Worth Noting

Kathleen Sebelius has admitted to owing a lot of money in backtaxes. [1] She joins a long list of nominees in the Obama cabinet who approve of government running people's lives while personally holding back on giving their lawful share to the government. Sebelius was the Health and Human Services (i.e. socialized medicine) nominee.

Bloomberg reports that so-called green jobs have cost more jobs than they have provided. Here is a portion excerpted by Rush:

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain's experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide. For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid. U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs.

Sarah Palin writes an article ("Shovel ready or digging a hole?") about why she avoids dependency on federal funds (to the point of rejecting bailout money). Here is my favorite paragraph:

Some, enticed with as much Washington money as possible, assume this is free money. It is not. America is $11 trillion in debt. They also may fail to consider the level of federal intrusion. For example, Alaska’s communities would have to adopt building energy codes that compliment the most recent International Codes. These standards should be locally determined, not federally mandated. And, if we take additional unemployment compensation funds, Alaska would have to extend eligibility guidelines. This federal involvement locks us into government dependency for longer periods. Alaskans must read the fine print on these federal mandates, because certain allocations also require state-matching funds.

Yahoo Tells Us What We Need

What do Americans need more of? Yahoo.com has the answer.

As Americans grow tired of Obama's big government politics, Yahoo tells us we need more Obama. It has to do with "these times".

During this difficult economic time we need to see more Obama. We need to hear him make jokes about handicapped children. We need to see him on the Late Show. We need him bowling more in the White House.

Does Yahoo think people are so stupid that they cannot decide for themselves how much they should be exposed to Obama? Or is Yahoo just afraid that Obama's career is slipping ...

Obama Attacks Charitable Giving

Big government moderate types think government assistance and charities can co-exist in a cooperative way.

The problem with this delusion is that the pro-government folks hate charities because individuals have the freedom to choose how much to give and where.

The perfect example of this is Barack Obama who wants to raise taxes on people making donations to charities. See here.

Sure this will hurt people who make charitable donations, but think about how this will affect the poor! Less money will help them and more will end up in the hands of the beurocrats.

Truth be told, the big government people don't actually care about the poor and give almost none of their income to charity. Obama cares about the poor like he cares about the Special Olympics.

Obama says this will only affect 1% of the population just like Hitler said the Jews only made up a minority of the population. This is going to hurt the rest of us big time. Obama's discrimination against success will stop people from succeeding and it will stop funds that have been going to the poor. And what incentive will the poor have to get ahead if their rightful profits are stripped from them?

NYT Attacks Obama

It's looking more and more like Obama is in a lot of trouble.

His biggest cheerleaders, the New York Times and HuffPo, have both attacked him recently. Check out this article on the Politico about all three attack pieces from the NYT.

The Huffington Post is calling for Geithner's resignation.

It's not just the AIG Bailout thing. It's the economy and basically everything.

Just to be clear, I don't put any stock in anything these sources say. It is salient, however, that Obama's friends are launching against him as are centrists [1] and, of course, his opponents [1].

Most Corrupt City

Weekend poll time.

Serve Ameria Act, Do we really need an Act?

About the Serve America Act.

We are in a time of crisis. Americans are fighting to keep their jobs, stay in their homes, and provide for their families. States and communities are struggling to restore economic stability and build toward a better future.The “Serve America Act,” a bipartisan bill (S. 277) authored by Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Hatch (R-UT) and supported by President Obama, will invest in community and national service at a time when citizen volunteers and service organizations are more crucial than ever.

Here are some of the things the Serve America Act will do:

• Create targeted corps to address specific problems (like the high school dropout crisis) and increase full and part-time national service opportunities from 75,000 to 250,000
• Invest in and grow proven and innovative service solutions
  Expand community service opportunities for Americans of all ages (from teens to retiring Boomers)
• Improve and expand international service opportunities that take American know-how to troubled regions and help better connect America to the world
  
  (For a version of this petition which includes more detailed information about the Serve America Act click here)
  
  During these tough economic times, citizen service is a cost-effective way to unite Americans in common cause to solve problems. That’s why President Obama has called for passage of the Serve America Act, and leading Senators from both parties have signed on as co-sponsors. ( I added the Bold)

Do people really read these so called Acts? I 'heard' about it off of a Tweet by Ashton Kutcher. I know, embarrassing, I follow his tweets, but put that little information aside, celebrities love to promote such drivel. Kutcher is promoting this Act on Twitter. LOOKOUT.

READ THE ACT. It is drivel. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. It has no teeth. What are they doing exactly? How is all of this going to be accomplished people? WITH TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In addition, AMERICANS do most of the above stuff volunteering but if we raise taxes to let the GOVERNMENT handle it and they will do a bang up job I am sure then charities are going to hurt big time. AMERICANS won't give to them or volunteer. They will figure Uncle Sam has it covered. Plus, with less money coming into their households they really won't be able to give to their charities.

Oh, my fellow AMERICANS read the darn thing and see it for what it is. PR and setup for increase in taxes. It all sounds sooooo nice. Here is what they are saying, "See, we are not going to just do bailouts we are going to promote education, community service, and international service to uplift the United States.

"Wow, that sounds awesome!!!

Hello, Americans do this daily. We have been doing this for generations. We have many government programs already doing many of the above mentioned. Here is a thought, fix the programs we already have, dah! Why add more to the mess?

Do the math. If You add Government programs THEN Someone has to pay for it. That would be us, you know, the citizens of the Government.

Get your checkbooks out for this great ACT that you all are signing up for so eagerly. C'mon, the American people can't be this gullible. Right?

Obama is Cooked

I did not think this was going to happen.

Ever.

Certainly not in mid-March 2009!

The press has turned against Obama.

Obama has come out attacking AIG for giving bonuses to its executives.

This is nothing new for a liberal like Obama, but the issue is that the people attacking AIG over this explicitly stipulated in the bailout package THEY wrote that the executives would get these bonuses.

There are a large number of voices confirming this. [1](AP) [2](politico) [3](G&M) etc, etc. I'm not even posting the links to the two WashPo articles and the NRO article.

Left wing press, right wing press, everyone is on Obama for this. Chris Dodd is even more guilty, but they are both *major* liars.

In case you missed it, they've been attacking AIG over these bonuses (Chris Dodd says he even *warned* everyone about it) when they were the ones that made it happen!

Obama has dropped in three separate polls. These were polls taken from before this cigar exploded in his face (as G&M put it). He is in deep trouble.

All president's approval ratings start high and decline over one or two terms, but Obama is getting dropped like hot bricks.

(Picture from here).

Bertrand's View of Charity

Bertrand Russell when asked about giving his money to charity, laughed and said:

I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians.

Check out the full article here from anncoulter.com.

Another interesting tidbit: Dick Cheney -the "Darth Vader" of politicians- the man we were told to believe sent America to Iraq so he could get rich off of oil ... this Dick Cheney donated 77% of his income to charity. George W. Bush gives more than 10% of his income to charity.

The Biden's consistently give less than 1% of their income (0.15% to 0.3%). The Obama's usually give about 6% of their income to charity.

When are people going to realize the big government people don't care? They are hypocrites!

More Pressure On Obama

Democrats are beginning to object to the massive spending pushed by the Obama White House. [1]

Obama has responded with claims that America needs to go beyond the "bubble and bust" cycles of the economy. [1]

Which basically means the government is going to stop the ping pong of economic cycles by making sure the economy is bad all the time.

Meanwhile companies are moving overseas as Obama has threatened to squeeze all the taxes out of them that he can [1]. So basically instead of sending our currency overseas from consumer purchases, we're just going to drive the wealth-creators out of here. You've got to admit he is effecient.

In other news, Gallup has released a poll showing that 41% of Americans think global warming claims are exaggerated.

And, finally, a reminder for Tim's sake: the Austrailian PM who climbed to power on the promise of fighting global warming decided it was all a bunch of hooey and moved on to other issues.

Cramer and Buffet

In case you haven't noticed it, two of the biggest investor gurus out there -Jim Cramer and Warren Buffet- talked about the economy and the Obama administration.

Cramer and Buffet are big liberals. They have both come out in favor of Barack Obama. Even today they talked about how much they loved him.

And they both blamed our economic woes on his handling of the economy yesterday.

Buffet put it this way:

Job one is to win the war. Job -- the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throats. I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said that a war is a terrible thing to waste and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things. It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective to try and muddle it up with a whole bunch of other things.[1]

Check out Jim Cramer's critique of Obama's economic approach:

Rush Limbaugh defended me as a wayward leftist who has seen the light. Hey, I'm thrilled to have allies and defenders. Lord knows I need 'em. But the truth is I actually agree with almost all of Obama's agenda right down to having the rich pay more taxes. I just think it's the wrong time. We need to declare war on unemployment and solve it before it gets out of hand. We need stop house price depreciation. Nothing Obama's done so far will defeat either enemy, and all the initiatives he wants to rush, like the tax hikes, changes in health care, take away the mortgage deduction, I mean good grief, he wants to take away the mortgage deduction right in the midst of the worst housing downturn in history. The tough cap-and-trade rules. Any of these could derail any chance of the economy turning around.[1]

These are not a bunch of conservative rich guys saying how much they want to fail. These are liberals who voted for Obama. They've caught the duplicity of his 'we have to be responsible' mixed with wild handouts spending millions on tattoo removal and pig odor management.

Business investors are pulling all their funds out because they can see Obama is going right after their wallets.

Liberal Hypocrisy

Hypocrites are everywhere, in every class, in every political party. If you want to consider the ultimate meaning of this, check out meredevotion.com.

There is an ethical distinction between liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy.

Conservative hypocrites appeal to living a lawful life. Their hypocrisy is manifest as soon as they cease to actually live their principles. This kind of hypocrisy (as far as I'm concerned) does nothing to invalidate the principles of other conservatives.

Liberal hypocrisy, on the other hand, is a completely different category.

Hypocrisy comes from the Greek word for acting, and all liberals are actors. An actor is a person who says, 'Okay, stick to the script because I'm not really respresenting myself'. Liberals do not present us with their own views.

Liberals often point out the burdens of the poor. They call themselves 'philanthropists' and do everything to be seen as generous by others, while they actually give the smallest amount to charities.

Check out my earlier post on the book Who Really Cares. Conservatives give 30% more to charities than liberals do. When Joe Biden's tax returns came out during the 2008 election it became clear that the amount liberals give is actually pretty close to zero.

But the liberals (who do not actually care enough about the poor to give to them) still see themselves as the lions of the poor, their defenders, because they are 'willing' to pass legislation to take away other people's money and give it to the poor.

Most democrat senators are rich, lazy, and fat. Ted Kennedy is the epitomy of liberal hypocrisy. He's lived his whole life in a mansion on the east coast where he lives with the sins of his past: which look to me like adultery, murder, and a lawyerly cover-up.

Meanwhile people like John McCain are attacked for owning seven houses (which are all accomodated basically like an ordinary person's house) while the rich, hypocrite liberals live on their estates (like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the house Obama bought with Rezko's help).

Liberals care about the poor! Oh yes they do! Just not enough to actually give their own money to help them.

Liberal hypocrites are the ones who want to take all the laws and ideals away. They want to make the unethical things legal (marijuana, prostitution, coercion into labor unions, etc).

Their attitude is one of "we're all in this together", so there is no room for ethical distinctions. To liberal hypocrites the criminals are misunderstood. They are emotionally abused. They are the victims. The criminals shouldn't be punished, they should have people talk to them so that their opinions will count too.

If a liberal's car was actually hit by a drunk driver, they would call for the drunk driver to be locked away for life. And then if you said, 'Well, what about his feelings? What about the circumstances that pushed him toward this?' And they respond, 'Are you nuts?! I'm the victim!'

Instead of allowing the real victims the legal option to not press charges, they want to make laws so that no charges are passed at all -making the government generous at the expense of the victims.

Hypocrites!

This is the entire problem: when a person freely gives money to someone else in charity, they actually care about that person. The government doesn't care about anyone. It just follows it's own laws and rules like a wind up clock. The liberals think we can replace spiritual love with a wind up clock government that organizes everything and everyone -stripping their freedom to show genuine love- and then takes all the credit for their welfare.

Liberalism, unlike conservativism, is inherently hypocritical. Unlike conservatives who are at times unjust, liberalism is unjust per se. Liberalism is deceitful, the highest deceit of all, and it needs to be ended as soon as possible.

Miss this Guy?

You know with all the bad news going around you will notice how we go back in history to find inspiration from past leaders.

The Obama people are touting FDR, if I have heard it once, I have heard it many times now that FDR was voted into office 4 times and therefore the man must have been doing something right. Oh, goodness gracious, do you think economist just cringe at those statements?

What he did right? Was politicking!! He convinced people 'doing' anything, just 'anything' had to be better than nothing. Um, we are paying for some of FDR's plans today and FDR would be the first to say that some of his plans that we still have he never intended to have for the long haul. Historians and political scientist grimace knowing that FDR is the President that tried with all his might to expand the executive branch well beyond its original powers. His famous try at stacking the Supreme Court is just one example of many that could be listed as proof.

Yes, we all know why the Obama people are touting FDR, Obama is expanding the Government like all get out and who better than to tout than FDR.

Now, all that being said it seems that the Republican party is having trouble finding a leader. Seems that some are calling Rush Limbaugh the leader. Seems Mr. Limbaugh has upset the Obama camp by exercising his right to free speech. I'm not sure I would call him the Republican party Leader? I am also not sure why the Obama people are so worried about what he is saying and why they are working so hard to discredit his words? Especially, if they feel he is out of touch with most Americans? Why acknowledge him at all?

I do believe that the Republican Party is hurting for a leader. I do believe they are missing this guy! Here is an email I received today saying that exactly. I wanted to share.

MISS THIS GUY?

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'

- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

-Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

- Ronald Reagan

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. Was too strong.'

- Ronald Reagan

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'

- Ronald Reagan

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'

- Ronald Reagan

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.
- Ronald Reagan

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'

- Ronald Reagan


'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

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'

- Ronald Reagan

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'

- Ronald Reagan

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.'

- Ronald Reagan

MEMORIES!

Putting Poll Numbers In Perspective

Peter Wehner at the National Review has an excellent article on how to understand the Obama poll numbers.

Two Gallup polls from March 5-7 2001 and 2009 on Presidents Bush and Obama show Obama at 61% and George W. Bush at 63%.

So George W. Bush, at a comparable time in his presidency, was in marginally better shape than Barack Obama is right now, at least based on the Gallup Poll survey.

This debunks the myth that Bush was unpopular at the beginning of his term because of the Supreme Court intervention in his campaign against Gore. This also debunks the myth that Obama is exceptionally popular now.

Obama Killing The Stock Market

Many, many parties are beginning to notice the link between this administrations economic strategies and the tanking of the stock market. This article mentions what I'd estimate to be 150 news articles from yesterday.

Tim do you still think this is not fair?.

President Obama has responded saying that basing policy on the stock market will lead to bad policy ... in other words acknowledging that his policy is scaring investors.

Obama also compared the stock market to the popularity contest that is poll tracking. This is an incredibly big stretch. When you vote for prom king, you have no skin in the game. When you invest your money, you are voting with your own skin.

In case you are wondering what policy exactly is scary investors, it's his tax plan to attack the "rich" (i.e. people who donate to charities). Centrists and even democrats are raising objections. Meanwhile, the Democrats are boasting that they are not Rush Limbaugh.

Also, see Lucy's post.

Burying your heads in the Sand or just Stupid?

In fairness I received the below information from my husband. As he put it to me, this is the kind of stuff that is circling the business world. My husband ,a business owner, who deals with other business owners and some of the very wealthy people in our State says, that in his daily dealings with these individuals they are very leery of the government and the market. On top of that they don't trust anything they hear from the media. It is not a good environment in the United States at the moment. My husband also informed me that many of his clients who are not 'hurting' yet are deciding to let people go 'just in case'. They are calling it 'trimming the fat'.
I feel for these people who are losing their jobs because employers are not trusting the government and they feel the need to buckle down.
Please read below and view the video. It is a good example of why people are not trusting the government and the media.
Hopefully, Americans will be outraged!

In the interest of truth and to set the record straight!This video shows that there were ignored warnings to Congress in 2002 that this economic crisis was coming if something was not done. Congress refused to listen, along with Barney Frank. This video says it all. Also that the MSM, (mainstream media) AMERICAN media did not want this video on You Tube, so they had Time Warner threat in a lawsuit ("proprietary rights") if it was not taken off. This link is the same video but is routed through Canada. Everyone in America needs to see this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1