THERE ARE LIARS, DAMN LIARS AND THEN YOU HAVE POLLSTERS!!

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

Reagan was correct when he said "if it stops moving, subsidize it". GM and Chrysler were each subsidized and now they are owned by the Government. Obama and his mouthpiece Gibbs say they are owned by the "public'-us taxpayers. But has anyone asked you what you think the deal should be with the bloated UAW? Or have they asked, or even taken a poll to determine if the American public will by enough of the "pregnant roller skates" that GM is going to make?

Of course they have not and will not, because they do not want to know what you and I want. They(Obama and his merry band of thieves) think the average American is too uneducated, and generally ignorant of what is good for us, to make trhat decision. So they will make it and many more decisions for us!

Despite the fact that any one who has two brain cells to rub together realizes that Obama is rapidly taking control of one industry after another. First the Banks, then the Mortgage Houses and now Detroit auto makers Chrysler and General Motors. Waiting in the wing is the power grab of the best Medical system of the World.
Despite this march toward Socialism the polls still show the President has an over 60% approval rating.

I have live long enough to realize that pollsters cannot be trusted. Take the Truman, Dewy election. The polls showed Dewey winning by a landslide even up to the day before the election. Truman won!

Kerry vs Bush had Kerry as a sure winner. Bush won! I could go on, but statistics would only cause you to stop reading this blog.

Suffice it to say that their is a disconnect in the polls that show Obama with a favorable rating as high as 65% when the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of American voters say the nation is moving down the wrong track. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say America is heading in the right direction.

Both numbers are largely unchanged from a week ago. But the number of voters who say the country is heading in the right direction is up 10 points from the week Barack Obama was inaugurated as president in January and up 16 points from the first week in November when he was elected.

The percentage of women who see the country as moving in the right direction slipped from 41% last week to 38% this week. Fifty-four percent (54%) of women say the country is heading down the wrong track. Men remained more steady this week, with 36%who responded right direction and 59% who said wrong track. Among African-American voters, who have been the most optimistic demographic since the election, 61% say America is heading in the right direction while 33% say the opposite. Last week, black voters answered right direction by a 70% to 18% margin. White voters showed no change this week, with a third (33%) saying the country is headed in the right direction and 61% who believe the opposite. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of all other voters answered right direction this week, down from 34% in the last poll, while 62% said wrong track. Source: Heritage Foundation

We all realize that Obama has the Main Stream Media in his pocket, they might as well be called his propaganda arm!
The way his "people" strong armed the bond holders in the Chrysler "deal" is illustrated of the power of persuasion that the President has in his control.
But to be more direct to the point of poll results. It all depends on the sample group. A poll taken in a minority area will get results far different than one taken in a suburb of Salt Lake City. Numbers can be obtained that are predetermined before the poll is taken, and there is just false reporting.

It is all conjecture on my part, but I have the feeling that many people who voted for Obama have buyers remorse when they see that his promise of taxing only the so called RICH has turned out to be an untruth! And the taxes will keep on coming to pay for his grand march toward CHANGE!

THE HYPOCRISY OF CO2 EMISSIONS TREATY

The taxpayers have been paying for Congressional "junkets" for decades. The Hypocrisy of these foreign trips is that they are said to be fact finding missions, when in reality most are disguised vacations for both Republicans and Democrats depending which party holds power at the time.
While the president was spending more than a million dollars of the taxpayers money flying Air force one and two other jumbo jets to Las Vegas and Los Angeles to raise money for Harry Reid and the Democrat party. "QUEEN" Pelosi was in Communist China talking up the emissions control line.
What she thinks she will accomplish talking to groups of school children as she did is purely speculative. I think she just wanted to visit China and see the sites, and is using the excuse that she is promoting the idea of reducing carbon emissions.

The Associated Press is reporting that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Beijing on Thursday to cooperate on climate change, calling a safe environment a basic human right.

Only she was not talking to the Country's leaders. She was speaking at Beijing elite Tsinghua University, Pelosi continued the theme of her five-day China trip,that combating global warming represented a new challenge that both governments must tackle jointly.
Students have very little to say about government decisions as Tienanmen Square proved!

"We are all in this together," Pelosi told an audience of about 200 students and faculty who applauded enthusiastically throughout the 45-minute session. "The impact of climate change is a tremendous risk to the security and well-being of our countries." She might as well been talking to Kindergarten children, because she must know that China has been exempt from any Carbon emission regulations that are mandated by the International body that will draw up a new Carbon Emission treaty in Germany this summer!

CNS NEWS is reporting that the new United Nation's global warming treaty is expected to give some of the world's worst polluters--such as the communist People's Republic of China--and some of the world's wealthiest nations--such as the oil-rich United Arab Emirates--a license to continue freely pumping carbon into the atmosphere while restricting the emissions of the United States.

The United States will be joining other countries next month in attending “climate talks” in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for the United Nations' Conference of the Parties 15 (COP15) climate-change summit that will take place in Copenhagen in December. At the meeting, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will oversee the drafting of an international treaty that will allow some of the world’s wealthiest nations and worst polluters to avoid the legally binding regulations on carbon emissions and greenhouse gases expected in the document. Countries categorized by the United Nations as Annex 1 Parties, including the United States and much of the industrialized world, are considered developed nations that will not be harmed by controlling carbon emissions.

Non-annex I Parties, on the other hand, are countries considered to be “developing” or have “economies in transition.” These Non-annex 1 countries such as China – which emits the most carbon emissions of any country in the world, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Top 20 Countries for CO2 Emissions--will be able “sign on” to the treaty but will not be legally bound by it. And some of the world’s wealthiest nations, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are on the Non-annex 1 Parties list.

So while Communist China is developing the capacity to drill for crude oil in Africa, and any other country that will allow them. We are trying to substitute a proven method of producing the energy that makes the wheels of the Free Enterprise system work, oil. Billions are being spent to develop wind turbines, solar panels and the poor substitute for gasoline, ethanol,to heat and air condition our homes and run the transportation industry. This tact will slowly but surely make the USA a third rate country. If Americans do not wake up to the canard that is being perpetrated upon us by those who stand to get rich on Carbon Credits, and those who want to see this country fail so Godless Communism can take the reigns of power.This Country will run out of oil and the wind turbines and solar power cannot run our airplanes much less run what industry we still have. We have not built a refinery for over 30 years, and the "tree huggers" have convinced Congress to deny drilling off shore, so get ready for an expensive winter just to heat your home!

Perhaps the prediction of John Adams is coming to fruition!
"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

IT MAY BE TIME TO ACT NOT TALK!!

THE REPORT FROM SOUTH Korea, THAT NORTH Korea HAS THREATENED TO CONSIDER ANY INTRUSION INTO IT'S "SEA SPACE", AS AN ACT OF WAR!
Should be a wake-up call for president Obama!
This came after they violated the UN negotiated agreement not to produce nuclear weapons. They did it by setting of a nuclear device yesterday and followed with a barrage of five missiles that were intended to intimidate South Korea.North Korea wants to move the "Treaty" Line between North and South Korea further South.

An article by Hyung-Jin Kim includes this quote from North Korean leaders. "North Korea threatened military action Wednesday against U.S. and South Korean warships plying the waters near the Korea's' disputed maritime border, raising the specter of a naval clash just days after the regime's underground nuclear test.
Pyongyang, reacting angrily to Seoul's decision to join an international program to intercept ships suspected of aiding nuclear proliferation, called the move tantamount to a declaration of war.
Now that the South Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots," North Korea is "compelled to take a decisive measure," the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said in a statement carried by state media.

Seoul's decision comes at a time when "the state of military confrontation is growing acute and there is constant danger of military conflict," the statement warned.And a memo to president Obama from me. Please understand that tyrants like they have in North Korea and Iran do not pay any attention to UN sanctions or care to discuss accommodation with the USA as this quote illustrates.
The current leader Kim Jong-il, the late president Kim Il-sung's son had this to say about UN sanctions.

"It is a laughable delusion for the United States to think that it can get us to kneel with sanctions," it said. "We've been living under U.S. sanctions for decades, but have firmly safeguarded our ideology and system while moving our achievements forward. The U.S. sanctions policy toward North Korea is like striking a rock with a rotten egg."
His "achievements" as he calls them, are nuclear weapons and long range missiles. He has also beefed up his Naval capability with new warships and submarines that threaten our Fleet in the Sea of Japan, or as the Koreans call it,"the Sea of Korea".
There are some 650 vessels in the North Korea Navy including 3 frigates and 23 submarines (total displacement of approx. 107,000 tons).Source:Wikapedia

This type of provocative rhetoric resonates with the "little mad man" of Iran. Who will be emboldened if the Obama administration lets Kim Jong-Il continue to rattle his sabres without some reactive radical measures. Such as freezing the Jong-Il bank accounts and blockading North Korean waters to in coming and out going commercial shipping unless they stop nuclear weapons production.

I do not worry that North Korea will launch a nuclear weapon against the USA or it's ally South Korea, but I do envision the North Koreans selling "nuke" weapons to terrorist states that will use them against US or our allies in the form of "suitcase" bombs that will be much worse than the disaster we sustained on 9/11/01!

CONSERVATIVES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE SHOULD VOTE AGAINST SOTOMAYOR

MSNBC story line this morning was about president Obamas' pick for the Supreme Court . Yesterday Obama announced that he had selected Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice Stevens.
The piece began with this direct quote: "President Obama nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court yesterday, putting her in line to become the nation's first Hispanic justice and creating a difficult political equation for Republicans as they weigh how aggressively to fight her appointment.

An all-out assault on Sotomayor by Republicans could alienate both Latino and women voters, deepening the GOP's problems after consecutive electoral setbacks".

"Critics targeted her support for affirmative action, with Rush Limbaugh calling her a "reverse racist" in his syndicated radio program, citing a case in which she ruled against a group of white firefighters who claimed discrimination in hiring practices.

White House officials argued that the comments in the speeches were taken out of context, and they said that the firefighters case was an example of Sotomayor accepting established precedent, something they said conservatives should applaud. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, who are on the verge of controlling a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate, warned Republicans of the dangers of pushing too hard against Obama's first court pick.

Judicial precedent: A judgment of a court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts; a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision. The common law has developed by broadening down from precedent to precedent".

A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making. This is known as stare decisis (to stand upon decisions) and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed.

In giving judgment in a case, the judge will set out the facts of the case, state the law applicable to the facts and then provide his or her decision. It is only the ratio decidendi (the legal reasoning or ground for the judicial decision) which is binding on later courts under the system of judicial precedent

Judicial precedent is an important source of English law as an original precedent is one which creates and applies a new rule. However, the later decisions, especially of the higher courts, can have a number of effects upon precedents.. In particular, they may be:

* Reversed: where on appeal in the same case the decision is reversed, the initial decision will cease to have any effect
* Overruled: where in a later case a higher court decides that the first case was wrongly decided
* A refusal to follow: this arises where a court, not bound by the decision, cannot overrule it but does not wish to follow it so it simply refuses to follow the earlier decision
* Distinguished: where an earlier case is rejected as authority, either because the material facts differ or because the statement of law in the previous case is too narrow to be properly applied to the new set of facts
* Explained: a judge may seek to interpret an earlier decision before applying it or distinguishing it, thus the effect of the earlier case is varied in the circumstances of the present case. Source: Law Dictionary.com

The Pew Research reported that in the 2008 presidential election 9% of those who voted were identified as Latino. Of this group, Hispanics voted for Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden over Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin by a margin of more than two-to-one in the 2008 presidential election, 67% versus 31%,

Nationwide, the Latino vote was significantly more Democratic this year than in 2004, when President Bush captured an estimated 40% of the Hispanic vote, a modern high for a Republican presidential candidate. So you see the Latino vote is already decided just as is the Union vote--Democrat!!
Obama's 67% share of the Latino vote in the 2008 general election represented a major reversal of fortunes for him since the Democratic primaries, when he lost the Latino vote to Sen. Hillary Clinton by a margin of nearly two-to-one4 . No other major demographic voting group in the country swung so heavily to Obama as Latinos did between the primaries and the general election this year. According to the 2008 National Survey of Latinos, conducted in June and July of this year, 75% of Latino registered voters who said they supported Clinton in the primaries switched their support to Obama. Source: Pew Hispanic Center Report

However, Politico reports that 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.Blacks do not necessarily like Hispanics as I experienced when the Cuban exodus brought thousands of Hispanics into South Florida in the 60's and took away all the jobs in hotels and dining establishments that had been held by Blacks!

A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.
So you can see the effect on the voters who are Hispanic if the Republicans grow a spine and object to Sotomayors confirmation will be negligible in the 2010 election. Latinos with the exception of Miami Cubans have seldom voted Republican, and the new generation of Cubans appears to have already switched to the Democrat side.

What should be the deciding issue in the vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor is will she follow the Constitution. It appears from her own statements that she will not! Obama picked her because he is convinced that she will vote as a minority who believes the Supreme Court can change the Constitution to accommodate those whom she believes the need the law be changed to accommodate their needs, as she did in the case of the reverse discrimination brought by the firemen who were more qualified( by test scores) but passed over for minority fireman that were promoted to satisfy the "PC" and affirmative action leftists. This was a Direct assault on the rule of law as we see Obama doing with his version of bankruptcy with Chrysler and soon GM. The ignoring of the primacy of bond holders to satisfy the UAW whom contributed over $50 million to the election of Democrats in the last election!

AND IF STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE Constitution IS NOT ENOUGH TO ASK OF A NOMINEE TOO THE SUPREME COURT. PERHAPS THIS WILL MOTIVATE Conservatives FROM ALL BUT THE LEFT COAST AND THE EAST to vote against this Liberal.
President Obama during his campaign described “identity politics” as “an enormous distraction,” Sotomayor has at times been blunt in her belief in the profound importance of racial identity.
Judge Sotomayor told a California audience in 2001 that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion” than a “white male” judge. I thought Justice was color blind!

Let’s Not Place Budget-Cutting Solely At The Feet Of Our Military.

President Obama’s 2010 budget amounts to an eye-popping $3.7 trillion, and opens the floodgates to a projected $42 trillion in the next decade. This is the largest domestic-spending increase in history. The interest on the national debt will be $800 billion in 2014 — more than we currently spend on national defense.

Obama is using his sending more troops to Afghanistan to delude the American public that are not members of the "OBAMESSIA" congregation. But the real trouble to come our way is the growing nuclear threat from North Korea(China's puppet) and the rapidly approaching nuclear weapon capability of Iran.

This point is supported by the fact that U.S. Defense Secretary Gates said the momentum in Afghanistan is with the Taliban, who are inflicting heavy US casualties( not reported by the New York Times or Washington Post like when Bush was in the Oval Office) and hold de facto control of swaths of the country. The defense chief has been moving aggressively to salvage the war in Afghanistan, signing off on the deployments of 21,000 American military personnel and recently taking the unprecedented step of firing the four-star general who commanded all US forces there. Mr. Gates, speaking in his cabin on an Air Force plane, said the administration is rapidly running out of time to turn around the war. Source: Wall Street Journal

To defend both our allies in the Middle East and parts of Europe against nuclear missiles launched from Iran, and to keep South Korea safe from North Korean hegemony. We need sophisticated missile defensive weapons. The "star wars" program is a good start toward the goal of protecting ourselves and our allies, but it needs more research and development.

Unless we continue expenditures on anti-missile defense systems we will be a "sitting duck" to those who would rather see our capitols in flames then the way they are today.

But the spendthrift Obama has begun a drive toward pacifism and diplomacy that does not include any money to advance some of the weapons systems that we will need if Iran or especially Korea make aggressive advances.
Obamas' budget does not include any money to continue the F-22 Raptor fighter bomber, designed to be the most advanced and capable fighter jet in the sky.

The Obama budget calls for terminating the F-22 Raptor program after only a dozen or so more are built, and “replacing” them with the more standardized but less capable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-22 is far and away the most advanced plane ever built. Its combination of stealth technology, maneuverability, and survivability makes it essential to maintaining air superiority, which enables the use of less-capable assets in our inventory. Attacking the enemy and protecting our own troops demands air superiority, and compromising that goal is a mistake.

Also critical to maintaining unquestioned air supremacy in a theater of conflict is the Air Force’s fleet of aerial refueling tankers, which are nearly 50 years old and need to be replaced. The cost of doing so is in the neighborhood of $40 billion, that is less than 0.1 percent of projected federal spending over the next decade.
Critics complain that the F-22 is expensive and superfluous. But the F-35 is the most expensive program in Pentagon history, with a projected cost of nearly $1 trillion. Additionally, the F-35 was not designed to do what the F-22 can do in establishing air superiority in situations that require high levels of stealth, speed, and range. And as any one who understands the history of modern warfare realizes, air superiority is what wins wars. Despite what naysayers say about "boots on the ground". The ability to resupply the ground troops with ammunition and supplies requires air superiority! They are complementary, not interchangeable.


American military superiority in Europe, Asia and the Middle East depends on the ability of the U.S. military to threaten and, if necessary, to use military force to defeat any regional challenge.
It connet let Russia in the ETO and North Korea or Communist China to become super powers or we will be once again living in daily peril from nuclear attack at either coast!
Is the Change Americans want, the return of the "Cold War"?

THE "BRITTS" WISE-UP, WHEN WILL WE?

Obamas' popularity is still high in the USA despite the fact that he has spent more tax payers money than any president in history.
His approval rating is above 60% because people either do not realize what he is doing to the value of our money, or because they still look at him with adoring eyes as one would to a savior.

The 13 trillion dollar debt that he is running up and the resulting tax increases and devaluation of our dollar have not effected the average person as much as it will in year or two, when bread and cereal may cost $4.00 each!
But the British are realizing that Obamas' attempt to collect taxes from Americans who live and work in England will be an expensive for them, and they get nothing for being Obamas' tax collector.

"Andy Thompson of Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers (APCIMS) said: "The cost and administration of the US tax regime is causing UK investment firms to consider disinvesting in US shares on behalf of their clients. This is not right and emphasises that the administration of a tax regime on a global scale without any flexibility damages the very economy it is trying to protect."

One executive at a top UK bank who didn't want to be named for fear of angering the IRS said: "It's just about manageable under the current system - and that's because we're big. The danger to us is suddenly being hauled over the coals by the IRS for a client that hasn't paid proper taxes. The audit costs will soar. We'll have to pay it but I know plenty of smaller players won't."

The British Bankers Association (BBA) and APCIMS had a meeting with European counterparts 10 days ago to discuss the crisis. A delegation is set to meet the US Treasury's Internal Revenue Service on 16th June to demand they drop the reforms." source:Drudge Report

President Obama's proposals are built on the so-called Qualified Intermediary system which was intended to ensure Americans paid the correct tax wherever they were domiciled. Foreign financial institutions that handle American money have to fill in a US tax form on behalf of the client that has to be audited too. In return, the banks receive a QI seal of approval as a qualified intermediary.
But the seal is not legal tender. It sounds strangely similar to president Roosevelt's NRA sign that merchants could put in their window during WWII if they agreed to price controls.

At the same time, Reuters reported that The dollar fell to a 2009 low on Friday as fears intensified that the United States could lose its triple-A rating, while renewed caution about the world economy and banks prompted Asian and European stocks to slip.


Yesterday, the President was interviewed by Steve Scully of C-SPAN, about the status of our economy, and despite the fact hat he has spent more money than the combined cost of all the wars since WWI, he still takes no blame for the deficit spending that he calls "stimulus".

In the interview he was asked about the possibility that the USA could run out of money. The following is a quote from that interview.
"SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit".

So unlike this simple minded citizen, our Harvard Law school president refuses to recognize that he cannot spend the Country out of a recession. He implies that he will spend the estimated trillion dollars to bring about socialized medicine, on top of his massive "spendulus" program.
This will assuredly sink our generation and future generations further into debt, that will result in dollar devaluation and massive inflation to satisfy his quest to Socialize our Country. This is a sign that education doesn't necessarily make one smarter! Or was his intention to wreck the U.S. economy and the free enterprise system all the while?