by 7,000 to its current strength of 38,000. The Army has done the best, declining by only 5,000 to 103,000 authorized, including untrained personnel. Yet the Army has borne the brunt of the wars in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The authorized size of the Army's Volunteer Reserves, the Territorial Army, has fallen by 42 percent from under 52,000 in 1997 to slightly over 30,000 in 2008.

The 2004 white paper Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities called for Britain to field an Army of 102,000. Britain has already achieved that goal. As of July 2008, the Army was short 3,500 personnel, leaving it with a full-time, trained strength of 98,290. The Territorial Army is short by 10,000, leaving it 34 percent under strength. The MoD has also acknowledged that 8,500 of the 52,000 regular soldiers in deployable units are classified as unfit to serve in combat duties. Record spending on recruitment has increased the number of new recruits to the Army, but has not alleviated shortages in key areas or kept pace with outflow.

The Army, therefore, continues to shrink. In July 2008, outflow exceeded inflow by 120 officers and 540 enlisted, a reflection of the fact that in 2007- 2008 only 45 percent of Army enlisted reported that they were satisfied with life in the service.In the first six months of 2008, outflow exceeded inflow in almost every category across the services.] Outflow rates in all of the services are at or near 10-year highs. Retention bonuses have failed to stem the tide. These are unprecedented developments in time of war.

In an effort to meet its recruitment goals, the Army has recruited in foreign countries for the past five years. It is now drawn from 54 nations, primarily those in the Commonwealth. Not including the Gurkhas, approximately 7,000 soldiers, or 7 percent of the Army, have been recruited from outside Britain. These soldiers have performed bravely, and no objection can be raised to accepting volunteers from Commonwealth countries, but reliance on overseas recruitment is a dangerous form of military outsourcing that weakens the connection between the British Army and the nation.

The personnel shortfalls in all the services, especially the Army, have had a serious impact on the readiness of Britain's forces. In the last quarter of 2007-2008, 51 percent of the military reported serious weaknesses in their ability to deploy in a reasonable amount of time, up from 39 percent in 2006-2007. A further 7 percent reported critical weaknesses. The MoD's conclusion was that "the overall readiness of the force structure continued to deteriorate throughout the year."

In fact during the present Iraq war this little know fact reveals just how bad the British military has become. In late 2007, British forces, after making a secret deal with the Iranian-backed militias to allow them to depart safely, abandoned their compound in Basra for a heavily attacked airport base outside the city. As one U.S. intelligence official stated, "The British have basically been defeated in the south."

Britain returned to Basra in 2008 on the heels of Operation Charge of the Knights, conducted by Iraqi and U.S. forces. Brigadier Julian Free, commander of the British 4th Mechanised Brigade, admitted that Britain needed the "huge amount of armoured combat power" that the U.S. brought to bear because Britain "didn't have enough capacity in the air and...didn't have enough capability on the ground." Indeed, he acknowledged, Britain could no longer conduct large-scale operations on its own. This British failure, and the Iraqi and U.S. success, illustrates how the British armed forces, starved of the manpower, equipment, and political support they needed to achieve their mission, have suffered since 1997.Source: American Heritage Foundation

To put all these facts in perspective one must accept the fact that while the Free World is destroying it's military capability to pursue the Welfare state, the Communist Chinese, Communist North Koreans and the nascent Communist Russians are building -up their military capability. And to make things more ominous, the forces of militant Islam are about to develop the night mare of night mares,the NUCLEAR BOMB!!!

QUID PRO QUO FROM OBAMA TO FEDERAL UNIONS

The media will never let this story see the light of day, so I will quote it directly from the source,The Washington Post's Political Blogger.

"Obama Wrote Federal Staffers About His Goals and as a result Workers at Seven Agencies Got Detailed Letters Before the November 4th Election.

John Gage, president of the 600,000-member American Federation of Government Employees, requested that Barack Obama write the letters. Source: By Lucian Perkins -- The Washington Post

The following Federal Agencies received letters from Obama.
The Department of Defense
The Department of Labor
The Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Department of Homeland Security
The Social Security Administration
The Environmental Protection Agency
The Department of Veterans' Affairs
The Transportation Security Administration
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

In wooing federal employee votes on the eve of the election, Barack Obama wrote the series of letters to workers that offered detailed descriptions of how he intends to add muscle to specific government programs, give new power to bureaucrats and roll back some Bush administration policies.


The letters, sent to employees at seven agencies, describe Obama's intention to scale back on contracts to private firms doing government work, to remove censorship from scientific research, and to champion tougher industry regulation to protect workers and the environment. He made it clear that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would have an enhanced role in restoring public confidence in the housing market, shaken because of the ongoing mortgage crisis.

Using more specifics than he did on the campaign trail, Obama said he would add staff to erase the backlog of Social Security disability claims. He said he would help Transportation Security Administration officers obtain the same bargaining rights and workplace protections as other federal workers. He even expressed a desire to protect the Environmental Protection Agency's library system, which the Bush administration tried to eliminate.


"I asked him to put it in writing, something I could use with my members, and he didn't flinch," said John Gage, president of the 600,000-member American Federation of Government Employees, who requested that Obama write the letters, which were distributed through the union. "The fact that he's willing to put his name to it is a good sign."

The letters, all but one written Oct. 20, reveal a candidate adeptly tailoring his message to a federal audience and tapping into many workers' dismay at funding cuts and workforce downsizing in the Bush years. Many of Obama's promises would require additional funding, something he acknowledged would be difficult to achieve under the current economic conditions.

Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the letters were intended to communicate to federal workers his position on their agencies.

In a letter to Labor Department employees, Obama wrote: "I believe that it's time we stopped talking about family values and start pursuing policies that truly value families, such as paid family leave, flexible work schedules, and telework, with the federal government leading by example."

Obama wrote to employees in the departments of Labor, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs, along with the TSA, the EPA and the Social Security Administration. Defense was the only area in which he did not make promises requiring additional spending, the letters show.

Some worry that Obama may have over promised, with program changes and worker benefits that would be impossible to achieve. "That strikes me as smart politics," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "We'll soon find out if he can deliver when he has to deliver his first budget."

Obama repeatedly echoed in his correspondence the longstanding lament of federal workers -- that the Bush administration starved their agencies of staff and money to the point where they could not do their jobs.

In his letter to Labor Department employees, Obama said Bush appointees had thwarted the agency's mission of keeping workers safe, especially in mines. "Our mine safety program will have the staffing . . . needed to get the job done," he wrote.

Obama lamented to EPA staffers that Americans' health and the planet have been "jeopardized outright" because of "inadequate funding" and "the failed leadership of the past eight years, despite the strong and ongoing commitment of the career individuals throughout this agency."

In his letter to Defense Department workers, Obama said he would examine flaws in pay and evaluation systems, but offered no high-cost initiatives.

Ruch said that if Obama cuts Pentagon spending, he will not have to work hard to help the other six agencies.

"These domestic discretionary programs are peanuts in the grand scale of things," Ruch said. "A small diversion from the Iraq conflict, if they were put into Interior, EPA or NASA, those agencies would be in their salad days. The National Park Service is laboring under a [maintenance] backlog that would be cured by a month and a half of Iraq expenditures."

While pledging money to some agencies, Obama also acknowledged that some cuts may be unavoidable.

"Because of the fiscal mess left behind by the current Administration, we will need to look carefully at all departments and programs," he wrote to HUD workers.

Gage said Obama would cut deeply into agencies he finds lacking, and the National Taxpayers Union says there is plenty of opportunity for savings. Congress last year refused to consider a 25 percent cut for 220 federal programs the government rated as ineffective, passing up a savings of $17 billion a year. Obama did not vote on the measure while he was a senator from Illinois.

His letter to HUD employees suggests a resurgence of the huge housing agency. Obama insisted that "HUD must be part of the solution" to the housing crisis and to keeping an estimated 5.4 million more families from losing homes in foreclosure. Several HUD employees cheered Obama's letter, saying they hoped one particular line foreshadowed the end of political appointees who didn't care or know much about the agency's work.


"I am committed to appointing a Secretary, Deputy and Assistant Secretaries who are committed to HUD's mission and capable of executing it," Obama wrote.

Obama also took aim at the Bush administration's focus on privatization, with contractors hired to perform government jobs -- often at princely sums. He complained that a $1.2 billion contract to provide TSA with human resources support unfairly blocked federal employees from competing to do that work.

"We plan specifically to look at work that is being contracted out to ensure that it is fiscally responsible and effective," he told HUD workers. "It is dishonest to claim real savings by reducing the number of HUD employees overseeing a program but increase the real cost of the program by transferring oversight to contracts. I pledge to reverse this poor management practice."

Gage said he is not expecting every civil servant's wish to be granted but he is hopeful.

"I think Obama's going to be fair, he's going to take seriously the missions of these agencies, and he's going to respect federal employees," Gage said. "After the last eight years, that's good enough for me."

If there was any doubt that Obama is a proponent of bigger government, these letters should reverse the doubts that Obama is n advocate of massive Socialism, not free enterprise!

WITHER GOEST THOU?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt

THERE IS NO GOOD REASON WHY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER SHOULD HAVE TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF THE BAIL-OUT OF THE AUTO WORKERS UNION IN Michigan!
The Democrats like "lying Harry Reid" would like you to think that the bail out is to save an industry, and in a way it is partially that, but the main reason Reid, Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats are pushing so hard for the billions for the Auto industry salvage. Is to save the Union that helped delivered the House, Senate and White House to the Democrats on Novemeber 4th.

If they get away with this rip-off. They will follow with a long list of bail outs for other industrial Unions that helped get the big prize last time we voted.

Not many people realize the exorbitant wages that Union Auto workers get to make a product that has built in obsolescence.

Is it right to tax the average worker making $28.50 to bailout workers whose labor cost is over $73 an hour?” Perry asked.

He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.

“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.

For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.

“So we’re looking at somewhere around a $29 per hour pay gap between the Big Three and the foreign transplants that are producing cars in the United States,” Perry, chairman of the economics department, told CNSNews.com. Source:CNS News.com

If you annualized Chrysler’s labor cost of $75.86 an hour per worker over a 35-hour week, for 50-weeks a year, the yearly compensation comes in at almost $133,000 per worker per year.

“The question is, where do you stop? Would this just be a down payment on a continuing bailout that they would need in the future?” he asked.

“Once we’re in for $25 billion, or $50 billion, it’s going to be a lot easier for them to ask for more money later,” If we want this particular industry to be competitive and survive for the next decade or more, they really have to get their labor costs in line with reality and the global marketplace.
It is time for the production to shift towards companies that have lower labor costs; that are more efficient and more productive. Even if that wasn’t production that took place in Michigan by United Auto Workers, it would still be production that would take place somewhere in the U.S. economy. So we would still have a large number of jobs tied to the auto industry.

Historically, one of the strengths of the U.S. economy has been its willingness to let inefficient firms fail and redeploy those resources – money, but also people – to new and potentially more successful businesses. I think that has always been one of the distinctive strengths of the U.S. economy. Write, call, email or telegraph your Congress person to vote no on this political pay off!

STANDARD BEARER DROPPED THE FLAG!!

Governor PALIN ,THE SUBJECT OF UNIMAGINABLE DERISION AND RIDICULE BY THE Left WING press, HAS FINALLY SPOKEN OUT ABOUT THE DEBACLE CALLED THE "BAIL-OUT' AS ENGINEERED BY Secretary PAULSON, a "Rockefeller "TYPE Republican(AKA RINO), DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO Wall Street.

What Palin is saying is the basis of the Free Enterprise System, that even the sitting President and the standard bearer for the Republican Party forgot was a plank in the 2008 Republican Platform!

The 2008 Republican platform document declared, “We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.” Seems pretty straight forward to me!

You may have noticed that McCain voted for the bailout,and he like Our Party, went down to defeat on November 4. By the way, most House Republicans voted against the bailout! They have been proven right by events. It would be nice if McCain and Bush would admit the error of their ways. But that is not a practice that is commonplace in conservative or liberal circles these days.

Paulson has not really admitted that he himself had made a mistake. Instead, he declared on Wednesday that “It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on October 3rd that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing troubled assets―our initial focus―would take time to implement and would not be sufficient given the severity of the problem.”

In other words, by the time that the bill had been signed, Paulson knew that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that he had proposed wouldn’t work. That is why he quickly changed the plan to use the taxpayer money to buy stakes in banks. Now, “new strategies” are being tried and developed, he says. And it is all being done, of course, at taxpayers expense.

When you cannot count on the Republican President and the nominee for President to support the basic principals of the free enterprise system, keep government out of the private sector as much as possible. How would one expect the public to vote for that party, when the other candidate offers a basket full of "goodies" that appeal to the slavish interests of the "gimme-gimme" generation?

As we enter what this blogger believes will be a radical shift to the Socialist way of government. We have no body to blame but those we elected before and tried to elect this time. God Help US!

No wonder there are rumors that Obama is considering McCain for a JOB in his Administration! He deserves one for throwing away the basis of Conservative Principles---Keeping government as Small as possible, and out of private business!