AND I THOUGHT WE ELECTED A PRESIDENT NOT A DICTATOR!

IN THE FIRST OF WHAT I BELIEVE WILL BE MANY EXECUTIVE ORDERS GIVEN BY THE 'MESSIA' IN THE OVAL OFFICE. The President is about to direct that those executives that received federal bail out money can only make $500,000 as salary.

Never before has a president interfered in the daily activities of our banks and financial institutions. Closing the banks is a Constitutional authority delegated to the government in times of crisis as did FDR in the 30's.
But dictating the salary of executives in the private sector are not within the control of the president, unless he thinks he is Our dictator!

The job of limiting the pay of executives of private corporations is the duty and responsibility of the Board of Directors and stock holders, not the POTUS!

The president is the leader of the free World, but not the leader of the Free Enterprise system that operates the machine that allows people like Obama to be in the "princely" places like the White House.

The "Obamaphiles" are not satisfied with just limiting the pay of CEOs. They also proposed the following:
The administration will also propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance.

* Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.

* Requiring nonbinding "say on pay" resolutions - that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.

- A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.

Top officials at companies that have received money from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program already face some compensation limits. But elected officials want to place more caps.

"I do know this: We can't just say, 'Please, please,'" said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has proposed that no employee of an institution that receives money under the $700 billion federal bailout can receive more than $400,000 in total compensation until it pays the money back.
The figure is equivalent to the salary of the president of the United States.

Predictably, the leak of this threatening news has brought an immediate negative reaction from the private sector.
"Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that such an intrusion into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector's recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermines performance-based pay". Source: MYWAY.com

Even some Republicans see no harm in setting the principals that if government gives you money they can attach rules of operation.
"In ordinary situations where the taxpayers' money is not involved, we shouldn't set executive pay," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
"But where you've got federal money involved, taxpayers' money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal."

This principal has been in operation under the cover of affirmative action for years. The rules of employment for companies that employ more than fifty employees have had quotas for all levels of management based upon numbers set by the federal government to ensure that se percentages of minorities and women occupy supervisor positions.
And Medicare has had rules for doctors and hospitals dictated to them for accepting Federal funds, but the "Change That has Come to America" appears to me to be reaching into the heart of the free enterprise system when the President dictates what the maximum can be for CEO's of our banks. What will be next?

Our Constitution details the powers of the President, and essentially they are a follows: The President is the chief executive of the United States, putting him at the head of the executive branch of the government, whose responsibility is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." To carry out this duty, he is given control of the four million employees of the federal executive branch, including one million active duty personnel in the military. Both the legislative and judicial branches maintain checks and balances on the powers of the President and vice versa.

Various executive and judicial branch appointments are made by Presidents. Up to 6,000 appointments may be made by an incoming President before he takes office and 8,000 more may be made while in office. Ambassadors, judges of the federal court system, members of the Cabinet, and other federal officers, are all appointed by the President with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, granted by a simple majority. Appointments made while the Senate is in recess are temporary and expire at the end of the next session of the Senate. He may also grant pardons and reprieves, as is often done just before the end of a presidential term.

In addition, while the President cannot directly introduce legislation, he can play an important role in shaping it, especially if the President's political party has a majority in one or both houses of Congress. If Congress passes a bill of which the President disapproves, he may veto it; the veto can be overridden only by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, making it substantially more difficult to enact the law.

Perhaps the most important of all presidential powers is command of the armed forces as commander-in-chief. The framers of the Constitution never intended that the president would reach into the private sector and limit the salaries of executives of business even if he uses the excuse that it is in the name of saving the economy!

TWO EVENTS THAT SHOULD BE FRONT PAGE NEWS BUT ARE ABSENT

while Obama MAKES THE ROUNDS OF MAJOR TELEVISION NETWORKS. Actually they come to the White House for his speeches, but you get the point. There are two disturbing events that occurred this week that should be in the minds of all Americans.

Today the Iranians launched a satellite into orbit using a three stage rocket that was constructed with the help of the Russians.
And Communist North Korea is preparing to test a long ranged rocket capable of reaching the United States!

The following are direct quotes from "The New Media. com"
"The launch of Omid (Hope), Iran's first home-made satellite into orbit early Tuesday, Feb. 3, is a breakthrough demonstrating the Islamic Republic has managed to develop long-range, three-stage, solid-fuel ballistic rockets capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Israel and Western officials have been playing down this fast-developing capability while proving helpless to hold back Iran's nuclear weapons program. Omid was launched by the Safir rocket, whereas a previous launching was boosted by a Russian rocket. DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report the new satellite is designed for tracking, research, telecommunications and carries digital measuring instruments. They stress that it is a feather in the hat for Iran's "Military Group" – the team of scientists and technicians working on its clandestine nuclear bomb program. They are clearly moving ahead undisturbed by UN sanctions or technical difficulties toward rapidly finishing work on nuclear warheads for their ballistic rockets. In weekend interviews, International Atomic Energy Agency director Muhammad ElBaradei contributed to the international effort to talk down Tehran's nuclear advances. He admitted Iran was in the process of constructing nuclear weapons despite his agency's monitoring efforts. But in his view it needed another two to five years to attain this objective.

And to emphasize the problem even more, Dave Eberhart of News Max is reporting that: "A panel of experts has concluded that time is dangerously running out for the U.S. to put in place a protective anti-missile umbrella. The biggest threat is Iran, which the panel forecasts will have the A-Bomb this year".

"North Korea is preparing to test fire a long range missile capable of striking the United States, according to media reports in South Korea and Japan this morning. The Yonhap News Agency in Seoul quoted South Korean officials who described satellite image showing a long cylindrical object being transported on a train through the North Korean countryside. The sinister object has been identified as a Taepodong-2, an intercontinental missile with a range of more than 4000 miles, capable of crossing the Pacific and striking targets in Hawaii or Alaska. It is impossible to confirm independently reports from North Korea, one of the world’s most isolated and hard-line dictatorships, where government of information is almost total. But the country is known to have an active missile program, as well as nuclear warheads – although crucially it probably does not have the technology to mount a nuclear device on a long range missile. The unnamed sources quoted by Yonhap said that any test launch was unlikely for at least a month or two. The train appeared to be heading from a missile factory in North Pyongan province in the country’s north-west to a newly constructed launch site on the west coast".

It seems to me that while President Obama "fiddles" with his massive budget busting "stimulus" package, the rest of the "evil empire" is devoting their time, money and energy to prepare weapons that will surround the USA. When Iran, China, Russia and North Korea have the capability of killing tens of thousands of Americans in a Milli-second. They will not have to fire one missile if we are not properly prepared to target and destroy them with nuclear weapons that are targeting their cities.
It is called nuclear deterrence, and unfortunately we elected a President who believes in talk not military preparedness. He even is rumored to be considering calling a halt to the placement of a missile defense system in Poland because of the sabre rattling of the Russians.

While they fight in Congress how to spend money we do not have. The Russians are visiting Cuba and Venezuela with a small fleet of war ships. For all I know they are making agreements with these countries to establish naval bases in our hemisphere in the near future!

Combining this possible threat with the dedicated radical Islamists who are dedicated to bringing terror and damage to US. This is a time to concentrate on spending money to defend ourselves, not spend a trillion dollars to guarantee that the Democrats can build a voter base of government dependents that will guarantee their power for decades to come!

OBAMA USES SAUL ALINSKYS THIRD PRINCIPLE

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

REACTING TO THE REPUBLICAN REJECTION (ENMASSE) TO the House version of OBAMA'S BUDGET SPENDING BILL. MASQUERADING AS A STIMULUS PACKAGE.
OBAMA HAD THIS TO SAY ON NBC'S MATT LAUER SHOW;"Mismanagement by the nation’s lending institutions was so extreme that the losses sustained by banks still cannot be calculated and more are likely to fail, President Barack Obama warned. In my opinion he left out the role of Barney Frank and his Committee!

In an interview airing Monday on NBC’s TODAY show, Obama said the nation’s banks were in “very vulnerable positions” because of the reckless risk-taking that led to the meltdown of the financial services sector late last year. The situation he inherited 13 days ago is so bad that “it is likely that the banks have not fully acknowledged all the losses that they’re going to experience,” Obama said in the interview, which was conducted Sunday at the White House.

Stressing that ordinary Americans’ deposits, which are insured by the federal government, would be safeguarded, the president said banks were “going to have to wring out some of these bad assets.”
He forgot his plan to take over all the bad loans by forming a government bank to hold the bad paper!

Inevitably, he told TODAY anchor Matt Lauer, “some banks won’t make it.”

The president’s message appeared to be a shot across the bow of Senate Republicans, who have objected to the $825 billion bailout of the financial system that was approved last week by the House. Leading Republican senators said they would oppose the bill unless there were major changes, echoing the concerns of their counterparts in the House, none of whom voted for the legislation.

This is classic Saul Alinsky! His primer for Radicals lists as number three of his principles: "A threat is more terrifying than the thing itself"! The "thing" in this instance is the threat of banks failing as they did in the Great Depression!

Once again OUR new President has shown me that he learned his lessons well during his formative years in the city of Chicago.
In Chicago the activists of is time called Mr. Alinsky the "jesus"
of community organization/ Source: Bio. of Jack Mendelson

And while Obama is giving scare tactics speeches to "beg" Americans to back his spending Bill. He has appeared on all major networks to try to scare the people into doing what most people are resisting, commit economic suicide! Congresswoman Sheila Jackson (D-Tex.)has proposed a bill that would increase the number of legal immigrants from 480,000 family visas to 960,000.

"Chain migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than one million a year since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, school overcrowding, and other impacts that reduce American's quality of life". Source:Numbers USA

H.R.264 (Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2009) - would double the number of family-based visas from 480,000 a year to 960,000 a year. In addition, this legislation would make a number of technical changes to family-based visas that would further chain migration. And in my opinion will contribute to deepening the economic drain on the U.S. Treasury, with the incumbent taxes that accompany the rapidly growing number of goods and services that new immigrants who are here legally are entitled to.

AMERICANS WAKE UP! WE HAVE A LEFTIST IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHO WANTS TO CREATE A BROADER BASE OF VOTERS WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR LIVELY HOOD, AND WILL SECURE THE "change" THAT OBAMA INTENDS TO MAKE. CONVERTING OUR GOVERNMENT TO SOCIALISM!!

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.

It appears to me that the United States Congress is concentrating on the economic slow down at the detriment of all other issues.

Conservatives outside of the "Beltway" wonder why the Congress and the President is avoiding the predictable crisis coming to the big three entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Our new president's avowed determination to confront the economic crisis has been significantly devoid of concern for entitlements.

Such issues as the Social Security payroll tax, which Conservatives would cut for several years from 12.4 percent to 8 percent since the punitive tax now suppresses job creation. Presently the "SS" tax is raising more revenue than Social Security is dispensing and will continue to do so until 2017. The surplus is invested in Treasury bonds. That amounts to lending it to the government, "which in turn," Cooper says, "spends it on everything except Social Security."

President Lyndon Johnson, to make the deficit numbers during the Vietnam War less scary, adopted the "unified budget," under which Social Security's surplus was mingled with general revenue, thereby reducing disguising, the deficit's size.
In typical political budgeting sleight of hand this pilfering of the Social Security tax funds to use in the general revenue expenditures, prevents the public from knowing, and Congress from being compelled to act on, facts about the entitlement programs' unfunded liabilities.

The end result will be promises to future beneficiaries that future taxpayers may not be willing to keep.That is because the public will sooner or later realize that the spending that Congress is doing now will be passed on to the younger generation in the form of IOUs!

More Americans should read the 188-page 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government -- the only government document that calculates what deficit and debt numbers would be if the government practiced, as businesses must, accrual accounting.

Under such accounting, future outlays to which beneficiaries are entitled by existing law are acknowledged as expenditures before they are paid. Were the Social Security surplus sequestered for accounting purposes, reflecting the truth that it is already obligated, and were there similar treatment of the other entitlement programs' liabilities, the deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 would have been $3 trillion rather than $454.8 billion. The report's numbers show that the true national debt is $56 trillion, not the widely reported $10 trillion.Source: U.S. Govt. reports

The report says that in 25 years the portion of the population 65 and older will increase from 12 percent to 20 percent, while the share of the population that is working and paying taxes will decrease from 60 percent to 55 percent. If Medicare spending continues to grow, as it has for four decades, more than 1 1/2 times as fast as the economy, the big three entitlements, which currently are 44 percent of all federal expenditures (excluding interest costs of the national debt), will be 65 percent by 2030. Under current law, 30 years from now government revenue will cover only half of anticipated expenditures.

For years, many conservatives advocated a "starve the beast" approach to limiting government. They supported any tax cut, of any size, at any time, for any purpose, assuming that, deprived of revenue, government spending would stop growing. But spending continued, and government borrowing encouraged government's growth by making big government cheap: People were given $1 worth of government but were charged less than that, the balance being shifted, through debt, to future generations. In 2003, Republicans fattened the beast with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which added almost $8 trillion in the present value of benefits scheduled, but unfunded, over the next 75 years.

Meanwhile Senator Carl Levin the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee believes that the present law preventing homosexuals from serving in the military should be overturned. And President Obama agrees in principal, as he said "the only qualification for service should be the willingness(desire) to serve"!It appears the ability to read, write, hear properly, and perform the tasks needed to perform their military duties no longer are important to Liberals like Obama and Levin. Misfits and idiots are welcome into the army that these people believe should defend our liberty?


"Liberalism's signature achievement -- the welfare state's entitlement buffet -- will, unless radically reduced, starve government of resources needed for everything on liberalism's agenda for people not elderly. Conservatives want government limited, but not this way".
Source: George Will

THE FALSE LOGIC OF POLITICIANS AND PUNDITS

I know very little about the qualifications, and strengths of the new Republican National Party Chairman. The fact that he is a Black man impresses me or depresses me not one iota.
What does depress me, and give me pause to think where the Republican party has disappeared to is the fact that it seems important to many people that a Black man lead the RNC.

Wikapedia has this to say about the fifty year old Black man the Republicans have chosen to lead them out of the "dessert"!
"Michael Stephen Steele (born October 19, 1958)is an American elected official and chairman of the Republican National Committee, and is the first African-American to hold the position. Prior to this, Steele served as chairman of GOPAC and worked as a partner at the law firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf. He also served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 2003 to 2007.

Steele was the first African American to serve in a Maryland state-wide office and the first Republican lieutenant governor in the state. From 2003 to 2005, Steele and Lt. Gov. Jennette Bradley of Ohio were the highest-ranking elected African American Republicans in the United States.

His election resulted from his defeating five other candidates according to the Votmaster.com.
"Originally six people were competing for the job of RNC chairman, but one by one they dropped out. Chip "Barack the Magic Negro" Saltsman bit the dust Thursday. Then current chairman Mike Duncan quit after the third round when it became clear that he was dropping. Ken Blackwell (who is also black), dropped out next. Blackwell urged his supporters to vote for the other black candidate, Steele, with whom he has major ideological differences, rather than the white candidate, Katon Dawson, with whom he sees eye to eye on most issues. After the fifth ballot, Saul Anuzis tossed in the towel but did not endorse either of the remaining candidates, At that point the Republican state leaders had a choice between a very conservative white southerner, Katon Dawson, who only recently quit a whites-only club, and a conservative black man from Maryland. Probably many RNC members realized that if they picked Dawson, the headlines the next day would read: "Republicans Choose Racist over African American." They went with Steele, even though many of them think he is not conservative enough. Once again affirmative action raises it's ugly head!

The RNC could have considered the demographics of Obama's election if they really want a person that is in a group that helped elect Obama over McCain. Exit poles showed that 66% of those voters aged 18 to 29 voted for Obama, and only 32% of that generation voted for McCain. Rather than concentrate on race. Republicans must find a way to show the young voters that their future will be brighter if Republicans run a smaller government, not a mega-govt. like the Democrats propose, and all the baggage that comes with it. Devaluation of the dollar, hyper inflation and a possible severe Recession during their future years.

Continiuing to use Race as a tool in politics should be over now that a Black man sits in the Oval Office.
Predictably, the Press is full of quotes by pundits and there are talking heads on the television, making comments about why this man was picked. Too many feel it was because he is Black! I would hope that the Republican party has become color blind in the area of selection of whom they choose to lead their party. If not they are making a big mistake that could cause them to move into the area of extinction.

This quote from a Democrat Congressman is a perfect example of the quirky thinking going on in peoples heads since Obama was elected.
"Clearly Obama’s success contributed to Steele’s victory,” said former Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), who served two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Had Obama not won, I can’t imagine the Republicans would have elected an African-American chairman.”

"Obama’s historic presidency, the way in which he won and the scale of the crises he inherits have scrambled some of the underlying assumptions about American elections and politics and altered the laws of political logic". Perhaps the fact that Congressman Frost is only the second Jewish man or woman to be elected to Congress from Texas, has influenced his thinking. I would hope that both he and Steele were selected because they were thought by those who put them in the office that they now hold were the best candidates for their particular job, and race or religion had nothing to do with their selection. From what he says it appears not!

Blacks make up approximately 20% of the population in the USA, and when voting in a block as they did for Obama can be a significant influence on the election outcome.Before the election this was said by Jesse Jackson: "I am convinced… that the black vote is going to be not only a bigger vote than ever before, it is the swing vote.” Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., speaking on CNN

But to think that appointing a man of color is going to change a group of people who think that "whitey" is the main reason they are kept from succeeding in life. Is pure folly! And it is an insult to the Black man that people think because you chose a Black leader for your party the issues have changed.

The Democrat party has chosen the Socialist way to govern. Cradle to Grave entitlemrnt,and employment of the majority of Americans by the government is the way for the Democrat party.
Republicans used to be for free enterprise, and as little government as was needed to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, control the money supply and let the States decide how we should live. In plain English, as little government as possible to function and protect the public.

Lately the Republicans have become what I call "RINOS", Republicans in name only, as they tried to spend their way into power along side the Democrats. They were aided by president Bush, who failed to veto a spending Bill in the eight years he was in office.

The Republican Party’s immediate prospects for recruiting more black voters to punch a chad or touch a screen on behalf of its candidates seems remote at best these days. This seemingly glacial reality causes no end of dismay and hand wringing on the part of black Republicans. Jack E. White, who is black and writes for Time magazine, has declared that the Democrats “virtual monopoly on the black vote is bad for African Americans… a demeaning form of political serfdom.” One black conservative analyst, La Shawn Barber, recently attributed the sway that Democrats have over black voters to “years of damage caused by liberal ideology and misinformation pumped into the black community for the past 25 years.” Despite this, a super majority of Blacks voted for Obama not because of his Socialist platform, but I believe because he has Black skin.
There are some Conservative Blacks. Thomas Sowell, J.C. Watts and Walter Williams to mention just a few. They realize that the "cradle to grave" programs offered to Black people does not "set them free", but puts them in a state of perpetual bondage to the Democrats.
Lets get back to issues!!

MEMO TO OBAMA SPEECH WRITERS: REVIEW THE HISTORY!

Last week Our President gave an interview with Hisham Melhem of the Saudi-owned,Arab television network,Al-Arabiya satellite network.
He sent the message that he intended to change the negative attitude of the previous administration towards the Arab world, and expressed the desire to get back to the "good" relations the USA had 20 to 30 years ago. Specifically, he said: " "There's no reason why we can't restore that."

The speech was typical of one that Obama would give to his Obamaphiles that want peace at any price. But the speech was not one that took into account the historical facts of 29-30 years ago!

The Patriot Post has a piece written by Col. Oliver North that recounts the facts that President Obama ignored when he spoke to the Arabs of the World.
Excerpts from his article appear below, and show just how far from reality Obama and his handlers will go to confuse, obfuscate and twist facts to make their point. He intends to accept all Arab nations as partners in his World Government approach to "CHANGE"!

That is all except Afghanistan, where he plans to send a force of 30,000 soldiers into the "meat grinder" that the Russian full force of Arms failed to conquer in the days when the USA supported the Taliban.

OBAMA "talked about "communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest." He also responded to his interviewer in ways that denigrated his predecessors, by expressing his desire "to listen (and to) set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years."

During the interview, Mr. Obama also spoke wistfully of the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" and added, "There's no reason why we can't restore that."

Some will say it isn't fair to make our new commander in chief stick to the facts. That's the trouble with television interviews. They are on tape and stay around for years. If you are going to do them, it helps to know the facts. Let's see, 30 years ago -- 1979 -- the year that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran, the "Islamic Revolution" was proclaimed, the U.S. was first described as "the Great Satan," our embassy in Tehran, Iran, was sacked, and 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. That's probably not the kind of "respect" Mr. Obama had in mind.

How about 20 years ago -- 1989? While investigators still were combing the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi sent MiG-23s to attack a U.S. Navy carrier battle group in the Mediterranean Sea. Final score: U.S. Navy 2, Libya 0. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie. Islamic radicals murdered the president of Lebanon, and Saddam Hussein issued mobilization orders in preparation for invading Kuwait the following August. Some "partnership."Source: Patriot Post

It appears to me that the truth is not one of the things that comes easy to this new President. The most glaring example of the Semantics gymnastics used by Obama is his constant reference to the "fact" that this recession we are in, is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
The following is a portion of the Wikapedia posting on Recessions.
"According to economists, since 1854, the U.S. has encountered 32 cycles of expansions and contractions, with an average of 17 months of contraction and 38 months of expansion.However, since 1980 there have been only eight periods of negative economic growth over one fiscal quarter or more, and four periods considered recessions:

January-July 1980 and July 1981-November 1982: 2 years total
July 1990-March 1991: 8 months
March 2001-November 2001: 8 months
December 2007-January 2009: 13 months and counting*
* Note that this latest recession doesn't meet the traditional two quarter drop in GDP, yet it is considered a recession by the NBER.

From 1991 to 2000, the U.S. experienced 37 quarters of economic expansion, the longest period of expansion on record.[28]

The facts as offered by history show that he is distorting the truth to sell his $900 billion behemoth of a program, that I believe will not stimulate the economy. All it will do is devalue the dollar and bring hyper-inflation down the road!

"The American people deserve to know that the president's call for a compromise has been completely ignored by House Democrats who would use a time of national economic crisis to fund their big government priorities under the guise of stimulating the economy. ... The Democrat bill won't stimulate anything but more government and more debt." --Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

One other item of interest is the attempt by Obama to blame the "RICH" Capitalists in Washington for the economic mess we are experiencing. He talks about the obscene bonuses of Wall Street, and they are too high, but he ignores the fact that the government caused the housing bubble to grow to such horrendous proportions by the actions of Barney Frank and his committee, and the demands on the "Fannies and Freddies"to loan to people who could not and would not be able to pay the mortgage.

Since 1995, house prices have risen by more than 70 percent after adjusting for inflation. This has created $8 trillion in housing bubble wealth. The run-up in house prices has led to a predictable oversupply of housing; an oversupply far beyond anything the country has ever experienced, with the inventory of unsold new homes 70 percent above its previous record and the number of vacant ownership units nearly twice the previous peak.

In other words, this isn't just about those "subprime" mortgages, but rather those sorts of bad loans are a consequence of grossly exaggerated home prices. The cost of housing has 'forced' lenders to lower their standards for giving out loans all the way to zero down-payment so that people can afford to keep buying them.

Simplified, the loans are but one part of the total issue that is sending the economy downward. The fundamental issue, as the in-depth analysis demonstrates, is absolutely unsustainable in the long term, and does not appear sustainable even in the immediate term. This bubble has given way to its own superficiality by virtue of the fact that high home prices have led to a huge record number of unsold homes, thereby causing prices for homes in general to decline. The declines, as we are seeing on Wall Street now, are already leading to widespread defaults and foreclosures since they are resulting in homeowners finding themselves with negative equity.
These defaults and foreclosures, in turn, are causing a further affect on prices, causing a vicious cycle of downturn. The downturn is affecting corporate profits and inflated stock values. These affects lead to widespread consequences throughout the economy. And we are already seeing spillover affects, with consumer spending (responsible for 60% of the gross domestic product) in considerable decline and the unemployment rate rising. Source:CEPR Report
But Obama and his supporters like George Soros, wants to socialize the USA, so he talks about the evils of Wall Street!

AND THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE PATRIOTIC

If you had any doubts about many of the Congressional Democrats opinion of OUR brave and dedicated military service members. This article from the New Media Journal should put to rest any doubts you had.

The greatest sacrifice a man/women can make is to lay down his life for another, has been an axiom in this GREAT Country for centuries.
But apparently many of the members, at least a majority, feel their sacrifice is not worth acknowledgement!

"House Democrats blocked a measure that would have required new roads, bridges and schools funded by the $825 billion economic stimulus to be named after US armed forces members killed in action. Democrats on the House Rules Committee nixed the amendment Tuesday in a party-line 9-3 vote. The same vote also took down four other Republican amendments that would have funded job training for veterans, stopping all the measures from being considered Wednesday by the full House for inclusion in the stimulus. "For whatever reason, it was not to their liking," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan Republican, sponsor of the amendment that would have honored fallen troops. He said Republicans did not publicize the amendment because they did not want to appear to be "grandstanding" on the issue. But he said he was disappointed that it was so roundly rejected. Democrats on the committee were not philosophically opposed to honoring fallen troops but concerned about the amendment's vague language, which placed the naming requirement on all "new infrastructure" and could have resulted in the naming of sewer lines and water treatment plants, said an aide close to the committee and familiar with the internal debate. The aide, who stressed the amendment was considered as part of a package of amendments, did not want to be quoted discussing House members' deliberative process. Several Democrats on the committee declined interview requests."

I have listed below the names of the committee members. I hope all who read this will write, telegram or email their disgust in the dastardly sleight they did to Our fallen Warriors!
DEMOCRATS
Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), Chairman
James McGovern (Mass.)
Alcee Hastings (Fla.)
Doris Matsui (Calif.)
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Peter Welch (Vt.)
Ed Perlmutter (Colo.)
Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Jared Polis (Colo.)
REPUBLICANS
David Dreier (Calif.), Ranking Member
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Pete Sessions (Texas)
Virginia Foxx (N.C.)

WHILE WE FIGHT OVER "STIMULUS" RUSSIA STAKES CLAIM TO NORTH POLE!

The present financial debacle in Washington is taking more time to resolve than President Obama had planned. He entered the Oval Office and began signing executive orders that fulfilled campaign promises like the closing of Gitmo in one year.

But while the President is making his way through his plan to direct OUR free enterprise system into a Socialist, government controlled, government employed country. The Russians are doing more than rattling their scimitars!

The latest move of the Putin/Medvedev coalition in Moscow is the move to claim the Arctic as their property.

The government-controlled newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta is preparing Russians for the notion that "the fight for the Arctic will be the initial spark for a new division of the world." Artur Chilingarov, a member of the Russia parliament and Moscow's chief ideologue when it comes to conquering the Arctic, puts it this way: "We are not prepared to give our Arctic to anyone."

Chilingarov -- who in August 2007 used a remote-controlled submarine arm to plant a Russian flag made of titanium on the ocean floor at the North Pole at a depth of 4,261 meters (13,976 feet) -- wants to "present evidence to the United Nations within one year" that the North Pole belongs to the Russians. His threat to those in the West who disagree is simple: "If these rights are not recognized, Russia will withdraw from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."

Alexander Dugin, a political scientist and well-known intellectual backer of Moscow's neo-imperial claims to a Greater Russia, becomes so caught up in nationalist fervor that he loses his grasp on biological realities: "The purpose of our being lies in the expansion of our space. The shelf belongs to us. Polar bears live there, Russian polar bears. And penguins live there, Russian penguins."

Although the Arctic may be somewhat lacking in penguins, Russia's frozen north does contain vast mineral resources. Arctic Russia is already responsible for 11 percent of the country's gross domestic product and 22 percent of its export earnings.

The intended expansion of Russia's northern border by at least 150 miles (241 kilometers) and 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles), an area three times the size of Germany, promises to yield immense natural resource earnings.

It was precisely these riches that Russian Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Ecology Sergei Donskoy discussed at the Arctic Frontiers conference in the northern Norwegian city of Tromsø, where several hundred scientists, politicians and economic experts came together last week.

"We hope to find reserves of oil and gas corresponding to about 20 percent of Russian reserves," Donskoy said, outlining Russia's plans for the Arctic.

Under that plan, geologists will first study the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea. They expect to find at least two to four large oil or gas fields beneath the ocean floor in each of these two seas. According to Russia's environment minister, a petroleum engineer by trade, the fields contain an estimated 3.3 billion tons of oil and up to 5 billion cubic meters of gas.

If all goes according to plan, the first gas from the Arctic should begin flowing in 2013 or 2014, says Hervé Madeo, the deputy director of an energy consortium led by Russia's Gazprom that is developing the Shtokman field in the Barents Sea. Of the field, he says: "It is one of the largest in the world and unique in Russia."

Despite the financial crisis, preparations for drilling are moving forward at a fast pace. The project "has too much potential" for the global economic downturn to affect it much, Madeo claims.

Moscow has unveiled aggressive new plans to exploit the Arctic's natural resources.
The gas field could become the first major milestone in the development of the energy reserves of the north. This prompted Norwegian Rear Admiral Trond Grytting to comment sarcastically in his presentation at the Tromsø conference (entitled "From the Cold War to the Hot Arctic"): "We have lots of natural resources, military personnel and disputed borders in the Arctic. This has never been a recipe for peace".
While Obama talks about windmills and small electric cars to wean ourselves off crude oil. The Russians and Chinese are marching forward at a rapid pace to control the crude oil resources located in the Artic and Africa.
Will the American people stand still for the Obamaphiles , Eco -freaks and Goreites while they make millions on Carbon Credits scams. While at the same time those who Ronald Reagan called the "Axis of Evil" gobble up the available crude oil resources, and continue to pollute the atmosphere while advancing their hegemony?

I assume that when Medvedev said he hoped to make the USA a full partner with Russia, he intended that we should allow anything they want as long as they do not launch mislles against us.
On the day Obama was elected,the Russian "puppet president" had this to say: " "I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the US administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," Source: Der Spiegel.com

Then why did they have nuclear missles aimed at the USA all during the cold war?

In 1971 Saul Alinsky had this to say about CHANGE:
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away".[

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."Source: Wikapedia

FIRST THE LIES AND NOW COMES THE INTIMIDATION

The Obama administration has shown in the nine days that they have taken over power that they intended to use half truths, lies and intimidation to accomplish their Socialist Change for America.
First they tried to pass the "stimulus package" off as a way of quick starting the faltering economy, when what they were proposing in their over 850 billion dollar spending bill was PORK and goodies for such things as contraceptives, clearing forest pathways and millions for gay men "how to" guides.

The fact that most of the money would not funnel into the economy was not even mentioned until Conservative radio talk shows pointed this out to the unsuspecting public.

Now the President himself, after trying to sway the leadership of the Republican party to his way of thinking by inviting them to the White House, has decided to use intimidation and voter pressure to sway the Republicans to his side. This way when the plan fails, and it will, he can say the plan was approved by both parties. If the Republicans stand tall and appose this travesty of Federal spending. They will have capital in the 2010 Congressional elections to gain back some lost seats.

President said yesterday: "Pushing back against the unanimous House Republican vote against President Obama’s stimulus plan, the White House plans to release state-by-state job figures “so we can put a number on what folks voted for an against,” an administration aide said.
“It’s clear the Republicans who voted against the stimulus represent constituents who will be stunned to learn their member of Congress voted against [saving or] creating 4 million jobs,” the aide said.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the lawmakers will have to answer to their constituents.

“I do believe that there will be people in districts all over the country that will wonder why, when there’s a good bill to get the economy moving again, why we still seem to be playing political gotcha," Gibbs said.

And a Democratic official added: “We will run campaigns in their districts.”

And later today, MoveOn, Americans United for Change, AFSCME and SEIU will be announcing a new ad campaign targeting moderate Republican senators who might support the stimulus — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Charles Grassley of Iowa. Source: Ploitico.com

If a Republican president announced he would do this the Media would scream that he was interfering with States rights and add it to the list of reasons why they think he should be impeached, I believe!

Another example of the untruths in Obama's campaign toward Changing the USA is the promise that if elected he would stop the influence of powerful lobbyists.

"President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."

So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

Obama aides did not challenge the the list of lobbyists appointed to administration jobs, but they stressed that former lobbyists comprise a fraction of the more than 8,000 employees who will be hired by the new administration. And they pointed out that before Obama made his campaign-trail promise, he issued a more complete - and more nuanced - policy on former lobbyists.

Formalized in a recent presidential executive order, it forbids executive branch employees from working in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.

Yet in the past few days, a number of exceptions have been granted, with the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window.

Here is a list of former lobbyists who now work within the Obama administration. You be the judge if Obama lied!

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

And Obama is not alone in his quest to interject the Federal government into all forms of what are considered the Private Sector. The machine that runs the economy.
First they lie about this being the worst recession since the 1930s, in fact we have had at least two recessions greater than this since the 30s. But never mind the details. The liberal economists who have lined up behind Obama's Plan have this to say:"Among those who say government needs to spend more, not less, there’s a consensus figure for exactly how much more: $400 billion over two years, for a total package of about $1.2 trillion.

“The stimulus does not need to be timely, targeted and temporary,” argues Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect. “It needs to be adequate to do the job.” He runs some quick back of the envelope math. “Eight hundred and twenty billion is about 2.5% of GDP. But the economy is sinking at the rate of five to six percent. So they may find out they have to come back and ask for more.”

Kuttner and his economic allies reject the idea that enormous deficit spending is an immoral passing of the buck to the next generation. “This is not about morality, it’s about economics,” he says. Kuttner argues that even worse than government debt is an economy in which housing is unaffordable, jobs are scarce and college is a receding dream for many Americans. “What we leave to our children will depend largely on whether we slide into a depression or not.” My comment is if you keep printing money to promote this Socialist program. The net result will be the devaluation of the dollar even more than it is presently. With devalueation comes hyper inflation, and lest we forget this happened in Germany after WWI when the 1 Mark note was raised to one thousand marks, and Germans needed the equivalent of a wheel barrel full of money to buy a loaf a bread!

Is this the Change we can believe in?

WHILE OBAMA PLANS TALKS, IRAN IS BUILDING NUKES!

THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT HAS YET TO SAY THAT A WAR EXISTS BETWEEN RADICAL ISLAMISTS AND THE USA.
The actions during the first few days of his Presidency has given me the opinion that He and his minions believe we are back in a pre-911 situation. But while he plays the political ostrich the latest news on line from the Jerusalem Post, alleges that Iran will have a nuclear device by the end of this year!

"Iran will most likely have produced enough enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb by the end of 2009, according to a paper released Tuesday by Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He clarified, however that before the uranium could be used for a nuclear weapon, it would have to be further enriched.
Iran's nuclear power plant in Bushehr, southwest of Teheran.

Fitzpatrick said that this reality brings up "the question of whether military action is needed in the absence of progress in diplomacy."

The London-based institutes's report, titled "The Adelphi Paper" assessed that the Iranian nuclear threat "can only be solved if Iran makes a strategic decision not to seek a nuclear weapons capability." My opinion,for what it is worth, is to take out the nuclear production plants as Israel did in Syria before they developed the bomb! Talk is not a weapon against an enemy who has dedicated itself to your elimination!

"Based on Iran's past diplomacy, it can be expected to neither accept nor reject proposed restrictions, but rather to shunt them aside through non-responsive counter-proposals and endless negotiation and filibuster," Fitzpatrick surmised.

To make things even worse apparently H. Clinton's new job as Secretary of State is to make the rest of the World love US. In her interview recently she revealed that "other" countries are pleased that we are going to do things for them. I thought her job was to do things for the USA?

"She(Clinton) said the administration is undertaking a wide-ranging and comprehensive survey of US policy options toward Iran.

"There is just a lot that we are considering that I'm not prepared to discuss," she added.

More broadly, Clinton said her initial round of telephone calls with world leaders has yielded positive signs.

"There's a great exhalation of breath going on around the world as people express their appreciation for the new direction that's being set and the team that's [been] put together by the president," she said.

"In areas of the world that have felt either overlooked or not receiving appropriate attention to the problems they are experiencing, there's a welcoming of the engagement that we are promising," she said.

"It's not any kind of repudiation or indictment of the past eight years so much as an excitement and an acceptance of how we are going to be doing business. The American people are holding their collective breath to see what the Change Obama promised will bring to the USA in areas of National Security, economy and freedoms!

And from Der Spiegel there is this analysis of another way that President Obama is trying to "pull the wool over" the American public's eyes about his poorly named "stimulus" package.
"US President Barack Obama has said this week he wants to fight climate change, making the kind of statements the rest of the world has been waiting to hear for a long time. He's dressing his proposals up as an economic stimulus package, but can he drum up enough US support for a deal in Copenhagen later this year? By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Washington more... italics are mine for serious attention!
"Obama elegantly intertwines the economic crisis with the battle to save the environment. His advisers have already alluded to this in the title to the address: "Jobs, Energy Independence, Climate Change." The signal is clear: Obama plans to launch a new approach to climate protection.

"According to Obama's plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will once again review whether the state of California is permitted to introduce stricter emission controls, which call for a 30 percent reduction in vehicle pollution emissions by 2016 and which 18 states had intended to follow. The plan goes far beyond that envisioned by a federal law passed in 2007. But, under the presidency of George W. Bush, the EPA blocked the more stringent standards, reasoning that it would be better to wage the battle against CO2 emissions at the national, rather than the state level".Source: Der Spiegel

Just one more example of the duplicity of the Democrats in Washington. After it was revealed that "queen" Pelosi had tried to insert millions of dollars into he stimulus package for contraceptives. She had the gaul to refer to having babies was a drain on State resources! God help us!WE appear to have a sleight of hand in the Oval Office!

WILL AMERICA LOSE ALL IT'S CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

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

If the signals from the Obama administration are correct. President Obama is seriously considering repealing the exemption that Catholic Hospitals,that treat medicaid and Medicare patients, have to do abortions on demand.If this abomination comes to be, the Catholic Bishops of the USA have threatened to close all the Catholic hospitals. This would reduce the valuable available beds and medical services that these CATHOLIC HOSPITALS PRESENTLY PROVIDE!

As many as 1 in 5 Americans, regardless of religion, race, age, or ability to pay, receive health care from Catholic caregivers. More than 15 million emergency-room visits and 84 million outpatient visits occur in Catholic hospitals in a given year. Source:NRO

EWTN interviewed noted Jurist Judge Bork about this important issue. Following is an excerpt from that interview:

Judge Bork was unsure about whether the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold such a right. He predicted the decision would rest with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in some cases sides with liberals and at other times with “originalists,” those who profess to hold a more tradition-minded interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

“It depends upon Anthony Kennedy,” Judge Bork told CNS. “Now, it’s a funny situation in which the moral life of a nation is in effect decided by one judge, because you have four solid liberal votes, four solid originalist votes, and one vote you can’t predict too accurately in advance.”

Though Justice Kennedy is a Catholic, he sided with the majority who upheld the pro-abortion rights Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Judge Bork said that a decision involving the freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions would split by a 5-4 vote.

“But I don’t know which way,” he added.

The Cybercast News interview with the jurist also touched upon the place of religion in public life.

“I don’t think the disputants talk much about God anymore,” Judge Bork commented. “That’s one of the things that I think is regrettable--and I know liberals have said the same thing, it is not a conservative position particularly--but it is regrettable that religion has dropped out of our public discourse. I think it impoverishes it and makes it more violent.”

He explained that he believed this violence was not armed conflict, but rather “violent language and propaganda.”

Judge Bork said he also thought that America is “now going down a path towards kind of a happy-go-lucky nihilism.”

“A lot of people are nihilists,” he continued. “They don’t think about religion. They don’t think about ultimate questions. They go along. They worry about consumer goods, comfort, and so forth.

“As a matter of fact, the abortion question is largely a question about convenience. If you look at the polls about why people have abortions, 90 percent of it has nothing to do with medical conditions. It’s convenience. And that’s I think an example of the secularization of an issue that ought to have a religious dimension.”

When asked whether a nihilistic society can remain “happy-go-lucky” for long, Judge Bork replied:

“I don’t know. I guess we are going to find out.” I believe this is the greatest threat to the freedoms of the USA since the attack on New York twin Towers! The hospital system is already over burdened by patients who use the emergency room as their source of medical care. Law prevents emergency rooms from denying service to the needy because of lack of money, but the right of a religious belief to be exercised in their owned hospitals would be a blow to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights!

And one of the unintended consequences of the 15 million babies that have been killed since Roe/Wade is the fact that as those dead babies could have been wage earners and taxpayers by now.The number of people contributing to the pool of taxpayers who support the Social Security program and other government entitlements has decreased from 3 workers for every one on Federal assistance to a ratio of nearly 1 to 1. What comes after this is the possibility that euthanasia for aged people will be approved to winnow down those who no longer contribute to the welfare of the State!

And as a postscript to this travesty it is being reported that our new President has called to quasi apologize to the Arabs for our Countries past mistakes. Has he forgotten that it was Arabs that started this WAR by destroying the Twin Towers.
The following is an excerpt from his telephone conversation that I believe is a travesty!
"President Obama said his administration will offer a hand of friendship to the Muslim world.
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,'' Obama said in an interview with the Al-Arabiya satellite television network. ''We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.'' Source:CNN Wire

NEW UN DELEGATE USES DOUBLE SPEAK!

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NEWLY APPOINTED DELEGATE TO THE UNITED NATIONS HAD THIS TO SAY TO THE PRESS AFTER HER FIRST MEETING WITH THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL.
"Susan Rice says the new administration led by US President Barack Obama will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran.

"She warned, however, of further action unless Tehran meets UN Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment as a prelude to talks on its nuclear program".

Rice spoke to reporters shortly after meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on her first day on the job Monday.

She said the US plan for "vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy" with Iran "must go hand in hand" with a firm message from the US and international community that Iran must meet it UN Security Council obligations.

Iran's "continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," she added.

What I would like to know is how long will Obama use the useless and effete UN that has been proven to be a bloated bureaucracy with veto control by Leftist Countries, as a conduit to get Iran to stop it's production of nuclear weapons?

The experts who have insight into the Iranian nuclear program have already said that Iran will have enough nuclear material for two nuclear bombs within two years. This does not leave a lot of time to negotiate(jaw-jaw-jaw)with the Country led by a maniac who has said he wants to eliminate Israel and do serious damage to the USA!

Ms. Rice is a Brookings Institute fellow and an article that she was involved in writing with Connie Graft and Janet Lewis entitled "Poverty and Civil WAR" gives a glimpse of how this new delegate thinks.In my opinion she is more of an internationalist than OUR delegate should be!

The conclusion of the article written in December of 2006 follows:" Finally, in Iraq, civil conflict is intensifying and devolving into full-scale civil war. Upon leaving the post of commander of the Multinational Corps in Iraq in late 2006, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli said that finding jobs for "angry young men" and taking them "off the street" was "absolutely critical to...lowering the level of violence" and "just as important as growing the size of their army."8 To date, however, relatively little attention has been devoted to the economic drivers of this conflict. No doubt, the civil conflict in Iraq is rooted substantially in sectarian differences that were exacerbated by Saddam's tyranny. It is stoked by foreign jihadists, meddling neighbors and by resentment of the U.S. occupation. Yet, roughly 50 percent of Iraqis were unemployed in 2005 and real per capita GNI stands at only a fraction of what it was in the 1980s. Deteriorating economic conditions have almost certainly contributed in some measure to the rising violence in Iraq.

These and other cases of civil conflict may each in isolation offer policymakers some useful insights. Yet, viewed together, they beg an overarching question: is there a significant and demonstrable link between income poverty and the risk that a country will slide into civil war? Could U.S. foreign policy benefit from greater emphasis on promoting economic growth and alleviating poverty? The answers to these questions bear directly on several current challenges to U.S. national security from the Middle East to South Asia and Africa.bold letters added by me for emphasis!

In her appointment we have one more example of what I believe Obama has in mind when he says CHANGE! I believe that he is man who believes in One World and thinks that redistribution of wealth will include sending our tax dollars to Third World Countries. And by the way the Stimulus package monies that is being given to banks has no restrictions on to whom they lend.

IT IS OFFICIAL, WELFARE STATE IS HERE TO STAY

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

If you believe the following quote that a previous member of the Reagan administration has written for Breitbart.com. The only option we Conservatives have is to accept the FACT that Socialism is here, and it is moving in like a mother-in-law who never intends to leave.
How this liberal mind was a part of Ronald Reagan's administration is beyond my comprehension. In my opinion, the best president in my life tried to stop the growth of BIG government, not grow it like Obama has begun with his trillion dollar "stimulus".

Mr. Bartlett said: "I think conservatives would better spend their diminished political capital figuring out how to finance the welfare state at the least cost to the economy and individual liberty, rather than fighting a losing battle to slash popular spending programs. But this will require them to accept the necessity of higher revenues.
It is simply unrealistic to think that tax cuts will continue to be a viable political strategy when the budget deficit exceeds $1 trillion, as it will this year. Nor is it realistic to think that taxes can be kept at 19 percent of GDP when spending is projected to grow by about 50 percent of GDP over the next generation, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office. And that’s without any new spending programs being enacted.

If conservatives refuse to participate in the debate over how revenues will be raised, then liberals will do it on their own, which will likely give us much higher tax rates and a tax system that is more harmful to growth than necessary to fund the government. Instead of opposing any tax hike, I think it makes more sense for conservatives to figure out how best to raise the additional revenue that will be raised in any event.

In the end, the welfare state is not going away, and it will be paid for one way or another. The sooner conservatives accept that fact, the sooner they will regain political power.

Bruce Bartlett worked in the Reagan White House and at the Treasury Department under President George H.W. Bush.Source: Breitbart.com

Thank the Good Lord this man is just another columnist, not a decision maker for the Conservatives left in the Republican party.
If this idiot was a leader of troops he would surrender every time the enemy surrounded him, unlike my hero Chesty Puller of the US Marine corps, who once said" we are surrounded, I have them right where I want them"! He was no quitter and I am not as I hope most Conservatives are not.

Socialism has been tried all over the world and whenever it has been adopted the quality of life has been reduced to the state where the governing class live well and the rest of the poor "slobs" who take what scraps they can get from their "welfare State".The only thing Socialism does is change those who work hard to be a success to welfare providers for those who refuse to make the effort, because they depend on the state for "cradle to grave" care!

Russia, China, Great Britain and Germany to mention just a few Countries that have shifted their government to Socialism all have struggled with it. Most have swung away from total Socialism because it just doesn't work long. People get tired of waiting six months to a year for elective surgery, and that is the prime reason why so many Canadians come to the USA to seek medical care. If you do not believe me just check the roles of patients at places like the Mayo Clinic.

My suggestion to Mr. Bartlett and the Republicans in the USA congress is to stop the spending, and let the free enterprise system level itself. Continuing to spend "printed, worthless " money to artificially pump into circulation will do nothing but devalue the dollar even more than it is now. The plan Obama and his minions have is to grow government and those dependent upon the welfare state that he and Liberals like him desire. Do not be confused with the smooth talking rhetoric of the new President. He is choosing all his actions with FDR in mind. FDR started the welfare State via the NRA and social security. Obama will need a war like FDR did to salvage him if he continues to spend money like a drunken sailor. And it sounds like Afghanistan may be the place it starts. If you believe what he and vice-president Biden have said about increasing troops in Afghanistan.

WE cannot spend ourselves out of the Recession, especially with all the PORK that is included, especially monies for contraceptives and money for ACORN!

THE STIMULUS PACKAGE IS NOTHING BUT MORE PORK AND WELFARE

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

AMID ALL THE RHETORIC OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS OBAMAPHILES. There is a certain dishonesty being perpetrated on the American public, who if this vast spending bill is passed, will add at least $6700 in tax dept to every American household, and since every house hold does not pay taxes. The number for taxpayers would be even larger!
From the original estimate of $770 billion. The cost is now estimated at $850 billion, and "queen" Pelosi and Obama have told us that it might grow.

All this money is supposed to help rid the USA of the deep recession we are sinking into, but in fact it will just post pone for an indeterminate number of years the very deep recession with run away inflation that must following such massive spending by the Federal government with "printed but un-earned money.

Fort Knox has only 187 billion dollars in gold reserve. At one time in our history. In the not so distant past the dollar was backed by a dollar in gold in the vaults of Fort Knox. Not so today, we have an ever diminishing valued dollar that buys less and less each year.

Despite this fact President Obama and is minions plan to spend the following with a large portion of the stimulus package. "The grocery list includes $87 billion for aid to states for covering Medicaid costs; $79 billion to local school districts and public colleges; an additional $41 billion in aid to impoverished and disabled students, school construction, modernization and new technology; $54 billion in renewable energy incentives; $82 billion in unemployment benefits, retraining and insurance; $20 billion extra for food stamps; and $90 billion in infrastructure spending. And don't forget that the money called for here is above and beyond what all these programs already receive in the annual federal budget. Didn't Bill Clinton tell us 13 years ago that the era of Big Government was over? Source: The Patriot Post